You're viewing a single thread.
All these are acceptable then:
It's missing child marriages.
The Bible is pretty fucked.
I don't think this is true - at least not in the Hebrew Bible (I don't know much about the Greek/Christian parts). What verse/ passage are you thinking of?
Fourth book of the Torah says that the army has to kill women who have known a man but to keep the little girls (women children) for themselves. Here's some commentary about it:
The little ones — The object of the command to kill every male was to exterminate the whole nation, the cup of whose iniquity was full. For the righteousness of the mode see Joshua 6:21, note. Every woman who might possibly have been engaged in the licentious worship of Peor was to share the fate of the male children, to preserve Israel from all taint of that abomination. The pure maidens could be incorporated into Israel without peril to the national religion. Joshua 6:23-25, notes. They could not be treated as concubines, since the law against fornication was in full force, (Deuteronomy 22:25-29,) but they could be lawfully married to their captors (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).
Well, that's the difference. This is just Daniel Whedon's personal interpretation. It's not included in the list above because those are all explicit - not just one person's interpretation. Obviously a commentary is subjective by nature. Why open up a solid argument to debate by introducing a lower quality argument based on a subjective opinion?
What were they keeping the little girls for?
Here are a few examples of arguments that this entire line of thinking opens you up to:
- "keep" is a mistranslation - the original text says הַחֲי֖וּ, which means "let live."
- "young girls" is a mistranslation: "young girls" would be ילדות, but instead this says הַטַּ֣ף, which could mean "children" or "families,"
- According to BDB (one of the most widely used English biblical lexicons), sometimes the "word includes (or implies) women as well as children"
- Other commentaries say that they were taken not as wives, but as slave workers.
Why do you want to mess around with all that nonsense? Just use the unambiguous examples from OP's infographic.
Ah, so just enslave children.
Girl children. And as we all know it's ok to bang your slaves according to the Tanakh.
Yep, physical and sexual abuse is part-and-parcel of slavery.
I was literally just responding to someone saying they didn't think it happened in the Hebrew Bible. I happen to think it does. If someone is of the opinion that the text here is fine and they've studied that much I just assume they're paying 50 shekels (a bit over 13USD in today's money) so they can rape someone and have a wife which makes them a garbage person that I have no interest in interacting.
I'm old and tired. I could give a shit less what the counter arguments are for someone who tries to justify and talk their way around raping kids and/or owning people no matter which Abrahamic nonsense they happen to believe.
I think they’re thinking of Mary and Joseph (Miriam and Yusef). The ages are tradition not scripture iirc. But yes, she was 14 but it was closer to an engagement until she was old enough to move out of her parents’ house. Which also is fucked up, but like in terms of ancient pedophilia? It’s on the low end.
This looks like a gotcha, but all of these "marriages" are just different arrangements of their core definition of marriage, and it's exactly what they want: one man in power, and women as property.
That looks like what they really would like to be true.
They'd certainly be fine with the slavery and legal rape parts.
Rape is such a harsh word. They're just the first to call dibs, in a ... forceful way. Let's call it arranged marriage without consent.
Just for the sake of discussion, this logic unfortunately won't work on Christians like the crazy right-wingers in Congress because they have the privilege of cherry picking their beliefs.
The examples in this image all appear to be old testament rules, which means that for modern Christians, they apply when it is convenient and don't apply when it's not. Much of modern Christianity is founded on new covenant theology which asserts that Jesus "fulfilled" the old laws, and therefore the only ones that truly matter are the ones in the new testament.
So modern Christians don't have to worry about things like eating pork or wearing mixed fabrics, but they will still pick out any parts of the old testament that are conveniently aligned with their beliefs as the unquestionable "word of god" to get their way.
Somehow conservative Christians never seem to apply this logic to Leviticus 18:22.
Of course not, a Roman soldier who never met Jesus was homophobic so they get to be certain that homophobia is morally required. Same justification for misogyny.
The new testament does have some not nice things to say about same-sex relationships IIRC, but nothing that condemns it nearly as strongly as the old testament. Just "will not inherit the kingdom of god" or some junk like that (which applies as well to thieves, drunkards, idolators, and adulterers, which I am sure encompasses a number of "good Christians").
It's all just silly, honestly. If the whole point is that people will be judged for whatever in the afterlife, then why care what anyone does in this life as long as it doesn't affect you directly? If gay people don't want to be "saved", then leave them the fuck alone. Pretty sure the Bible says that salvation shouldn't be transactional anyways.
The entire idea that any of this has to do with being "saved" is a Christian invention anyway. The Hebrew Bible uses the exact same wording regarding eating pork. These were clearly a code of behavior that were intended to apply to one particular group of people, and possibly only a subgroup of that group.
Additionally, many scholars consider this passage not a condemnation of homosexual sex, but relating to inappropriate sexual domination. Of course it's extremely problematic that heterosexual sex would be considered a dominating act, but that's more than we should really get into right now.
How does someone have more wives than concubines. I’ve always interpreted concubines as the equivalent of somewhere between fwb-polyamorous girlfriend but with extreme systemic misogyny and possible antiquitous slavery of course. I’ve got one of each of those modern roles and I could probably handle two wives, but each step up is more work. Then most of these fuckers with wives and concubines seem to have more wives. They must be terrible at having wives.
Seven HUNDRED wives? That’ll get you a reality series and a Dateline special.
Don't forget his additional 300 concubines