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?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #36]

Deu 21:14
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

We also see, that she is a freely married woman, who is let go whereever she will, and is not sold into bondage nor prostitution.

She was not taken away captive, held as captive, and then set free, if let go from the marriage.

It's not her decision to make, it's his and his alone.

(Deuteronomy 21:14) 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.

"Letting her" means he is the designated shot-caller.

Good, something new to add to the passage, thanks.

Of course he's the shot caller, the same as all husbands with wives under the law:

Deu 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.


Under the law only husbands could divorce their wives, not wives divorce their husbands. If you now want to find fault with that...

In the law of Moses, the wives could not divorce their husbands, and the husbands could not take away the wife's freedom by selling her into slavery or prostitution, even if she had once been held captive among the defeated enemy.

The added prohibition to the law, is to ensure no man treats his wife as a captive slave to take and sell at will...

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #36]

Deu 21:14
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

We also see, that she is a freely married woman, who is let go whereever she will, and is not sold into bondage nor prostitution.

She was not taken away captive, held as captive, and then set free, if let go from the marriage.

It's not her decision to make, it's his and his alone.

(Deuteronomy 21:14) 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.

"Letting her" means he is the designated shot-caller.

Of course he's the shot caller, the same as all husbands with wives under the law

So, it's even worse than we thought... Not only is consent not necessary nor required for the 'captured', (and then later re-labeled as a 'wife' one month later), but also for the ones in which the fathers willingly give away. But in this case, the father was slaughtered and is therefore unable to choose a suitable mate for her be-loved daughter. Instead, the captor is the chooser. And his criteria is hotness alone, as he knows absolutely nothing else about her, other than his privates get tingly when he looks at her. (See post 40 for the summation of your position). In essence, there exists little difference between a labelled "captive" vs. a "wife". If given the choice, she may have chosen a death-slaughter, like the rest of her family, instead of being forced into lifetime "legal" rape. See this OP topic for more details -- (viewtopic.php?t=42679).

Under the law only husbands could divorce their wives, not wives divorce their husbands. If you now want to find fault with that...

In the law of Moses, the wives could not divorce their husbands, and the husbands could not take away the wife's freedom by selling her into slavery or prostitution, even if she had once been held captive among the defeated enemy.

The choice is all his. If he releases her, she is basically left to fend for herself, especially if her entire family was wiped out. And who else would want a female divorcee in those ancient times? Sure, there might be some exceptions, but certainly is not the rule. And since the term 'satisfied' is not clarified, he could divorce her after she gained weight, looked older, or other. And then she would surely die after being chucked out into the cold, as she could not go back to her family for support, because her 'husband' took part in making sure she had no family to go back to.

[RBD]

2) What woman, in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

Aside from the self-righteous demand for why any captive woman would choose to become the lawful wife of a victor, the law for marrying women from their captivity also allows for lawful intermarriage with foreign women. In this way even the heathen women can become members of God's people by conversion, as well as possible mothers in the bloodline of Christ.

One such captive woman that was set free, was Rahab the harlot of Jericho, who became the lawful wife of an Israelite victor, as well as the recorded example of righteous faith by works, alongside the father of faith Abraham....

[POI]

Aside from the self-righteous demand for why any captive woman would choose to become the lawful wife of a victor,

This isn't what question 2) asks at all. Please try again.

2) What woman, in their right mind, would ever desire to be "entered" by the captor(s) responsible for exterminating her family?

the law for marrying women from their captivity also allows for lawful intermarriage with foreign women.

Wow, how gracious and progressive of the almighty and all-powerful Bible god to allow for intermarriage with foreign women. The law also states that the captor can chuck her, if he is dissatisfied with her. And yet, the Bible does not disclose what would count as being 'dissatisfied.' So, I guess the war bride, I mean loving wife, knows that she must continuously remain on point, so he remains satisfied, to remain in his good graces. Otherwise, she's as good as dead, as she has no family to run back to if she is 'set free' for her provided dissatisfaction.

In this way even the heathen women can become members of God's people by conversion, as well as possible mothers in the bloodline of Christ.

Wow, some sinners were allowed to be "entered" and "legally bred" by their captors, simply because the captor thought they were hot? All-the-while, her consent is established as neither being necessary nor required? Nice! Please see post 40 (again), for the absurdity in your apologetics.

One such captive woman that was set free, was Rahab the harlot of Jericho, who became the lawful wife of an Israelite victor,

You are either very shaky on your history, or you are deliberately trying to be deceptive here. Either way, you failed again. Rahab’s entire family was not slaughtered in front of her. According to the Biblical account, in the Book of Joshua, Rahab and her entire family were spared and rescued during the battle of Jericho.

So, again, you did not actually address my question at all and are instead presenting falsehoods. I guess ignorance, or lying for Jesus, demonstrates to be the status quo for some Christian apologists. See post 40 for the demonstrated absurdity, in that Christians must compromise their own moral values to defend this collection of books; unless you too enjoy taking war brides, for which I doubt.

[RBD]

One such captive woman that was set free, was Rahab the harlot of Jericho, who became the lawful wife of an Israelite victor,

You are either very shaky on your history, or you are deliberately trying to be deceptive here. Either way, you failed again. Rahab’s entire family was not slaughtered in front of her. According to the Biblical account, in the Book of Joshua, Rahab and her entire family were spared and rescued during the battle of Jericho.

The examples are supplementary to the mercy of the law, so that non-Israelites could become faithful mothers in Israel, such as Rahab and Ruth, who also gave birth in the line of David and Jesus Christ.

The law allows other non-Israelite women to become mothers in Israel, even if once held captive among defeated enemy. The record doesn't say how many such women became wives and mothers in the tribes of Israel.

How many German and Japanese women are you going to mock for consenting to marry Americans after WW2? Especially the Christians that follow Bible law and example...

Your pretentiousness is better used for Homer's Achaeans, who took women captives to be household slaves.

[POI]

One such captive woman that was set free, was Rahab the harlot of Jericho, who became the lawful wife of an Israelite victor,

You are either very shaky on your history, or you are deliberately trying to be deceptive here. Either way, you failed again. Rahab’s entire family was not slaughtered in front of her. According to the Biblical account, in the Book of Joshua, Rahab and her entire family were spared and rescued during the battle of Jericho.

The examples are supplementary to the mercy of the law, so that non-Israelites could become faithful mothers in Israel, such as Rahab and Ruth, who also gave birth in the line of David and Jesus Christ.

These 'examples' do not address the debate question, at all. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you are avoiding the fundamental debate question(s). Most Christians here do the honorable thing in complete avoidance of this topic entirely. Which is why we hardly see any responses in this thread. You, on the other hand, have decided to address the thread in talking about oranges, when I'm instead asking about apples.

Since you continue to refuse to answer my actual debate question(s), then I must now conclude that you agree with me, in that there would be no sensible woman who would desire to be 'entered' by the fella responsible for slaughtering her entire family right in front of her. And since the Biblical law also states that this fella may 'let her go', if he is unsatisfied, I'm sure she had a grand 'ol time hoping he remained satisfied with her, by perpetually satisfying his every whim day in and day out until she died. Because alternatively, for him to 'let her go' would ultimately result in her doom, as her entire family was completely whipped out. Yet again, post 40 also sums it up in a nutshell.

The law allows other non-Israelite women to become mothers in Israel, even if once held captive among defeated enemy. The record doesn't say how many such women became wives and mothers in the tribes of Israel.

This response is, again, complete "oranges" to my "apples". See my response above.

How many German and Japanese women are you going to mock for consenting to marry Americans after WW2? Especially the Christians that follow Bible law and example...

Your desperate apologetics won't work here. I'm not mocking the women at all. I'm asking what I'm asking, and you are perpetually avoiding this question like the plague.

Your pretentiousness is better used for Homer's Achaeans, who took women captives to be household slaves.

Again, your desperate apologetics won't work here. If you would just address the debate question... Oh, that's right, you can't, because then the Biblical law would be immediately exposed for what it really is... Which is a "legal loophole" for the term(s) taking "war brides" <and> committing "rape".

[RBD]

Which is a "legal loophole" for the term(s) taking "war brides" <and> committing "rape".

Tell that to every soldier, that has ever taken home a bride from among the defeated enemy.

Your anti-Bible accusations lead you to having no business with honest Bible law, and especially not with honorable soldiers' war brides.

Normally I would let you keep pratting about the former, to look for something new, but because of your malice in the latter, I'm done with you.

[POI]

Which is a "legal loophole" for the term(s) taking "war brides" <and> committing "rape".

Tell that to every soldier, that has ever taken home a bride from among the defeated enemy.

I don't need to as the Bible gives permission to do so. I'm merely pointing these given instructions out to the Christians who were not already aware. And we are all reading along as you continue to offer very poor apologetics, specifically in dodging and/or avoiding my specific questions at all intellectual costs.

Your anti-Bible accusations lead you to having no business with honest Bible law,

The irony here is that it is actually you, whom is issuing 'anti-Bible' accusations, as you avoid or deny the obvious, in what the Bible god condones/instructs here.

especially not with honorable soldiers' war brides.

Speaking of 'honor', the Bible god's brand of honor endorses and/or instructs that identified hotties can become war brides and be "entered" without permission, (provided the captor waits one full month for them to mourn the family in which her 'husband' took part in slaughtering right in front of her), and she can later be chucked aside, at will, if not satisfactory. Which in turn, would then ultimately lead to the war bride's demise. Hence, she knows she better work over-time to keep her captor, I mean "legal husband", satisfied at all times.

Normally I would let you keep pratting about the former, to look for something new, but because of your malice in the latter, I'm done with you.

This is code for; "I know I cannot honestly answer the two debate questions because then it would immediately expose one area of the Bible for which I too find immoral." See post 40 for details.

[RBD]

Which is a "legal loophole" for the term(s) taking "war brides" <and> committing "rape".

Tell that to every soldier, that has ever taken home a bride from among the defeated enemy.

I don't need to as the Bible gives permission to do so. I'm merely pointing these given instructions out to the Christians who were not already aware. And we are all reading along as you continue to offer very poor apologetics, specifically in dodging and/or avoiding my specific questions at all intellectual costs.

Your anti-Bible accusations lead you to having no business with honest Bible law,

The irony here is that it is actually you, whom is issuing 'anti-Bible' accusations, as you avoid or deny the obvious, in what the Bible god condones/instructs here.

especially not with honorable soldiers' war brides.

Speaking of 'honor', the Bible god's brand of honor endorses and/or instructs that identified hotties can become war brides and be "entered" without permission, (provided the captor waits one full month for them to mourn the family in which her 'husband' took part in slaughtering right in front of her), and she can later be chucked aside, at will, if not satisfactory. Which in turn, would then ultimately lead to the war bride's demise. Hence, she knows she better work over-time to keep her captor, I mean "legal husband", satisfied at all times.

Normally I would let you keep pratting about the former, to look for something new, but because of your malice in the latter, I'm done with you.

This is code for; "I know I cannot honestly answer the two debate questions because then it would immediately expose one area of the Bible for which I too find immoral." See post 40 for details.

Nothing new. Except 40.

[RBD]

For any Christians wanting to defend in this topic, I will present a quick thought experiment...

A couple attends a dinner party. Another couple asks the wife at the party, 'how did you two meet?" The wife answers, "well, it's quite a beautiful little love story. My entire family was slaughtered right in front of me, and one of the warriors spotted me, thought I was hot, and spared me. A month later, after all the sobbing and what-not, the warrior 'married and entered' me. I sure hope he remains satisfied with me so he does not release me into this cruel world where no other man will likely want me? And since I am a woman, I likely cannot earn my own keep."

You're not born of Israel, how did you become an inheritor of the LORD God's promise to Israel? I'm now the free wife of an Israelite, that defeated us in war.

Praise the LORD, His peace and blessing upon thee thou lady of Israel. May thy seed gender His Messiah!