If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate.
The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity."
Then her parents shall display the cloth [sheets from the wedding night with blood stains] before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
~ Deuteronomy 22:13-21, NIV
Sooooo???
ReplyDeleteIs it ok to be promiscuous if
you're not in your father's house???
I believe the Bible would label that "whoring."
ReplyDeleteSurely you mean old atheists understand that this is not to be taken LITERALLY, it is clearly a metaphor that expresses the one true God's love for us all (apart from that Dawkins chap who is loathed by the sky father). When I have finished working out what the hell it could possibly mean apart from what it actually says I will be sure to let you all know. Peace out non-believers
ReplyDeleteClearly they had some concept of STD's (Sexually Transmitted Demons).
ReplyDelete@ Buff Primer: Are you kidding? So God has love for us all, but not Dawkins? Good luck deriving some actual meaning from that verse, and every other BS quote in the Bible. You've just offered some decent proof of what people actually do with it. :)
ReplyDeleteI think it was sarcasm. If not, I will be happier if I go on believing it was.
ReplyDeletelol Alexis, I am pretty sure Ginx is right.
ReplyDeleteWasn't obvious that Buff was mocking "moderate" Christians who have this habit of saying that Non-Christians are stupid for not looking at the context of Bible passages?
But talking of context, if Buff does succeed in "working out what the hell it could possibly mean apart from what it actually says", I truly hope that he will let us know ;-)
Since you quoted that passage Ginx, are you aware of any refutations that Christians could give?
Keeping the cloth with the blood stain from her loss of virginity is a long-standing tradition in many cultures, practiced even to this day by some (Jewish and otherwise).
ReplyDeleteIt was very important for a Jewish girl to remain a virgin. Even the Jewish culture my wife grew up in included Jewish girls who would not even touch a man until marriage (including the boy who would eventually be arranged to marry them). It all comes down to a system of "fences," where they don't touch any boys in order to stigmatize it so much that she won't possibly have sex. Of course, the ban on pre-marital sex is itself a "fence" against disease and illegitimate pregnancy (especially in cultures that lack prophylactics).
The passage reveals that sin toward God and toward others must be dealt with if we want heaven, (where we can dwell with God and each other in a way that is beautiful beyond description). Good news.....sin has been dealt with subsequent to the passage above.....His name is Jesus.....if you recieve.....Paul in Vancouver..
ReplyDeleteYeah we get it, Jesus is the coupon that Christians redeem for being the horrible people they are. It's really working out for society...
ReplyDeleteAh, sorry guys. I suppose I wasn't thinking clearly, I was probably tired when I responded last night, therefore too blind to see the irony of the comment I criticized, haha.
ReplyDeleteI once got pissed off at an article in The Onion.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find weird is the difference in punishments to the couple.
ReplyDeleteI know that in that tradition a woman that is not a virgin when married must be something really horrible (or at least i imagine) =p
But basically if the man lies he gives the woman some money.
If she lies, she is killed.
P.s: I'm not sure if there is anything about the man being a virgin. But what would happen?
Would like to know.
Don't know much about the bible. =/
ginx- while you're right about the series of fences thing, no Jew I know keeps the bloody wedding night sheets, and I never heard of anyone (Jew or otherwise) doing that. Although apparently they did that back in the day according to your quote?
ReplyDeleteThey aren't kept for years, they're inspected the next morning by the mother of either the bride or groom (depending on the culture). Usually the grievance would be issued by the man pretty quickly, so it's not like they're held onto like an heirloom.
ReplyDeleteI thought you had mentioned to me that the sheets were inspected for blood in some culture(don't remember which it was).
This conversation has reminded me of something I saw on Tyra once, here it is-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfbjSYU57os
ReplyDelete