Confirm or deny.
Update. I googled the passage. Being no expert on the Bible, I had no idea what this passage was talking about. Apparantly it's ok to buy a virgin from her father and do what you want with her.
"28 g“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
19
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
19 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.THe BuyBull is full of this fucked up shit, how any woman or homosexual who has read the bible can or would ever want to be a Christian is beyond me
LenHazell53
Level 9
Feb 20, 2021
1
not sure why "being a Christian" would be the goal anyway, but if you stop reading literally--like believers do; one might even say "homosexually"--then the passages clarify, wadr. You can easily take any single v out of context eh, but There are no male and female in the kingdom is still in there see
i believe youre right about these ancient scriptures and the diminishing remnant of troglodytes who still base their lives on them, and the unknown percentage of rapists among them. but why focus on this relative mote (unless youve suffered rape, and then of course it is not a mote) when the much larger clear and present danger, the beam if you will, are the gross distortions of modern feminism which seem on the verge of perverting womens differently enabled minds to the point of poisoning love between the sexes, and thus subverting the very best aesthetic justification for our species? yes, koyaanisquatsi is the true base reality of these, the last, days. but as the ship goes down but we take our eye of the ball? must we jabber as we sink?
holdenc98
Level 7
Feb 19, 2021
0
I get flak even in my semi-progressive area. I'm still a renegade for being religionless, childless and husbandless. People ask me what I have against Christianity. I go to my battles prepared.
@UrsiMajor .......... you may get flak, but not from me on this day. to want to shine a light from a different angle on your thought is not to oppose your thought. some times my desire to be a wiseguy makes me immoderate and for that im sorry here and now. i see you have a sense of humor, im on your side, youre potentially in my monkey troop, honorary nomination .....and i don't think rapists deserve to live.
" And unto him and him alone shall she always belong as shall ALL his worldly goods, she shall be demure, silent unless permitted by him to speak, shall give herself and body unto at his will and desires, she SHALL be not permitted to be in his presence, nor sleep within his house during the times of her unclean bleedings..........." From the ORIGINAL version of Deuteronomy in the transcript of the Bible, circa 327 C.E.
Triphid
Level 9
Feb 19, 2021
1
Yes, but all of this is in the Old Pesterment. 
DenoPenno
Level 9
Feb 19, 2021
2
Which gentle Jeebus meek and mild, tells us twice he will not change or deny one jot or tittle of in the gob spill of Matthew and Puke.
@LenHazell53 im sorrty. i wasnt paying attention. what?
Relying on the Bible for moral guidance is like relying on this book for scientific understanding ... both are inappropriate.
p-nullifidian
Level 8
Feb 19, 2021
6
For a virgin? Why give all that up for an unknown rookie. Gimme a mature experienced woman any day....
Canndue
Level 8
Feb 19, 2021
5
A wise man once made a similar point! 
"And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement."
Benjamin Franklin, "Advice to Friend on Choosing a Mistress" (1745)
There are cases recently where raped women have been treated as adulterous because their rapists were married. That is a massive cultural difference too.
This mish mash of comments on stoning is interesting:
girlwithsmiles
Level 8
Feb 19, 2021
1
Exactly there is absolutely nothing moral about that book period or the god they claim to be true and shouldn’t our species have outgrown such barbaric practices?
AJimboShep82
Level 7
Feb 19, 2021
2
well, to be fair, we judge this passage by our cultural mores, and remain ignorant of the prevailing cultural mores of the time, when they were i guess killing girls who had gotten raped, so i think this will turn out like an eye for an eye, which was surely meant to limit retribution rather than condone it?
or it could be that you are reading "buying a virgin" or even "rape," when the text does not exactly say either one, eh? A possibly hard admission here is that many girls want a guy like that, even today, right?
but i suggest that "seizes her" is maybe being misinterpreted, as indicated by "and they are found," which suggests compliance on her part anyway (one standard is whether she "cries out" or not). And as to the "ownership" or chattel aspect of women then, in the ancient mideast, well, we still to this day incarcerate the husband for a crime and let the wife go, and etc, women look for men who can "support" them (until like, yesterday), several other examples like that, so it maybe becomes a matter of focus wadr
bbyrd009
Level 7
Feb 19, 2021
3
Pretty straightforward to me. I don't think "lies with her" means telling a falsehood.
Except of course in their context "cultural" laws were supposed to come directly from gawd, meaning gawd considered women property. Even today billions of people still see this same gawd's word as perfect, ineffable and infallible and unchanging for all time, that is a part of our culture, continuing to be perpetrated by this filthy book.
So regardless of the time or culture and no matter who theological spin you wish to put on it, this passage is down right immoral and by ever definition of the term constitutes hate speech, yet is excused because it is scriptural.
Shame on that and shame on you who would ever defend it.
@LenHazell53 i don't seek to defend it so much as to suggest that it is being misunderstood, Len, similar to an eye for an eye, which many also consider "immoral," not realizing that the point was likely more like "you don't get to kill someone for accidentally putting your eye out"
and as far as the establishment of ancient foreign cultural mores are concerned i can't really say, but surely they arose organically, and are changed organically too? We--being codependent--judge through a codependent lens now, but those women had feet, they could leave anytime they wanted, eh?
A horrible truth is that contemporary moms advocate for and even participate in female circumcision, etc, even in this day and age; imagine the realities on the ground back when there was a literal law of sin and death!
so while i agree with you now, i think it is maybe a little naive to apply our current perspective to then? Gratuitous, at the very least?
"cultural laws come from (Yah)"
well, in the OT, maybe, but then isnt the NT basically the record of their theocratic implosion? In the NT we are advised to leave the world see, so again my suggestion would be that the context is not being understood, as is even evident in the op, "Apparantly it's ok to buy a virgin from her father and do what you want with her"
see, bc prior to this,
28 g“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
they were both killed ok
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.