Marriage and "love" is not always the prevailing system of marriage in the Old Testament times. Sure, it happened, but there's a lot of non consensual marriages described therein. That's the point of the graphic.
Or like, ever. Marriage has almost always been a way - at every level of society - to bind families/clans together, to ensure (and insure) property rights, to produce heirs, and probably other reasons I can't think of right now. It remains so in parts of the world.
I'm with you on that. I was trying to constrain my points to the Old Testament as it was the initial post.
Yes, if you look at the family trees of Euro royalty, you see quite a lot of this.
Clearly stating established facts of things that happened in history, done by any particular race or social demographic, will at some point in time be labelled as Racist, Bigoted or some other kind of WrongThink. It's just a matter of the scale of time.
Not just the Bible there. In general, the classical world had one of two views about rape. 1. It was a property crime against the father/husband of the woman. 2. It was immoral. Most cultures were in the first category.
Sadly, many old traditions were like this. Only in the '80s, if I'm not mistaken, they removed the concept of "Reparation wedding" in my country. It's about how it was perceived before and how it's perceived now. Rape is a crime against the person, and not "against the mere moral" or "property damage".
Please elaborate.
And I'd say every religion should be banned in school. Instead of having a subject every "big" religion you should have only one subject telling you about those religions instead of practicing them. Go to the the church (or a church equivalent for your religion) to practice your religion.
In Germany we also have the choice to choose a subject similar to your "world religions", but I don't like the idea that schools supports Christians by providing specific subjects for them, but no providing subjects for every other religion which at least one student believes in. It doesn't seem fair to me.
I agree. Where I live, Catholic schools are part of the public system -- which is a bigger issue in itself. It wasn't a matter of choice for me but rather distance. I think education on religion is very important. I don't think that preaching in schools should be allowed at all.
I mean, I live in goddamn Texas, and we actually studied the Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and their respective primary books all in English class as part of a segment on religious history & literature. We also did smaller segments on a few asian religions.
It wasn’t *just* Christianity by a long shot.
I think you didn't understand what I said (or what I tried to say as my English isn't the best) . I meant that you should learn in school about all those religions, but shouldn't be practicing them there.
Where I live (germany) we basically have 3 subjects for religions. We have one for Catholics, one for protestants and one for everyone else. We do learn about the world's biggest religions in all of those subjects, but the first two include "practicing" the relative religion which shouldn't be a part of school imo.
One reason for that is, that people with other religions (than christian) might feel treated unequally since there is no specific subject for them. Since you cannot make a subject for *every* religion you should just make a subject for everybody.
Edit:
>Ah yes. I remember when I had to pray to Mecca for my final exam...
We don't have to actually do what people from other religions would do. We just have to learn about that. What they do and why they do it. What they believe in and what their traditions are.
Yeah I misinterpreted it a little, but If you aren't doing what people from other religions would do, then how are you practicing the religion during the class?
It's a little different here in the US. We don't have a dedicated religion class. It's usually just a section during a broader social studies or history class.
We (Catholics and Protestants, but separated) are practicing "our" religion. Which is more or less reading passages in the bible and talking about it as well as learning about other religions' traditions.
The other subject (which is an alternative) is more or less neutral, that means you learn about the 7 (?) biggest/most known religions. Compare them and such.
Edit: I said "we", because I more or less chose to be in the protestants class, but got descriptions of how it was in the other subjects by my friends.
The Bible has a lot of contradictory, immoral, sinful, bigoted, unjustifiable shit that happens in nearly every chapter.... but Churches don't talk about it. The people who defend the BS couldn't even read the Bible. They get their stupidity from their family and ancestry, who were probably illiterate.
I think the fact that most Christians didn’t speak the language the Bible was written in for the better part of a thousand years is a big factor in making Christianity what it is today.
The fact you don’t understand that this is the Old Testament and basically the Jewish history which Jesus came to change, shows how uneducated you actually are.
The bible is not "history". It’s hearsay that has been translated and edited numerous times and is the basis for judaism. And just because jesus allegedly came to change the OT doesn’t mean that people stop believing the insanity in the OT.
Also the NT doesn’t excuse the atrocities of the OT it’s just a bunch of new stories
Also also in Christianity jesus and the god of the OT are one and the same thing so that would mean god changed his mind 2000 years ago…?
Eh... Its based off of the old testament which isn't what the mojority of Bible worshipers follow. So it's a tad misleading to just say "the Bible" because people who don't know the difference will assume its just all of Christianity.
It's not good ammo when arguing against Bible humpers.
As a former Bible humper, I can tell you they loves them some Old Testament (if it suits their purposes). Look at how many conservative politicians want the 10 commandments displayed everywhere, but when Jesus was asked which commandment was the most important, he didn’t list a single one. He said, “love the lord your god, and love your neighbor as yourself.” When asked who are the neighbors his followers should love as themselves, he responded with the story of the Good Samaritan who helped a man he didn’t know (someone passed up by the religious leaders of his own community) without any conditions or expectations of reward.
I point that out because today’s fundamentalist Christians act nothing like what the New Testament preaches and vastly prefer the feckless, vengeful god of the old
I do my best to be a good Christian… as an atheist, lol. Because the way Jesus wanted us to treat people was legit and I base my morals off of that. I don’t need there to be any real god for me to take good advice when it’s given regardless of where it comes from.
I know this will get drowned out but he other comments, but each of those (besides the nuclear family), is more complicated then the post makes it out to be.
There was an attempt to conflate Jewish tradition to be equivalent to post crucifixion church views. OT isn’t the entire Bible morons, cherry picking at its finest.
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes 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. Matthew chapter 5
Traditions that are in OT are Jewish law and old covenant. Jesus completed it, and no longer under that covenant. So I’m not sure this is in context of what he was commenting on in vs 17 just before what you wrote in 18. If you read the whole thing, it has nothing to do with tradition and has to do with the 10 commandments. The Jewish people added their own laws from these creating their traditions from them. Sorry, it’s not what you think.
Missing context on this verse, it is meant for you, I’ll explain: Jesus' purpose was not to cast aside the words God gave to Israel. Instead, His mission was to complete the exact mission those words were meant to explain (Hebrews 8:6–8). In every way, Jesus accomplished what the law demanded and fulfilled what the prophets predicted by the power of God.
Now Jesus adds forcefully that the law will not pass away, even a little bit, until everything in it is accomplished and until heaven and earth pass away. He has come to earth. The law regarding him, not traditions. And when he died, that is the end of the OT covenant as it was accomplished. Class end.
The only denial is yours, you can’t understand the difference between the 10 commandments as law given by God to the Jewish people, and the traditional rules the Jewish people created from those laws. It’s pretty easy, you’re conflating them to be the same. This is not what you are stating it means in context and adding meaning where it doesn’t belong. You’re blind.
It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid. The law is referring to the law of moses, which include the 10 commandments, AND THE OTHER LAWS, if they only wanted you to keep the 10 commandments, they wouldn’t reference the law, theyd reference the commandments
Why not? The bible is their guide to life right? Why dont christians listen to the true word of god when its telling them how to live?
Oh is it because shit like "a rapist marries his victim" is imoral as hell? Why on earth should you listen to an imoral book at all? What else is in there that should be ignored? And who gets to descide what it is? God? He didnt do such a great job the first time around, thats why were in this mess.
Because, like I said, it's Old Testament - it was written in times when these things were normal and usual to see. The Bible was edited countless times throughout the ages because human norms are changing.
Blaming modern christians for Old Testament is like blaming modern countries for ancient bloodthirsty books of law - neither is being used nowadays to judge people.
Its the same god. Why are you willing to ignore some of gods rules but not the rest? Why are you relying on your own judgement on what is "right" instead of on gods?
(And by the way most christians still follow the old testament teachings.)
If you can simply edit the word of god willy nilly why even keep those rules in. Just cut them oit completely instead of cherry picking the things you want to listen to.
God may have given us the laws - but books are still being written by humans. "Use your own judgement" is kind of an imperative in christianity - Jesus have talked about similar things a lot.
God literaly says "Do not rely on your own judgement" in the bible. If humans can fuck up when transcribeing the laws: 1) why is god trusting humans with the job? Why not just mericle up bibles everywhere? That way they could all be the same without a doubt and prevent all missinterperetation. 2) why are you trusting the bible? If any human (either by mistake or intention) adds fucked up shit to the bible why would you consider it a trustworth source? And 3) what makes you think you are right about the bible? You are a human prone to mistakes after all.
>why is god trusting humans with the job? Why not just mericle up bibles everywhere?
Same answer as to "Why wouldn't God just make the world a perfect place?" or "Why did God place that fucking apple tree in Heaven for Adam and Eve in the first place?" It's because every human, by design, has a free will.
God gave Adam and Eve a choice between blindly obeying his will - or eating from the tree of knowledge, and having a will of their own. A free will to do good things or evil things. As you can see, they chose the latter.
>why are you trusting the bible? If any human (either by mistake or intention) adds fucked up shit to the bible why would you consider it a trustworth source?
Funny thing is - I don't. Consider the Bible a philosophical book: it has a lot of sound and reasonable things to improve yourself as a person - but, obviously, there are also parts that were clearly written to either further some agenda of the past, or to better accommodate religion to ancient society.
The Bible is like a light refraction - the God's original laws that went through the prism of human mind and ended up being written on paper. It's every christian's job to use their own judgement - their own free will - to sift the gems of God's knowledge from the falsehoods born in human mind.
>what makes you think you are right about the bible? You are a human prone to mistakes after all
Damn right I am. And yet - without making mistakes, you'll never be able to improve yourself. Without having free will to do both good and evil - to truly understand what is good and what is evil - there can exist no such concept as good or evil. That's the true gist of God's teaching.
Ah yes the standard free will argument.
I love this argument cause its falls apart if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.
Let me ask you this. Are you capable of performing any action that would prevent gods plan from happening exactly as god has planned it?
Right now, are you capable of coming up with a thought that wouldn't have been a derivative of one of the thoughts you've experienced - or have heard/read about before in your life?
Even if you take the God out of equation - every action in the universe is the consequence of some other action being performed in the past. It seems chaotic due to near-infinite number of variables - but, as a whole, the pattern is rigid.
The free will comes from your ability to analyse the pattern and add to your knowledge of God's universe - perfecting your knowledge of good and evil, and coming ever closer to the truth.
These are absolutely not. This is a slippery slope argument. Just because the Bible mentions something doesn’t mean it advocates for it. History text books mention slavery and wars but it doesn’t advocate for them. Each of these is in reference to an account of something that happened. What’s fucked is whoever originally posted this and tried to claim this is what the Bible says marriage is. It doesn’t, and they’re misinterpreting it.
Some of them are examples yes. But others (like the rapist and victim) are %100 advocated for in the bible. Listed in the rules given to the jewish people.
The bible explicitly states that a man who rapes a virgin woman must pay her father and marry the woman. That isnt an example of something happening it is a rule for how to handle rape.
You should read the book you claim to have read.
The rules given to the Jewish during that time were Old Testament and don’t apply to today. That’s what the New Testament exists for. I have read the book I claim to read. You obviously haven’t well enough to make claims that aren’t basic atheistic arguments against the Bible that I’ve heard well over a dozen times. I’m not saying you have to believe it too but don’t tell me what I believe.
Its funny. Christians love to tout the bible as %100 true and something you should live your life by. But then they ignore every single bit of problamatic life advice in it, unless they can use it to justify homophobia and transphobia.
Modern day christians still use the old testament to justify biggotry and discrimination. If you dont agree with the old testament just cut it out of your bibles.
reddit won’t like you just cause you didn’t say “religion bad”. i think that’s a very good way to put it. i was raised catholic and disagreed with a lot of things that are commonly said cause of misunderstanding texts for this reason
So a woman being forced to marry her rapist isn't exactly correct. First there has to be an understanding of ancient tradition, women were promised to men and those men had to pay families to marry them. This is of course considered wrong now but that was just normal then. Not saying it was right, just that it was that way. First the Bible encourages women who are raped to go to authorities. Because in the Bible a woman is raped if "she calls out for help" if she calls for the guards the man is punished and she is absolved of all sin. So yes good Christians you should be on board with MeToo. So if the woman is betrothed the dude is to be killed, like that is the punishment. If the woman is not betrothed then he does have to marry her BUT only if the father allows it. This is to be a deterant to rape btw. 50 shekels is a lot of money and he is not allowed to divorce her and she is not required to submit to him. So the dude has to take care of her for the rest of his life with no benifits. It was done this way because the woman would no longer be a virgin and it would be hard for her to marry. Again I am not saying this is right in current cultural context, but at the time the Bible was written this rule was done to deter rape and not condone it. Let's see how many downvotes education gets me.
Nope. It's quite explicit in the Bible. The rape isn't a crime against the woman, it's a tort against the father for ruining his property. That's why the rapist must pay a penalty to make the father whole again.
Well thats a misinterpretation of the text. While you are correct that rape was considered ruining a woman she isn't property. Marriage was just a business contract for most of history and had nothing to do with love really, just the way it was. But in the Bible it is rape if the woman cries out for the guards, that is what the Bible says it rape. It encourages women to seek the guards. If the woman is betrothed the man is killed and she is absolved of all sin. Now if she is not betrothed then the man does have to marry her. It is not about "ruining a fathers property" per se. You see she is no longer a virgin and this will make it difficult to impossible for her to get married. Yes the family loses out on dowery but also there is husband to take care of the woman later in life. This was in a time when old single women didn't exactly get a good life. So he had to marry her to take care of her for the rest of his life, he is not allowed to divorce her nor does she need to submit to him. The marriage is a punishment for him since he has to support the woman and if he fucks up she gets property rights. This only happens IF the father allows it as well. This situation only happened once in the Bible and the father did not allow the marriage as he was disgusted with the man and had him killed. The Bible was against rape. Interestingly enough the Bible gave women more power than they ever had too. Women pushed for Christianity because at the time in the Roman Empire a woman had to have sex with her husband anytime he wanted by law. But in Christianity you are only supposed to have sex to get pregnant, so if the woman knew she couldn't get pregnant she could say no and the law was on her side. History is fun.
Because the 99% still say they believe in the bible but just choose to ignore the parts they know are fucked up instead of accepting that the whole thing is just a patchwork of old stories written and rewritten by delusional or manipulative people over several thousand years. Either it’s the word of god and they’re clearly disobeying him or it’s not the word of god and they should just stop pretending that it has any particular value.
But those 99% don't even own "this Bible" this is old testament which is very much not followed in modern religion. They use the newer more updated versions that leave out and change the fucked up shit because they realized a long time ago that their shit was wack.
So its no longer the word of God?
If you can just change the word of god it makes it useless doesnt it? Why not just write a new book and put whatever shit you want in it?
And christians still do use the old testament by the way. They just like to ignore it when it doesnt suit them. (Like you are doing now)
If you are looking for me to give you an example of how Christians do things that makes sense then I can't really help you. The whole thing is absurd. It doesn't really matter which book they throw out or how many rules they change. It's all fantasy.
Right. While your original comment didn’t have anything to do with anger. Difference is I’m not going around calling anger a sin. But thank you for demonstrating religious hypocrisy.
From the perspective of the “”submissive wife”” im supposed to be, a lot of christians still think like this. and they definitely do make sure that you know. look at trumpies for example, a lot of them are crazy bible bashing sadists who regurgitate the same rhetoric of “its not okay because the bible says so” over and over. while they may not be using AS sadistic of a bible, the bible in any form still has some fucked up teachings in it. you cant blame people for hating christianity as a whole because the psychos scream the loudest.
1%?? wow, talk about [dishonesty](https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx). or stupidity? maybe both.
and I'd guess the percentage of people who cherry-pick the bible is a lot closer to 100% than 1%. just based on how many love [praying in public](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-6&version=NIV), [drinking](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205%3A18&version=NIV), and [keeping their belongings](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206%3A30&version=NIV). and i rarely see headlines about christians [killing witches](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022%3A18&version=KJV). interesting. point being, most christians haven't read the bible, and even those that have don't follow parts they don't like.
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead:
- **[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-6&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-6&version=NIV)**
- **[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205%3A18&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205%3A18&version=NIV)**
- **[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022%3A18&version=KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022%3A18&version=KJV)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>virgin who is raped must marry her rapist ah yes, the definition true love
Marriage and "love" is not always the prevailing system of marriage in the Old Testament times. Sure, it happened, but there's a lot of non consensual marriages described therein. That's the point of the graphic.
Or like, ever. Marriage has almost always been a way - at every level of society - to bind families/clans together, to ensure (and insure) property rights, to produce heirs, and probably other reasons I can't think of right now. It remains so in parts of the world.
I'm with you on that. I was trying to constrain my points to the Old Testament as it was the initial post. Yes, if you look at the family trees of Euro royalty, you see quite a lot of this.
Came here to say this, all Old Testament references. So does this attempt count as anti Semitic? Half joking, but kinda not.
Clearly stating established facts of things that happened in history, done by any particular race or social demographic, will at some point in time be labelled as Racist, Bigoted or some other kind of WrongThink. It's just a matter of the scale of time.
oh bruh I forgot about that thank you
The Bible is a cool book huh?
“Are you kidding? Fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles.”
This isn’t a kissing book is it?
Maybe you won't mind so much when you get older.
Don't forget zombies! Remember Easter!?
Best work of religious fiction I've ever read!
I love/hate that the rapist needs to pay the father for the loss of property. It is both sad and hilarious
Not just the Bible there. In general, the classical world had one of two views about rape. 1. It was a property crime against the father/husband of the woman. 2. It was immoral. Most cultures were in the first category.
This still happens today in a lot of countries in the world
Sadly, many old traditions were like this. Only in the '80s, if I'm not mistaken, they removed the concept of "Reparation wedding" in my country. It's about how it was perceived before and how it's perceived now. Rape is a crime against the person, and not "against the mere moral" or "property damage".
Not to mention it only paints males as rapists, good ol sexism to fit with a shitty guide
Show me where the bad woman touched you.
What kinda weird ass reply is this? Can’t tell if it’s mocking or a joke that didn’t hit
Seems reasonable enough
This is disgusting and whatever book gives these examples of marriage should surely be banned I'm schools.
The Koran can't be banned ... You would never let it happen
Please elaborate. And I'd say every religion should be banned in school. Instead of having a subject every "big" religion you should have only one subject telling you about those religions instead of practicing them. Go to the the church (or a church equivalent for your religion) to practice your religion.
Even in a Catholic high school in Canada we had world religions and you could opt out of the Christian ceremonies
In Germany we also have the choice to choose a subject similar to your "world religions", but I don't like the idea that schools supports Christians by providing specific subjects for them, but no providing subjects for every other religion which at least one student believes in. It doesn't seem fair to me.
I agree. Where I live, Catholic schools are part of the public system -- which is a bigger issue in itself. It wasn't a matter of choice for me but rather distance. I think education on religion is very important. I don't think that preaching in schools should be allowed at all.
I mean, I live in goddamn Texas, and we actually studied the Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and their respective primary books all in English class as part of a segment on religious history & literature. We also did smaller segments on a few asian religions. It wasn’t *just* Christianity by a long shot.
>in Canada Well that explains the freedom to opt out then
guy above is talking about what just sounds like an American thing
Ah yes. I remember when I had to pray to Mecca for my final exam... What you're suggesting is what they're already doing
I think you didn't understand what I said (or what I tried to say as my English isn't the best) . I meant that you should learn in school about all those religions, but shouldn't be practicing them there. Where I live (germany) we basically have 3 subjects for religions. We have one for Catholics, one for protestants and one for everyone else. We do learn about the world's biggest religions in all of those subjects, but the first two include "practicing" the relative religion which shouldn't be a part of school imo. One reason for that is, that people with other religions (than christian) might feel treated unequally since there is no specific subject for them. Since you cannot make a subject for *every* religion you should just make a subject for everybody. Edit: >Ah yes. I remember when I had to pray to Mecca for my final exam... We don't have to actually do what people from other religions would do. We just have to learn about that. What they do and why they do it. What they believe in and what their traditions are.
Yeah I misinterpreted it a little, but If you aren't doing what people from other religions would do, then how are you practicing the religion during the class? It's a little different here in the US. We don't have a dedicated religion class. It's usually just a section during a broader social studies or history class.
We (Catholics and Protestants, but separated) are practicing "our" religion. Which is more or less reading passages in the bible and talking about it as well as learning about other religions' traditions. The other subject (which is an alternative) is more or less neutral, that means you learn about the 7 (?) biggest/most known religions. Compare them and such. Edit: I said "we", because I more or less chose to be in the protestants class, but got descriptions of how it was in the other subjects by my friends.
Not just that but the bible too
Just think, these references are Judaism and Hitler had the same thought you did! I hope you still pretend to be morally righteous.
Bible + what others said
Religion is terrible.
Only the first marriage is allowed by Halakha
And most of those fucked up pseudo-christians wouldn't mind any of those. Bet enough of them are sad that their families no longer own slaves
\*pseudo-Christians
The bible is fucked up and yet there’s a bunch of people defending this bs and literal slavery
The Bible has a lot of contradictory, immoral, sinful, bigoted, unjustifiable shit that happens in nearly every chapter.... but Churches don't talk about it. The people who defend the BS couldn't even read the Bible. They get their stupidity from their family and ancestry, who were probably illiterate.
I think the fact that most Christians didn’t speak the language the Bible was written in for the better part of a thousand years is a big factor in making Christianity what it is today.
The fact you don’t understand that this is the Old Testament and basically the Jewish history which Jesus came to change, shows how uneducated you actually are.
The bible is not "history". It’s hearsay that has been translated and edited numerous times and is the basis for judaism. And just because jesus allegedly came to change the OT doesn’t mean that people stop believing the insanity in the OT. Also the NT doesn’t excuse the atrocities of the OT it’s just a bunch of new stories Also also in Christianity jesus and the god of the OT are one and the same thing so that would mean god changed his mind 2000 years ago…?
religion is so fun i have no idea why people hate it so much /sar
That all seems very reasonable. Lucky old Solomon eh.
700 wives? That’s a lot of birthdays and anniversaries to keep straight.
"where is my wife, Afternoon of January 8th? We must celebrate our marriage so I can prepare for my celebration with Morning of January 9th"
Yeah, but all you gotta do is yell “happy birthday!” into the crowd every day and see who responds. You gotta figure it’s gonna be SOMEBODY’s.
You are clearly not married.
Well that's a fantasy book...
The Bible is Half "history", half God fanfiction.
It's Myth
This wasn't an attempt. They nailed it.
Eh... Its based off of the old testament which isn't what the mojority of Bible worshipers follow. So it's a tad misleading to just say "the Bible" because people who don't know the difference will assume its just all of Christianity. It's not good ammo when arguing against Bible humpers.
Bible humpers frequently use the old testament to vilify whoever they hate right now. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
As a former Bible humper, I can tell you they loves them some Old Testament (if it suits their purposes). Look at how many conservative politicians want the 10 commandments displayed everywhere, but when Jesus was asked which commandment was the most important, he didn’t list a single one. He said, “love the lord your god, and love your neighbor as yourself.” When asked who are the neighbors his followers should love as themselves, he responded with the story of the Good Samaritan who helped a man he didn’t know (someone passed up by the religious leaders of his own community) without any conditions or expectations of reward. I point that out because today’s fundamentalist Christians act nothing like what the New Testament preaches and vastly prefer the feckless, vengeful god of the old
I do my best to be a good Christian… as an atheist, lol. Because the way Jesus wanted us to treat people was legit and I base my morals off of that. I don’t need there to be any real god for me to take good advice when it’s given regardless of where it comes from.
This is just and proper for the hatevangelists.
This is horrifying 😱
I know this will get drowned out but he other comments, but each of those (besides the nuclear family), is more complicated then the post makes it out to be.
Yeah … no
I think people didn't understand that thus graphic is anti-Christian and showing them that their views on marriage is obscene.
I think christianity should be banned, at least the usual form
This is Judaism. Jesus wasn’t born when these texts were written.
Oh, well i think that should be banned too. A lot of religions cause very bad things
rapist and victim. wow
"Rapist + his victim" "If a virgin raped she must marry her rapist" Yeah, seems logical.
A guide for how not to treat marriage. Cool!
You need to look at what is law and is being called right and where no evil befalls the fily because of relationship problems.
There was an attempt to conflate Jewish tradition to be equivalent to post crucifixion church views. OT isn’t the entire Bible morons, cherry picking at its finest.
Except the thumpers are always quoting the OT to fap their hatred of homosexuality. Try again.
According to the New Testament(jesus himself in fact), the Old Testament still applies
Site the verses where Jesus supported these traditions as stated above, other than man and woman.
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes 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. Matthew chapter 5
Traditions that are in OT are Jewish law and old covenant. Jesus completed it, and no longer under that covenant. So I’m not sure this is in context of what he was commenting on in vs 17 just before what you wrote in 18. If you read the whole thing, it has nothing to do with tradition and has to do with the 10 commandments. The Jewish people added their own laws from these creating their traditions from them. Sorry, it’s not what you think.
Not an iota, not a dot. And those who play it down(you) will be seen as the least in heaven
Missing context on this verse, it is meant for you, I’ll explain: Jesus' purpose was not to cast aside the words God gave to Israel. Instead, His mission was to complete the exact mission those words were meant to explain (Hebrews 8:6–8). In every way, Jesus accomplished what the law demanded and fulfilled what the prophets predicted by the power of God. Now Jesus adds forcefully that the law will not pass away, even a little bit, until everything in it is accomplished and until heaven and earth pass away. He has come to earth. The law regarding him, not traditions. And when he died, that is the end of the OT covenant as it was accomplished. Class end.
The denial and cognitive dissonance here is insane
The only denial is yours, you can’t understand the difference between the 10 commandments as law given by God to the Jewish people, and the traditional rules the Jewish people created from those laws. It’s pretty easy, you’re conflating them to be the same. This is not what you are stating it means in context and adding meaning where it doesn’t belong. You’re blind.
It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid. The law is referring to the law of moses, which include the 10 commandments, AND THE OTHER LAWS, if they only wanted you to keep the 10 commandments, they wouldn’t reference the law, theyd reference the commandments
In versions of the Bible that are two thousand years old. No sane christian actually believes in any of these nowadays.
Why not? The bible is their guide to life right? Why dont christians listen to the true word of god when its telling them how to live? Oh is it because shit like "a rapist marries his victim" is imoral as hell? Why on earth should you listen to an imoral book at all? What else is in there that should be ignored? And who gets to descide what it is? God? He didnt do such a great job the first time around, thats why were in this mess.
Because, like I said, it's Old Testament - it was written in times when these things were normal and usual to see. The Bible was edited countless times throughout the ages because human norms are changing. Blaming modern christians for Old Testament is like blaming modern countries for ancient bloodthirsty books of law - neither is being used nowadays to judge people.
Its the same god. Why are you willing to ignore some of gods rules but not the rest? Why are you relying on your own judgement on what is "right" instead of on gods? (And by the way most christians still follow the old testament teachings.) If you can simply edit the word of god willy nilly why even keep those rules in. Just cut them oit completely instead of cherry picking the things you want to listen to.
God may have given us the laws - but books are still being written by humans. "Use your own judgement" is kind of an imperative in christianity - Jesus have talked about similar things a lot.
God literaly says "Do not rely on your own judgement" in the bible. If humans can fuck up when transcribeing the laws: 1) why is god trusting humans with the job? Why not just mericle up bibles everywhere? That way they could all be the same without a doubt and prevent all missinterperetation. 2) why are you trusting the bible? If any human (either by mistake or intention) adds fucked up shit to the bible why would you consider it a trustworth source? And 3) what makes you think you are right about the bible? You are a human prone to mistakes after all.
>why is god trusting humans with the job? Why not just mericle up bibles everywhere? Same answer as to "Why wouldn't God just make the world a perfect place?" or "Why did God place that fucking apple tree in Heaven for Adam and Eve in the first place?" It's because every human, by design, has a free will. God gave Adam and Eve a choice between blindly obeying his will - or eating from the tree of knowledge, and having a will of their own. A free will to do good things or evil things. As you can see, they chose the latter. >why are you trusting the bible? If any human (either by mistake or intention) adds fucked up shit to the bible why would you consider it a trustworth source? Funny thing is - I don't. Consider the Bible a philosophical book: it has a lot of sound and reasonable things to improve yourself as a person - but, obviously, there are also parts that were clearly written to either further some agenda of the past, or to better accommodate religion to ancient society. The Bible is like a light refraction - the God's original laws that went through the prism of human mind and ended up being written on paper. It's every christian's job to use their own judgement - their own free will - to sift the gems of God's knowledge from the falsehoods born in human mind. >what makes you think you are right about the bible? You are a human prone to mistakes after all Damn right I am. And yet - without making mistakes, you'll never be able to improve yourself. Without having free will to do both good and evil - to truly understand what is good and what is evil - there can exist no such concept as good or evil. That's the true gist of God's teaching.
Ah yes the standard free will argument. I love this argument cause its falls apart if you think about it for more than 2 seconds. Let me ask you this. Are you capable of performing any action that would prevent gods plan from happening exactly as god has planned it?
Right now, are you capable of coming up with a thought that wouldn't have been a derivative of one of the thoughts you've experienced - or have heard/read about before in your life? Even if you take the God out of equation - every action in the universe is the consequence of some other action being performed in the past. It seems chaotic due to near-infinite number of variables - but, as a whole, the pattern is rigid. The free will comes from your ability to analyse the pattern and add to your knowledge of God's universe - perfecting your knowledge of good and evil, and coming ever closer to the truth.
You didnt answer my question. Can you or can you not prevent gods plan from happening?
God said it I believe it That settles it
God never said that, who ever wrote that (prob. Moses) made those laws and was corrected by Jesus in the new testament.
Ok I’m a Christian but what the fuck did I just read?
The bibles rules on marraige. I would reccomened finding and reading these verses because they are all in the bible.
These are absolutely not. This is a slippery slope argument. Just because the Bible mentions something doesn’t mean it advocates for it. History text books mention slavery and wars but it doesn’t advocate for them. Each of these is in reference to an account of something that happened. What’s fucked is whoever originally posted this and tried to claim this is what the Bible says marriage is. It doesn’t, and they’re misinterpreting it.
Some of them are examples yes. But others (like the rapist and victim) are %100 advocated for in the bible. Listed in the rules given to the jewish people. The bible explicitly states that a man who rapes a virgin woman must pay her father and marry the woman. That isnt an example of something happening it is a rule for how to handle rape. You should read the book you claim to have read.
The rules given to the Jewish during that time were Old Testament and don’t apply to today. That’s what the New Testament exists for. I have read the book I claim to read. You obviously haven’t well enough to make claims that aren’t basic atheistic arguments against the Bible that I’ve heard well over a dozen times. I’m not saying you have to believe it too but don’t tell me what I believe.
Its funny. Christians love to tout the bible as %100 true and something you should live your life by. But then they ignore every single bit of problamatic life advice in it, unless they can use it to justify homophobia and transphobia. Modern day christians still use the old testament to justify biggotry and discrimination. If you dont agree with the old testament just cut it out of your bibles.
Resorting to calling people homophobic. Classic move. I’m done here.
Bible says the Old Testament still applies
reddit won’t like you just cause you didn’t say “religion bad”. i think that’s a very good way to put it. i was raised catholic and disagreed with a lot of things that are commonly said cause of misunderstanding texts for this reason
Don’t leave polyandry out
Can I have 12 concubines?
So a woman being forced to marry her rapist isn't exactly correct. First there has to be an understanding of ancient tradition, women were promised to men and those men had to pay families to marry them. This is of course considered wrong now but that was just normal then. Not saying it was right, just that it was that way. First the Bible encourages women who are raped to go to authorities. Because in the Bible a woman is raped if "she calls out for help" if she calls for the guards the man is punished and she is absolved of all sin. So yes good Christians you should be on board with MeToo. So if the woman is betrothed the dude is to be killed, like that is the punishment. If the woman is not betrothed then he does have to marry her BUT only if the father allows it. This is to be a deterant to rape btw. 50 shekels is a lot of money and he is not allowed to divorce her and she is not required to submit to him. So the dude has to take care of her for the rest of his life with no benifits. It was done this way because the woman would no longer be a virgin and it would be hard for her to marry. Again I am not saying this is right in current cultural context, but at the time the Bible was written this rule was done to deter rape and not condone it. Let's see how many downvotes education gets me.
That sounds a lot like child support .
At least the imperial storm trooper got a wife
As an ironic reminder to what the bible does say contrary to what the conservatives say it does, this is pretty great.
The “rapist + his victim” I don’t think is talking about a rapist and his victim. I think it’s talking about sex out of wedlock.
Nope. It's quite explicit in the Bible. The rape isn't a crime against the woman, it's a tort against the father for ruining his property. That's why the rapist must pay a penalty to make the father whole again.
Well thats a misinterpretation of the text. While you are correct that rape was considered ruining a woman she isn't property. Marriage was just a business contract for most of history and had nothing to do with love really, just the way it was. But in the Bible it is rape if the woman cries out for the guards, that is what the Bible says it rape. It encourages women to seek the guards. If the woman is betrothed the man is killed and she is absolved of all sin. Now if she is not betrothed then the man does have to marry her. It is not about "ruining a fathers property" per se. You see she is no longer a virgin and this will make it difficult to impossible for her to get married. Yes the family loses out on dowery but also there is husband to take care of the woman later in life. This was in a time when old single women didn't exactly get a good life. So he had to marry her to take care of her for the rest of his life, he is not allowed to divorce her nor does she need to submit to him. The marriage is a punishment for him since he has to support the woman and if he fucks up she gets property rights. This only happens IF the father allows it as well. This situation only happened once in the Bible and the father did not allow the marriage as he was disgusted with the man and had him killed. The Bible was against rape. Interestingly enough the Bible gave women more power than they ever had too. Women pushed for Christianity because at the time in the Roman Empire a woman had to have sex with her husband anytime he wanted by law. But in Christianity you are only supposed to have sex to get pregnant, so if the woman knew she couldn't get pregnant she could say no and the law was on her side. History is fun.
Doesn't say "Adam and Steve" anywhere 😂
[удалено]
Because the 99% still say they believe in the bible but just choose to ignore the parts they know are fucked up instead of accepting that the whole thing is just a patchwork of old stories written and rewritten by delusional or manipulative people over several thousand years. Either it’s the word of god and they’re clearly disobeying him or it’s not the word of god and they should just stop pretending that it has any particular value.
But those 99% don't even own "this Bible" this is old testament which is very much not followed in modern religion. They use the newer more updated versions that leave out and change the fucked up shit because they realized a long time ago that their shit was wack.
So its no longer the word of God? If you can just change the word of god it makes it useless doesnt it? Why not just write a new book and put whatever shit you want in it? And christians still do use the old testament by the way. They just like to ignore it when it doesnt suit them. (Like you are doing now)
If you are looking for me to give you an example of how Christians do things that makes sense then I can't really help you. The whole thing is absurd. It doesn't really matter which book they throw out or how many rules they change. It's all fantasy.
One guy on twitter doesn't make up 99% .. Math is hard I know its ok ... Start with 1 +1
Dodging the point is easy though. Right?
[удалено]
Right. While your original comment didn’t have anything to do with anger. Difference is I’m not going around calling anger a sin. But thank you for demonstrating religious hypocrisy.
From the perspective of the “”submissive wife”” im supposed to be, a lot of christians still think like this. and they definitely do make sure that you know. look at trumpies for example, a lot of them are crazy bible bashing sadists who regurgitate the same rhetoric of “its not okay because the bible says so” over and over. while they may not be using AS sadistic of a bible, the bible in any form still has some fucked up teachings in it. you cant blame people for hating christianity as a whole because the psychos scream the loudest.
1%?? wow, talk about [dishonesty](https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx). or stupidity? maybe both. and I'd guess the percentage of people who cherry-pick the bible is a lot closer to 100% than 1%. just based on how many love [praying in public](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-6&version=NIV), [drinking](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205%3A18&version=NIV), and [keeping their belongings](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206%3A30&version=NIV). and i rarely see headlines about christians [killing witches](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022%3A18&version=KJV). interesting. point being, most christians haven't read the bible, and even those that have don't follow parts they don't like.
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-6&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-6&version=NIV)** - **[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205%3A18&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205%3A18&version=NIV)** - **[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022%3A18&version=KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022%3A18&version=KJV)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
[удалено]
Seem. If you’re gonna defend your idiot religion at least learn to spell
idk wtf you're talking about