this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
522 points (96.8% liked)

Atheism

4028 readers
104 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml 108 points 8 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 47 points 8 months ago (2 children)

'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.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] letsgo@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How does "she gets a month to mourn and then you get married" equate to "pussy without any responsibilities"?

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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??

[–] letsgo@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yahweh was originally actually a Levantine god of war, which explains the violent and weird accounts in the Old Testament.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

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

[–] lethargic_lemming@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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 😭

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] Hagdos@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] dutchkimble@lemy.lol 14 points 8 months ago

Oddly specific ask of the Bible

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] thorbot@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not mockery, it's a counter to the frequent assertion that religion is a source of morality.

[–] BingoBangoBongo@midwest.social 4 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but it's still ridiculous.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de -2 points 8 months ago

In today's, especially western, point of view? Sure. But luckily there really aren't Christians anymore who actually do this today.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

then why are millions of people still using an incredibly outdated book as a "source" of their "morality"

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They largely only study and follow parts of that book. The entire thing doesn't hold equal weight to them.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're grossly oversimplifying spirituality.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Well that explains everything