Biblical Marriages

Because we all follow the bible to the letter –

  • Leave A Comment

  • Leave a comment ?

    19 Responses to Biblical Marriages

    1. Man, as soon as they start making laws according to the bible like the founding fathers intended, I’m gonna get my rape on. I can dig enough shekels out of the couch.


      • I’m holding out for slaves from neighboring countries myself, and beating people who have to work on Sundays to death, and stoning to death people who eat shellfish, wear polyester, cheat on their spouses, the spouses who got cheated on, and uppity children.


    2. female virgins of mcs raise your hands


    3. Yeah? And? Is this post intended to draw opposition to this sort of thing? Because No.


      • Think it’s trying to point out the fact that the people who say “the bible says marriage is between one man and one woman” probably never read the bible.


        • Well, regardless of the heavy-handed attempt at refuting it’s already dubious credibility, anyone interested in using this as a critical debating point in support of gay marriage probably also didn’t read that same Bible, because those points are resolved with a little more clarity, typically lots of fire and stones and sweet, sweet death.


          • True, but is worth showing that some people tend to cherry pick what they want to believe from the bible. They don’t seem to support rape victims being forced to marry their attackers, but they steadfastly condemn gay marriage.


            • Technically, anyone (of the Christian faith) clinging to those antiquated Mosaic tenets and using them to perpetrate their cultural elitism is being devious, hypocritical, ignorant, and/or simply confused. Jesus repealed the Mosaic law, as he had the authority to, and boiled everything down to loving God and your neighbour, and more or less dismissed the generally bloodthirsty set of laws by which the Jews had carved out their little niche in the world. The ‘eye for an eye’ became ‘turn the other cheek’, etc., so the way of thinking presented in this image, while being totally OK with me, shouldn’t be OK for mainstream Christians, because it’s really a relic of thought treasured by non-Messianic Abrahamic religions, i.e., Jews and Muslims. So Christians interested in bringing back stoning for mundane human behaviours should consider converting to a No-Fly-List faith…

              And people shouldn’t condemn gay marriage because they forgot to read all the way through the Book of Matthew, gay marriage should be condemned on its inherent value: it’s just fuggin nasteh, unless both chicks are hot.


            • @centernegative

              How about you stop being preoccupied with guys dicking each other and let consenting adults do whatever the fuck they want.


    4. Do all Concubines dress like “I Dream of Jeanie”?
      Also, is it rape if he just spooged all over her dress like that?


    5. Can’t you just have some randoms on the side instead of having so many wifes?


    6. @ dmytriw-wds Deal with it, white knight/moralfag.


    7. It’s always tiresome when a biblical illiterate tries making commentary.

      Let’s take it from the top:

      1)Marriages were usually arranged— but were not required by law, they were a cultural habit (one known to every culture on EARTH) , and forbidding “interfaith marriages”(which took place anyway) might have had something to do with the fact that other “faiths” in the region engaged in human sacrifice and other depravities. Brides were not stoned “if they could not prove their virginity…” they were stoned if it were proven that, during their engagement, they had cheated (a little technique involving being able to count to nine months.) Coincidentally, the man who she cheated with was executed too…

      2)Man+brother’s widow. This, dullards, was done to protect the WOMAN— as in that culture and that time, a woman depended upon her eldest son to care for her in her old age. Having her brother in law required to marry her and provide her with a son was to protect her from destitution.

      3)woman+rapist: completely incorrect. The law referenced basically stated that an unmarried man who lay with an unmarried woman was to take responsibility and marry her or, if her father did not approve of him, was to pay 50 shekels… the typical cost of her DOWRY, as it was going to be a mite harder to get someone to marry her. It was clarified further in later passages that rapists were to be stoned, as their crime was “akin to murder”— but if the woman did not resist or cry out, she didn’t get to shout “date rape” later (sound familiar guys?)

      4)Man+wives+concubines: yes, people in the OT did this. First, most of the examples noted were BEFORE the passing down of the law, and second, while they did occur that did not mean they were approved of.

      5)man+wife+wife’s property: completely incorrect. The law expressly forbade slave owners to lie with their slaves*.

      6)Male slave*+Female slave*. Yes, a slave owner could give his slaves to one another in marriage…. that, however, does not automatically imply coercion.

      7)Male soldier+Prisoner of war: yes, welcome to planet earth, B.C. A common practice of every civilization on earth— brides as prizes of war. The key difference? Under Hebrew Law, It guaranteed the women thus captured the rights and protections of Hebrew law….they were taken as brides, or were to be untouched….. in a time when the usual practice of invading armies was to pass the captured women around from soldier to soldier and then leave their corpses in a ditch.

      *Slaves in the Old Testament would be more accurately termed indentured servants. While some were captured in war, most were people who sold themselves to pay off a debt. Furthermore they had a specific sunset provision on their servitude, (x number of years or freed on the Year of Jubilee, whichever came first), they were protected from both neglect and abuse by the law, and if they were abused, molested, or even if they just fled their master they were NOT to be returned. Once freed, they even had the option to remain a permanent bondservant in their master’s household. A guaranteed job contract with full room,board, and medical, full legal protection, forfeiture clauses and option to renew for life. Feel free to try and get a job TODAY with those provisions.


    Leave a Comment

    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas