Political Cartoons

So I've been going through Genesis, and I do not recall 2:24 word for word, but I recall nothing in there that implied:

interfaith marriages forbidden
marriages generally arranged
OR
bride who could not prove virginity was stoned to death

.....in fact.....

Gen 2:23

The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

So, yeah, I am all for pointing out that Jacob had two wives (and took one of his wives handmaidens so that he could have more babies) but I please, if you are going to make an argument, make an argument based on facts.

Since that was the first item on the list, I am going to go right ahead and disregard the rest of the macro. I already know enough to disagree with "traditional marriage" arguments, but this macro is not helpful in that.

From:

Ok. I'll post it anyway.

From:

Nice to see that facts are considered important....

From:

Go ahead and tell me that that's not one of the standard interpretations of marriage in the bible. Go on.

From:

*ahem*

That's not one of the standard interpretations of marriage in the bible. (happy? You told me to!)

Point being that "standard interpretation" is almost an impossibility.

Should we ask the Catholics or Episcopals? The Mormons or the Jesuits? The Jehovahs Witnesses or the Shakers or the Pentacostals?

My point is that the bible itself DOES NOT [and certainly does not in the passage cited] say what the macro suggests it says. As always, we should strive for accuracy when possible. It is possible to be accurate here; the macro is not.

From:

dexeron.livejournal.com

It is based on facts, it's just Deuteronomy 22, not Genesis 2. It's still, arguably, an accurate description of "Biblical Marriage", typos (or errors) in the macro notwithstanding.

From:

well, i will be honest, im not up to deuteronomy yet, but, at best the macro is incomplete, at worst it is false
either way, it does not get a thumbs up from this webizen

From:

after a quick read, dueteronomy 22 does cover the virgin bride claim, but it says nothing of interfaith marriage or arraigned marriages.

i suspect those are somewhere in the bible, but the macro does a shite job of offering citations

From:

not to pile on, but, also in Dueteronomy 22 there is the section about a man raping a woman, which is quasi-cited in the macro.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death

so yeah. i dislike this macro, alot, cause it takes liberties with a text to push an agenda.

i agree with what is being pushed, i do not agree with twisting a text to do so, it makes people less trusting when people put spin on something

From:

dexeron.livejournal.com

Liberties? All of the described situations are covered as a form of "marriage" in the Bible, even if the citation might be off on one or two. They are all there.

That's the point of it. "Biblical Marriage" is not some simple "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" thing that the far right keeps trying to argue, as if what some bronze age mythology has to say about marriage should have anything to do with how we, as a society, define it today anyways.

From:

I'm not suggesting we use the bible to dictate our morality; that is not my theory.

However, since other people DO ascribe to that theory, we would do best, if we want to convert them away from that theory, to meet them on their own ground, and slowly, hand-in-hand with them, walk them away from their mistaken ideas of morality, and walk with them over to a better grounding for morality.

Yelling at them in jibberish that they won't understand isn't gonna get them to move anywhere, but further into their echo-chambers.

And including half-truths, or heavily cherry picked data? That's what I expect from Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. I think we, collectively, can do far better than that.

From:

dexeron.livejournal.com

Ok, but I'm not sure how one is supposed to walk "hand-in-hand" with someone who loudly proclaims that a certain segment of the population are inhuman and predatory, while refusing to grant that segment equal protection under the law because of a standard they claim to have a book - a book that doesn't actually contain that standard.

I understand the idea that tone and presentation are important factors in convincing opponents, but I have little desire to meet hateful bigots halfway, and were I, myself, gay, I'm pretty sure I'd have even less.

From:

There are folks beyond reproach; certainly, do not extend your hand to someone who wishes to stab it!

Even someone like Bill O'Reilly (whom I find rather distasteful indeed!) does not proclaim that gays are inhuman--so if you wish folks like O'Reilly (and I suspect many of his viewers share his views) to understand why we shouldn't use the bible for our secular society, well, don't distort the bible! They wouldn't believe you if they feel you are deceiving them.

If your options were to meet a hateful bigot halfway, and bring him closer to tolerance and ideally even acceptance, or to not meet him halfway and to watch him slide further into bigotry, which do you think is better for the world?

No matter how righteous and holy your cause, don't use bad tactics! That's really what I'm driving at--and I feel that cherry picking the bible to imply that it *supports* rape is not honest! There's an entire chapter about how that's not OK.

Gen 38, iirc

*checks*

Nope, sorry, Gen 34

Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her, and violated her.

that's how it starts; by the end of it, Dinah's brothers went and killed Shechem and his kin; thus they re-payed the rape of their kin. They did not give Dinah to Shechem merely because he violated her. It is NOT so simple as to say "the bible made women marry their rapists!" which is what the image suggests; that sort of disingenious arguing will lose people you may be able to get! So again, bottom line:

No matter how righteous and holy your cause, don't use bad tactics!

From:

(errrr, folks beyond *approach*, not reproach. damn fast fingers!)

From:

peristaltor.livejournal.com

Way off topic, but have you read David Brin?

From:

David Brin is my favorite author, and EARTH is my favorite book. I actually got to meet him a few months ago when he came to read at a bookstore in Chicago, and I got him to sign TWO books. He's a totally awesome dude.

From:

peristaltor.livejournal.com

Just finished the first two books of the second Uplift trilogy, and noticed a character named Dwer. That's all.

From:

hah! I'd no idea. I actually struggle with uplift beyond the first few books, if you can believe that.

From:

Same here (I'm assuming

peristaltor is referring to the David Brin sci-fi series). Loved the first three books, then I kind of lost interest. Not entirely sure why.

From:

peristaltor.livejournal.com

I was. I haven't caught the first trilogy of Uplift, only the first two books of the sequel.

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

From:

~~Werewolf queen~~ 1 Corinthians 13:12. The answer is always ~~werewolf queen~~ 1 Corinthians 13:12

From:

lol

From:

I was wondering if anyone would get that.

But back on topic- the whole 'through a glass darkly' explanation seems to be a crutch for Christian apologists. I daresay they can do better.

From:

Cop-out.

"I believe in God because it doesn't make sense"
"Never argue with the devil, he has had thousands of years of practice"
"Mortals cannot understand the divine plan of God"

Any convenient catch-all that permits any ignorance or mistake to be brushed under the rug, that level of cop-out needs to be dropped like it's a hot potato.

From:

My friend, I am fighting that fight myself on another community. "Oh, God's ways are mysterious and we can't hope to understand them" is just not satisfying to me.

From:

Oh, my bad. I thought you were offering that as a defense.

To me that is the height of frustration; when a religious person realizes they can no longer answer they just throw their hands up and offer one of those catch-alls and it kills the attempt to use reason with them.

From:

That's the explanation that is usually offered, but to me 'We really don't know" is a valid answer, too.

From:

tis a more honest one, IMO

From:

This rocks

From:

I'm surprised that I take umbrage with this macro and you do not.

You're part of the flock, while I am the heathen; what gives?

Don't you see this as being, at best, somewhat disingenuous?

From:

For a guy who likes precision: it's a chart, not a macro.

Well, it's a clever graphic design, very creative and some elements are pretty friggin' cute.

Imma gunna just leave it at that, and say we disagree. It's like arguing over ice cream flavors ;)

From:

My objections were not aesthetic in nature--and I understand arguing aesthetics to be like arguing ice cream flavors.

My objections were based on the content of the chart not it's presentation.

Surely you don't support charts (or macros) that twist the meaning of the bible, do you?

From:

I said I wasn't interested in a debate over it; and don't call me Shirley :P

Edited Date: 2013-06-28 06:58 pm (UTC)

From: