Fuck ASPCA commercials. I was saving my sadness for the Doctor.
I hope you’re not serious with this
I think the Bible is exceptionally misogynistic, and I think that that’s because of a) the time and culture it was written in and b) because men wrote it, and men translated and edited it.
And I think you’d have a hard time telling me I’m wrong on this one… granted if you believe God wrote the Bible then sure it wasn’t “misogynistic because men wrote it”, but it’s still misogynistic and if the Biblical God had a gender, it’d be male.
Yeah, perhaps the ‘meme’ was a little extreme, and it was posted with humour in mind so no I was not 100% serious when I posted it, but the first two sentences of this reply?
100% serious and if you think there’s something wrong with that then there’s something wrong with you.
You…what?
I… think the Bible is exceptionally misogynistic, and I think that that’s because of a) the time and culture it was written in and b) because men wrote it, and men translated and edited it.
Hope this clears up your confusion.
But what proof is there that they didnt stone rapists?
There isn’t any proof that, thousands of years ago, people didn’t stone rapists. Absolutely zero.
Which would be relevant if this post was about what people did, as opposed to what God tells people to do, according to the Bible.
What proof is there that the Bible doesn’t feature God telling people to stone rapists? Well, for once in it’s existence, the proof is in the Bible itself!
Although I suppose it’s worth mentioning that a man will be stoned for raping a woman that is already betrothed to another man.Of course, if this happens in the city, the woman will be stoned too because y’know, cities are pretty busy so she obviously didn’t cry out for help otherwise someone would have noticed. I mean it’s basically her fault, the only wrong-doing on the man’s behalf was that it wasn’t his woman, it was someone else’s.
No, really, that’s Deuteronomy 22:23-24, from the Bible.
That book I called misogynistic and had someone question whether I was serious or not.
Anyone else wanna come at me on this one? I’ve clearly got enough time on my hands.
Wait. Hold the FUCK up. Did you just say it was HER fault for being raped? Or are you purposely talking out of your ass? And where does the Bible say or refer to them hating women? All I’ve heard from it that’s involving hatred towards a race/sex/culture or anything of that matter is when people misinterpreted that being gay was a sin. You’re just taking the text way out of proportion and not focusing on the actual meaning of the book. It’s people like you who really piss me off and gets me wondering how anyone could be that way towards anything. You’re honestly just a jackass.
I know that sarcasm doesn’t translate too well over the internet but damn, son, I think it’s pretty clear that no, no I was not saying she deserved to be raped I was saying that according to Deuteronomy if a man has sex with a woman who is engaged, and this occurs in the city, then they should both be put to death because the man tampered with another dude’s property and because the woman didn’t cry out loud enough to attract significant attention to have the dude stopped - therefore she must have been consenting!
I know what the dictionary says but I think the word misogyny is more than straightforward hatred of women, but if you like you can change my words “the Bible is exceptionally misogynistic” to “the Bible is exceptionally discriminatory towards women, often sees them as lower than men, and often sees them as property”, and before you tell me I’m taking anything out of context to reach that conclusion, I got your context right here - if a man has sex with a woman who is engaged to another man but it’s not in the city, so she cannot cry for help, then the woman is excused as she has done no wrong, but the man will be put to death. Which seems kinda lovely until you realise that the Bible makes it very clear that the man isn’t being put to death for the horrific crime of rape, he’s being put to death because the woman was engaged but now he’s ruined her for her future husband by taking her virginity.
It was actually less appalling when it was out of context.
Don’t forget how the bible says if a man rapes a woman he must pay a fee to her father, and then marry her for the rest of her life.
Yep, but it’s a whole 50 shekels so make sure she’s worth it, and have a Merry Christmas!
I just noticed something… maybe… Or I’m reading to much into it.
Denile:
Denying that he caused his companion to leave.
Anger
Obvious anger
Bargaining:
Trying to get jack to help him get his life on track
Depression
Drink those sorrows away because bargaining didn’t work.
And if I’m not crazy, he’s starting to accept things…
Or I need to go to bed because it’s really late.
I FUCKING LOVE YOU.
DID I GET IT!?
The language he uses is obscene, he handles criticism with a childish air about him and, honestly, I think that if it wasn’t for the friends he has he wouldn’t be where he is and he seems to forget that. Great artist with a lot of potential, but I wouldn’t want to associate with him as a person in the real world, nor on the internet.
- Submitted by ask-foxfacethepony
Which master are you talking about because the one I’ve talked to was nice and handled criticism fairly well. He’s a pretty nice person.
Christmas is coming to the BBC America offices.
(Taken via Instagram as we set up for our holiday party last week.)
Weeping Angels are a joke now. If Moffat left it at two-ish episodes, they would still have a scare factor and not be the new annoying dalek with an impractically impossible Angel Statue of Liberty that is observed 24/7.
Blink was the only good angel episode. I’m just glad the vashta nerada are still scary ass fuck
