An Alabama woman was imprisoned for ‘endangering’ her fetus. She gave birth in a jail shower
Exclusive: Ashley Caswell, one of a growing number of jailed pregnant women in Etowah county, is suing officials after she was denied care
You're viewing a single thread.
Another proud moment for Christianity
These people don't have the right to call themselves Christian. They just use that word to back up their actions with unchallengeable authority.
And yet that's how the Christian majority chooses to vote.
Being a majority doesn't automatically make a group right. But unfortunately it does make them the loudest.
How is that not Christian exactly?
The Bible doesn't teach dominating and torturing people, for one.
Tell us you haven't read the Bible without telling us you haven't read the Bible.
Just in case you think that's all OT, Eternal torture was a NT invention. At least when OT God ordered you tortured and killed, that was the end of it.
I have read the Bible. In extreme detail, many times. "Hell" isn't a biblical teaching. It wasn't even a concept to the ancient Jews and Israelites. It's not OT or NT.
Show me something that directly supports a literal eternal torture from the Bible. And parables from Jesus aren't supporting scriptures, because of their very nature being parables, which are figurative stories to convey a lesson or point for teaching.
. It wasn’t even a concept to the ancient Jews and Israelites. It’s not OT or NT.
First off it was. Secondly the Romans had a concept of it and Christianity is basically paganism with a Jewish accent.
which are figurative stories to convey a lesson or point for teaching.
Oh, if it is to convey a message then why did Jesus say this?
Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."
Let me repeat the moneyshot because I think you will ignore it
lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."
Jesus is very very clear here that he speaks in parables so people who are not worthy won't understand and won't be able to repent or even stop what they are doing wrong.
It isn't a command, since humans don't have that ability. Hell is described by Jesus in Luke 16. Humans being human, all sorts of temperal tortures have been justified as doing the victim a favor by potentially saving them from eternal torture, but I don't think that is explicit in the text.
As an aside, over half of Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox primarily) consider the teachings of the church to be the primary root of the faith, not "sola scriptura" as came in with protestantism. All sorts of religiously justified torture arose on both sides of that divide though.
It makes more sense. The Bible has contradictions, sometimes within the same book. Matthew for example can't seem to decide who the dad is. If you go sola scriptura you are basically stuck squaring the circle. If you have a Pope they can issue an official version that overrides everything. That's why you see all those weird Bible literalists groups are prots.
Jesus is pretty clear in Mark that he talks in parables so some people won't understand and go to hell.
Mark 4:11-12
I really don't know what to say. You can read the gospels and see Jesus threatening people who refuse to kiss the ring with hell. You can see Paul doing the same. Do what I say or die and go to hell. Forsake your own family for me or die and go to hell. Hail me as king or die and go to hell. Bankrupt yourself and depend fully on God (with me as proxy) or go to hell There are even verses where the man argues that the mystical components of the universe must and do bend to his will. Claiming to rule the Sabbath would be on the level of a modern human claiming to boss gravity around. But not content with that we have stories of him beating the devil and arguing with God
How is this not threatening people? How is this not assuming authority over people? Literally telling people to abandon their children and follow him is not authority seeking?
I am alright. I already got Paul condemning a couple to die for not giving him enough money right after he gave a list of people who annoyed him and said that they were going to hell.
No wonder that religion causes so many problems. All the founders are just these petty awful bitter people.
🤣 What do you think hell is exactly?
Weird how the author of City of God and one of the most famous Christian thinkers of all time completely disagreed. You got to love a flexible moral system, it allows anyone to claim to be the True Scotsmen authentic deal and condemn as heretics everyone else.
Augustine was wrong about Christianity, St. Paul was wrong abojt Christianity, Jesus was wrong about Christianity, every single Christian thinker was wrong about Christianity except one random on Lemmy.
I can look it up tonight if you really want but basically Augustine argued that you are allowed to go after heretics as long as you do it for love of their souls. If they couldn't be convinced of their "errors" by talking you were allowed to use violence since burning in hell is so much worse.
As I said it is pretty amazing how every single person can just declare themselves the true Christian whenever they want.
Well, the reality is that most people who call themselves Christian are wrong about many things, but not everything.
Augustine subscribed to the Just War theory, which flies in the face of loving your neighbour as well as your enemy, and "Nor will they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4)
That being said Augustine wasn't wrong about everything. The Bible is a thick book, and people back then didn't have the resources that exist today. I can look up any word or topic within the Bible directly or from additional resources in mere seconds, whereas anyone from even 50 years ago had to scan through pages manually.
How lucky we are to have the single True Christian in our midst.
Honestly, do you even know the Biblical languages? Could I give you a random sentence in Hebrew or konic Greek and you can translate it? How about Aramaic? Because take a guess which one of us in this conversation can. Before my deconversion I was planning to be a Biblical Scholar. Fortunately I saw the light in time.
Hell is not in the Bible.
The words often translated as hell are She'ol and Ge'henna.
She'ol is translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit in the King James version.
The word itself is derived from sha'al which means "ask" or "request" because "the grave is always asking for more". Implying that death is always waiting. (Death in this context being the state of death, not "Death" the horseman, which itself is figurative).
She'ol is not a specific grave, but rather the "common grave of mankind". It refers to the state of being dead. As in "everyone goes 6ft under".
It doesn't refer to a "place of hell" and sure as hell (heh) doesn't refer to a place of torture.
Ge'henna is a short form for "Valley of Hinnom". It was a place outside of Jerusalem where Kings Ahaz and Manasseh engaged in idolatrous worship which included child sacrifices. Those Kings and their followers were executed and had their bodies dumped in that valley, left to rot and not buried, so that carrion eaters would desecrate their bodies and deprived from an honourable burial. And then the place was turned into a garbage dump to further dishonour them.
Jeremiah 7:31 - "They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart."
So saying someone went to Ge'henna was akin to saying someone displeased God so badly that they will not be honoured by Him and he finds their actions "detestable".
Nothing to do with a place of torture.
This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you. There are descriptions of hell in the Talmud, I trust Rabbis to know more about Judaic beliefs of the time they are living in vs someone 20 centuries later who is not even Jewish.
People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it's entomology doesn't mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented. When I say Dartmouth to you do you think "mouth of the Dart river" or do you think of the famous school there? Does your answer change if someone of a different religion from you 20 centuries later argues that "really what they meant to say is"?
This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you.
It's not opinion. It's based on historical studies and historical linguistics. This is not something I came up with out of thin air. It's been studied and verified by experts from around the world.
Even the Wikipedia page about She'ol states "Within the Hebrew Bible, there are few – often brief and nondescript – mentions of Sheol, seemingly describing it as a place where both the righteous and the unrighteous dead go, regardless of their moral choices in life."
That's something Jesus said about birth the righteous and unrighteous. It's the figurative "place" where everyone goes when they enter the state of death.
The site myjewishlearning.com says of hell in the Talmud:
"there is generally no concept of judgment or reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man"
People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it's entomology doesn't mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented.
That's partially true. But there are many many supporting scriptures, old manuscripts like the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other historical texts that do not support the notion of eternal torture, hell, or an "evil" afterlife.
And now you are goalpost moving. Sheol is not geheniham and never was. There is about 800 years of thought you are condensing into a single time period, a time period that we know there were arguments about this. At the supposed time of Jesus there were at least three versions of the afterlife floating around. What you are doing now is making those three into one and pull stuff from 800 years prior and saying that is part of it as well. Do you agree with every single idea people had in 1223 AD?
Yes you are right about one thing but what you are right about doesn't matter. The 8th century BC Jews didn't really have a concept of judgement in the afterlife. That however tells us nothing about 1st century Jews.
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)”
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)”
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
Timothy 2:12
"But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head."
Corinthians 11:5-6
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Colossians 3:22-24
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them"
Titus 2:9-10
“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”
Peter 2:18
You're cherry picking without context.
For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. It's historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves (which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or "released" when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. It's not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today). The only time a slave was to be beaten was for punishment, like attacking another person, stealing, raping, etc. It's not like they had the local Sheriff's office they could call, so land owners (who were often days away from nearby settlements) would be the legal authority of that area.
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isn't a "teaching" in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didn't specify, because there's a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy) also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. It's like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a "weaker vessel" (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? There's two of them) how is this torture? It's just about head coverings, and one that's often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *"Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God."
Verse 15 also says "For her hair is given to her instead of a covering"
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and that's all that matters.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace "slave" with employee and "master" with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to "employee".
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
Edit: clarified about indebted servitude being about paying off a debt
This is probably the worst abuse of the "but context!" argument I have ever seen. Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that's what you want to see. There is no actual context that changes what these verses mean, and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
This is probably the worst abuse of the "but context!" argument I have ever seen.
Context is king.
Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that's what you want to see.
Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says "you must obey Jesus" means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.
and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
I think you're mis-applying a different historical context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
"Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner."
For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. It's historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves
It's not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
(which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or "released" when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. It's not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today).
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if there's a word for that...
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isn't a "teaching" in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
It's not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didn't specify, because there's a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy)
You're very clever, congratulations.
also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. It's like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a "weaker vessel" (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
You can give all the context you want, that's sexism, plain and simple.
It's like a chain of command for the purposes of order.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on what's between your legs.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? There's two of them)
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.
how is this torture? It's just about head coverings, and one that's often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *"Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God."
The Bible doesn't teach dominating and torturing people, for one.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to me...
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and that's all that matters.
Men aren't forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace "slave" with employee and "master" with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to "employee".
Except CEOs aren't allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
"Employees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse."
And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if there's a word for that...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
"Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner."
"Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave's point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."
"Although not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade."
"The Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered "voluntarily" for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed "involuntarily" as a judicial punishment. "
Yes, there's a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. I'm just focusing on the Biblical period.
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and that's "humans as resources" in the title).
You can give all the context you want, that’s sexism, plain and simple.
Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.” Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on what’s between your legs.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it's "technically" possible, but how often does that happen?). I know you'll disagree on this, and that's fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this "order" isn't oppressive in any way. There's no privilege or power in the role (there isn't supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). It's only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A "leader" doesn't control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, we're going to disagree on this.
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because they've been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to me…
Men aren’t forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.
Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.
Except CEOs aren’t allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didn't read, and if they did they definitely didn't have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.
That being said, slavery in the Bible isn't what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
Edit: formatting, clarification
"Broadly, the Biblical... equally to any other resident alien."*
What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize.
I don't even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Is it though?
Yes. It's literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others".
Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
Ah, I see. "Seperate but equal".
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it's "technically" possible, but how often does that happen?).
It is possible, and it does happen.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.
Would you support this?
That being said, slavery in the Bible isn't what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
"The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude."
Yep, that fits.
I'll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And again, the rampant homophobia.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don't doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
I don't even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Because you think "slavery" means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
Yes. It's literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others
No, it's all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless you're WestJet).
Ah, I see. "Seperate but equal".
Just "equal".
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
I did specify "large corporation" in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Yep, that fits.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era we're talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
I'll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And I'll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. "Slavery", as it's used today, is technically "chattel slavery", which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word "slavery" has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isn't. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. "Slaves" under voluntary servitude were even able to "seek a new master". Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don't doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Well, this one clearly does, as he's trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
Because you think "slavery" means the same thing across all time
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It's close enough.
No, it's all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since you're agruing for thr same thing, I guess it's not so strange.
Involuntary servitude
Involuntary servitude
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who weren't freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries weren't to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
"Slaves" under voluntary servitude were even able to "seek a new master". Basically find a new job.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
There's a saying that when democracy doesn't favour conservatives, they don't turn from conservatism, they'll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they don't turn of the bible, instead they'll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and behold...
And of course the rampant homophobia.
Book of Revelations, read it, and get back to me.
I have read it. No hell. Can you cite specifics?
.....yeah the whore of Babylon made out perfectly fine.
So no specifics then.
I just gave you one! Literally just fucking now. Why are you so determined to die on this hill? You are ignoring Scripture, you are ignoring what all the top minds of Christianity said, you are ignoring 20 centuries of culture, you are muddling definitions and demanding that because Jews from one century didn't believe in hell that 800 years later Christians must not have. I bet there were a thousand priests and ministers and reverends and bishops out there this week alone who talked about hell. Why do you think so many parents in history were obsessed with Baptism? Why was Unitarianism banned over and over again if not for its doctrine of hell denial? Why so many paintings and stained glass and novels (Dante inferno, paradise lost etc) depicting a place that you are argue isn't Christianity?
All of these Christians were wrong and you alone out of billions know what True Scotsmen Christianity stood for.
I was expecting something along the lines of a scripture with some supporting argument.
Since you mention the prostitute representing Babylon, I'm going to guess you mean Revelations 17:16
"these will hate the prostitute and will make her devastated and naked, and they will eat up her flesh and completely burn her with fire."
The prostitute mentioned in Revelations represents false religion, not an actual person. And fire in the Bible is often a metaphor for complete destruction, as in destroyed so thoroughly that something can never be repaired or restored.
So the prostitute (false religion) will be destroyed so completely that it will never exist ever again.
Tell me you’ve never actually read the Bible without telling me you never read the Bible
Tell me you've never really studied the Bible without telling me.
I have read the Bible, in detail, for decades. Go look at my other comments in this thread for an idea of what I'm talking about.
Haha, are you high?! The Bible is full of torture! Look at the story of Job, or the commandment to rape young girls after slaughtering their families (Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” Numbers 31: 17-18)
If that isn’t enough for you, what about all of the various times god commands his people to stone each other for everything from cheating (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) to talking back to your parents (Proverbs 13:24; Proverbs 19:18; Proverbs 22:15)?
Or how about allowing torture with slaves? Check out Exodus 21:20-21 to learn more.
And before you go all “the Old Testament doesn’t count” on me like Christian’s are wont to do (as though picking and choosing various bits out is ok while ignoring all the fucked up bullshit instead of owning it and saying that yeah, women are worthless and deserve to be raped for no reason at all (Lot’s daughters, in case that wasn’t clear to you)) Jesus was tortured during his crusifiction, because I guess god wanted it that way?
So yeah, the god of your bible absolutely promotes torture. And if you’ve actually read it like you claim you have, you’d know that.
https://lemmy.world/comment/4605883
Look at the story of Job
So as I said in my original comment: the Bible doesn't teach torture, not "torture is nevet mentioned in the Bible".
what about all of the various times god commands his people to stone each other
This wasn't torture, it was literally punishment or execution. And I know you'll come up with some excuse like "why didn't a soldier just do it?" or "why did those things merit execution?" You would be missing the point. We're not talking about the differences in modern culture to theirs or societal laws. We're talking about torture.
The article was about a disadvantaged pregnant woman who was tortured. Someone mentioned something about Christianity, and all I said "the Bible doesn't teach torture".
Stoning was torture, as well as a form of punishment. They’re not mutually exclusive, just like the woman was in prison as a form of punishment, and lived though torturous conditions.
Did you read the rest of my comment? Those were teachings, and commandments by god to torture various people for various reasons. There are many more examples in the Bible, by the way. I just grabbed the first several to come to mind.
Stoning was torture, as well as a form of punishment
By today's standards, absolutely. But in those days and in those cultures, it wasn't.
Those were teachings, and commandments by god to torture various people for various reasons.
No they weren't. The example of Job wasn't God torturing him. It was Satan torturing him. The ultimate point of which was to show that people can/will be persecuted for their faith. Now a discussion on why it was allowed to happen is a completely different discussion.
I'm not sure what your point is with Proverbs 19:18. All it says is to "discipline your son (children)".
Proverbs 13:24 - oh I see, you think disciplining with a rod means to beat the kid. Except the rod that's referenced with discipline is the kind of rod a shepherd uses. And a shepherd doesn't beat their sheep, they use it to guide by applying pressure here or there to coax the sheep to go a certain direction, and only when needed. That's the discipline that's being taught. Firm guidance to correct the path a child is on. It's the same theme with God's people being called "His flock". A shepherd cares for all the sheep under his care. Even in one of Jesus' parables he mentions a shepherd who leaves the flock to find a lost sheep and bring it back to the flock. All of these analogies are about diligent care.
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 - Executing someone for violating laws isn't anything new and is not torture. Many countries still do it in some cases. We can debate the ethics of capital punishment, but our viewpoints are biased by modern standards. We have established governments and comprehensive legal infrastructures in place. We can call emergency services if something bad is happening or even a lawyer to deal with non-life threatening issue if it's a legal matter. None of that existed back then. The constraints that ancient people had to work with, compared to modern times, necessitated a more "brutal" approach (for lack of a better word) to maintain order.
So to equate the ancient, yet simplistic, way of maintaining order with torture is entirely disingenuous.
edit: formatting
Sure
On the other hand the christians that are ashamed of this are not doing enough to show their disapproval
"Do unto others", and all that.
