The Bible God's Instruction for Handling Post-War Hotties

[POI]

Deuteronomy 21 instructs:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.

For debate:

(FYI, all responses from 1213 will be ignored by myself)

1) Christians, in this passage, please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?
2) Christians, what captive(s), in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

[POI]

Atheists, in the passage, show us where the captive woman is treated like the heathen captive slaves and whores.

Correction... You were almost right. Allow me to augment your statement just a click... The passage, itself, shows us where the captive women are sanctioned to be treated like the heathen captive slaves and whores in which the Bible writers think they actually are.

Only a fault-finder's unsound mind would be willingly blinded, to the fact that it's the freed woman that shaves her own head, pares her own nails, discard's her captive clothes, and remains in another's house for a full month, for mourning, and then receives the man of the house going to her to be wedded and bedded. And if not satisfied, then let go out out of the house, and remains free without price nor sold into slavery.

As the OP asks, who, in their right mind, would choose to be "entered" by a member of the tribe who slaughtered their entire family?

Please also show us where her consent is either necessary or required to be "entered"? News flash... You won't find it.

2Co 4:3
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Great, then you cannot ignore the following:

Matthew 5:17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

And since the OP post passage is given from a prophet, Jesus also agrees that believing war captors can 'enter' their sanctioned captured war captives. Or basically, the defeated women may become hand-selected hotties for harvest and rape.

[Difflugia]

Only a fault-finder's unsound mind would be willingly blinded

So, your evidence that we're wrong is that we're dumb doodie heads. Got it. Sounds about par for the course.

[RBD]

Only a fault-finder's unsound mind would be willingly blinded

So, your evidence that we're wrong is that we're dumb doodie heads. Got it. Sounds about par for the course.

Your response to the evidence showing you're wrong is that you're a dumb doodle head. Since you agree with the response without contesting it, then that would be you're own personal judgment.

I prefer the displayed unsoundness of someone that only seeks fault, where there is no fault given. It's a commonly acknowledge personal problem called unreasoned prejudice, that negatively affects the mental focus and miscomprehension of the facts...

I gladly come to these sites of supposed Bible error looking for a challenge to learn more Bible truth. But unfortunately, much of it is just throw away made up nonsense. I mean, seriously, the actual words of the book have to be addresses to criticize the book itself. Making up words not written is not just nonsense, but a waste of time looking for something real to respond to.

[RBD]

Only a fault-finder's unsound mind would be willingly blinded, to the fact that it's the freed woman that shaves her own head, pares her own nails, discard's her captive clothes, and remains in another's house for a full month, for mourning, and then receives the man of the house going to her to be wedded and bedded. And if not satisfied, then let go out out of the house, and remains free without price nor sold into slavery.

As the OP asks, who, in their right mind, would choose to be "entered" by a member of the tribe who slaughtered their entire family?

I see. You are only making it appear to be an OT rule of forced slavery and whoredom, when instead you are only asking what war captive woman would choose to be a freely married wife of the victor. You can try talking to captive women, but as a man, I could still judge it would be sensible, especially if the woman is also attracted to victor, as he is with her.

And slaughtering the captive's family is of course a forced assumption, that lends to the appearance of forced slavery and whoredom, rather than a freely chosen marriage to the victor.

The fact of needing to shave the head and pair the nails, could be due to the abominable practices forced upon atheist heathen women. Such as crazy colored hair cut in dystopian styles. And fingernails shaped as cruel daggers, etc...I.e. they would also have to freely choose starting over with acceptable public decency. God forbid. Now I see why an atheist would demand to know why a pagan war captive would ever want to freely marry a godly, sane, and civilized victor...

I.e. any accusation of the OT rule for freely marrying a war captive, is as evil as forced slavery and whoredom, is of course the product of an unsound mind made by desperate fault-finding.

I have noticed the literary caliber of Bible accusers has very low expectation, since they rarely address the actual writing of the Book, but only launch off into fictional writings intended to produce outraged genuflection. No one can be taken seriously in critiquing a book, when they don't address the actual words of the book. However, if personal ranting is the only goal, then that would at least make sense...Like the modern psycho-babble of fake news.

[POI]

You are going to notice quite a bit of repetition. This is because, until you can demonstrate where her consent is either necessary or required, you have no defense against the Bible passage; and the response is essentially the same for most/all of what you think you have to say.

I see. You are only making it appear to be an OT rule of forced slavery and whoredom, when instead you are only asking what war captive woman would choose to be a freely married wife of the victor.

I see. You cannot show me where the captured woman's consent, to be "entered", is either necessary or required. Why? Because it is not necessary or required for women, under Biblical law, to grant such consent. We both know this is a form of rape. And your believed upon Bible god sanctions it.

You can try talking to captive women, but as a man, I could still judge it would be sensible, especially if the woman is also attracted to victor, as he is with her.

Her consent is neither necessary nor required. Hence, your statement above is irrelevant. It is not her choice, only his. And if he spared her, it is because he already wants her, duh! But at least she gets to wait one full month before she is completely violated.

The fact of needing to shave the head and pair the nails, could be due to the abominable practices forced upon atheist heathen women. Such as crazy colored hair cut in dystopian styles. And fingernails shaped as cruel daggers, etc...I.e. they would also have to freely choose starting over with acceptable public decency. God forbid. Now I see why an atheist would demand to know why a pagan war captive would ever want to freely marry a godly, sane, and civilized victor...

LOL! Right... I'm sure ancients, from ~3K years ago were dying their hair blue or green. But in all seriousness, the shaving, along with the trimming of the nails and the changing of the clothes, was all a formal month-long mourning process for her parents and former life. There-after, the raping was to then legally begin.

I.e. any accusation of the OT rule for freely marrying a war captive, is as evil as forced slavery and whoredom, is of course the product of an unsound mind made by desperate fault-finding.

Well, of course. That is your only play here, which is to make unfounded and desperate assertions. Until you can demonstrate where her consent is either necessary or required, you've got nuttt'n.

I have noticed the literary caliber of Bible accusers has very low expectation, since they rarely address the actual writing of the Book,

Again, please show me WHERE her consent is either necessary or required to be "entered"? If you cannot, then my observation stands, in that the Bible condones or endorses hottie captive rape; (provided they wait one month first).

but only launch off into fictional writings intended to produce outraged genuflection.

So now your argument is that Deut. 21:10-14 is fiction? If so, what else is fiction? Anything else you do not like, which is written in the same collection of books?

No one can be taken seriously in critiquing a book, when they don't address the actual words of the book. However, if personal ranting is the only goal, then that would at least make sense...Like the modern psycho-babble of fake news.

Yes, again, please show me where the captive's consent, to be "entered", is either necessary or required?

[POI]

Only a fault-finder's unsound mind would be willingly blinded

So, your evidence that we're wrong is that we're dumb doodie heads. Got it. Sounds about par for the course.

Your response to the evidence showing you're wrong is that you're a dumb doodle head. Since you agree with the response without contesting it, then that would be you're own personal judgment.

I prefer the displayed unsoundness of someone that only seeks fault, where there is no fault given. It's a commonly acknowledge personal problem called unreasoned prejudice, that negatively affects the mental focus and miscomprehension of the facts...

I gladly come to these sites of supposed Bible error looking for a challenge to learn more Bible truth. But unfortunately, much of it is just throw away made up nonsense. I mean, seriously, the actual words of the book have to be addresses to criticize the book itself. Making up words not written is not just nonsense, but a waste of time looking for something real to respond to.

Great. Since you are here to clear things up, please show us heathens where the spared hottie female captive's consent is either necessary or required to be entered?

[RBD]

You are going to notice quite a bit of repetition. This is because, until you can demonstrate where her consent is either necessary or required, you have no defense against the Bible passage; and the response is essentially the same for most/all of what you think you have to say.

I see. You are only making it appear to be an OT rule of forced slavery and whoredom, when instead you are only asking what war captive woman would choose to be a freely married wife of the victor.

I see. You cannot show me where the captured woman's consent, to be "entered", is either necessary or required. Why? Because it is not necessary or required for women, under Biblical law, to grant such consent. We both know this is a form of rape. And your believed upon Bible god sanctions it.

You can try talking to captive women, but as a man, I could still judge it would be sensible, especially if the woman is also attracted to victor, as he is with her.

Her consent is neither necessary nor required. Hence, your statement above is irrelevant. It is not her choice, only his. And if he spared her, it is because he already wants her, duh! But at least she gets to wait one full month before she is completely violated.

The fact of needing to shave the head and pair the nails, could be due to the abominable practices forced upon atheist heathen women. Such as crazy colored hair cut in dystopian styles. And fingernails shaped as cruel daggers, etc...I.e. they would also have to freely choose starting over with acceptable public decency. God forbid. Now I see why an atheist would demand to know why a pagan war captive would ever want to freely marry a godly, sane, and civilized victor...

LOL! Right... I'm sure ancients, from ~3K years ago were dying their hair blue or green. But in all seriousness, the shaving, along with the trimming of the nails and the changing of the clothes, was all a formal month-long mourning process for her parents and former life. There-after, the raping was to then legally begin.

I.e. any accusation of the OT rule for freely marrying a war captive, is as evil as forced slavery and whoredom, is of course the product of an unsound mind made by desperate fault-finding.

Well, of course. That is your only play here, which is to make unfounded and desperate assertions. Until you can demonstrate where her consent is either necessary or required, you've got nuttt'n.

I have noticed the literary caliber of Bible accusers has very low expectation, since they rarely address the actual writing of the Book,

Again, please show me WHERE her consent is either necessary or required to be "entered"? If you cannot, then my observation stands, in that the Bible condones or endorses hottie captive rape; (provided they wait one month first).

but only launch off into fictional writings intended to produce outraged genuflection.

So now your argument is that Deut. 21:10-14 is fiction? If so, what else is fiction? Anything else you do not like, which is written in the same collection of books?

No one can be taken seriously in critiquing a book, when they don't address the actual words of the book. However, if personal ranting is the only goal, then that would at least make sense...Like the modern psycho-babble of fake news.

Yes, again, please show me where the captive's consent, to be "entered", is either necessary or required?

Nothing new.

The woman is freed to marry her captor, and she freely does the preparations for accepting him as husband.

Unless you have something new, then this argument is over.

[POI]

The woman is freed to marry her captor, and she freely does the preparations for accepting him as husband.

Excellent blank assertion. Further, who would really freely marry their captor? She is just as "free" as all other identified captives and/or slaves (in which the Bible endorses believers to take). Which-is-to-mean, she is not actually free. And since you obviously cannot produce any actual passages to demonstrate where her consent is either necessary or required, you've got nutt'n.

Unless you have something new, then this argument is over.

You never produced what I had asked in the OP, hence, you continue to have nothing to actually offer.

[RBD]

The woman is freed to marry her captor, and she freely does the preparations for accepting him as husband.

Excellent blank assertion. Further, who would really freely marry their captor? She is just as "free" as all other identified captives and/or slaves (in which the Bible endorses believers to take). Which-is-to-mean, she is not actually free. And since you obviously cannot produce any actual passages to demonstrate where her consent is either necessary or required, you've got nutt'n.

Unless you have something new, then this argument is over.

You never produced what I had asked in the OP, hence, you continue to have nothing to actually offer.

Nothing new. Thanks anyway. Adios.

[RBD]

The woman is freed to marry her captor, and she freely does the preparations for accepting him as husband.

Excellent blank assertion. Further, who would really freely marry their captor? She is just as "free" as all other identified captives and/or slaves (in which the Bible endorses believers to take). Which-is-to-mean, she is not actually free. And since you obviously cannot produce any actual passages to demonstrate where her consent is either necessary or required, you've got nutt'n.

Unless you have something new, then this argument is over.

You never produced what I had asked in the OP, hence, you continue to have nothing to actually offer.

Nothing new. Thanks anyway. Adios.