A Bible verse we will never hear quoted by any politician

Right before he has to marry his rape victim.

Its in Deuteronomy.



Anytime I hear a right winger pull some nonsense from the Old Testement ... I immediately ask them what the current conversion rate is for shekels to dollars.

And then as they stutter, I point out that a wealthy man could really take advantage of this part of the old testament, depending on the conversion rate.

Makes them scream.

what's 50 sheckels today?

A shekel weighed about a third of a troy ounce (0.35). So, 50 silver shekels would be 50 X .35 = 17.5 troy ounces. At today's spot price for silver, $29.44, that's roughly $500.

(I'm making no claims of accuracy or precision here!)

1 Shekel = 0.262USD...so really only about 13 bucks...

sP

$500 seems a much more reasonable price

You're trying to go back 8000 years.

Does the Bible admonish us to adjust for inflation?

Or did God not know inflation would exist?

Seeing as how it's the Word Of God, I like how the Bible reveals the secrets of microbes, germs, atoms, electricity, the planets, etc.

Oh ,wait....

are why I love this website and recommend it to one and all.

Nor could I ever top a good DU name like 12AngryBorneoWildmen ! There's got to be a story there someplace!

Anyway, I love DU & DUers

Plus the cost of the wedding.

The church could collect the $500, add a "redemption fee", say 10% ... and then pay off the father.

Then, the father pays the church for the wedding of his daughter and her rapist/husband ... its a win win win.

I thought of several gallows-humor responses to this topic, then self-censored out of a sense of decorum. But you just went all out. So much in strict Biblical literalism seems to easily lend itself to satirical excess.

11 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

All virgins in the bible are Hebrew. A Hebrew could get away with raping
a non-Hebrew.

in the act of rape.

If he's not "discovered" ... apparently, no harm no foul.

I mean, she's not a virgin anymore. And if she can't prove she was raped, don't they have to stone her to death for being a whore?

The Classic situation was Elanor of Aquitaine. By inheritance she ruled and owned Aquitaine in the 1100s (and at that time, the richest province in France). While still a Teenager she worried about being "Raped" so someone can claim her AND HER LANDS, for the Ancient Franks had a similar law and still applied in the 1100s.

The Catholic Church attacked that tradition (and address the issue in Deuteronomy as something reserved to Jerusalem NOT the rest of the world) and the world was moving away from such "acts" of marriage at that time (Till the Reformation most marriages in Catholic Europe were informal, i.e a couple announced to each other there were Man and Wife, they then went into the village church for the Village priest to bless the marriage).

"Rape" was also a wider term at that time period, it included consensual sex with a virgin. The reason was simple, having sex was a way a couple could show they were married. Thus"Rape" of a Virgin, could be nothing more then a couple deciding to have sex.

Let me make one more statement, this "payment" of money and agreement to "keep the woman" had to be done with some consent of her family. If no consent, you just have a feud. One part of the Hatfields and McCoys feud in West Virginia involved such a couple. i.e man and woman from each family meet and had sex, viewed as married by her family. When the man rejected that concept, her family called it rape and the feud intensified. Such feuds was the chief reason for this rule in the bible. It was a way for both families to solve the dispute that was the result of the sex.

Much of Deuteronomy is that, old rules to resolved disputes between extended families. Prior to Social Security and the "Welfare State" extended families were the main form of "safety net", thus people would protect others in their extended families. These feuds could be nasty (Hatfields and McCoys is just the most famous).

Most of these rules were "forgotten" or outright outlawed with industrialization and the movement to the Nuclear Family being more important then the Extended Family (IT is easier for Nuclear Families to move to where the jobs are, as opposed to Extended Families). Thus industrialization and urbanization were the driving force for the change through the extended family did survive as equal to the Nuclear Family till Social Security and the "Welfare State" replaced the Extended Family as people's main safety net.

''Love thy neighbor as thyself.''

''Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.''

And last but certainly not least, the one verse that these soulless pols nor their religiously ignorant constituents ever seem to get:

''Judge not, lest ye be judged.''

- K&R

And now I'm reading the graphic in your sig line & & at the same time. Damn, that is a good one!!

Genesis 1:29

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

This means no sensimilia!!!

there's no evidence that I know of the Year of the Jubilee was actually carried out. Probably too many vested interests.

It seems as if Jesus attempted to declare a jubilee, too. But it doesn't seem like anyone listened to him:

¹⁸The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, ¹⁹To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

Ignore what you don't like. Just like the whole sacrifice thing. People get sick of wasting half their stuff for nothing so someone makes up a story that God doesn't want anymore of your shit.

How long can a creditor attempt to collect a debt?

<snip>

The rules that govern when a creditor can take you to court over a debt vary from state to state. If you think you might be taken to court over a past due debt that it is recommended that you study your state’s laws governing this issue. It is quite unlikely that a creditor will sue you over a small amount of debt. So the general rule of seven years is the one that most people will follow.

If you have ever been hounded by collection agencies then you might have wondered to yourself just how long they have to collect on an outstanding debt. According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act these collection agencies have seven years to collect on outstanding debts.

In some instances, which vary from state to state, these collection agencies can take you to court and sue you for overdue debts after the seven year limit is up. However, because it is highly unlikely due to costs and general legal hassles many creditors will not take you to court so the general rule of thumb associated with how long a creditor can attempt to collect on a debt is seven years.

Which would be shorter than 7 years in most states. The creditor could get a judgment, protecting that. The judgment may not last forever in most states, either (but more than 7 years probably).

In 2005 the GOP controlled Congress passed the Bankruptcy reform act and increased it to once every eight years.

On the other hand, Bankruptcy was hated by people with money, thus till 1896, the US Congress would pass a bankruptcy law, then repeal it a few years later and not pass another one for decades. This was bad for the US Constitution gives Bankruptcy exclusively to the Federal Government. Thus no Federal Bankruptcy court, no way to file bankruptcy.

Now, when Queen Elizabeth set up Bankruptcy in the 1500s, she ran it through the Church Courts, NOT the Court of Law. Later on it ended up in the Court of Equity (Which itself was derived from a Church Court). Thus a bankruptcy is an action in Equity NOT Law and as such if one is in bankruptcy the rule of Equity kicks in, the main one being "To get equity, one must be willing to do equity". Now the US Bankruptcy Court still has to follow the law passed by Congress (Such as it can NOT discharge student loans except under certain almost impossible to meet requirements) but the thrust is to be fair to all creditors and the debtor.

The equity rule "To get equity, one must be willing to do equity" is a church court rule thus had some influence from the bible, mostly indirectly in the form of the people acting as a "Chancellor" (The name for a judge in a Church Court and a name retain in many Courts of Equity).

of getting into Heaven as a camel does of getting through the eye of a needle. You don't hear that one much either.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2&version=KJV

Romans 2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

They're scum!

The Beatitudes

He said:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.e 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’f 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’g There is no commandment greater than these.”

32“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

---
I mean, Love your neighbor as yourself? How can you do that when they're so... DIFFERENT?!?!

CHEESMAKERS!

&feature=related

1 Corinthians 14:34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

they even twist the new testament.

“For there are eunuchs who are born thus from their mothers womb, and there are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who are eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. Let those who can accept it, accept it.” Matthew 19:12.

In answering the question, "if we can't divorce, would it not be better to never marry" the response was that some people choose to remain single and celibate. If someone is incapable of entering into a commitment fully, better they evaluate their options - and not enter into the commitment at all.

In other words - if you are going to chase strange, don't defile your wife on top of your own scumbag activities.

For something as mission critical as the RW weighs same-sex relationships, Jesus never spoke to that - and trying to retrofit words into that will backfire.

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David:"

Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them,

hating gays,
Oppressing women or
telling everybody that the poor are just parasites?

That despicable book demeans anyone who falls outside it's Bronze Age patriarchal covenant with it's imaginary deity.

I think large swaths of people are simply fed up with religious people running the show, and running it into the ground. Enough is enough.

If you have a debt on your credit report, you can dispute it and have it removed after 7 years.

7-year-old debts? Or every 7th year all debts disappear?

Which means write them off.

If we lived by this Christian principle of Jubilee, someone cold screw up and get a clean slate after 7 years instead of a lifetime of penance for their mistakes.

NOT all debts every seven years, but any one debt, once it was seven years old had to be discharged. Jubilee was a once every 50 (Some say 49) year abolishment of debts .

More on Jubilee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_%28biblical%29

In ancient Israel, it appears to be a FIXED SEVEN YEAR PERIOD, for every seventh year was viewed as a "Sabbatical Year" where field were left fallow and debts discharged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatical_year_%28Bible%29

Thus the correct answer to your question is BOTH, but at different time periods.

At the same time, "Non-Christians" i.e Africans, were made slaves who could NEVER be free. The difference was how the Colonies and England of the time were forced to follow the seven year rule for indentured servants, since they were clearly "Christians" but Africans slaves were "property" not debts and thus did not come under that rule. Not the first time rationalization was used to justify an unjust situation.