use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
Help victims of the Aurora shootings
Help victims of the Sikh shootings
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›
Morality? Guess which one the Bible is OK with. (i.imgur.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [deleted]
[–]Laziness 22 points23 points24 points 10 months ago
Both look like homosexual relationships. The left one is kinkier.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
Black boots with a brown leather jacket? Blasphemy!
[–]a3wagner 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
It's okay, they're both pseudo-neutrals.
[–]ZalRed 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I was horrified by the cotton/linen combination.
[–]guillelon 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
repost, I post it like a month ago there
[–]turnleftdale 8 points9 points10 points 10 months ago
Guess which has been practiced by every civilization since the dawn of time?
[–]stumblios 29 points30 points31 points 10 months ago
I'm pretty sure both have, slavery was just more widely accepted.
ding ding ding
[–]MeloJelo 6 points7 points8 points 10 months ago
Depending on which civiliation we're talking about. I think Romans and Greeks were pretty sweet on the homo action.
[–][deleted] 10 months ago
[deleted]
[–]James-Cizuz 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
They were fabulous.
http://io9.com/5616498/ultraviolet-light-reveals-how-ancient-greek-statues-really-looked
No really, anyone trying to claim they were not flaming homosexuals has never seen these statues in original colour.
[–]Alphennus 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Romans and Greeks were also hot about slaves too...especially the Romans...the slave population is estimated to be about 15-20% back then..
[–]EricTboneJackson 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
It would be more powerful (and just as true) if it showed a slave being beaten with a baseball bat so severely that he dies after a couple of days. Perfectly OK according to the Bible:
"If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." -- Exodus 21:20-21
Just make sure the slave/maid/servant doesn't die while you're beating them, because that would be a sin! If they lie there in a coma for a day or two before dying, it's all good.
[–]ur_god_izfake 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Always wondered why gawd didn't just kill the owner himself or have a floating sign follow them everywhere stating the slave died because of the beating. Surely gawd would know... But that would require actually existing. Scumbag deity, forcing others to do his killing..
[–]fnybny 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago*
What about the bears god sent to eat the children who mocked Elijah's old-age baldness?
[–]turnleftdale 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
Elisha wasn't king, get your shit straight.
[–]Alphennus 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Not to mention the baldness was actually symbolic meaning. Elijah was known to be a hairy man or was known for the hairy cloak he wore. When the children mocked him...it was meant that Elisha did not or would not amount to Elijah..
[–]turnleftdale 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
In that Elijah was 'called to heaven' and the children said 'go up you bald-head'.
Or you know, I may have just been that the kids were dicks.
Not sure what you're quite saying here XD though if you look at different translations and the Greek writing..the children were meaning go away...and yes they might have been the latter : P
[–]MeloJelo 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
Therefore, mauled by bears.
Yes??
[–]c0pypastry 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I think those two slave fellows are on the DL.
[–]Hank_Moody 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Related.
[–]FredWampy 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Don't end imperative sentences with a question mark?
No?
[–]arnizach 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Two things: "Modern" slavery is not necessarily the same as ancient, Biblical slavery. Biblical slavery is not necessarily the same as Biblical slavery either, since the different bits dealing with slavery were written in different time periods, different places and different socio-economic situations.
Which leads us to the next point: There's no such thing as "The Bible" as a uniform, monolithic thing saying one thing consistently. Fundamentalists might like to pretend that it is so, but it isn't. The Bible is a library and needs to be treated as such, where some bits are more important than others. Love of God and neighbour is said by Jesus, in whom Christians believe first and foremost, to be the most important thing in the Bible. Just how love of neighbour squares with slavery, especially the "modern" kind, is hard to imagine. Which means, in my opinion at least, that the important love-bit trumps the less important slavery-bit. Which is to say, no, the Bible isn't OK with slavery. Not really.
[–]dogsent 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Is the Christian Bible "The inspired word of God"? Or do we get to pick the bits we agree with? Are the Ten Commandments fair game for picking and choosing?
Although I admire your sincere and thoughtful response, it seems to me you put too much spin on that reply. I agree that the Bible isn't consistent. But then how are we to interpret it? Which parts are the authentic message from GOD, and which parts are the products of a somewhat primitive and superstitious culture?
Well, if by "inspired" you mean "God directly composed it", then no. I don't believe that. But I do believe that the Bible is intimately tied up in what God has done and is doing in the world. What I mean is that I believe that God did some specific acts in history, the most important of which was the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Bible is important, because it witnesses to those acts. And as such it continues the work those acts started, by directing the church, etc.
How does one pick and choose, or rather, interpret? Well, on the basis of those acts of God. If Jesus is the most important thing to happen (in the Bible, but also ever), as we Christians believe, the Bible should arguably be interpreted from that perspective. Jesus himself said as much in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), for example, or on the road to Emmaus (i.e. Luke 24:25-27). The Gospel writers do so as well, when they reappropriate Old Testament prophecies and stories and work them into the narrative of Jesus. And the writers of the epistles do so too, like Paul or the writer of Hebrews, which is basically one long reinterpretation of the Old Testament in light of Jesus. The Book of Revelation too. And this, to use a fancy theological term, christocentric hermeneutic has been affirmed throughout the tradition, for example by Luther who called Christ the sun shining at the centre of the Bible, illuminating various parts in various ways. While there are obviously other ways to go about interpreting the Bible, I trust you can see how this way is consistent with the inner logic of Christianity.
So to answer your question, Jesus is the authentic message from GOD and it is with him as our interpreting principle that we should read the Bible.
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Do you understand that your interpretation is very personal, and not the most common interpretation?
How do you interpret this?
Matthew 19
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,
19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
What do you mean personal?
And while my opinion might not be one that gets a lot of press, I think I showed somewhat adequately how it fits very nicely with the inner logic and the historical trajectory of Christian theology.
I interpret those verses quite straight forwardly, even if the thrones and tribes might be apocalyptic language, not to be taken literally. I think Jesus means it when he says we have to sell all we own, in addition to keeping the 10 commandments. I must admit that I fluctuate between thinking he was being hyperbolic, on the one hand, and despair, on the other, because that means I'm a shitty Christian. On a more principled level, those verses capture quite neatly the subversive character of Christianity, how it turns things on their heads and requires radical self-denial, just like Jesus denied himself. Those who are first in that last verse are surely us Christians who think we're A-OK with the Lord, but have completely forgotten what he said in our cultural wars for family values and capitalism and smug moral superiority otherwise.
I agree that your logic and perspective is clear and consistent. It's just not widely accepted. There are far more people who subscribe to the fundamentalist school of thought.
I agree that in Matthew 19:16-30 Jesus was giving straightforward answers to direct questions. He told the young man to sell everything he owned and become a wandering holy man, like Jesus and the 12 disciples. In response to his disciples question about who would be saved, I don't think he anticipated the rise of Christianity as a world-wide religion. At the time he was preaching to the Jews. That is why he said they would be on thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. However, he was very clear in saying that everyone who had left everything behind to become a wandering holy man, like Jesus, would be given eternal life.
This is a very clear and direct instruction from Jesus that contradicts the currently popular prosperity theology.
Are you aware that in India today there are millions of wandering holy men?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu
Yes, that's true. There are a lot of fundamentalists and they are quite vocal. But I did answer your original question, didn't I? I did provide a theologically coherent hermeneutic for interpreting, for "picking and choosing" the Bible, didn't I?
Well, Jesus said a lot of stuff in addition to that and an adequate understanding of his message should take all those things into account too. But yes, living a holy, ascetic life was central to his life and message.
I'm an inclusivist, so I don't have much of a problem recognising holy men in religions other than Christianity, if that's what you're implying :)
Yes, your theological position is well considered and makes sense to me.
In the context of this topic my concern is with the organized religion franchise operations that drive political debate, motivate masses of voters, and influence public policy.
If religion were simply a matter of personal beliefs, interpretations of various writings, and private practices of reverence and devotion we would not be having this discussion.
However, the major religious franchise operations do strive to influence the political agenda and have been very successful at motivating large numbers of voters.
What concerns me is the coercive nature of the religious argument. By claiming that GOD endorses a particular political position or candidate discussion of the issues is curtailed. The authority of GOD is used to dictate, and negate any attempt to use logic and reason to arrive at a more thoughtful conclusion.
I mentioned the wandering holy men of India to demonstrate that in some cultures it is entirely possible to follow the instructions given by Jesus to his followers. Modern Christians ignore the passages I cited because they are inconvenient. To me, this means they are not following the "Word of God" and have no right to claim they know how GOD wants people to vote.
I find the Christian Right voting block offensive, irrational, and obstinate.
I pretty much agree with you 100%, although I'm a bit uneasy about complete privatisation of religious belief. But yes, I agree with you about the evil of the religious right.
And really interesting point about those holy men. Really interesting.
I wouldn't want to prevent people from forming social relationships based on religious beliefs. I'd prefer those social groups were more like a book club than a political action committee. It seems to me that organized religions and political parties attract more followers by going to extremes and making a lot of noise.
Maybe it's just human nature to push things to an extreme. I think it's funny that "extreme" is such a popular marketing term. What does "extreme" pizza mean? And why would I want to eat something extreme? Personally, I'd prefer to have a pleasant pizza. And maybe a nice salad to go with it. When did "extreme" become a good thing?
I've really enjoyed our discussion by the way. You have a very practical view of theology. I greatly appreciate people who are practical and pragmatic. It seems to me that people who have a cautious and practical nature accomplish more good in this world than those who make the most noise.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I suppose it depends on the definition of "Word of God". Some parts of the bible, yeas, they're interpretive and allegorical and we'll never come to agree on any true meaning. And I think that's a strength of the book(s) not a weakness.
But some books, like Numbers and Leviticus, really do seem to be the historical true laws and lists of the early Israelites. I think they can be interpreted fairly literally but the verses themselves still have to be taken in context. that is, they are the laws of the monotheistic Hebrews, for starters and they are not applicable to society today. Why not? Well, we're not escaping Egypt and wandering into the Canaan for starters...
There are many different views on which parts of the Bible should be interpreted as the "Word of God".
Matthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:18-19 “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Luke 16:17 "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."
Many people interpret that to mean that all the Old Testament laws apply. That would include some very problematic rules.
Leviticus 15:16-18 "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the even.
Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
Numbers 15:38-40 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by chasing after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God."
Deuteronomy 6:6-9 "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates."
Leviticus 11:4 "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Exodus 22:16-20 "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
[–]IranRPCV 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago*
The Bible is a book. Calling it the word of God is idolatry. You should pick and choose.
Edit: left out "it"
Are there parts that are "The inspired word of God"? If so, which parts?
[–]IranRPCV 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
The Bible calls idolatry taking things that are not God as God. If God is God, His word is the essence of existence. My understanding of it is that scripture becomes scripture when the words stir the spirit of love and understanding in a persons heart.
There is much scientific literature that I would call inspired, including "On the Origin of Species". I don't require an ancient committee to decide for me, but I don't decide for anyone else, either.
If anything that inspires can be considered the "Word of God" that makes for a very confusing situation for the organized religious franchises and their subscribers.
I agree with your perspective, but we appear to be in a minority.
Yes. Celtic Christians called following the Spirit a wild goose chase, because it was so unpredictable. I am not completely against organised religion, because I saw the same institutions that supported slavery for hundreds of years lead the civil rights movement in the US, and abolish Apartheid in South Africa. They are moving in that direction regarding the rights of lgbt people now See the Heartland proclamation.
Any organization can take political positions and support causes based on the shared intentions of it's membership. I agree that organized religions often take up noble causes. But they can also support bigotry and oppression. What makes organized religions different is their claim of a supernatural authority based on their version of the "Word of God." It seems to me that the use of "God says..." in discussions curtails reasoning and logical evaluation of the issue at hand.
If religion were simply a personal matter the stakes would not be so high. However, the dictates of religious franchises drive too many political discussions and decisions.
I agree with you for the most part. There are quite a few organised religious groups among both Christians and in Islam that hold that matters of belief are between an individual and the divine, and that churches or priesthoods have no business mandating belief. This would be generally true of Quakers and Community of Christ, for instance.
Any person or group pretends to take on the responsibility to think for you by the time you have become an adult is dangerous, both to individuals and society in general.
This would also include families, schools, political parties and nations.
There is certainly a spectrum of religious positions. The most dictatorial religious organizations seem to do best at recruiting and maintaining membership. I suspect one reason is that people crave certainty.
Of course political organizations are also dictatorial. The most dictatorial political organizations maintain their right to rule by force and control of the military.
There are many forms of coercion in this world. Money is another common tool for controlling people.
The reason I find organized religion so distasteful is that people have the ability to reject it. It's far more difficult and dangerous to take a stand against those who control the military or the money.
No. No. Yes.
[–]danfeen 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I usually disagree with the bibles teachings, but cowboy models just really piss me off.
[–]thedriftknig 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
To be fair, I'm not really ok with the jacket on the guy on the left
[–]Infenwe 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Well that's obviously because those slaves are not of your tribe and those faggots don't reproduce to make more warriors that can rape murder, rape and conquer infidels for the glory of the tribe.
Primitive war gods are big on that whole "enslave/rape/murder the infidels" thing.
[–]xSandyCheeksx 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
So much Chemistry in my brain right now that I read that as Molarity.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago*
Here's the deal...
Leviticus is included as a book in the bible because it is (or at least, seems to be) the lists of laws of the early monotheistic Hebrew people. They certainly don't apply in today's sociopolitical context, I think we can all agree, and only the most ardent, fundamentalist, dogmatic Christians would presume that those laws exist in the bible for us to follow.
While we, as atheists, can use quotations from Leviticus to "prove" that Christianity and religion are bad, it's really an intellectually lazy pursuit. Leviticus is especially interesting because it really is a bunch of lists of what the people were not supposed to do. There also doesn't seem to be any intentional metaphor or ambiguity as there is in other books.
Let's have a closer look at Leviticus 20:13, for example. It goes something like this:
"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood be upon them.”
Now, both atheists and dogmatic fundamentalists will claim that the verse indicates that "according to the bible homosexuality is bad and those who practice it should be put to death". Now, I don't know if the early Hebrew people were any more or any less homophobic than most people in Western society today. I don't think it matters because, again, Leviticus exists in the bible as the recorded history of the laws of the early Hebrew people - it's not there to state how we should act and behave in today's society.
On another level, the verse probably doesn't pertain to homosexuality directly at all. Elsewhere in Leviticus, there are snippets that explain that the verses and laws exist so that the Hebrews know to not do the things that the Canaanites (a neighboring ethnic nation) do despite the fact that the Hebrews we're moving into Canaanite territory. The Canaanites, apparently, had all kinds of erotic, homosexual and pagan rituals. That may have been fine for the Canaanites but for the Israelites, who were at risk of being swayed by the Canaanite nation, it was probably risky (in the sense that they might be swallowed up by the Canaanite culture). The Hebrew's needed to make it on their own.
So, the gist of that verse is more: "Don't do what the Canaanites are doing" rather than "Homosexuality is bad".
Now, I'm not saying that being put to death for acting like a Canaanite is a good thing or acceptable in any way. I'm just trying to demonstrate that quick reactions to the verses in the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus and Deuteronomy are a kind of lazy shortcut for providing evidence against religion.
But being a lazy shortcut doesn't make it any less valid. We could go over the bible and pick out each section and match it up with it's historical context. But the fact remains that these sections are part of the bible, they are part of the holy book. It doesn't make any sense to keep them in the text (or indeed put them there in the first place) if they were intended to be ignored, ever.
Using lazy shortcuts like quoting biblical passages out of context or twisting their meaning does make it less valid. I don't even think there's any argument there.
I'm not implying that the passage I used as an example above was intended to be ignored.
But those aren't out of context or twisted to mean something different. Leviticus in particular is perfectly clear.
I don't think it is. Or rather, it is fairly clear but people still don't get it right.
As I said earlier, people think Leviticus 20:13 means "Do not engage in homosexual sex" but that's not the purpose of that verse.
The "purpose" of the verse is debatable and up to interpretation. What the verse says is not. It clearly says "don't lie with a man the way you would with a woman." You can read into that whatever you want, but if that were written anywhere but the bible the intent would be pretty clear.
I disagree. I think Leviticus is probably the one book in the bible that doesn't need as much interpretation. It's not allegory or metaphorical like other books. And like any written work, if you just read one sentence it will be taken out of context. Fundemantists would love the meaning of that verse to mean, very simply, "don't lie with a man the way you would with a woman" but I think and hope that, as atheists and as intelligent people, we can put more rational thought into the verse and understand that we need to look at preceding verses as well as understand the situation the Israelites were in at the time.
as well as understand the situation the Israelites were in at the time.
I can understand looking at the context in the book, but the historical context does not matter one bit. The book doesn't say only Israelites in the first century should obey these laws. The book is claiming to be the word of God, to apply to everyone, ever.
As atheists, we can look at the historical context and come up with the reason that particular line was included, and choose to ignore it. Theists do not have that luxury, for it rests on being able to call the bible nothing more than a work of fiction. For a theist, the Bible is not allowed to be era-dependent.
The book doesn't say only Israelites in the first century should obey these laws.
There's little doubt that the laws in Leviticus (the lists, etc. in Deuteronomy and Numbers) were solely intended for the early Hebrew people.
The book doesn't say only Israelites in the first century should obey these laws. The book is claiming to be the word of God, to apply to everyone, ever.
That's the exact same argument fundamentalist Christians use and it's nonsense.
For a theist, the Bible is not allowed to be era-dependent.
No, for Christian fundamentalists (like those in the US), the Bible is not allowed to be era-dependent. But for Christians elsewhere, including the pope, reading the bible in its historical context is not only allowed, it's entirely appropriate. For example, plenty of Christians understand the theory of evolution and accept it over the creation myth in Genesis - it doesn't make them not Christian.
Where in the Bible does it say this?
it doesn't make them not Christian.
But it does make them hypocrites. I respect people who take the Bible literally a hell of a lot more than people who pick and choose. If parts of it are not to be taken seriously, why should any of it?
[–]nospr 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I don't get it does the bible hate cowboys?
trollface
[–]Ghosttwo 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Being White?
[–]gunstar69 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Don't just say shit with out proof, show the source from the bible.
[–]tpr007 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Dawkins on Morality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UGJtv3ccs0 Awesome takedown...
[–]NegativeSquareRoot 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
neither!
[–]imrickjamesbyach -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
The type of slavery in the bible is not the same as the slavery practiced in the West. Was the Bible moral? No. Should you mislead people? No.
You're really going to argue that any type of slavery is ok?
[–]imrickjamesbyach 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I just said it wasn't moral. Where did I say it was OK?
What is the point of saying the two types of slavery are different unless that difference is important to the argument?
One type is less, dare I say, harsh then the other. It is important to the argument.
[–]christmasbonus -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 months ago
You're right, it was much more terrible in the bible!
[–]christmasbonus 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
keep downvoting or let's discuss it . I'll post what the bible puts as ways to treat slaves and we'll compare it to western slavery.
[–]MrMustard -2 points-1 points0 points 10 months ago
I give up, which one?
[–]Wingly -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
With this economy we just might need some slaves.
[–]chka -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
This would been such a good argument if we hadn't had prisons today...
[–]TylerX5 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 months ago
Homosexuality the bible refers to in its orginonal text isn't the same homosexuality we refer to. In Leviticus' time a homosexual was an older man having sexual relationships with a young boy. So i don't really think this arguement against bible morals stands up to scruteny
[–]chka 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
How do you get "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." to be about paedophilia?
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]Laziness 22 points23 points24 points ago
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]a3wagner 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ZalRed 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]guillelon 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]turnleftdale 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]stumblios 29 points30 points31 points ago
[–]turnleftdale 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]James-Cizuz 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Alphennus 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]EricTboneJackson 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]ur_god_izfake 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]fnybny 5 points6 points7 points ago*
[–]turnleftdale 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Alphennus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]turnleftdale 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Alphennus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Alphennus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]c0pypastry 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Hank_Moody 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]FredWampy 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]MeloJelo 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]arnizach 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]arnizach 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]arnizach 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]arnizach 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]arnizach 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]IranRPCV 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]IranRPCV 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]IranRPCV 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]IranRPCV 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dogsent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]danfeen 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thedriftknig 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Infenwe 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]xSandyCheeksx 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]nospr 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Ghosttwo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]gunstar69 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]tpr007 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]NegativeSquareRoot 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]imrickjamesbyach -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]imrickjamesbyach 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]imrickjamesbyach 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]christmasbonus -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]christmasbonus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MrMustard -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]Wingly -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]chka -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]TylerX5 -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]chka 3 points4 points5 points ago