"Oh, no. That's the OLD testament. I meant the new one."
So you agree we should stop persecuting LGBT+ people then?
"No, not like that"
Exactly. If you believe in the OT here you go:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
--Timothy 2:11-15
Basically any evangelical women should stfu and get back to the only thing the holy book says they're good for: pumping out babies. Great ethos you follow there, Margie. For such a believer why are you in congress instead of barefoot and pregnant?
And if you don't follow the OT, as you say, maybe stfu about everything other than loving everyone as Jesus commanded. And also get the fuck outta congress, because Jesus wanted a separation of church and state.
The funny thing is, 1 Timothy is in the New Testament. So, regardless of which one she wants to claim she's a fan of, both basically tell her to STFU and sit down.
I'm not saying either is right, but if she wants to claim to be a believer/follower, then she's clearly a hypocrite either way.
That makes it much better. The OT is chock full of fucked up stuff, but God's covenant was with his chosen people at the time, jews. Jesus fulfilled that one and created a new covenant with his new chosen people (guess who), Christians. So they'll pick and choose their verses to say whatever shit they want, but when pressed about eating pork or wearing blended clothing, that's what they fall back on.
For extra credit, find an average Christian and give them that verse, but tell them it's from the Quran and ask what they think about it.
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?
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
"Rules for thee, but not for me"
-- Donaldicus 6:14
More like "Tell me what to say so you religious types gimme their votes and I'll say it. Anything. literally Anything."
"I will say multiple things which are mutually exclusive in the same breath. I've done it before, and I'll do it again."
People that quote the Bible for reasons they need to do something terrible, never fucking use the Bible to do something good. Also, why don't they fallow the Bible 100%? If you are going to pick and choose which words of Fucking God you are going to adhere to, why choose only the ones that are convenient to you? (rhetorical) either follow the Bible 100% or get the fuck out of my face with your self gratifying moral righteousness.
Cherrypickers abound in religion today.
Conservatives don't have values, they have excuses
Why? Why follow the Bible at all? Give me one good reason why I should take a whole book of questionable origin and follow it.
They didn't have DNA tests and hashing back in that time, there's no way to prove the texts are original this many hundreds of years later, and there are so many explanations for a "fatherless baby" (unconscious rape, concussed and memory loss, shame and withholding the truth, etc). So many pictures depict god in the clouds. Humans couldn't reach the skies back then. Now we can. Guess what? No magic man in the clouds. There are so many reasons not to believe the Bible it just blows my mind that anyone believes in it.
The protagonist beats bankers with a belt whip and chills with sex workers on the reg. Plus he always brings the booze.
Yeah the way Jesus is presented is pretty dope actually, judge not, and just be excellent to each other. The rest of the Bible is the opposite of his "teachings".
Gran of salt and all, but ever heard of the "Caesar's Messiah" theory? Won't say it's a 100% but interesting nonetheless, and explains why new testament so starkly different from old.
And it's never explicitly said whose wedding he was at. For all we know, he might have been the groom. But they don't want to hear that he might have done what people did back then and got married.
Something something patriarchal smear campaign
I mean, they most certainly had DNA
🤣 *DNA tests, edited.
Listen my marriage is just as abiblical for the fact that neither of us paid for each other as it is for us both being women. Also we were both adults in 2024 terms when we got married and I know that doesn’t happen much in that book.
My wife and I are cishet, but we told the guy who married us that we would accept absolutely nothing religious and no mentions of any gods at our ceremony, so we're abiblical as well.
From what I’ve seen from you around here you’re also abiblical because you married each other as loving equals
We’re our own esoteric styles of pagans so I just said my own prayers at our wedding. Mind you our wedding was my sister having us sign paperwork at a bar, so we broke a lot of traditional norms there lol. Sometimes you just have to get married really fast because a Supreme Court justice said he wants to take away your right to do so. Also because one of you needs health insurance
I don't know about equals. She's far more educated than me and I've never made as much money as her (I'm fine with that), but we are definitely loving and share things at home.
Oh, Margie, NO! Please don't stone this wonderful person! /s
Nah, she's part of the group that is proteced by the rules and not bound by them.
Can always count on the selfrighteous to open wide their ignorance for the rest of the world stick a foot in
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
