use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
Help victims of the Aurora shootings
Help victims of the Sikh shootings
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›
Next time somebody starts talking about marriage and references the bible, ask them if they ok with all the types of marriages found in the bible (i.imgur.com)
submitted 10 months ago by Pyehole
[–]axeman157 23 points24 points25 points 10 months ago
A rape victim has to marry her rapist!? Why do people still use the bible in the modern world?
[–]Kreblon 20 points21 points22 points 10 months ago
Marriage proposals are hard. You have to buy an expensive ring, orchestrate the right moment in the right location and say something really moving... rape is just easier.
[–]Raoul__Duke 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
I'm helpless in resisting you an upvote.
[–]lollerkeet 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
Rape doesn't mean what it used to. It was having sex with a woman you weren't entitled to; consent was not the main concern. The concern was that the woman is no longer a virgin, so had greatly diminished chance of getting married. Note that if a women is already betrothed to another, a man that rapes her is to be executed.
[–]wayndom 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
A friend of mine was engaged to marry a middle-easterner in his home country, and got cold feet but couldn't figure out how to back out of it.
Then her fiance told her they had to time their wedding to coincide with her period, because of a tradition that on their wedding night, after retiring to the boudoir, they display the bloody bedsheet, as "proof" of her virginity.
She had no problem refusing to even consider it, and that provided her with the wedge to get out of the marriage.
[–]MeloJelo 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Sounds like she made a good decision.
[–]MeloJelo 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
The concern was that the woman is no longer a virgin, so had greatly diminished chance of getting married.
Didn't she, in fact, have zero chance of getting married, as a marriage was not valid unless the girl/woman was a virgin? Also, if the girl/woman was raped in a city or town and didn't scream for help, she, too, is to be executed.
[–]lollerkeet 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
if the girl/woman was raped in a city or town and didn't scream for help, she, too, is to be executed.
Yeah, I still don't understand that one. Was it meant to scare girls away from the mean streets of Jerusalem?
[–]US_Hiker 6 points7 points8 points 10 months ago
As atrocious as it is, it was somewhat a pro-woman policy. A woman at the time, if without a husband and an adult, was essentially helpless. No way to get through life except perhaps as a prostitute. This forced the person (not necessarily rape, as described below) to provide for her.
It shouldn't happen now, but it was actually very forward for the time. At least according to Jews, in other societies, the woman would simply end up starving to death or dying unsupported in another fashion elsewhere.
[–]napoleonsolo 6 points7 points8 points 10 months ago
A pro-woman policy would be to not treat rape victims like pariahs.
[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Note the word "somewhat." In the context, it's as good as it got, and was designed to provide some protection for the women.
The authors were still Bronze and Iron Age men, and to expect their laws to stray too far from social norms of the region would be folly.
[–]JosiahJohnson 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
The objection isn't historical, it's biblical. If the bible is supposed to be the ultimate moral book, it fucking failed miserably. Of course it follows history, exactly as you would expect a book written by humans to do.
[–]napoleonsolo -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
If I said that Baybars' troops would rape the women after a seige broke, then have them write letters to their family describing the rape, then killed them, and then I mention that the Crusaders would only rape them, I think calling the Crusaders forward-thinking would be overly charitable.
You say "somewhat", I say "not significantly different".
[–]Tattycakes 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Given that, I guess you could say it was the lesser of the two evils which is what it is. Just further proof that the Bible is a dated, culturally specific document which just does not apply to modern life. Christians really take the biscuit with their picking and choosing!
It's not picking and choosing when Christian doctrine for almost as long as the term Christian has existed (doctrines stating that Christians are not necessarily under Mosaic Law come from the Apostles starting about 50AD). And even at the time, since this was the practical side of the law (the ML being divided into 3 groups...practical, ceremonial, moral), it wasn't being practiced...instead Roman law was king. So it never applied to Christianity in that sense.
The Bible most certainly is a dated, culturally specific document. Saying it has nothing to offer to modern life is taking it a step too far though, I think. I would agree that it doesn't have too much to offer (certainly far less than Christians would), but I don't think it has nothing to offer.
What would you say the Bible has to offer us in our modern lives then? I understand the "good" parts of the Bible are often downplayed and lost under all the criticism of sacrifice, slavery, misogyny and general ridiculous nonsense like mixed fabrics and marrying rapists, but I don't actually know of any good things at all; at least, no good things that we couldn't have figured out for ourselves.
It still is one of the premier series of texts giving us a window onto another world. Still very useful for history and archaeology (if not authoritative), anthropology and a host of other fields. I think there is much of value in the books of the Ketuvim, which have been formative for much of modern idioms/wisdom.
Do I think it's useful as a moral guide? Not to the exclusion of others, at least. That's kind of a silly point to try and make, imo, given how similarly independently derived moralities across continents/cultures are. I think it is useful and given the cultural resonance it possesses, it has a cachet that can be more powerful than other works to that end.
A poster on another forum once said something to the effect that the Bible was God's way of showing us how to live in cities. I haven't gone into the idea in depth, but their argumentation behind it was very intriguing and somewhat compelling. In a similar vein, it is a wonderful view onto what makes a society, and the changes it goes through as a result of traumatic experiences (the Exile, etc). Taken alone, or together with the Talmud, Midrash, and writings of the Patristic fathers, I think it is probaby the ultimate source material for a study in memetics as we see the idea of monotheism 'struggling' for its place in the world and the development of Christianity.
So no, I definitely don't think the Bible is useless to our modern lives.
[–]MeloJelo 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
This forced the person (not necessarily rape, as described below) to take possession of her.
FTFY
You make it sound as though it were just some sort of welfare system, when effectively it also made the girl the possession of her rapist, as well. "Forward for the time" does not make it any less immoral or fucked up.
Morals are not relative, although some state otherwise. Practical needs and the harshness of reality may skew one's perception of what is necessary, but logic empathy will consistently bring most, if not all, individuals of at least average intellect to just about the same conclusion. Forcing a rape victim to with her rapist is NOT OKAY, not just in our oh-so-sophisticated moral sensibilities.
[–]US_Hiker 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
It most certainly wasn't welfare. Nor am I saying it should ever occur again. I do say it's better than a situation where a woman can be raped (or simply have sex with a willing partner) and have her chances of mere survival strongly threatened though.
[–]juice_eliminator -2 points-1 points0 points 10 months ago
You're a fucking subhuman. Of course that morals are relative!
[–]jeremygrim 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
THIS, I never hear this point on r/atheism and it's completely true. Infuriating seeing so many people on this subreddit bring up that same "rape victim has to marry the rapist?! WHHUUUUUUT?!??!" point over and over again without knowing anything about its cultural / societal context
[–]MonkeysOnMyBottom 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I always read the use of the rapist thing as the counter argument to gay sex being an abomination
[–]Aavagadrro 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
So its still good for today, since the country is bases on biblical principals, and its the inerrant word of god.
I get your point though, and it is forward thinking considering they didnt just stone her for getting raped.
I never said it was good for today. Look, if someone wants to apply this directly to today's society and follows it exactly they're psychotic. But we're equally stupid to continue to cite it over and over again as an example of how evil the Bible is. We should only be condemning the lunatics who actually agree with the direct implementation of this rule in modern society (and even among devout Christians you will surely find very few)
[–]Aavagadrro -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
Fuck that, the moderate religious nuts allow for and encourage the crazy retards to exist by espousing how pious it is to have faith over reason. Also only going after the lunatics would be an exercise in futility, because fundies and zealots will pick and choose what to follow, what to ignore, and who to hate based on their own personal agenda, or by listening to idiots such as Pat Robertson.
No, we blame them all because the whole fairy tale ideology is to blame.
[–]BlatantFootFetishist -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
If Joe Average picks up the bible and reads that the creator of the universe says that women who are raped must marry their rapists, the context is neither here nor there.
What matters is the words in the book.
[–]rmeddy 7 points8 points9 points 10 months ago
Relevant
[–]Tself 15 points16 points17 points 10 months ago
I've seen this reposted to the front page at least once a month, but I still upvote it every time. EVERYONE needs to see this shit, learn what is inside the top selling book of all time.
[–]Sinfanti 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
Now we know why the book is really so popular - sex sells.
[–]Tself 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Sex and violence ftw.
[–]Sinfanti -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
[–]thrawnie 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Did anyone else see "male soldier" and think "Boba Fett with rusty tipped rocket"? No. Just me then? Aight, carry on.
[–]B0Boman 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
Did anyone else think that the one second from the bottom on the right was promoting robot marriage at first glance?
[–]wayndom 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I HATE it when same-sex marriage opponents suggest (without saying so, so they must know it's a lie) that "one man, one woman" is the only kind of marriage condoned by the bible.
Such people (Rick "Brainless" Santorum comes to mind) should be attacked for opposing god's word in the bible. Fight fire with eternal hellfire, as it were...
[–]lollerbladz 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
1000 old shekels equals 1 new shekels which means 50 old shekels equals 0.05 new shekels which equals 0.01 US dollars.
Sounds about right.
[–]PlatonicTroglodyte 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Blech. Someone please fix this to say, "polygamy," not, "polygany."
[–]MeloJelo 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
*Polygyny, but it is an important to differentiate between polygamy and polygyny.
[–]Stair_Car[] 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
Polygany is not a word.
[–]dogsent 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
Polygyny (from neo-Greek: πολύ poly - "many", and γυνή gyny - "woman or wife") is a form of marriage in which a man has two or more wives at the same time.
[–]Stair_Car[] 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
What does that have to do with "polygany?"
[–]dogsent 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
An alternative to the obvious.
Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "often married") is a marriage which includes more than two partners.
There was a typo. Just not sure which letter was typed wrong. Doesn't really matter of course.
[–]Ragnalypse 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I happen to find all of those more attractive than gay marriage.
No offense gay redditors.
For a second there I thought you were a fundie troll. Then I thought about it.
[–]Ragnalypse 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Nope - atheist. Glad you thought about it, I say "more attractive" in a physical sense.
Also, is "platonic" and troglodyte" merged as randomly as they seem in your name, or is there some unseen meaning to the usage of the two words? All I can think of is a castrated caveman.
[–]PlatonicTroglodyte 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Of course I thought about it. After all, I'm an atheist as well.
"Platonic" is derived to loosely mean 'of Plato.' In the case of platonic love, it is a reference to the discussion of love in his Symposium. I took the 'of Plato' aspect of it and disregarded the 'love' connotation. Therefore, it is really a reference to Plato's Cave. Specifically, it is to remind me that no matter how desperately we believe we are the people outside of the cave, we're really the prisoners looking at the wall, because we'll never fully shed our perspectives and see the world as it really is. I've caught myself too many times thinking that others who disagree with something so obviously true to me are dumb, and I hoped this would help remind me that all human conflict is rooted in differences in perception.
tl;dr: Reference to Plato, not a castrated caveman.
This is why I asked. Clarity achieved.
On an unrelated note, plato was an odd fellow. His shadows on the wall concept is a question that has followed humanity all the way until The Matrix. But he also made arbitrary assertions about the nature of "heavenly bodies", namely that since they are heavenly, and thus perfect, they MUST travel in perfect circles. Funny how a man can be inspired one moment and random the next.
[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
About the male slave + female slave thing. What if the male slave refused to "take" the female slave for some reason? Could he be punished?
[–]d3adbor3d2 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
rape, polygamy, etc. = we're cool gay sex = gasp! horrors
[–]Confuted 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
To be fair, Christians don't follow Mosaic law, nor are they even obligated to.
Don't get me wrong, I think Christians using the bible to denounce gay marriage is wrong, but bringing up the fact that they don't follow the laws found in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. doesn't really hurt their "argument".
[–]smiffus 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
i think it does hurt their argument. the same god christians serve today is the god that decreed those laws and commanded people to obey them at some point in history. it becomes difficult to defend the morality of this monster, even if those commands aren't considered mandatory for today. god is supposedly omnipotent and unchanging, so his ideas about morality can legitimately be called into question....
I agree with your point on his changing morality, but I don't think this sign goes about arguing it in the right way.
What would be the right way, pray tell? I think pointing out the inconsistency in morality and the inconsistency in the stance of those Christians claim that the Bible endorses only one form of marriage (a man and a woman) because supposedly only that is the only kind endorsed by God (i.e. homosexual union is not).
Christ very specifically denied that his teachings in any way overturned the old testament, and he went on to say that his purpose was to affirm the O.T. teachings.
Not really. First, posters here generally put the emphasis on 'not abolish' whereas Christians put the emphasis on 'fulfill.' Matthew 5:17 (and similar verses from him) are entirely misinterpreted here (or simply taken out of context). Also note that it's Christianity, not Jesusism. The first being a combination of tradition, apostolic teachings, Jesus' teachings, reasoned doctrines, etc,... the second (fake one) being just Jesus' teachings. I suggest a reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_law_in_Christianity
That's fine that they put the emphasis on "fulfill," but the surrounding text along with the previous "not abolish" makes interpreting "fulfill" as meaning "no longer applies" nonsensical. Use your context clues, kids!
Yes. Context clues such as what the Apostles thought he meant. Things we can infer from say, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
[–]Godssheep 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Are you saying that God himself changed the "holy institution" that is Marriage at some point?
He went from being a swinger to being a puritan?
[–]napoleonsolo 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
It destroys their "argument" that marriage has "always been one man, one woman".
[–]SometimesATroll 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
" For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -Mattew 5:18
One verse taken out of context doesn't really say anything. Looking at the entire New Testament as a whole gives a very different view on the matter. Biblical scholars from the very beginning recognized that it is no longer necessary to follow Old Testament laws.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5
You're right. It was out of context. Pretty convenient that biblical scholars get to ignore the uncomfortable bits even though the new testament forbids that sort of shenanigans.
Still taken out of the context of Christian theology. I posted this just above, but perhaps you should read it as well.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ks8mz/next_time_somebody_starts_talking_about_marriage/c2mtihw
Christian theology = the varied and sometimes dissenting interpretations of thousands of theologians. Not to mention that many aspects of these different interpretations are accepted in some sects and rejected in others . . .
Yes, indeed. But few doctrines are as near universal among Christians as not believing they are under Mosaic Law. Very few sects believe they are bound to uphold all of the ML, all are extremely small compared to any established denomination, and very recent.
[–]dblthnk 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Yeah seriously! It's not like the authors of the New Testament weren't just reading and rehashing the Old Testament when coming up with codes of behavior or anything. Sheesh.
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Seems to me that Jesus wasn't trying to create a church. Paul was. Biblical theology is based more on Paul than on what Jesus said.
Paul was trying to make a living as a religious leader. Jesus was a wandering holy man who had taken a vow of poverty.
[–]johndoe42 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Sure, that's what they use to deflect the argument but the question wasn't "do you follow it?" The question was "are you OK with those forms of marriage?"
I had one guy who absolutely refused to say whether polygamy was a sin. It would mean that since god specifically regulated it and made provisions for it, he was a party to sin. If it wasn't sin, then there's no reason we can't do it today and god contradicted himself when he said "husband of one wife."
[–]turnleftdale -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 months ago
Thanks for reposting this for the 5 time this week.
[–]Pyehole[S] 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
That's the benefit of a re-post. Those who haven't seen it before get a chance to see it.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]axeman157 23 points24 points25 points ago
[–]Kreblon 20 points21 points22 points ago
[–]Raoul__Duke 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]lollerkeet 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]wayndom 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lollerkeet 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]napoleonsolo 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JosiahJohnson 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]napoleonsolo -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Tattycakes 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Tattycakes 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]juice_eliminator -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]jeremygrim 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MonkeysOnMyBottom 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Aavagadrro 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]jeremygrim 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Aavagadrro -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]BlatantFootFetishist -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]rmeddy 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]Tself 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]Sinfanti 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Tself 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Sinfanti -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]thrawnie 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]B0Boman 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]wayndom 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lollerbladz 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]PlatonicTroglodyte 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Stair_Car[
] 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]dogsent 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Stair_Car[
] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Ragnalypse 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]PlatonicTroglodyte 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Ragnalypse 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]PlatonicTroglodyte 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Ragnalypse 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]d3adbor3d2 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Confuted 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]smiffus 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Confuted 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]wayndom 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Godssheep 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]napoleonsolo 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SometimesATroll 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Confuted 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SometimesATroll 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]US_Hiker 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dblthnk 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]johndoe42 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]turnleftdale -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]Pyehole[S] 4 points5 points6 points ago