“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.
“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.”
All these are acceptable then:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Oh, Margie, NO! Please don’t stone this wonderful person! /s
