this post was submitted on
606 points (76% like it)
874 up votes 268 down votes

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 ›

all 37 comments

[–]nhhow 13 points14 points ago

TIL concubines dress like pink Jasmines from Aladdin.

[–]rigel2112 7 points8 points ago

[–]Halloween_Jack[S] 3 points4 points ago

The point of this infographic is to show the many forms of intimate relationships that is condoned and, sometimes, even celebrated by God in the Bible that most people who claim that the only religiously acceptable form of those relationships is MAN + WOMAN aren't aware.

But all in all:

Genesis 2:24: People often quote this to justify why a marriage is between one man and one woman only.

Genesis 16: This is an example of an intimate relationship blessed by God which is not in accordance with the "legitimate" HUSBAND + WIFE notion.

Genesis 38:6-10: Again, this is given as an example of what was, not only acceptable, but mandatory, regardless of how the man or the woman felt about it. See: Deuteronomy 25:7-10, Matthew 24:28.

[–]GuyMumbles 0 points1 point ago

From my reading of that last verse, it sounds a lot like holding the mother and child hostage.

[–]toyotaviejo 8 points9 points ago

This is my favorite repost, honestly. Post it here weekly. Someone needs to make this in a wallet size card. It's such a fantastic graphic we should all have it at the ready at all times. Also, put this on bookmarks and place in hotel bibles!

[–]Diknak 0 points1 point ago

lol, so true. I would love to have one handy to give out to bible thumpers that come to my door and give ME cards.

[–]ew73 2 points3 points ago

Print that shit on the other side of "jesus money". Begin campaign to replace existing "jesus money".

[–]Scarytownterminator 7 points8 points ago

I didn't see any gays, so sounds about right!

[–]savage_beast 3 points4 points ago

I'll take the prisoner of war if I get the armor and sword.

[–]raekwonwhite 3 points4 points ago

Send this over to r/Christianity and watch them acrobatically denounce it yet still cling to the infallibility of the bible.

[–]Destator 0 points1 point ago

You can't remove an entire lifetime of teaching and belief with one image.

[–]rubberlikewalrus 1 point2 points ago

damn solomon had 700 wives+ 300 concubines

[–]otakuman 1 point2 points ago

Curious fact: Apparently women worshipped the mother-goddess Asherah, as Yahweh was a deity focused too much on men's affairs. After Josiah's reforms, (almost) all traces of Asherah were destroyed.

[–]case-o-nuts 1 point2 points ago

[–]Aevum1 1 point2 points ago

remember the kids ;)

[–]yellowdrink 1 point2 points ago

THis is what Chick-Fil-A supports. Not Gays

[–]Lawtonfogle 1 point2 points ago

Why do people always forget man + female child.

Talmud (Jewish book of oral law) allows for marriage as young as 3 years and one day.

Also, you got Deuteronomy wrong.

First, the female is not just any female, but a na'arah, which is a pubescent female, tended to be around ages 12-13 back then, but I believe is strictly defined as a female with two pubic hairs (and shaving doesn't count). The period a girl is a na'arah lasts for around 6 months, after which she reaches a new stage (which name I forget). In the new stage, if her father has failed to arrange her a marriage, she is given the power to pick another male in the community to arrange her marriage (very liberating... sigh).

Next, the word used isn't rape, as there is a separate word used for that. It is actually two different words, one of them being for consensual sex, the other being for seizing/claiming. So 'kinda rape', which when you combine it with her age, is probably best counted a statutory rape.

Finally, this only applies if her father has failed to arrange her marriage. If she is arranged to marry someone else, and is 'kinda raped', then the guy is put to death.

Now, normally if a married or engaged female consensually has sex with someone who isn't her husband or husband to be, she is put to death. But because this verse is defined as not only including rape, there is a chance that if a guy basically seduces a preteen arranged to be married, the girl is not put to death (but the guy is). That said, I am not sure of this.

[–]Clev3r 1 point2 points ago

A lot of people don't realize that a lot of these laws were used as a way to protect woman's rights, albeit the little they had. If a woman was raped and lost her virginity, then if she were to NOT marry the rapist, she would be stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding day and furthermore, forcing a rapist to marry his victim would discourage rape since they would have to support her for the rest of her life. Also marrying your brother's widow was another way to give a woman some form of support since a widow would have no form of income on her own. It's foolish to compare these laws to modern times since obviously now woman aren't considered property and can definitely support themselves without a man but these laws weren't solely made with misogynistic intentions.

[–]Halloween_Jack[S] 1 point2 points ago

It's foolish to compare these laws to modern times (...)

It's called a double standard.

Why do some christians condemn marriage equality based on biblical writings and when it is pointed out to them that there are aspects of the Bible that shouldn't be applied to our times, they go all "you're putting it out of context"...

[–]nyannekochan 2 points3 points ago

I just really wanna know how people figured out which girls were virgins before killing them. I mean, not all the unmarried girls could have possibly been virgins?

[–]rigel2112 2 points3 points ago

It's up to the girls to prove it. They have to figure out how.

[–]Luvs_to_drink 2 points3 points ago

And that is how Jesus was born...

[–]nyannekochan 2 points3 points ago

I mean, in the midst of killing their enemies, do they figure it out on the spot or gather up all the womenfolk and figure it out later?

[–]hibb 1 point2 points ago

I'm sure there was a way and I'm sure it was barbaric and demeaning.

[–]masris 1 point2 points ago

[–]distactedOne 1 point2 points ago

Hey, it's this again! I should save it one of these days.

[–]themcp 1 point2 points ago

I loved this image the first 85 times it was posted.

[–]Ssyphon 0 points1 point ago

Is there a High-Res of this image? I want to have it in poster form!

[–]bzeurunkl 0 points1 point ago

[–]someguy1290 0 points1 point ago

I like the rebuttal but it doesn't directly address the criticism the man makes. I think she went a better route but it is worth noting how what he said may be wrong. He talked about how sometimes the god of the bible helped people in spite of bad behavior. I would pull the special pleading card. The fact that all these "perverse" relationships weren't directly damned is good evidence that they are condoned.

[–]thomyorke64 0 points1 point ago

I was hoping someone would make an infographic of this. Great work!

[–]Brynjolf-of-Riften 0 points1 point ago

I used this yesterday in a debate, it is a good reference for anyone when arguing with Fundies.

[–]ccudc -3 points-2 points ago

lol.

[–]Cyrino420 -3 points-2 points ago

I need a slave girl or two.