The cartoon is good except they show the daughters as too old. In those times the girls were married off by 16, so if you’re showing two daughters they should be more like 15 and 12. Imagine that for a fucking second.
For those of you who don’t know your full Biblical history, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah continues with Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt and then his daughters get drunk and fuck Lot.
I’ve always understood it to be the other way around: Lot’s daughters force Lot to get blackout drunk, then they fuck him while he’s blacked out. Repeatedly.
Nah, this was just Lot’s story as to why his daughters were pregnant. Just like Mary’s obviously bullshit sorry (“ok, I’m pregnant, but I’m a virgin, honest! God must have done it!”), this was Lot’s excuse because he was raping his daughters. “I got drunk and THEY made me have sex with them!”. Talk about blaming the victims.
I’ve been getting into some early Christian / Biblical textual analysis and history and apparently the people who wrote the Sodom story would not have understood the concept of homosexuality as an orientation, their conception was entirely act-based and focused on penetrator vs penetrated.
So this story, the primary anti-gay biblical story, is better understood as showing the Sodomites violating Guest Right, and Lot being such a good host that he expends resources (gives away his daughters to be raped) to keep his guests safe.
Just goes to show how cultural context is important in reading texts.
apparently the people who wrote the Sodom story would not have understood the concept of homosexuality as an orientation, their conception was entirely act-based and focused on penetrator vs penetrated.
This is true for every culture except the current postmodern context in which we find ourselves.
The development of our current understanding of sexuality is a byproduct of the Green Revolution and the massive abundance of food in the western world. When you’re hungry or in fear of being hungry, sex occupies less of your mind.
The story of Lut in Quran is explicitly about homosexuality. Idk how well they understood homosexuality but they were at least aware of it well before the green revolution
Maybe it’s the primary anti-gay story, but aren’t there verses about “not lying with a man as with a woman”? And the punishment for that is to be stoned to death?
But married heteros doing oral, anal, mutual masturbation, or sex during a period is all forbidden. Yet all queer hating Christians don’t speak out against any of that hetero/married sin.
There is, but the translation is not perfect and I have seen the argument that the Hebrew translates closer to “you shall not lie with a close male relative as you would your wife” since there is a lot of incest mentioned in the list of prohibitions, or I’ve also seen it argued that it’s implying “male sex worker”, the word for “man” in that passage is not the normal word for “man” used in the rest of the Bible.
And I have also heard the context of the entire section being about priestly purity, so it’s more like you wouldn’t be able to perform rituals after having the wrong type of sex until you are purified, but it’s on the same level as women being unclean when they are menstruating.
But the better argument to me is that Leviticus is specifically part of the Jewish Law, and people since the Apostle Paul have been saying you can’t keep the Jewish Law and be a good Christian, because Jesus replaced all those rules. So it’s actually a sin if you’re Christian and insisting people abide by the rules in Levitivus.
The preceding chapter is all about Abraham badgering God over the destruction of a city. He starts by saying “Okay, but would you destroy the city if fifty of its inhabitants didn’t deserve it? What about forty-five? Forty? Thirty? Ten, even?” And in the end, God sends Angels down to pull the last righteous man in Sodom out of town before its destroyed.
The guest right passage is intended to illustrate him as a self-less man who would stand at the door before an angry mob to protect his new friends.
I love that it’s an anti-gay story, and it was completely made up. Sodom and Gomorrah were not real places. The guy who wrote Genesis literally couldn’t think of a real world reason why homosexuality or just sodomy was immoral so he made up a fairy tale.
Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
They also conveniently forget about Numbers 5 : 11-31, the only time abortion is even mentioned in The Bible, and if you read The Old Testament, The Mishrad, and The Talmud, you’ll realize that The Bible just told you to perform a barbaric abortion method, in case of suspected infidelity. The mother died of the “bitter waters” as well as the fetus, if it was made incorrectly.
tbf, isn’t the whole point of the bible to show terrible stories as bad examples?
like aren’t you supposed to draw your own conclusions or whatever from it?
idk i never read it, just know the basic overview of some stuff.
Deuteronomy 22: 28-29. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
All Abrahamic shit is just mind control. If there was a Holy Messiah who embodied everything good and pure, do you think he’d want everyone to be an acolytic zealot that follow contradictory and sexist messages written by mortals?
All Abrahamich religions that stem from the same root, Christianity was a direct fork from Judism and Islam having its own roots in both and a few other inputs further east of Palestine.
Now that’s a load of BS if I ever seen one, not as bad in Bible but still par. Hinduism books based on islamic or Christin ones? Like from 19 th century that’s possible, but anything before that highly unlikely.
Other way around actually. Judism/Christianity claim to be 4,000+ years old but there is little evidence to back this claim that wasn’t written centuries after the supposed fact.
Hindu religion has temples and manuscripts dating at least that far back and its known that sporadic trade from Rome to China did happen and lands that are now in modern India were a leg on that unofficial trade road. So the various authors of the old testament very well could have had copies of Hindu writing and tales, or been told them second, third or fourth hand through those with a connection to the unofficial trader networks that moved goods and information between the two continents.
The Holy book of Jews, Christians and Muslims are the same (at the start). They only differ where they stop. New testament is a revision of the old one. So is the Muslim part, but I do not know that too well. This is why you can always find this and contradictions. They only wrote patches, not erratas.
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
Wait, hang on. This particular deity is the one people started to worship during the bronze age collapse, and that belief system has stuck around since the worst dark ages in history? Fuckin hell.
I guess the demand to worship only one god-- and a god of war at that-- will make that deity worshipped almost forever.
On the other hand, the worship of Yahweh as we know today also has had influence from Zoroastrian god, Zarathustra, who is an icon of love. Zoroastrians also believe only in one God, but it’s not Yahweh. Although, the image of Yahweh as an all-loving deity probably was inspired from the Zoroastrian god, despite the contradicting image of violent behaviour from the bible.
Religion is just a game of telephone basically, before phones were invented.
Yeah, as a Baha’i I’m aware that most of the non-Abrahamic religions, and even the non-religic philosophies, started with deities of creation, or at least love. It seems a bit frustrating that the other three Abrahamic religions seem so interested in ending the world, again.
Also explains why it’s the most common religion in much of the world. If you have one group of people worshipping a god that says “be cool and don’t kill each other,” and another group worshipping a god that says “be uncool and kill anyone who doesn’t worship me,” one of those religious beliefs is far more fit to survive than the other
No, that’s history. Back then taking defeated enemies as slaves was pretty much standard. And with the slavery part of course there also came the rape part. That was how wars were done for the vast majority of human history.
That’s a complete different question. But from the historical context the stuff in the Bible does make sense. After all it’s written by people living in this reality.
That’s kind of the whole point of Jesus existing. Jesus brought forth the new covenant. Before this, God was worshipped by sacrifices, strict rules, etc. In the old testament, the Jews(God’s chosen) failed to keep God’s law, and they were repeatedly punished for it.
The Messiah the Jews expected was going to be the savior and liberator of the Jews and “put them on top” so to speak.
Instead, Jesus offered salvation to all(gentiles). Clearly, Jesus and his new covenant stands in defiance of the old testament.
The old testament is mostly viewed in historical context.
The whole Bible is full of insane ridiculous shit like this. It baffles me that people say they live their lives by it and don’t even know what it says.
To be fair, there’s zero expectation in most of Christianity that the entire Bible needs to be read and followed equally. Most Christians follow mostly the New Testament, and particularly the gospels. Some of this stuff in the Old Testament is less often talked about, taught, or even brought up. The stuff they focus on from the Old Testament are lessons about being tested and having faith (like Job) or the “generally love people and be a good person” niceties from books like Psalms.
I’m not defending it. But having grown up in that world, it’s not at all like they give the same weight to these crazy verses as they do to the stories about Jesus. It’s somewhat disingenuous to mock them simply cause these verses exist. Most don’t follow these parts of the bible.
‘Spoils of war’ sounds a little different when you consider this, and the medieval blindness to the age of consent. I wonder how many incels of the past joined the crusades to get a pussy without any responsibilities.
Probably a lot. Think about the most rural places in Afghanistan, a culture disconnected from the world without a modern education. That was the majority of people in the past.
Well if it’s context you want, back in those days - and let me stress before you jump to another incorrect conclusion that I don’t agree with this - women were possessions, not the independent equals they are today. Before marriage they belonged to their fathers, and after marriage they belonged to their husbands, and in both cases she was provided for by her owner. An “unowned” woman was in a horrible position, with no provider and no ability to provide for herself, there was little option but to become a slave or a prostitute.
If her husband was killed in war then being taken on as a wife by someone else was in her better interests. And if you want to call the resulting sex rape that’s up to you, but in effect you’re calling all marital sex back then rape (because war bride or otherwise, she had no say in the matter), so it kind of loses its meaning.
That’s not really true, it’s there because the god in it is supposed to be his dad and that’s where he gets all his authority from. What’s the point of listening to jesus if his dad is a vile idiot?
The people who selected the books for the Bible would have very literally killed you for saying that those passages are abhorrent, and you could have been executed for the same crime for all over a thousand years after
It’s not that the passages are “abhorrent” but rather that it is a historical telling of what the world was like before Jesus “saved” everyone. Feel however you like about that, but that is the entire point of the book.
No, not even close. The old testament is a product of its time, a few thousand years ago. The entire religion was built around keeping power with the elders and “wise” rather than the brutalist young men. So they found ways to justify things young men would do, its approved by god, and actions that would jeopardize the power of the elders or their holdings was now a sin. By defining whats good and evil in this way they could enforce control on younger generations that could just as easily put them to the sword as they so readily did their enemies, and cast out or exiled those who challenged the status quo.
The new testament came about largely thanks to Roman incursions into Judea. Where an elder could cast out a member of their tribe and condemn them to death, a Roman officer of the legions did not fear any such reprisals of what they saw as some foolish desert cult. They killed and displaced much of the Hebrew power structure and most of the men that would rise against them that a generation of younger and milder (by standards of the day) men could add their own testament displacing the elders and giving the upcoming generation an early chance at the reigns, forming a breakaway religion we recognize as Christianity today, while those who stuck to old Orthodox Hebrew ways is what we would recognize as the Jewish religion today.
So while it is true that much of the new testament was written in a way to contrast itself against the old testament, that was done centuries after the Torah and greater part of the old testament had been the basis of the Hebrew faith for centuries.
Not really, you stated the old testament is there to show people were wicked and evil before Christianity in the new testament. That’s not why its included in the bible or why it was written.
It’s included because the entire Christian religion is built off the Hebrew writings so they are included for continuity. At times the old testament was even seen as a set of laws and ways a good person should live their life.
I’ve not once said such a thing. I said that it was included to make clear the contrast between how terrible the world was before Christ, so people can appreciate what Christ did for them. And again, you don’t have to agree with that, but you ought to at least be honest about the purpose for which it was included.
People will always draw the line for acceptable behavior just past where they find themselves.
With that in mind we can surmise that the person that wrote this was very likely guilty of war rape, but he thought highly of himself for letting the woman grieve first. Very likely the people he was writing this for were also commonly guilty of war rape and thought little of it.
Not just grieving, but making her his wife, which also means taking care of her.
It’s still rape by todays standards and I won’t be defending it. But making someone your wife was a lot better than raping a woman and then leaving her, unweddable, in a time where a woman couldn’t earn their own income
Even up until recently, marriage has still been seen as economically motivated. It’s especially the case in many developing countries. Where I’m from originally, some people still say “being practical” in terms of marrying someone. Of course you want to marry someone not just out of love but also who could provide economically. Though in many cases, the notion of “being practical” is looking for someone to be sugar daddy or sugar mommy.
That time and that culture, women didn’t give consent. Their fathers or husbands did. If she had no father or husband, then there was no one to deny a man that lusted for her. Some parts of the world still operate on this barbaric thinking.
Add comment