/lit/ - Literature

I would prefer not to

>>7228746
I usually love sleeping all alone
This time around bring your friend with you
But we ain't really going to sleep at all
You ain't gonna catch me with them sneak pictures
In my city I'm a young God
That pussy kill be so vicious
My God white, he in my pocket
He get me redder than the devil 'til I go nauseous

Come my lady
Come, come my lady
You're my butterfly
Sugar baby

"A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory."
Matthew 12:20 (Isaiah 42: 3)

"The 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,"
Luke 4:18

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her ( Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

God is so fucking redpilled and based, just wish there were more christians on 4chan - it fits our views so well

>>7228789
That's a law made to protect the woman, since no one would want to marry her and she would end up destitute into old age.

>>7228854
You know "redpillers" often claim to be watching out for womens' long-term interests, right?

>>7228890
>implying that /lit/ wouldn't be pro redpill

Job 19: 23-27:
>Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever! For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

1 Corinthians 11:19
>For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 Corinthians 13: 11-12
>When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Isaiah 6:7-
>And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcL9S5a3weU

>>7228890
Wouldn't that make them cuckold betas?

>>7228854

> no one would want to marry her and she would end up destitute into old age

thanks to jewish le sex equals bad morality

>>7228746
Proverbs 4:6-7
Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.

Proverbs 3:13
Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding,

I Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things: hold fast that which is good.

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

1 Corinthians 13.11
When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.

>>7228958
Every society thought women having sex mack then was bad morality. Jesus was the first one to address the double standard by actually conceiving of men being able to commit adultery against their wives (before that, it could only be against other men by sleeping with other men's wives). And it was the Church that made consent of the woman required for marriage.

Marriage was originally really just a matter of property. It was Christianity that created the idea of marriage as we understand it today.

>>7228746

Matthew 6:5-6

>"5 And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Christians don't follow Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in its entirety.

>>7228978
Source? I know Christianity upped the average age of marriage, and thereby reduced mortality rates among young girls, but I haven't heard of marriage being not a matter of choice before that. Or are you talking about Palestinian customs particularly?

>>7229006
He's making a gross generalization of all pre-Christian marriage customs in order to advance his particular viewpoint.

He may be correct within a limited frame of reference, but not all systems of marriage worldwide were as he described before Christ.

>>7229006
I'm not him, but I have knowledge of legal history, had it as a class last year. Rome could arrange marriages and women did not need consent. Pater famiglia could have killed his adulterous wife. In Mesopotamia the man had more rights, but women were partially protected, they couldn't have been killed if they were good waives, but were instead returned to the father. They also couldn't cheat. Not having children was a reason to abandon her or take another fuckwife.
In Greece women couldn't inherit and weren't very respected. They if were the only child carried over the family fortune, but otherwise got nothing. They weren't specifically legally protected like in The Bible or in Mesopotamia, but from what I gather were not treated badly as in rome.
Marriage was in all those cultures more of a trade.
So Thomas is right. You can read up on this if you wish, it should be available online.

>>7228978

>Every society thought women having sex mack [sic] then was bad morality.

citation needed tommy boy. I will however give the christians due credit for being consistent with their projenitors' beliefs over the past 1700 or so years. especially catholics.

>>7228978
>Every society thought women having sex mack then was bad morality.

Yeah lets just ignore all of polynesia.

>>7228978
>>7229006
>>7229044

Actually modern marriage has more in common with Islam. It has a cooling off period, allows women to initiate divorce and most importantly and unlike christianity it actually allows them to keep their property.

Christian marriage is literally barbaric compared to an Islamic one.

>>7229064

In theory maybe, but in practice? How does one explain the treatment of women in modern islamic countries? I'm pretty sure the aid worker al baghdadi raped wasn't allowed to initiate divorce. Is this the age old case of various "Interpretations" of the holy word of god?

>>7229080
>In theory maybe, but in practice? How does one explain the treatment of women in modern islamic countries?

Up until the 1990s men in Western countries could not be legally charged with raping their wives and it was only around the 20th century when they could marry without loosing all their property to their husband. Christian marriages only started becoming what we now them to be now once selcularism came in.

Islam still has its problems but its still leagues ahead christians in the marriage camp.

>I'm pretty sure the aid worker al baghdadi raped wasn't allowed to initiate divorce. Is this the age old case of various "Interpretations" of the holy word of god?

He didn't marry her, where do you think the term "booty" originated? Any abramahic faith that upholds the old testament cannot ignore the role of concubines.

>>7229080
With ''Modern Islamic countries'' I assume you mean Saudi Arabia, and, from your example, Da'esh? Wahhabism is a monstrosity, and so is takfirism.
In practice, marriage had nothing to do with love for centuries in the Christian world either. It was business. Even Nineteenth century novels still deal with this. Romantic love is a very recent invention. Islam does actually give women some rights in marriage, and it prevented the killing of baby girls altogether (something that was apparently a common practice in pre-islamic Arabia/Jahiliyya)

I don't think it's fair to make the debate on women a religious one, though. As secular culture has played a pivotal role in the advancement in the rights of women, and until that, it took a very rare voice to stand up for women in light of any philosophy or religion whatsoever.

IHVH-Adonaï voit que se multiplie le mal du glébeux sur la terre. Toute formation des pensées de son coeur n’est que mal tout le jour. IHVH-Adonaï regrette d’avoir fait le glébeux sur la terre: il se peine en son coeur. IHVH-Adonaï dit: « J’effacerai le glébeux que j’ai créé des faces de la glèbe, du glébeux jusqu’à la bête, jusqu’au reptile, et jusqu’au volatile des ciels.
Oui, j’ai regretté de les avoir faits. »

>>7229064
Christian marriage, properly speaking, doesn't generally allow either party to divorce, as you swore your marriage vows before God.

Islamic marriage isn't like modern marriage at all for the simple fact that men can have multiple wives.

>>7228746
Set a third set a third
Imma set a third
set a third set a third
Imma set a third
Rap game easy but the bird game is worse.

“I am feeble and utterly crushed; I groan in anguish of heart” (Ps 38:8).

>>7229127
which lil b track is that

>>7229124
>Christian marriage, properly speaking, doesn't generally allow either party to divorce, as you swore your marriage vows before God.

Yeah lets just pretend the Gospel of Matthew doesn't exist.

>But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

>Islamic marriage isn't like modern marriage at all for the simple fact that men can have multiple wives.

>I can ignore cooling off periods, wives being able to keep their property and actually initiate divorce to escape abuse by taking a verse out of context.

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."

This verse was given in an aftermath of a great battle that left huge amounts of women without husbands to provide for them.

Likewise Polygamy isnt actually against natural law concepts as its still allows for reproduction and the harmony of men and women and in fact the catholic church did a simmilar thing in Paraguay after they lost 60+% of their male population after a war.

Its pretty funny seeing a catholic taking a quote out of context after all their dealings with prots

>>7229218
Do you know that Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't allow divorce and haven't had it allowed ever?

>>7229129
It's Riff Raff, silly.

>>7229225
Yeah they don't allow divorce they just grant annulments to people with deep pockets and influence.

That said all this just confirms Islamic marraiges as being more in line with developed and secular ones. Which actually treat women as humans.

>>7229233
But Islamic marriage considers women as less than men, specifically. Check out legal history of The Ottoman empire.

>>7229238
>But Islamic marriage considers women as less than men

When it comes to giving evidence it does, but the fact it gave women property rights as well as that of divorce placed it ahead of Christian marraiges until they went secular in the past 200 years.

>>7229247
So you didn't take my advice and looked it up?
Well there is little point in trying to prove anything to someone with no knowledge of legal history.

>>7229262
So you think the fact that I wont dig through journals on Ottoman legal history you are justifyed in handwaving the issue of property and divorce rights and ignore the very hostile position christian marraige had towards women.

>>7229273
I consider you generally ignorant of necessary subjects to have an idea of how marriage works and has worked throughout history.

>>7229290
Do you think it is accurate to say that historic Islamic marraiges were closer to our modern notion of marraige than historic christian ones?

>>7229295
In a sense. They were, unlike Christian ones, considered a contract and as such could be broken. But the contract was not made between man and woman, even symbolically, it was between the father of the women and the man. Women inside it had no protection, legally or otherwise and could be freely returned to the father, regardless of conditions. Modern marriage is closer to Islamic marriage in being a contract, but it provided no protection to the woman.
Christan marriage had also a long history that was influenced by many cultures, the Francs, Langobard, Venice,Slavs who all had their interpretations and laws, as well as Romans and the Byzantine. There were many differences in these because marriage wasn't in a relatively unified culture like Islam. Islam had the sheriah, but the Bible was never seen as a legal source of absolute authority like Quran. Europe had the Roman legal tradition so it was also a large source of authority. When speaking marriage in Europe we need to keep in mind how different it was. Francs treated their women badly and they took a long time to truly accept Christianity in their tribe laws. Things such as blood feud and protection of women was directly a product of Christianity, even if it took hundreds of years. Venice also had interesting marital laws as a mix of civilized Rome and barbarian customs.

>>7229329
Even If I was correct it I concede it was for the wrong reasons.

>>7229335
I would recommend you further reading, but I don't have any I know in English

>>7229347
fair enough, is this an area that you study seriously or is it just a hobby?

>>7229348
I study law, but all of our subjects are massive so there is a lot of information on marriage as it is essential. I had Roman, national and general legal history.

>>7229361
Quite interesting that, were time zones not so opposed to me, I would have liked to hear your opinion on the common law system compared to the ones that you have studied.

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." (2 Kings 2:23-24)

>>7229391
I'm theoretically not fond of the common law because it seems much easier to highjack for ones own purposes and isn't theoretically as advanced, but I'm far too ignorant on it to actually give you a valid critique.

>>7229061
>let's just ignore all of Polynesia
Shouldn't be hard, tbh, considering they had absolutely zero influence on Europe whatsoever until the last two centuries and even then it's mostly novelty except for their maritime navigation.

>>7229233
I'm not sure what your thing is about women keeping property. Numbers 27 says women can inherit property (indeed, this is brought up in Shakespeare's Henry V by the Archbishop of Canterbury as to why Salic law is invalid--something that was of course meaningful at a time when Elizabeth was Queen in England--although I'm sure there were plenty of female Muslim rulers and prophets).

>>7229233
>Yeah they don't allow divorce they just grant annulments to people with deep pockets and influence.
Such as King Henry VIII?

>>7229061

Literally irrelevant to world history

>>7230387
>I'm not sure what your thing is about women keeping property. Numbers 27 says women can inherit property

Nice way to completely misread that point, the issue wasnt that women cant inherit property the issue was that upon marraige their property would become their husbands. Up until the 19th Century any married womans property would legally become their husbands. Man and Women would become one, but the property would become the mans.

>Such as King Henry VIII?

Had Henry not already received special dispensation from the Church to marry her in the first place and were the pressures of the Reformation not present it seems unlikley that his request would have been denied. He failed due to circumstance rather than the Church being principled.

>>7230297
>All human socities acted like this
>Well this society didnt
>Well they dont count because they arent European

>>7230297
>europe is the only place that matters

>>7228759
I cant stand this fucking guys hair. It looks like a plant is growing out of his head

Ezekiel 23:20
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

Numbers 22:30
"And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay."

>>7231317
>Nice way to completely misread that point, the issue wasnt that women cant inherit property the issue was that upon marraige their property would become their husbands. Up until the 19th Century any married womans property would legally become their husbands. Man and Women would become one, but the property would become the mans.
Men and women became one, the man was the head of the household. Most women did not bring any property to the table, they just moved out of their dad's house and into their husband's. If women came from a family wealthy enough to own property, the man couldn't keep it in the event of a divorce.

>Had Henry not already received special dispensation from the Church to marry her in the first place and were the pressures of the Reformation not present
Protestants in the Reformation were pushing for more marital liberty. Martin Luther said divorce and polygamy were okay.

>He failed due to circumstance rather than the Church being principled.

This is just based on your bias. Henry VIII had received special attention from the Church and was labelled a defender of the faith. But I'm sure Thomas More defied him even thought it meant death out of personal interests

I appreciate your religious convictions, but you can buttress your religion without trying to shit on mine here.

>>7231339
>plant
>not a chicken facing the viewer's left
Step it up, senpai.

These hearts I've been breaking
And these girls I've been tasting don't never get naked
The like it in a headlock, fuck 'em from behind
Fuck 'em with they clothes off, put it to the side
Feelings to the side, like a don do
Get 'em wet, let it slide like a sunroof.

>>7231358
That part of Numbers is intended to be humorous according to Harold Bloom. The ass is more perceptive than the seer who rides him.

>>7231359
So your response was that its ok for a married women to surrender all her property to a man when she married because its unlikley she had any in the first place (Something which was made possible by the huge burdens placed on them:

>A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name, while a feme covert was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own. As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other. and that if she somehow managed to get a divorce she could keep her property.

And that were she able to divroce - which was a huge "if" given how difficult and male dominated the process was, she would be able to keep anything left from when she was single.

>Protestants in the Reformation were pushing for more marital liberty. Martin Luther said divorce and polygamy were okay.

Yes which is exactly why the Church had to make a show of force and crack down on corruption in general.

>This is just based on your bias. Henry VIII had received special attention from the Church and was labelled a defender of the faith. But I'm sure Thomas More defied him even thought it meant death out of personal interests

Not true, he had to recieve a special papal bull just to get married. Indeed the paper that led to him getting that label of defender of the faith was linked to this. For the Church to reverse all of this not only would it make them look foolish and weak for granting the dispensation in the first place but such flip flopping would have been doubly painful given the huge vigilance the church was under and how delicate their position was.

>I appreciate your religious convictions, but you can buttress your religion without trying to shit on mine here.

So its ok for you to shit on Islam, cherry pick passages and ingnore context and outright ignore any positive element Islamic marriage might have had over a Christian one.

Does it cause you that much pain to admit that Islamic marriages had principles that were superior to Christian ones that to acknowledge it is unthinkable?

>>7231409
>>7228759
I just want everybody to see that this nigga's hair looks like a chicken roosting on his head.

Andre's verse on Bombs Over Baghdad

Drake's verse on Poetic Justice

>>7231428
>So your response was that its ok for a married women to surrender all her property to a man when she married because its unlikley she had any in the first place (Something which was made possible by the huge burdens placed on them:
There should be no division of property kept in marriage, that's pretty fundamental. Really the only issue here is the husband and wife not making joint decisions on things. But there is no separation of property after marriage, husband and wife are of one flesh and holdings.

>Yes which is exactly why the Church had to make a show of force and crack down on corruption in general.
Right, they're excommunicated a king into setting up his own state protestant Church apart from the Catholic one, as a way to stop Protestant Churches from springing up. And you're telling me Thomas More was likewise merely motivated by what you described?

>So its ok for you to shit on Islam
Where, exactly?

>>7231492
Does it cause you that much pain to admit that Islamic marriages had principles that were superior to Christian ones that to acknowledge it is unthinkable?

Is there any point in me addressing your points if you will just ignore anything you cannot counter? Ive been willing to admit fault in this thread, can you?

Christians on this board are horrible. They need to stop. You don't see any other religion shilling their ideologies here, so you shouldn't either.

>>7231562
>nb4 "but you all follow a secular religion"

>>7231546
I don't think polygamous marriages that give husbands multiple wives can be considered superior in to monogamous marriages, no. From my point of view, that is living in sin and adultery. There's no place I can budge on that.

I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. Your major point is based on reading the mind of the Pope, suggesting the Church didn't really care about divorce except for show, even though Thomas More was willing to die over the matter. Your point about women having to forfeit property separate from the husband's, I already addressed: I don't think spouses should have separate property. That entailed some issues with the man as the head of the household, but it's not best addressed by making divorce easier or keeping property separate.

If the Church wanted to appease Protestants, it would have made divorce easier, not harder. Henry VIII consulted with Martin Luther over his divorces when the Pope said no. Martin Luther said the Church needed to be more lenient on divorce--so the Protestants were NOT complaining about the Church granting divorces, but on refusing to grant them.

>>7231608
Not that anon, but was Soloman committing a mortal sin by having all those wives and concubines?

>>7231693
Yes, of course. He also worshiped a ton of idols.

"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Matthew 3:12

and the classic "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." psalm 23:4

>>7228746
Genesis 49:10-12

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.

Why did so many of you quote the OT? I thought Paul said the OT and law is irrelevant to salvation in Christ.

>>7228854
And that's worse than getting trapped for life in a marriage with your rapist??

>>7231974
Back then, yes.

'Love thy neighbor as thyself' and 'love they enemies, bless those who curse you' are pretty damn beautiful, along with pic related. The OT is dodgy though.

>>7231974
Do you recall how David's daughter reacted after being raped by her brother?

>>7231998
Half brother, and it doesn't really make the law itself any better...

>>7231994
>Islam
beautiful quote, almost makes me want to read it

>>7232030
The point is that the law was there to protect the woman, not to trap her, like now you have to be stuck with this guy because he raped you. It was about forcing him to make good, not punishing her. In fact, she might well have been able to get out of it, it's just that I imagine such a thing would be practically unheard of, because a woman needs a husband and a ton of children to support her for 3/4 of her life.

>>7232040
I guess there's something to that, but it seems like you'd get a lot of cases where assholes rape a woman to end up married to her without going through the family (or, god forbid, actually getting to know her as a person).

>>7232055
I don't think getting to know her as a person was a prerequisite for marriage back then. I think it was mainly an arrangement with the dad for a dowry or you paying him, depending on social factors. It slowly evolved to women getting more choice in the matter, and by that time the law probably was different in practice. By the time of Christianity, the Church made it a law that a woman could even marry without her father's consent, and that women had to give consent continually for three weeks before a marriage in order to make sure their dads weren't pressuring them into it.

>>7231428
I'm the law student from before and I explained that Islamic marriage wasn't marriage in the way Europe understood it, it was like trading a camel. Maybe not as drastic, but it was essentially a trade contract without the sacrament part. The woman also had absolutely no rights. Saying that Islamic marriage is superior to European is also as explained earlier very depending on the country and time as there were different laws for different states as opposed to a generally more unified Islamic culture.
Also shitting on your religion is absolutely fine for Thomas as any Christian can consider it a spawn of Satan in the most literal way possible. My brother who is a Christian once remarked that in the Bible only one angel is described as beautiful.

>>7228746

>Surah 33:57 Surely, those who annoy God and His Messenger are cursed by God in this world and in the Hereafter, and He has prepared for them a humiliating punishment. 58 As for those who slander believing men and believing women without their having done anything (wrong), they shall bear the burden of slander and a manifest sin. 59 O prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they should draw down their shawls over them. That will make it more likely that they are recognized, hence not teased And God is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful.
>60 Truly if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (doubt the prophet as a possible false prophet), and those who stir up debate in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time: 61 They shall have a curse on them: wherever they are found, they shall be slain with a relentless slaughter (without mercy). 62 (Such was) the law (approved) of God among those who lived before you; you will not find any change in the law of God.

>>7228746
“(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, “These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom.”
They said to him, “Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?”
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom.”

from the apocryphal gospel of thomas

>>7232080
>arrangement with the dad for a dowry or you paying him
Dowry and bride payment are completely (diametrically!) different things.

Dowry is the daughter's share of the family inheritance, to be used as insurance in the case she becomes widowed or her husband abandons her.

So no, the groom does not normally negotiate with his father-in-law for a dowry; at the very least it would be very sleazy, akin to embezzling your wife's life insurance.

>>7233473
This is correct
-law student

>>7228934
would you kindly explain to the book of job to me please?

I bomb atomically,Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries
Lyrically perform armed robbery
Flee with the lottery, possibly they spotted me
Battle-scarred Shogun,explosion when my pen hits tremendous
Ultra-violet shine blind forensics
I inspect you,through the future see millennium
Killer Bees sold fifty gold, sixty platinum
Shackling the masses with drastic rap tactics
Graphic displays melt the steel like blacksmiths
Black Wu jackets, Queen Bees ease the guns in
Rumble with patrolmen, tear gas laced the function
Heads by the score take flight incite a war
Chicks hit the floor, die hard fans demand more
Behold the bold soldier, control the globe slowly
Proceeds to blow,swinging swords like Shinobi
Stomp grounds and pound footprints in solid rock
Wu got it locked, performing live on your hottest block

>>7229442

that is so tight

>>7228746
>For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the lord endureth forever. (1 Peter 1:24 )

>>7228746
Jesus wept.

>>7229120
Magnifique.

>>7231336
This.
So correct.

>>7228789
rape then was pretty much any pre-marital sex IIRC

>>7233473
The dowry, in OT contexts, is what the father gives the husband to ensure his daughter has a good life. It can include a house, goats, land, shekels, servants etc. It's a head start in life. And yes, it is the exact opposite of paying the dad, unless of course the payment is given in labor à la Jacob for his wives (and note, we're supposed to find it a bit humorous how Jacob got screwed there, seeing as how badly Jacob, the first Jew, screwed his brother).

>>7234131
no, if the woman agrees it's adultery. In scale, the two are similar

Protip: if your favourite verse is from the OT, you're probably not a Christian, just a /pol/tard

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Mark 12:41-44

>>7234150
>The dowry, in OT contexts, is what the father gives the husband
No, not the husband, the wife. Dowry is what the wife brings to the new family under their marriage contract, so to speak.

>>7231336
>Europe is the only place that matter
Correct

>>7231428
>Indeed the paper that led to him getting that label of defender of the faith was linked to this.
not true, Henry was one of the guys who actually defended the doctrine against attacks from Luther, that's why Luther called him a big fat liar and why Henry hesitated about changing doctrine.

And this our life, exempt from public haunt,
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones, and good in everything.
I would not change it.

2 Timothy 2:3
Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

"My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
"Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.
"What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
"I never know what you are thinking. Think."

>>7234415

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.

But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It speaks yet it says nothing: what of that?

>>7235462
>he doesn't post the whole poem

Shamefur dispray.

>>7235485
The dismal Situation waste and wilde,
A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round
As one great Furnace flam'd, yet from those flames
No light, but rather darkness visible
Serv'd onely to discover sights of woe,
Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace
And rest can never dwell, hope never comes
That comes to all; but torture without end
Still urges, and a fiery Deluge, fed
With ever-burning Sulphur unconsum'd:

>>7235462
this are without doubt the favorite verses of a teenager (or an adult with a teenage soul).
Invictus is the go to poem for:
E D G Y
D
G
Y

>>7228938
Yeah, I would go so far as to say you are a cuckold if you do not throw every women you meet into a volcano.

If the home we never write to, and the oaths we never keep,
And all we know most distant and most dear,
Across the snoring barrack-room return to break our sleep,
Can you blame us if we soak ourselves in beer?
When the drunken comrade mutters and the great guard-lantern gutters
And the horror of our fall is written plain,
Every secret, self-revealing on the aching white-washed ceiling,
Do you wonder that we drug ourselves from pain?

We have done with Hope and Honour, we are lost to Love and Truth,
We are dropping down the ladder rung by rung,
And the measure of our torment is the measure of our youth.
God help us, for we knew the worst too young!
Our shame is clean repentance for the crime that brought the sentence,
Our pride it is to know no spur of pride,
And the Curse of Reuben holds us till an alien turf enfolds us
And we die, and none can tell Them where we died.

>>7235577
Happy is your Grace,
That can translate the stubbornness of Fortune
Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

>>7234209
Also, if it's about classification of sin or the way in which you should live, there's a good chance you aren't. Skipping the acknowledgement that all are sinners and will continually fail plagues modern Christianity.

Spleen
When the low and heavy sky presses like a lid
On the groaning heart a prey to slow cares,
And when from a horizon holding the whole orb
There is cast at us a dark sky more sad than night;
When earth is changed to a damp dungeon,
Where Hope, like a bat,
Flees beating the walls with its timorous wings,
And knocking its head on the rotting ceilings;
When the rain spreads out vast trails
Like the bars of a huge prison,
And when, like sordid spiders, silent people stretch
Threads to the depths of our brains,
Suddenly the bells jump furiously
And hurl to the sky a horrible shriek,
Like some wandering landless spirits
Starting an obstinate complaint.
— And long hearses, with no drums, no music,
File slowly through my soul: Hope,
Conquered, cries, and despotic atrocious Agony
Plants on my bent skull its flag of black.

>>7235433
based

>>7235577
Really, agency and emotional self-sufficiency are edgy now? Are you British?

"Hark! one saith: 'Proclaim!'
And he saith: 'What shall I proclaim?'
'All flesh is grass,
And all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field" (Isaiah 40:6)

>>7228746

>>7228958
>be fruitful and multiply
ANTI SEX!

>>7229124
>implying polyamory is not the next marriage equality

>>7236777
Regardless of how you just described the poem, he isn't wrong. It really is the battle-cry of edge lords.

A thousand ages in thy sight
Are like an evening gone;
Short as the watch that ends the night
Before the rising sun.

>>7228746
'It is the thought-life that pollutes."
Zen Mastah Jezu

>>7228746
>favorite verses
The meme-ing must stop.

>>7230483
Oh, you're here too. Greetings from /int/ /fr/

>>7237150
Sneaky Gene

6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

Song of Songs/Solomon 1:6

all of the song of solomon is pretty dank.
Also, sinse the thread didn't say specifically "bible verse", here is one of my favorites (translated) from the Gitanjali.

"When thou commandest me to sing it seems that my heart would break with pride; and I look to thy face, and tears come to my eyes.

All that is harsh and dissonant in my life melts into one sweet harmony---and my adoration spreads wings like a glad bird on its flight across the sea.

I know thou takest pleasure in my singing. I know that only as a singer I come before thy presence.

I touch by the edge of the far-spreading wing of my song thy feet which I could never aspire to reach.

Drunk with the joy of singing I forget myself and call thee friend who art my lord."
-rabindranath tagore

>>7237882
*since

>>7231994
>Unitarianism
>A fucking LEAF