You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Tim Minchin sings a lovely little song about the Bible
Your Christian friends may want to leave the room…
That song is funny, I know because it’s a song and it is funny.
Worth it for that last line alone — take a good look at the good book. What? If you’re reading the comments before watching the video, it’s not my fault.
Very nice, though I like this one even better, even though it’s simpler:
Oh and for GAWDS sake Hemant, please program some buttons for html stuff, I spent 10 minutes tying to get the link code to work before givin up. Idiot proof, pretty please?
Tim Minchin is fantastic – worth listening to for all his songs (and beat poems), not just the non-religious ones! One of the very few comedic musicians I like.
Incidentally, Claudia’s link above contains strong language. Just so people are warned.
It’s his famous Pope Song – in time for the Pope’s visit over here! 😉
This is pry his most famous song.
I think that Tim may be confusing different Biblical laws. He makes a remark about how if your daughter is raped and she refuses to marry the rapist then you kill her. In fact, he seems to be conflating two different old testament rules. The first describes how if a woman is raped then she marries the rapist with the father’s approval. The second describes how if a betrothed or married women is raped then she’s not punished if it occurs in an open field, but if it occurs in a city then she’s put to death because the assumption is that if she really wanted to stop it she could have screamed and someone would have heard. (This is all in Deuteronomy Chapter 22).
Let’s not get confused over the different bronze age laws ok?
“With her father’s approval” – you might want to expand on that, that the rapist pays a fine to the father then marries the spoiled property.
Eliza, the fact that the father needs to approve is not directly in the verse. However, there’s textual and contextual evidence for it based on the Talmudic sections discussing this set of laws. The later forms of Judaism tried (understandably) to make this law less and less applicable. However, my understanding is that while later sources explicitly require her approval, the older sections require just his. In this particular situation, the Talmudic gloss seems to actually reflect how the law was intended (certainly there are many situations where that is not the case. The most obvious examples being the Talmudic interpretations of eye-for-an-eye, and the Talmudic attempt to make the rule about executing a rebellious son to be a non-functional rule), since even a bronze age society would not have functioned without some minimal ability to not just let a male take whomever he wanted as a wife. However, it does seem based on cultural considerations that the vast majority of the time, the father would have approved of the marriage, since the probability that anyone would want to later marry a rape victim would have been small.
Unfortunately, we’re working off of very little in the way of primary texts to understand the precise details of how these laws applied. And of course, while the exact distinctions and implementations may be intellectually interesting, they don’t detract from Minchin’s point at all.
What are some people correcting and justifying the bollixs laws that are in the bible? This book should be read from cover to cover, then you will truley realise how hypocritical and ridiculous its teachings are.
Follow Patheos on