Paul probably didn't write that paragraph of verses. It was most likely added by someone else along the way.
To your point of people wanting to take only portions of the Bible literally and ignore others, there are TONS of things that the old testament says to do that we don't do every day.
I'm not defending Christianity, but the actual defense of pork is that Jesus had made pork clean, in a vision to Peter where the analogy was that Jesus also made non Jewish people clean, since mixing with them was also forbidden. So less accident, more amendment.
They would also claim (from my experience in a cult anyway) that the old laws were necessary at the time they were given, but by the time Jesus came he could revise them as they were more ready.
If we look at it from a secular viewpoint, badly cooked pork probably caused a bunch of illness to was banned, and by the time Jesus supposedly existed people had learned to cook it more safely.
Nah, I can see Paul saying that, I just cannot see Jesus (who was openly kissing women like men kissed men and basically publicly recognising them as equals! The horror, lol) saying that. 🤷
Nowhere, actually, I must have hallucinated it (?!). Perhaps in some apocryphal gospel? Religious fiction? Sorry for spreading misinformation, I really thought I read it.
I'm kinda blunt, and gigantic. I tell anyone trying to lecture me about religion that I'm member of the satanic temple. Which isn't a complete lie as I do donate monthly to my local one.
being a church musician (half of the band is atheist, as is the pastor but that's like half of all pastors i've ever met) offers remarkably nice cover given that statesia is leaning gilead right now
I did a quick look, but tbh I would need to know more about ancient judaic wedding practices.
Here goes: in Gospel by Luke, when Mary gets the announcement, they are betrothed (fiancée).
In Gospel by Matthew, Joseph hears of this and wants to cancel the betrothement, but gets an explanation by an angel and "takes her in" but doesn't sleep with her until after Jesus is born.
In Gospel by Luke, when they arrive in Bethlehem, they're called betrothed. So I don't know how official and extensive the "taking in" is to be seen.
Anyways, look what I found in the Song of Mary:
He performs mighty deeds with his arm; he scatters those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He brings down rulers from their thrones but lifts up the humble.
He fills the hungry with good things but sends the rich away empty.
luke 2 verse 5 in the king james version i grew up with:
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child
luke 1 verses 26 and 27
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
now i always took that espoused in context to mean betrothed, not married. although i was never 100% up on marriage customs of the time. they had a formal relationship, were planning on being married, she claims she was a virgin and she was very pregnant. that's what i got.
In Gospel by Matthew, Joseph hears of this and wants to cancel the betrothement, but gets an explanation by an angel and "takes her in" but doesn't sleep with her until after Jesus is born.
That's the interesting one, where she turns up pregnant, and Joe is pissed because he hasn't slept with her, and he wants nothing to do with this slut, but some "angel" shows up, who looks like he could be one of her uncles or something, and explains how it's not her fault, and Joe is going to "do the right thing, capisce?" and Joe agrees, but he still thinks she's still a slut.
I mean, if the goat shepherds have some strong moral positions, I don't see why they'd be disqualified. Ethics isn't something we invented in the 21st century, ffs. Bronze Age humans had as much a claim to it as anyone. Just ask Socrates or Confucius or Nezahualcóyotl.
Given the current state of the 21st century political scene, I'm not bending over to give modern day philosophers extra credit. Say what you will about Thomas Aquinas, he doesn't appear anywhere in the Epstein flight logs. That's more than Noam Chomsky or Peter Mandelson can claim.
Outside the Ten Commandments (supposedly), the Bible was written entirely by fallible humans - these assholes keep forgetting that part & act like it's 100% perfect (which we know it's not simply by its own self-contradictions).
Also an awful lot of it is about being submissive and letting people take advantage of you. At least based off what I see getting quoted all the time. Weird how it's always people who're trying to control you quoting it.
The Gospel of Thomas has stories of Jesus being a little shithead as a kid, performing miracles just to freak everybody out. He even killed a kid once, but brought him back to life when the whole neighborhood got pissed and threatened to kick Joe's ass.
Excuse me but old baldy Elisha successfully cast summon shebear swarm and I posit any being able to summon and command not just a shebear but a swarm of shebears just might be infallible
starts off with an old man putting on a robe and a wizard hat and squaring off against a shebear. "YOU WILL OBEY ME" and then there's no more old man. just robe and wizard hat
Society changed a lot since Biblical times. They didn't "live together" in the same house, but these people certainly "lived together" in the same street or village before getting married. People didn't really have a lot of "home life" like we do now, they'd be out in the fields, or cooking in front of their home. So they'd see each other's home life and it's more "getting a house for themselves" than a big change in privacy or contact hours.
It isn't accurate anyway, the Bible certainly supports living together with people while not married in certain situations, for example with (sex) slaves.
The Bible is very contradictory because it's a collection of books written throughout millennia, usually with prophets saying A and judges and scholars saying B (and people usually following B).
And I see Stanzi is on her Madonna-styled Trinitarian rebellion, lol. I love her content, hopefully she's not doing too many bumps!
They usually had a communal bed back then where everyone slepped on the same family bed together... Kids, gramma, sister and her boyfriend going at it, the wife and the husband going at it.
79 Comments
agingelderly@lemmy.world · 138 pts · 205d
What does it say about women speaking again?
TunaLobster@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 205d
Paul probably didn't write that paragraph of verses. It was most likely added by someone else along the way.
To your point of people wanting to take only portions of the Bible literally and ignore others, there are TONS of things that the old testament says to do that we don't do every day.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 61 pts · 205d
A whole lot of the bible wasn't written by Paul. Doesn't mean its not part of the bible.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 205d
That sounds like a very feminine opinion
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 204d
Christians on old testament laws:
prohibition on eating pork: god actually didn't mean we should stop eating pork. It was an accident bro.
prohibition on vaguely sexual acts without clear translation: this is the word of god, how dare these people exist
chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 204d
I'm not defending Christianity, but the actual defense of pork is that Jesus had made pork clean, in a vision to Peter where the analogy was that Jesus also made non Jewish people clean, since mixing with them was also forbidden. So less accident, more amendment.
They would also claim (from my experience in a cult anyway) that the old laws were necessary at the time they were given, but by the time Jesus came he could revise them as they were more ready.
If we look at it from a secular viewpoint, badly cooked pork probably caused a bunch of illness to was banned, and by the time Jesus supposedly existed people had learned to cook it more safely.
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 204d
If only they took jesus' thousands of negative views on the wealthy as seriously as they take his one revision to pork law.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 205d
Nah, I can see Paul saying that, I just cannot see Jesus (who was openly kissing women like men kissed men and basically publicly recognising them as equals! The horror, lol) saying that. 🤷
CXORA@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 205d
Would you mind telling me which verse tells us jesus kissed women in greeting?
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 205d
Nowhere, actually, I must have hallucinated it (?!). Perhaps in some apocryphal gospel? Religious fiction? Sorry for spreading misinformation, I really thought I read it.
TexasDrunk@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 205d
I'd have to go look but I think that was in the gospel of Philip. Apocryphal, but interesting.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 205d
Awesome, thanks for checking. It didn't sound familiar.
Taleya@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 205d
Pfffffnthe first friggin disciple was Mary
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 204d
and the first witness of the risen jesus. paul can go get some ribs removed
slickgoat@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 204d
Paul never even met Jesus. He had a vision that Jesus wanted him to be a disciple.
Try having a vision that you are a billionaire CEO of some big Wall Street company and see how far that will take you?
QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 196d
I feel like if I put enough production value into it I could get a following that goes for it.
Kinda like how people think Elon is a genius not because of anything he did but because people paid to say he was one said he was one
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 204d
was i in the k-hole for the vision, because...
mycodesucks@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 205d
Equally controversial fact:
I am not obliged by law or morality to follow what is written in your fucking book either way.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 12 pts · 205d
My version: I don't fucking care what your dumb book says.
Taleya@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 205d
I used to always reply with "i'm Jewish". They gear clashed like fucking crazy. It was hilarious.
Now i'm done even vaguely entertaining these shitheels
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 204d
i used to use "i'm pagan" and watch the sparks fly but that's gonna get me killed one of these days
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 204d
I'm kinda blunt, and gigantic. I tell anyone trying to lecture me about religion that I'm member of the satanic temple. Which isn't a complete lie as I do donate monthly to my local one.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 204d
being a church musician (half of the band is atheist, as is the pastor but that's like half of all pastors i've ever met) offers remarkably nice cover given that statesia is leaning gilead right now
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 204d
Oh cool, I'm also a Catholic.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 52 pts · 205d
Didn't Mary and Joseph live together before they were married?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 205d
It was acceptable because Mary could do sick ollies at the half pipe
lauha@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 205d
No, they just had a baby in a cave together and claimed it was a virgin birth.
Seriously though, I thought they were married?
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 13 pts · 205d
I feel like if they were married it would have been expected that mary wasn't a virgin
CXORA@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 205d
They get married at some point after jesus is conceived, and have other children (opinion varies, catholics maintain that Mary remained a virgin)
HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 205d
So Jesus was a bastard?
CXORA@aussie.zone · 11 pts · 205d
Did you think Mary and god were married before today?
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 205d
They got married today?
CXORA@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 205d
Oh no, married has been got?!
HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 205d
I get the feeling most Christians seem to think so.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 205d
Joe be like "You're pregnant AGAIN! And I suppose GOD is the father AGAIN, right?" {Walks away, muttering angrily "...while I'm getting NOTHING..."}
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 205d
Just Biff
wieson@feddit.org · 4 pts · 205d
I did a quick look, but tbh I would need to know more about ancient judaic wedding practices.
Here goes: in Gospel by Luke, when Mary gets the announcement, they are betrothed (fiancée).
In Gospel by Matthew, Joseph hears of this and wants to cancel the betrothement, but gets an explanation by an angel and "takes her in" but doesn't sleep with her until after Jesus is born.
In Gospel by Luke, when they arrive in Bethlehem, they're called betrothed. So I don't know how official and extensive the "taking in" is to be seen.
Anyways, look what I found in the Song of Mary:
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 205d
Sounds like He needs to get back to work.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 204d
luke 2 verse 5 in the king james version i grew up with:
luke 1 verses 26 and 27
now i always took that espoused in context to mean betrothed, not married. although i was never 100% up on marriage customs of the time. they had a formal relationship, were planning on being married, she claims she was a virgin and she was very pregnant. that's what i got.
lauha@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 204d
Which is very unclear considering it is a translation. Besides is it ever mentioned they lived together. They travel together to pay taxes yes
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 205d
That's the interesting one, where she turns up pregnant, and Joe is pissed because he hasn't slept with her, and he wants nothing to do with this slut, but some "angel" shows up, who looks like he could be one of her uncles or something, and explains how it's not her fault, and Joe is going to "do the right thing, capisce?" and Joe agrees, but he still thinks she's still a slut.
Good story, bro.
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 204d
That’s right and then the virgin Jesus rose from the dead in a manger and they rolled away the lamb of god
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 38 pts · 205d
Did God marry Mary, before he knocked her up?
totally_human_emdash_user@piefed.blahaj.zone · 28 pts · 205d
No, but in his defense, neither did he live with her.
D_C@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 205d
Incorrect. He lives inside all of us! HE'S INSIDE OF YOU RIGHT NOW!!
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 205d
I hope y'all's god likes pörkölt because that's what she's getting
mech@feddit.org · 5 pts · 205d
I didn't consent to this!
BlackVenom@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 205d
UwU Jesus Christ
SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 205d
Some really unfortunate power dynamics in that relationship.
blarghly@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 205d
Problematic
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 205d
Dysfunctional
elbiter@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 204d
What should be controversial is pretending a goat shepherds religious book from the bronze age should have any kind of authority in the 21st century.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 204d
I mean, if the goat shepherds have some strong moral positions, I don't see why they'd be disqualified. Ethics isn't something we invented in the 21st century, ffs. Bronze Age humans had as much a claim to it as anyone. Just ask Socrates or Confucius or Nezahualcóyotl.
Given the current state of the 21st century political scene, I'm not bending over to give modern day philosophers extra credit. Say what you will about Thomas Aquinas, he doesn't appear anywhere in the Epstein flight logs. That's more than Noam Chomsky or Peter Mandelson can claim.
sfxrlz@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 18 pts · 205d
Every time I hear the word bible and fact in the same sentence the church bells start ringing in my head.
HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 205d
Thou shalt boof but not before 3 days after the sabbath. So it is written
SanctimoniousApe@piefed.social · 17 pts · 205d
Outside the Ten Commandments (supposedly), the Bible was written entirely by fallible humans - these assholes keep forgetting that part & act like it's 100% perfect (which we know it's not simply by its own self-contradictions).
stoy@lemmy.zip · 18 pts · 205d
It is also important to not forget about how the Bible was formed.
What we know as the Bible is a collection of books, selected by a committee during a conclave centuries ago.
Any decision made by humans in power and influence will inevitably be favoring their own goals and politics.
There are plenty of other Christian texts that were excluded, how would they have changed Christianity if they were included?
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 204d
Also an awful lot of it is about being submissive and letting people take advantage of you. At least based off what I see getting quoted all the time. Weird how it's always people who're trying to control you quoting it.
TexasDrunk@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 205d
They left out the good shit. The Apocalypse of Peter preaching universal salvation and the Enoch books with all the cool stuff in them.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 204d
The Gospel of Thomas has stories of Jesus being a little shithead as a kid, performing miracles just to freak everybody out. He even killed a kid once, but brought him back to life when the whole neighborhood got pissed and threatened to kick Joe's ass.
Ava@piefed.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 205d
The Ten Commandments, famous for being identical and consistent across varying versions of religious scripture and sections within the same!
bus_factor@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 205d
Also somehow the King James version is authoritative, after who knows how many links of translation phone games?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 205d
Excuse me but old baldy Elisha successfully cast summon shebear swarm and I posit any being able to summon and command not just a shebear but a swarm of shebears just might be infallible
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 204d
That's a screenplay right there.
A whole movie about a woman who commands a gang of angry she-bears? Oh, yeah, I'd watch that.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 204d
starts off with an old man putting on a robe and a wizard hat and squaring off against a shebear. "YOU WILL OBEY ME" and then there's no more old man. just robe and wizard hat
jimonthony@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 205d
There are so many books. It is strange that this one gets so much attention.
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 205d
Controversial fact: Gondor does in fact call for aid.
neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 205d
We mustn't answer the call!
sundray@lemmus.org · 4 pts · 205d
Not until we're married, anyway.
feannag@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 205d
But it's a Good Book don't ya know! If you just read one book it should be a Good Book.
TIN@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 205d
Unexpected Tim Minchin
Hoimo@ani.social · 14 pts · 204d
Society changed a lot since Biblical times. They didn't "live together" in the same house, but these people certainly "lived together" in the same street or village before getting married. People didn't really have a lot of "home life" like we do now, they'd be out in the fields, or cooking in front of their home. So they'd see each other's home life and it's more "getting a house for themselves" than a big change in privacy or contact hours.
Hapankaali@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 204d
It isn't accurate anyway, the Bible certainly supports living together with people while not married in certain situations, for example with (sex) slaves.
_Nico198X_@europe.pub · 11 pts · 205d
she cracks me up. hilarious skit work.
Stanzi
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 204d
Stanzi is fucking hilarious.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 205d
The Bible is very contradictory because it's a collection of books written throughout millennia, usually with prophets saying A and judges and scholars saying B (and people usually following B).
And I see Stanzi is on her Madonna-styled Trinitarian rebellion, lol. I love her content, hopefully she's not doing too many bumps!
altphoto@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 204d
They usually had a communal bed back then where everyone slepped on the same family bed together... Kids, gramma, sister and her boyfriend going at it, the wife and the husband going at it.
Very biblical.
stiffyGlitch@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 204d
I can't read
QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 196d
The biblical definition of marriage is 1 Man 1 Harem