LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I mean most of the women in the Torah got their husbands the same way— their dads were like "sure whatever". Things only get weird with Rachel and Leah. In the Tanakh like then you have Onan, which was weird marriage laws again, and then Ruth was pretty weird and then we have Esther who married for power... Uh...

And then there's Lot and his daughters for super-mega squick factor.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

That's not marriage, though.

That's true. But my point is, if people claim that the Bible is supposed to be a guide for life, and that it condemns homosexuality, there's still a huge lack of information on what they believe a Bible-based marriage is supposed to be like. Really the Biblical view of human sexuality in general is just all kinds of messed up.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Well, it had nothing against polygamy(atleast early on, but I don't remember an entry that condemns it at all), but keep in mind that it may not recognize female homosexuality, meaning that a man with multiple women was still considered heterosexual for all intents and purposes. I don't entirely believe it meant truly only male on male in the first place, but it's entirely possible in Leviticus' case.

Besides that, I believe it mostly promotes heterosexuality, but it also, atleast with Paul, says to not change yourself to match "expectations" when it comes to stuff like Homosexuality.(personal likes and dislikes in general may be covered here) It doesn't mean not to do your job because you don't like it, or not to put on a smile for PR purposes while working, etc. It just means not to change who you truly are, atleast if being that person isn't a bad thing. There's bad things that should be changed(being a murderer, for instance), and good things that there is no legitimate reason to change(being homosexual).

Sorry for the tangent, but yeah, I see how it's mostly considering heterosexuality the norm, and polygamy may not be considered a bisexual relationship(even though the relationship itself, not necessarily the women in this context, may not be directly bisexual). It depends exactly what happens behind closed doors. It could be "taken turns with the man", which may be what is thought actually happened in all cases, hence bisexuality not being acknowledged.

There's multiple theories here.

edited 31st Oct '12 10:52:54 AM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

Honestly, female sexuality wasn't really a "thing" in the Bible. Women weren't seen as people. They were concubines, slaves, spoils of war and baby factories.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

As I said already, the video postulates — and, I guess, you do too — a dichotomy between "believing acritically in everything that is written in the Bible, taken in its most literal possible meaning" and "developing a moral code independently from the Bible, then just cherry-picking the quotes that support it" that just is not there. What's so strange in the idea that one might find the Bible a source of useful insights, without committing to the literal validity of everything that is in there?

But the thing is, what I am describing is not some sort of Christianity for "theologians in ivory towers". I am no theologian myself, not even remotely close; and frankly, I don't think that I know in Real Life any Biblical literalist, while I do know any number of Christians who have positions analogous to the one I described. I understand that the whole matter is a little different in the U.S., and I certainly understand why atheists might find certain positions held by Biblical literalists a cause of concern above and beyond our metaphysical disagreements (frankly, I find these positions concerning myself, my personal sympathy for some of these literalists nonwithstanding); but still, that video (or, in general, many similar arguments) does not present itself as an attack against Biblical literalism, but as an attack against Christianity as a whole. From my perspective, this is not too different from one attacking, say, the theory of Evolution by pointing inconsistencies in some popular misconceptions of Evolutionism.

Not very funny, at least in my opinion. And you are aware that Mary did make a choice, right? She could have chosen otherwise. That's a big part of the reason for the Catholic devotion to Mary, by the way. Ooh, let me try. The problem is that many of the old Patriarchs were polygamous; and that since the Bible mostly narrates interesting episodes, many of these narrations are about somewhat troubled relationships. Still, three should be relatively easy to find.

Let's see... Ruth/Boaz; Tobias/Sarah; and Priscilla/Aquila. And, for the bonus round, the two protagonists of the Song of Solomon — they were not married, sure, but they were definitely heterosexual and, er, healthy. Yep, definitely very healthy

Yeah, no. The Bible is certainly strongly patriarchal, as was to be expected given the culture it was written it; but there are women in it who kicked all sorts of ass. For example, Deborah, who was a badass prophetess/counsellor/warlord.

edited 31st Oct '12 12:22:20 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Women are still treated as people in the Bible, Laywerdude. They're higher than animals, but lower than Men. Of course it's not right to treat them that way, but that's not what actually is shown in there at all.

If they were, there wouldn't be any important women besides Mary(for obvious reasons).

I do agree they may not recognize female homosexuality as anything but hetero, though. Of course, there's no proof of that either.

Quest 64 thread

...Out of curiosity, is there anything in the Bible that condemns polygamy?

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and was considered to be very wise. Basically, the parable of the book of Kings is that if you're smart, you'll go out and get yourself a thousand waifus right now.

But seriously, Deuteronomy 17:17 explicitly condemns polygamy. Well, it also condemns materialism, but don't let Republicans hear that part or they might have a crisis.

Was that in the Old or New Testament and did anything ever contradict it?

Quest 64 thread

Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament, though it is very clear that a man cannot take multiple wives. No mention of women taking multiple husbands, though... >.>

edited 31st Oct '12 1:25:03 PM by deathpigeon

Assuming they were were allowed to, which I'm a bit doubting in that particular culture.(although other cultures is another story, respectively)

So yes, it was not favored, which makes a bit of sense. Under the assumption we didn't see threesomes marrying at the same time, but more "adding another wife" to the list. Which is where the whole "don't covet another woman beyond your wife", a similar valid variation of "don't covet your husband's wife".

Quest 64 thread

Which hot as it would be would probably make things pretty awkward.

hashtagsarestupid

...she was asked politely. She explicitly agreed to it.

edited 31st Oct '12 1:55:48 PM by Pykrete

And at the risk of going off-topic: What happens to people who say "no" to the God of the Bible?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Well if you ask Lot, God responds with polite and exceedingly flexible bartering.

Or if you're not so lucky, death.

edited 31st Oct '12 2:06:45 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

The Israelites were kind of infamous for not going about dissent in a particularly healthy manner.

Then again, I'm not a Biblical literalist anyway.

Please show me where they actually said no and you can get an answer.

Nobody said no? We don't know what'll happen. Somebody did? That answers it.

God can be vengeful, sure. But a person refusing to do his bidding does not end in death automatically. It depends what he's asking specifically.

Quest 64 thread

But you can see how having an all-powerful being who might strike you down on the spot if you say no ask you to bear his child might still be difficult to refuse, yes?

On the one hand, you don't know what he'll do to you. On the other hand, you don't know what he'll do to you.

What's precedent ever done for us?

That would matter if she didn't fully have the choice.

I don't buy that she did it out of fear.

Is there any entry in the entire Bible where people who refused to do something for God(I'm not talking about the Egyptians to stop oppressing Jewish people type stuff, but more like major favors) and got penalized severely for it?

As in they, who have never done anything really wrong(that's recorded in the book), was approach by God, he asked something, they refused, and got penalized for it. Yes, I'm being specific because it matters.

I'm not downplaying Jesus being born, etc. I'm saying that Mary being asked was not a demand and should not be treated as such. There was no illusion of freedom here. She chose it of her own free will. Most likely because it's a major honor to have the Son of God. Or the fact that God's talking to you. Who wouldn't be amazed.

Quest 64 thread

Wait, where does it say that God asked her? From what I remember, and angel appeared and said "you will have a son and name him Jesus", which doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for consent.

edited 31st Oct '12 2:50:00 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

There's a reason angels always say 'be not afraid' when they show up in the Bible, that's all I'm saying.

What's precedent ever done for us?

Ask Pykrete, he brought it up. I'm going off of what he said.

And yes, "be not afraid" clearly does mean that there is no intention that they would harm you for saying no here.

It may depend the version of the Bible. I very much remember some where she's asked, and others where she's told. Depends what the original text says, really.

What that tells me is refusing will not end in anything hurtful. Not exactly a great choice of words if there could be bad consequences.

edited 31st Oct '12 2:52:08 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread