You're viewing a single thread.
The bible more directly endorses war rape:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 ESV
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.
Yahweh was originally a Levantine god of war, which explains the violent and weird accounts in the Old Testament.
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
'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.
How does "she gets a month to mourn and then you get married" equate to "pussy without any responsibilities"?
Shut the fuck up, why are you ignoring the rest of the context for that? Forced war brides and rape are fine if you give them a grieving period??
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.
is this something they really put in the Bible to adhere to? Like you can do the deed but let them cry for a month first 😭
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.
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.
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.
The entire old testament is included for the explicit purpose of reminding people how terrible the world was before Christ's new covenant.
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.
Can't say I disagree with you. What you wrote is more of an in depth version of what I did, in my estimation.
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.
people were wicked and evil before Christianity
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.
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.
Oddly specific ask of the Bible
That's ridiculous.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 ESV
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.
It's not mockery, it's a counter to the frequent assertion that religion is a source of morality.
Also when you consider most Christians consider the text to be wholly sacred, and many consider the Bible to be fully literal and without any fault.
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.
Yes, but it's still ridiculous.
In today's, especially western, point of view? Sure. But luckily there really aren't Christians anymore who actually do this today.
then why are millions of people still using an incredibly outdated book as a "source" of their "morality"
They largely only study and follow parts of that book. The entire thing doesn't hold equal weight to them.
Then they're choosing which parts of the book to follow based on their own morality, disproving that the Bible is the source of their morality.
You're grossly oversimplifying spirituality.
then elaborate
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.
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.
Well that explains everything