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?

[1213]

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?

1) "You must not treat her as a slave" indicates that she should be treated well, which means also for example not force to have sex. On the other hand woman's consent should be clear without saying anything in that scripture. It is not reasonable to assume everything is said in every part of the Bible, especially if the same idea comes clear from other parts of the Bible, for example the "love your neighbor as yourself". Or what say you, if for example laws for building things don't say anything about murder, it is ok then to murder others?
2) For example a captive who thought her family was evil and the captor good.

Now, if everyone would give this same answer, would you then ignore them all?

Why are you asking things, if you want to ignore the answers that you don't like? Is your goal really just to proselytize people and not honest debate?

[POI]

Placing this topic back on top, as I know all the usual Christian suspects have read it, and have opted to pass upon it, as it is pretty damning for you. And quite frankly, I don't blame you for ignoring it so far...

(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?

[1213]

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

Quite frankly, I don't blame you for ignoring my responses so far... ...But it may make you look like a hypocrite.

Perhaps you should explain what is your point with your questions that seems loaded? Are you in a war thinking what will you do, if you find "Post-War Hotties"?

If you are, I recommend to remember the "love your neighbor as yourself". Do you have a problem with it?

You say "it is pretty damning for you". Do you mean God is going to judge people to hell, if they don't answer your questions?

[POI]

This is yet another reason I do not respond to 1213 any longer. No one, who knows their Bible, would still continue to present this particular apologetic, (which I have already refuted with him time and time and time again). In case anyone else is not aware, the 'golden rule', was also issued in the OT, in Leviticus 19-18. HOWEVER, it specifically states:

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord." Exactly who is this law referring to? That's right, the "Israelites". Non-Israelites were perfectly fine to take as war captives, and rape, oopsie, I mean 'marry' the hotties in this era.

Source (https://www.thetorah.com/article/love-y ... olden-rule)

"In Leviticus 19:18, the phrase "your people" (bnei amekha) refers specifically to fellow Israelites or members of the covenant community. Contextually, the preceding verse uses "brother" and "kinsman" (or "fellow citizen") to define the scope of these social laws, narrowing "neighbor" to mean fellow members of the Israelite community"

Okay, any actual takers here to answer the debate questions?

[1213]

....but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.[/i]" Exactly who is this law referring to? That's right, the "Israelites"...
...

Sorry, I think that doesn't work. It says neighbor, not Israelite. And, if the women were taken to be wives, they would become members of the "covenant community" and therefore part of Israel.

But, thank you for your effort.

[POI]

Yep, still so glad I do not engage 1213 any longer....

For debate:

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?

[Hawkins]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

The big picture has already been provided in the Bible itself. The Canaan issue is about a spiritual war between God and His adversary the devil who was in control of the Canaan culture, serving the purpose of eradicate the Jews physically. If that's not possible then contaminate their religion, such that the Jews would not be able to convey God's truth to save today's humans. If the devil succeeded the Jews were either outnumbered and eradicated or they didn't have a religion as the vessel conveying God's truth. That is, the Jews were to be destroyed either physically or spiritually.

On the other hand, God saves whenever possible. The cultures of the peripherals of Canaan may allow virgins to adapt the religion of their husbands. Ancient marriage is never up to women, there was no free love. Canaanites even had no control about their own kids whenever ritual needs arise to have their children burnt and sacrificed. It's a women were in control of nothing situation. The virgins are savable through marrying the Jews. After the hardcore Canaanites were destroyed, this is became de facto. Woman were converted to Judaism. Paul partly mentioned that birth pain may be the way how the converted women were saved. Actually, I think that those women were saved when it's witnessed that they religiously follow their husbands' religion which is ancient Judaism. In contrast, male conversion requires the symbolic circumcision.

[bjs1]

For debate:
1) Christians, in this passage, please show us where the woman's consent to be "entered" is either necessary or required?

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” from Matthew 22:39. Since you addressed this question of how we treat another person to Christians, that must be part of the answer. If “love your neighbor” is not an acceptable answer, then you are not addressing Christians.

[Difflugia]

“Love your neighbor as yourself,” from Matthew 22:39. Since you addressed this question of how we treat another person to Christians, that must be part of the answer. If “love your neighbor” is not an acceptable answer, then you are not addressing Christians.

How do you see this connected to the instructions for war captives? Was Israelite marriage to war captives expected to be consensual? Considering that the prospective brides were already war captives (the text even assumes that their families had been killed), how would one measure the level of coercion against personal agency and loving them as neighbors? Or is this a dispensationalist kind of thing, where coerced or forced marriage was ordained by God for the Israelites during that period of history, but only became forbidden during the middle of the first century?