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 (imgur.com)
submitted 5 months ago by Hiscore
[–]AFASTAIRPLANE 117 points118 points119 points 5 months ago
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THE BIBLE HAVE AGAINST COWBOYS?
[–]Hurm 32 points33 points34 points 5 months ago
The steel horses they ride; too much like iron chariots.
[–]Ragnalypse 12 points13 points14 points 5 months ago
God cannot protect his people from the power of iron chariots...
[–]s-mores 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
They're riding hard to catch that herd, but they ain't got 'em yet.
[–]causa_est_licentia 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago
I think this may be the wrong crowd to catch that reference.
[–]s-mores 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Yup, 'cause they've got to ride forever on that range up in the sky.
[–]solidsnake2730 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
I wonder how god feels about tanks.
[–]yuribotcake 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
More like what the fuck bible has against good fashion!?
[–]WhipCream86 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
no no no the OP meant gay men, not cowboys
[–]MrWinks 12 points13 points14 points 5 months ago
TIL they used to justify slavery, too.
[–]AzoGalvat 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
I can't believe that is a thing, even after reading it.
[–]MrWinks 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
I read about it in context through Stephen King's last book, which takes place in the early 60's
[–]Grizzalbee 21 points22 points23 points 5 months ago
Wait, the bible lets blacks be in gay BDSM relationships, but doesn't let whites be gay? I'm confuse
[–]chillyhellion 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
White people are always being discriminated against.
[–]ExplainsRacistJokes 7 points8 points9 points 5 months ago
This is funny because the poster naively interprets a drawing of the horrors that the Atlantic Slave Trade visited upon Africans, by guessing the men depicted are in a BDSM relationship, and not bound in slavery to White masters.
[–]north0 -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
Just because a joke references race doesn't make it necessarily racist.
[–]WhipCream86 -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago
*confuseD
[–]ffy 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
the black guy on the right looks like teal'c. the church is afraid to fuck with teal'c.
[–][deleted] 5 months ago
[deleted]
[–]WalterBenjamin 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Well done. Fuck graven images.
[–]ArtemisMaximus 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
the one in the upper-middle left side of the lower-right center of the back.
[–]tonywartooth 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
It's damn sure not ok with those tacky clothes.
[–]xcalisallpowerful 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
Umm...ill take the right side of the picture for 600.
[–]Deathfire138 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
Yeah, the bible really hates leather jackets...
[–]Draugo 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
I'm pretty sure there's a piece of clothing with two different fibers there somewhere. The good slaves on the other hand wear only 100% cotton loincloths.
[–]Number4429 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
Not the one on the right, they're clearly wearing two kinds of cloth.
[–]Paradoxian 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
The Catholic Church was anti-slavery I believe. The Muslims were fine with it though and still are.
[–]Hiscore[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
The Catholic Church
Not only Islam is/was fine with it, but most Protestant faiths never spoke out against slavery. Along with many other faiths around the world, some too minor to mention in a single comment before I sleep.
[–]nerga 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago
That is blatantly false. George Burne was a presbytarian minister in the US that was famously anti Slavery. The first abolitionist movements in England were started by the Quakers a religious society. in 1783 Dr Beilby Porteus a bishop of the Church of England to cease it's involvment in the Slave trade. Bartolomé de las Casas in the 16th century was a Spanish Dominican priest who was the first major abolitionist in the Americas, and led the the new Laws of 1542 by King Charles V of Spain. (It is important to note here that as the Holy Roman Empire was not colonizing the Americas this was not necessary to enact laws there, and slavery was not used there anyways due to the presence of serfdom. In the United States (colonies at the time) the first anti-slavery movement was started by the Menonite Quakers in the Germantown, Pa and led to the 1688 Germantown quaker petition to Slavery. The more prominent Protestant churches in Germany, and Orthodox churches never had the issue of slavery due to either the presence of Serfs and/or an abundance of labor causing slavery to be unnecessary (See the Holy Roman Empire, Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, Russia), or they were an oppressed people (see Greeks). Although the traditionaly orthodox area of Moldavia and Walachia did have slavery for a long time, they had a particularly unique situation where the enslaved Tartars and Roma, and had no church backing of the practice.
If you are going to make broad ignorant statements, you should try to not be so absolutely incorrect with zero evidence to your statements.
[–]napoleonsolo -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
but most Protestant faiths never spoke out against slavery.
So you believe that George Burne, the Quakers, Dr. Beilby Porteus, Bartolomé de las Casas and German churches constitute a majority of Protestant faiths?
[–]nerga 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Most everyone didn't speak out against slavery. Slavery was seen as an acceptable way to solve an issue with lack of labor in the Americas. The religious institutions at the time were almost across the board the first ones to speak against it. To try and lay fault on the churches because they weren't quick enough to say anything against it is absurd. The fact that they were usually the first ones to say anything against it, and to go against the status quo is really enough to commend them for their morality.
Which means that most Protestant faiths never spoke out against slavery.
I'm sorry so many people feel the need to downvote Hiscore's perfectly accurate statement.
The religious institutions at the time were almost across the board the first ones to speak against it.
And they were also institutions that supported it. Don't take my word for it. Here's Frederick Douglass:
The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together.
I can only assume that people think it was largely the non-pious that favored slavery, history doesn't support it and in fact shows the opposite. The churches weren't quick enough to oppose slavery.
This idea that the religious should be commended for opposing slavery reminds me of this sketch by Mr. Show.
[–]varukasalt 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago
Ohh, Ohh! I know, I know!!!
[–]TheBraverBarrel[] 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Verses?
[–]arbitrary516 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Right one looks like they are wearing mixed fibers. The men on the left have their hair cut. SO neither.
[–]johnny2515 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Molarity? What does that have to do with this picture (my mindset when I first saw this picture).
[–]IvyMike 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
The real sins are those denim shirts.
[–]allenizabeth 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
both?
[–]Wildperson 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago
Downvotes inc., but despite not being religious, I'm pretty sure that the Bible, when regarding slavery, was being culturally definitive...
[–]vurplesun 38 points39 points40 points 5 months ago
Not trolling you, but, what does "culturally definitive" mean, exactly?
I mean, I do understand the gist of your statement, that this was something that applied to a culture long gone that no longer applies to our own, but if that argument is to be made, then the entire Bible is ultimately irrelevant, right? Because the culture it applied to no longer exists. Therefore, no moral judgement or any information about how a modern life is to be lived should be pulled from that kind of source.
If a person is using their own judgement to decide what is still relevant when it comes to morality, why would anyone need a Bible in the first place?
Sorry, I'm sort of rambling at you. I just never could quite put my finger on how someone that is religious could look at their holy book supposedly written by their god and say parts of it are outdated. It's an interesting kind of cognitive dissonance, I guess.
[–]InconsiderateBastard 11 points12 points13 points 5 months ago
You are assuming they really look at the bible. They don't. It doesn't matter what the bible says, it only matters what they they have been raised to believe the bible says. It is long enough, full of enough stories, and overall difficult enough to process as an individual that the people running churches can quite easily use the bible to support almost any belief they want their followers to adopt.
[–]vurplesun 6 points7 points8 points 5 months ago
Well, sure, of course that's true.
But, then they can't use specific passages from the Bible to make a law or prove a moral point.
I don't understand the picking and choosing. I really don't. I always imagined back when I was a kid (atheist raised by atheists, btw), that the Bible was an all or nothing kind of thing. Why would a god convey a message to his biographer that he didn't want followed? Gods are a supposed to be perfect. That's why they're gods. Or something.
It hurts my brain.
[–]CVTHIZZKID 12 points13 points14 points 5 months ago
That's not the order that theists do it. They don't read the Bible and then try to apply it's message into laws. They already know what laws they want, and then they select passages from the Bible to support these laws.
Trying to follow the Bible literally and without cherry picking is pretty much impossible in modern times. The fundamentalists know this. No one except maybe the Ultra Orthodox Jews even try. However, the Christian right has a certain lifestyle they want to preserve. They aren't content with keeping this lifestyle in their own families. They see any alternative lifestyles as a threat to their own. They fear their children will grow up and be exposed to things they disagree with, and will not follow the fundamentalist path as strictly as they do. On this point, they are right.
They notice patterns of change happening in society, and more open-mindedness. This change scares them, because they want to live in their perfect little world. They think that they can use the law as a tool to slow down or even reverse the social changes. This is only true to the extent that there are Fundamentalist judges willing to uphold these laws.
The Fundamentalist mentality is still very strong is some parts of the US. Some politicians from these areas likely try to appear as fundamentalist as they can in order to cater to their constituents. Remember, in local/state elections, the candidate who is the most popular at home is the one who gets elected, not the one who is best at trying to improve the country as a whole.
[–]InconsiderateBastard 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
I think it all goes back to the size of the bible and its complexity. It is simply a tool to shore up the claims of a preacher. Picking and choosing isn't logical, but it can be justified in the minds of the followers as a necessary interpretation by someone that is closer to god than they are.
When printing got easier, the church was instrumental in the foundation of copyrights in Europe. I believe that's because they saw immediately the danger of giving the bible over to anybody besides the holy men. Once it was in the hands of everybody, it could be read and interpreted any way the readers wanted and the readers could decide the church is crooked.
Luckily for them, the followers continued to follow what they were told, even though they could open the bible and read for themselves.
[–]Jamesbigpig -7 points-6 points-5 points 5 months ago
The Bible was made thousands of years ago, a Biblical definition of slavery is different than a modern western one. The kind of slavery the Bible is talking about is working under someone to pay off debt, like an indentured servant. It was honestly a good system since it allowed for people to not starve and pay off their debt. Many of the early settlers to America paid off their debt in much the same way, they would work for up to 5 years (In the Bible the max is seven) to be given land/or have their old debts repaid. The kind of slavery found in the Bible was not the cruel exploitation, but actually a very well designed system to help people in debt. The kind of slavery practiced by Europe and the U.S is outlawed in the Old Testament.
That was only Israelite slaves, though. If you weren't part of the tribe, none of those rules applied to you:
Leviticus 25:44-46 King James Version (KJV)
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. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
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.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
[–]butwhymom -7 points-6 points-5 points 5 months ago
Sometimes when in home alone I like to cover myself in Vaseline and pretend in a slug. AND WHEN I DO THIS I BECOME A GOD. PRAY TO THE SLUGGOD. ALL HAIL THE SLUGGOD. I AM THE ALLPOWERFUL. ALL ATHEISTS SHALL PRAISE THE SLUGGOD AS THEIR GOD.
[–]Hiscore[S] 7 points8 points9 points 5 months ago
4chan is leaking again...
[–]TheShadowFog 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
But why mom?
[–]vurplesun 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
So, you agree that morality can change. Therefore, a book written thousands of years ago is completely pointless as a moral guide. Nobody should be quoting it to determine what is right and what is wrong.
[–]vurplesun 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
The only logical conclusion of Atheism is moral Nihilism.
That's not true. I'm an atheist and I'm not a nihilist. I just don't need to be threatened with eternal damnation to know what's right and wrong and, given the way people pick and choose their morals from various holy books, the reality is, they don't need to be told or threatened either.
There doesn't need to be a reward for me to always choose to do the right thing. I don't steal, I'm honest, I've never killed anyone, I volunteer, I take in stray animals... But I don't do these things because I'm worried about getting in trouble if I don't. I do them because it's the right thing to do and it makes everything in the world around me go smoother, especially when everyone around me is also making the right choices.
Sam Harris wrote a pretty good book on it. He puts it much better than I can, anyway. Basically, there is evidence for the evolutionary development of our modern morality. It is something that helped our species survive and flourish and it's largely universal across all humans. Any religious texts we have in support of said morality came far past the time we actually evolved the sense of it.
[–]mindbleach 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago
Right, because a book that lays out death sentences for working weekends and hot dickings would've been exceeded its grasp by demanding people stop buying and selling each other.
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 5 months ago
Yep. Christians-Take bible too literally. Atheists-Take bible too literally. Everyone loses.
[–]Wildperson -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
Honestly could not have said it better myself.
[–]cludeo656565 6 points7 points8 points 5 months ago
Just like in the 1930s when priests were still calling Jews Christ killers. Mortality seems to be moving forward and religion keeps being dragged along kick and screaming.
[–]CaNANDian -7 points-6 points-5 points 5 months ago
you admit to being ignorant, i tagged you in res
[–]Diagonaldog 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Religion: The only place its more okay to make another man your property than your husband.
[–]dianthe 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
Actually it's neither, the Bible only allows for slaves to become slaves voluntarily, abducting free people and making them salves is prohibited in the Bible.
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
[–]converseatheist 8 points9 points10 points 5 months ago
Here's a rather despicable setup: a Hebrew slave getting to go free after his seventh year -- but if the master gave him a wife and they have kids together, the wife and kids are the master's forever. The only way the slave can stay with them is to agree to being a slave for the master forever.
Exodus 21:1-7 (NRSV) These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
[–]Zenigata 12 points13 points14 points 5 months ago
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 When you go to attack a city, first give its people a chance to surrender. If they open the gates and surrender, they are all to become your slaves and do forced labor for you. But if the people of that city will not surrender, but choose to fight, surround it with your army. Then, when the Lord your God lets you capture the city, kill every man in it. You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies. The Lord has given it to you.
Yeah what a wonderful 'safety net'.
Fair point, I liked what malinterian has pointed out about it, I will definitely take it into consideration next time the subject of slavery and the Bible comes up.
I guess as a Christian the only thing I could say to that was that taking slaves from conquered pagan nations was the best chance the people who were taken captive would have to be saved, by adopting the faith of their masters. If you were a believer and this life was nothing but a tiny speck in the eternity for you, someone's eternal destiny would be much more vital than their earthly one. Plus Hebrews had quite rigid rules when it came to how they were to treat their slaves - things such as sex slavery/raping your slaves or killing them was a punishable sin, which wasn't the case in most (or perhaps even any) other nations at the time.
Also as I had pointed out to someone else, the attitude towards slavery slowly changed from the time the OT was written to the time of the NT, you can see a big shift in it there.
I would like to bring your attention to the book of Philemon in the New Testament as it tells us something very interesting about slavery and how we are to look at it as Christians:
Philemon 1:8-17
8 Therefore, though I might be very bold in Christ to command you what is fitting, 9 yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you—being such a one as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ— 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, 11 who once was unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me.
12 I am sending him back.[a] You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. 14 But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary.
15 For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
17 If then you count me as a partner, receive him as you would me.
Paul called Onesimus "my son" because he had led him to Christ, just as he did Timothy, Titus and even Philemon. Before that, Onesimus had been one of Philemon's slaves, and had run away, apparently stealing from his master as he did. However, as a born-again Christian, Onesimus now wished to make amends as Paul had encouraged him.
If you look at verse 16 you will see that the Scriptures did not condemn slavery as such but rather encouraged a new relationship between masters and servants (Colossians 3:22-4:1; Ephesians 6:5-9) considering both as brothers and fellow servants of Christ. The institution of slavery therefore gradually became more of an employer-employee relationship with its compulsory aspects eventually being displaced altogether. In verse 17 Paul even describes himself on the same plane with both Philemon and Onesimus, that of "partners", a term implying a full fellowship. Here, he requests Philemon also to accept Onesimus on that basis.
[–]Conservativeone -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
surrender is voluntarily becoming a slave. After all, they could have chosen death.
[–]Zenigata 9 points10 points11 points 5 months ago
By your logic mugging people isn't theft as people voluntarily give up their property to muggers to avoid being beaten, stabbed...
[–]CurkyHangles -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 months ago
Your statement is unfair. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Deuteronomy 20 defines actions of war and biblical "etiquette" while being at war.
You imply that acceptable actions while at war are no different than actions in times of peace.
[–]Zenigata 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago
How is it unfair?
What difference does it make if the aggression comes from a lone individual with a knife or an collection of individuals with spears? In either case it is absurd to claim that their victims 'volunteer' for anything.
The 'choice' given to the inhabitants of cities to be invaded by the tribes of Israel in Duet 20 is the same as that given to African victims of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery or death.
I don't refute the second statement.
Down vote me all you want, but I find fault in the comparison in your argument. The context of being at war completely changes things. What would you expect the army to do? March in, take the city, and then let the people go? While the choices suck, the people of the fallen city had a choice. They were the spoils of war. They could have chosen to fight until death.
Mugging someone in a time of peace is just an infringement of rights.
Shooting someone in a time of peace is murder. Shooting someone in a time of turmoil is a justifiable act (by law, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant). Context matters a lot.
[–]Zenigata 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
How exactly does the context of invading someone in quest of land, goods and slaves render invading people in quest of land, goods and slaves moral?
[–]CurkyHangles -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago
It's doesn't, in any way shape or form. That was not my argument. It has been shown throughout history that a moral (completely subjective) reason is not needed to go to war. War is war, regardless of why it starts, and acceptable actions change drastically when war occurs. Those actions got so debauched that what was acceptable in war had to be internationally defined (Geneva).
[–]Zenigata 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
And all that means that my argument that slaves taken in wars of conquest no more 'choose' slavery than mugging victims 'choose' to give up their wallets is invalid why exactly?
[–]Mirked 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
That's all well and good, until you get to the part about conquering other nations.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
The only problem with the passage you've quoted above, is with the meaning of the word "man". Think of the yiddish word "mensch" and you'll get the idea. To the writer(s) of Exodus, this term only applied to those who had been circumcised, i.e. Hebrew men. Anybody who was not Hebrew was not a man, in their eyes. So this passage is only referring to the crime of kidnapping a fellow Jew. It does not condemn the common practice among the Israelites of the time, of raiding the tribes around them for slaves. This practice is well documented. The bible in, fact, lists many such instances.
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Great input, thanks for that :)
[–]zorno 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
Then why does it talk about how slaves should act in other parts?
Also, allowing 'voluntary' slavery is still also really really horrible.
In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
Maybe an omniscient being should have explained how to set up social programs, and just help people instead of enslaving them?
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago*
People in those times just weren't ready for that, all it would have done is cause a lot more death because the rich people simply would not want to give their money away for nothing and if they couldn't take on slaves those people and their families who would have otherwise gone into slavery because they could not support themselves would have simply died from starvation and exposure.
Also you have to keep in mind that slavery back in those days was a regular part of every day life, it wasn't only the Hebrews who did it, if anything the Hebrews had far more rigid rules in the Torah on how they were to treat their slaves than any other nation. You never know if 3000 years from today people will see a lot of the today's practices as absolutely barbaric as well and wonder how any of us could put up with it. It is always very hard to see the flaws in your own society/culture because a lot of things that seem normal to us will not seem that way to someone from another time or place.
The attitude towards slavery slowly changed though, you can see a big shift in it from the OT to the NT.
[–]zorno 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
sorry for not responding. I do appreciate the time you took to post this, but it doesn't make sense to me.
So then have the bible say "I know it might not work right now, but you really should work towards getting rid of slaves" Maybe then in the... 1500s up until the 1800s in America, Christitans would have at least known that they should be working towards eliminating slavery.
As it was, one of the largest examples of immorality in the world throughout history was eliminated by people, not by religion (supposedly the fountain of wisdom) at all.
I also dont see why christians threw themselves to the lions during the roman times 'for god' but it would have been too tough on thsoe people to free their slaves, or campaign for ending slavery. None of what you said makes sense logically, only if you are determined to defend the bible at all costs.
Actually, as I had pointed out in the last few paragraphs, the Christian attitude towards slavery has changed significantly after Christ's death, so it's not like there was no shift in the attitude towards it between the ancient Hebrews and the Christians of Jesus' time. Not to mention, even in the OT, God gave Jews some pretty strict rules as to how they were to treat their slaves, Jews couldn't just do whatever they pleased with them as if they were a thing.
Also as I had said, yes we do see slavery as absolutely barbaric and immoral today but back then it was just a normal part of every day life. I am sure in 3000 years (if our planet is still around then which I rather doubt) people will see a lot of the today's practices as absolutely barbaric as well and the practices we saw as enlightened will be seen as immoral.
Perhaps we'll even go back to the practice of slavery like in Star Wars or something :P Nothing really shocks me when it comes to the human race anymore... a lot of things make me very sad but I certainly don't find them shocking.
I studied anthropology at university and you wouldn't believe some of the things that are seen as perfectly normal in other cultures and how some of those other cultures view ours.
None of what you said makes sense logically, only if you are determined to defend the bible at all costs.
I have to politely disagree, it only doesn't make sense logically if you are completely unfamiliar with anthropology and/or utterly determined to dislike the Bible.
[–]Goldlantern -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 months ago
HA! I got on here to post this exact same thing. You lose again, atheism.
[–]writesomethingwitty 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
I would check the other replies to the parent comment, if I were you...
[–]JudgmentalChristian 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
So who the hell do you suggest builds our bridges and skyscrapers or builds your cars? Other white people?? Two guys can't have kids anyway, what the fuck is the point of them slapping their dicks together?
Idiot.
[–]i_flip_sides 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Nobody understands you, JudgmentalChristian. But I do.
[–]RogueEyebrow 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
It seems like everyone's sarcasm detector is broken.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
The church lauded me for owning two men, then arrested me for loving one.
[–]iknowadude 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
the white guys
[–]idmars10 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Both of them?
[–]xoites 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
No guess required...
[–]panpanpansss 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
FTFY Slaves:Sodomy
[–]BeefyStevey 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
To be fair, I don't think the bible specified the color of a slave's skin.
[–]polkadottree 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Well.. both, technically.
Edit: I said neither when I meant both. It's 4 am.
[–]dorkrock2 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
I am going to be the douche that points out the unnecessary question mark. You can say "I ate beans" and you can ask "I ate beans?" but you can't ask "Guess who ate beans?" because it's a command. Carry on.
[–]Paralda 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
I read this as molarity. As such, I've realized my major is taking over my life.
[–]thelogster 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Neither
[–]BilledDuckBill 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
ohhhhh slavery i thought this was related to poly fiber blends
[–]r0tten 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Black hat with a brown coat...? Now that's fucking immoral, amirite?
[–]Bigpapapumpyouup 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Look Brokeback Mountain see what you did! Now gay cowboys holding hands and eating pudding is socially acceptable.
[–]StewieBanana 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Am I the only one who thought the black guys were gay?
[–]yooshi 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
i guess you need something like /r/gays for this stuff, guys
[–]HeresABookForYou 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Common Morality: Deciding What to Do
[–]DublinItUp 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Is it just me or is the slave on the right giving a kind of kinky look to you
[–]guillelon 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
i submitted this 6 months ago. :D
[–]frodoschmodo 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
the bible's not cool, therefore the answer is the bible is against stetsons. because stetsons are cool.
[–]MacaqueAttack 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
The Bible hates black boots with a brown belt, everyone should.
[–]J3DI 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
slavery>gays game over
[–]MrWinks 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago
Only by today's standards. I'm pretty sure people only moralize what they want. What if in 300 years no one ate animal meat, and they looked back at us as barbaric? Shit, with technology? That could happen.
[–]Icsifil 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
You're making a logical fallacy that people in the future will necessarily be more morally correct in general.
But regardless, killing people and forcing them to do arduous labor for their whole life is definitely worse than telling someone not to have sex.
(Although parallels could be found, I suppose, when thinking about how slaves had little say over keeping their family together but that's stretching it).
[–]LuapNorAmabo4Prez 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago
No one follows the bible to the T anymore. It's okay to still be Christian. Times change.
[–]Icsifil 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago*
Corruption still exists, genocide still happens, etc. etc.
The Bible was never followed to a T. There's a reason why Paul said that Christians didn't have to be Jews. Besides, the whole dark age church thing definitely did not have to do a lot with not selling stuff in churches and having equality for the poor like the new testament preached.
[–]MrWinks 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Considering the trend in civil rights, I have no trouble believing it's a slow progressive pattern.
Sure, racism is lessened in America currently than it was a hundred years ago. But what if I told you that originally permanent slavery didn't exist in America?
And if we're not talking about America solely, then what about the tension in Israel/Palestine, Tibet/China, Afghanistan, etc.
Actually, how many years do you count as a long time? If you just go back fifty years in America, you can think about the intolerance of McCarthyism and the Japanese internment camps.
[–]The4ChanScoot 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
repost of the day!
[–]Samsy 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
Drawing? No wait, Cowboys!
[–]Not_Me_But_A_Friend 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
hipsters in leather jackets and cowboy hats are on my list of immorality.
[–]JimmeyKirk -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago
Since when was the bible accepting of Slavery? Paul only allowed it so he wouldn't upset the then Culture, but in his writings was against slavery. In the Old testament there were rules about Slaves and how they should be treated, and Slaves of Jews had the hope of one day being free and they were treated comparatively well.
[–]converseatheist 10 points11 points12 points 5 months ago
The Bible never says a word against slavery. Please, if you think this is wrong, paste a direct quote of the verse. Here are a few things it does say about slavery, with a heavy emphasis on the New Testament, since you seem to not know about it.
Old Testament
Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV) 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. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. Exodus 21:1-7 (NRSV) These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. Exodus 21:20-21 (NRSV) When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV) 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. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Exodus 21:20-21 (NRSV) When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
New Testament
Ephesians 6:5-9 (NRSV) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free. And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality. Colossians 3:22-25 (NRSV) Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality. Titus 2:9-10,15 (NRSV) Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. … Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you. 1 Timothy 6:1-5 (NRSV) Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. 1 Peter 2:15-25 (NRSV) For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
Ephesians 6:5-9 (NRSV) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free. And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
Colossians 3:22-25 (NRSV) Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality.
Titus 2:9-10,15 (NRSV) Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. … Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.
1 Timothy 6:1-5 (NRSV) Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
1 Peter 2:15-25 (NRSV) For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
[–]akharon 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago
Male Jewish slaves would be freed. All others, not so much.
[–]sTiKyt -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
Neither, both or either depending on the interpretation. An Atheist should know any position can be supported using the bible, it just takes a bit of selective reading.
[–]dieselcupcake 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
It is the word of the lord, but don't you dare take it literally.
[–]xXxLe_RedditxXx -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 months ago
The biggest misconception I see when ever I read a post from this subreddit is that the bible is not okay with homosexuality, this is not the case at all. The bible is not ok with 2 men or women having sex together, it is ok with two men or women being in love with each other, or even married. Just no gay sex. Posted from my phone, sorry for any grammar/spelling errors.
[–]stainonmyshirt 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago
Well only religious people can come up with such a backwards way of thinking. It ok to LIKE life, just don't HAVE one. And also maybe its cause I went to a roman catholic church but there isn't just sinful doing but sinful thinking as well. How fucked up do you think that makes kids minds who are gay yet don't really understand themselves, and before they can discover themselves are taught even their inner thoughts are to be judged by the almighty.
[–]xXxLe_RedditxXx -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
Im just correcting you on what the bible actually says instead of what you think it says, I didn't come up with this and you are just a raging atheist.
[–]stainonmyshirt 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
LOL, I know what the bible says... did you even read my response? Or should I ask did you understand my response? Anyways I believe everyone's entitled to their opinion and if you want to just insult me instead of having a counterpoint or something to add that's fine.
[–]xXxLe_RedditxXx -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.Leviticus 18:22
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. Leviticus 20:13
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:7
All of those are the main points most christians make that homosexuality is bad, while infact those only say sodomy is bad, not the act of loving another man.
[–]stainonmyshirt 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Though those might be put into somewhat Passive context they are not interpreted that way by many religious folk, and are usually not taught that way at all. I know most of the bible has nothing to do with homosexuality whatsoever but because its the civil rights issue of our generation it is at the forefront of religious argument. Because the bible barely address it the few passages that it speaks of it get interpreted into oblivion.
[–]xXxLe_RedditxXx 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
People over interpret it really, it just specifically talks about some dude putting his dick up another dudes anus, a chick eating another out, and even then with Christianity it doesn't matter how many of the rules you break, as long as you believe in jesus and ask for forgiveness.
[–]Draugo 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
You seem to forget that bible enforces thought crime and that if you covet someone else's wife you've already committed adultery. So it follows that if you have homosexual urges you have already put your dick up that dudes ass if you know what I mean.
[–]Senor_Wilson -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
A gay couple of slaves or a gay couple of cowboys? Both.
[–]theoriginalbrick -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
Why is everyone confused about what this represents? It is obviously saying that the bible supported, well maybe not supported, rather, but would discriminate against gay marriage before it would slavery. Unless your from the confederacy, you would obviously say that being forced to work with minimal provisions, clothing, and shelter, and being beaten with a bull whip every day, is much worse than gay marriage
[–]RaptorJevus -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 months ago
Neither?
[–]minno 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
About that...
[–]goblinpiledriver 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
That's like reading about slavery in the south and saying that the south still supports slavery.
puts up flame shield
[–]Spectro87 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago*
You're seriously defending cherry-picking? If the Bible is the perfect word of the creator of the universe, clearly we should have slaves. If the Bible is not in fact the perfect word of the creator of the universe, why should we care what it has to say at all?
“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.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
Yeah, I'm sure he meant that you could choose to ignore any part of the Bible if you wanted to.
[–]A5dr3 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
Not true. Idiot
[–]xMcNerdx -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
How ironic...
[–]klingon13524 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
You don't know what that word means.
[–]bitemybubbles -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
Dumb
[–]mhtfc -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
I hope the bible is for the least gay one. Gay is too atheist.
[–]CodeandOptics -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
Yes, the bible is hypocritical. Hate to break it to you, but a big part of state collectivism is involuntary servitude.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Your point being? I can't tell which (if any) side you're on here.
[–]CodeandOptics -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago
The side of: Liberty for the sentient life form.
[–]redpossum -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
Straw man arguement, slavery was shown as bad by the jews escape from egypt and sympathy for the poor was shown by saying they would be rich in heaven (can't remember the quote)
[–]fludru 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
So we should ignore all the other passages outlining legal, morally acceptable slavery because why?
Quote please
Well, just look in this thread. It's pretty explicit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/q7eq8/morality/c3vg17s
[–]Leafygreeno -2 points-1 points0 points 5 months ago
For goodness sake!!! Why don't you get it?! I'm a Christian and I don't believe that it's bad to be gay and I think slavery is appalling. We are sorry and ashamed that this ever happened. We are living in a new age now, so stop bringing up events from history I and millions of others haven't got the power to change. Will atheists on reddit be decent enough to do that? Or are you all hateful people?
[–]Lazerkatz -6 points-5 points-4 points 5 months ago
STOP POSTING THIS! over and over and over and over and over....
[–]farangiyeparsi -22 points-21 points-20 points 5 months ago
Stop using the slavery argument against Christianity. Slavery has nothing to do with religion and the abolition movement was Christian.
[–]frzfox 14 points15 points16 points 5 months ago
slavery has nothing to do with Christianity? correct me if I am wrong but does the bible itself not say you can sell your daughter into slavery?
[–]farangiyeparsi -12 points-11 points-10 points 5 months ago
Old Testament.
Just as I won't cite Leviticus in homophobic rants, I won't argue for slavery with the OT (which we Muslims believe started out valid but was corrupted by man's revisions).
[–]Bcteagirl 8 points9 points10 points 5 months ago
1) “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.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
[–]snipawolf 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Commenting to save for later.
[–]Hiscore[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Reddit Enhancement Suite
Lol, like it is possible to not know about it. I'm on an iPad, and thus have no access.
I have to do the same when I am on my school's computers. I just wanted to make sure you knew. My conscience is clear.
[–]LuapNorAmabo4Prez -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago
And this is why the Koran is better than the Bible.
LoL no, they're equally horrible.
[–]LuapNorAmabo4Prez 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago
How?
[–]writesomethingwitty 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
All of a sudden, the Old Testament doesn't count? Okay, let's see what the New Testament says about slavery (links to comment in same submission).
[–]frzfox 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
Yes the new testament does not say it is perfectly fineto buy slaves, it also does not seem to have any problem with it what so ever nor do the religious leaders of the time.
[–]farangiyeparsi -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 months ago
lulwut
"It doesn't mention slavery, therefore it thinks that slavery is moral."
[–]frzfox 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
no it talks about slaves and how you should act as a slave but does not explicitly state that you should not have slavery
[–]farangiyeparsi 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
Just as the Qur'an mentions slavery...however -
"True piety does not consist in turning your faces towards the east or the west - but truly pious is he who believes in God, and the Last Day; and the angels, and revelation, and the prophets; and spends his substance - however much he himself may cherish - it - upon his near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and the beggars, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage; and is constant in prayer, and renders the purifying dues; and they who keep their promises whenever they promise, and are patient in misfortune and hardship and in time of peril: it is they that have proved themselves true, and it is they, they who are conscious of God."
Al-Qur'an 2:177 (Surat al-Baqara, translated by M. Asad)
Similarly, the Bible makes allusions to the freeing of human beings in this world if not the next, and the morality of equality and liberty.
[–]ArtemisMaximus 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago
ooooooh, old testament is old we dont need to listen to it...
but in actuality, slavery was more for economical reasons, just religion happened to be ok with it. religion doesnt have anything to do with slavery per se, but it is a reasonable argument for why christianity is not good.
[–]farangiyeparsi -6 points-5 points-4 points 5 months ago
But I just explained to you that Christians and Muslims no longer see the OT as valid.
Humans corrupted the word of God to suit their own purposes.
Both your point support my side. People pick and choose what to listen to in the testaments, so that is why this is a valid argument.
[–]Hiscore[S] 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago
Like all of Leviticus. That may be one of the most ravaged books of the OT. People pick and choose whatever they want and leave the rest. Just like what it says about jewelry and homosexuality. Christians choose to ban one and not the other.
[–][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 5 months ago
Done with all the comments about how religion thinks somethings are ok and being gay is not. It's old. No one cares. You want to be gay? Congratulations.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago
It makes plenty of sense. 1. Tired of hearing gays compare same-sex marriage to slavery in terms of religion says it's wrong. 2. LGBT issues aren't atheist issues.
[–]writesomethingwitty 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago
LGBT issues aren't atheist issues
Yes, they are, because the only thing that stands against their rights to be open to the public about their sexual preference and their love is religion. That's why you see so many posts about gays on /r/atheism. Two adults love each other and want to be with each other forever and they can't, because whenever the debate of whether they should be allowed to do what two consenting adults should not be stopped from doing, someone always brings up the issue of "sanctity of marriage" and other bullshit that comes straight from the Bible. The cite most often used when the issue comes up is a passage from the Bible that says men should not be allowed to sleep with men.
You don't know anything about LGBT issues. You don't know anything about how oppressive religion is.
On any given moment on /r/atheism LGBT is predominant. Yes, I get it. This group is persecuted by the church. It doesn't need to be more than 50% of the posts. Spend more of that time talking to your congressman. I take the lazy route by not writing letters but by at least voting for same-sex marriages. I'm straight but I don't think I'll ever get married (go ahead and imply that I'm forever but that's not the case here).
[–]Hiscore[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 months ago
Who said that I wasn't part of the solution?
[–]Advertisements -7 points-6 points-5 points 5 months ago
You aren't, all you do is complain on this fucking forum and do nothing for the world. I am glad to because you fucking r/atheist faggots are worse then Hitler.
blames bible for world problems
The Bible is the source of most of the biggest problems of our world.
isn't part of solution
We are part of the solution. We're working on it as we speak, explaining to religious nut jobs why religion is so bad and how everyone would live much better if we stopped arguing about whose god is right and whose "morality" applies better, when we should all just forget about those fairy tales of the past and see what we can do about the future.
I challenge you to show me one good thing that a person can do with religion but can't do without.
[–]nicorette1234 -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 months ago
the bible is not for slavery....
[–]logifal -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 months ago
DAMN I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS SLAVERY AND NO GAY MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE. THANK YOU FOR INFORMING ME OF THIS GROUNDBREAKING DISCOVERY YOU HAVE MADE.
Well it isnt that the bible hates gay people it just wants people to have sex to make babies and slavery was ok back then because it was a different, more primitive time in which people didn't value liberty as much. And a lot of men were gay back then like rulers and stuff. They had gay sex all the time. Also it isn't just the bible that accepts and denies these two subjects so don't make assumptions about one fucking religion. You people have such a lack of understanding of different times slavery is ok so stop.
your nipples are still black .
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
[–]AFASTAIRPLANE 117 points118 points119 points ago
[–]Hurm 32 points33 points34 points ago
[–]Ragnalypse 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]s-mores 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]causa_est_licentia 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]s-mores 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]solidsnake2730 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]yuribotcake 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]WhipCream86 -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]MrWinks 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]AzoGalvat 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]MrWinks 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Grizzalbee 21 points22 points23 points ago
[–]chillyhellion 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ExplainsRacistJokes 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]north0 -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]WhipCream86 -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]ffy 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]WalterBenjamin 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ArtemisMaximus 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]tonywartooth 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]xcalisallpowerful 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Deathfire138 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Draugo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Number4429 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Paradoxian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Hiscore[S] -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]nerga 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]napoleonsolo -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]nerga 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]napoleonsolo -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]varukasalt 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]TheBraverBarrel[
] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]arbitrary516 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]johnny2515 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]IvyMike 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]allenizabeth 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Wildperson 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]vurplesun 38 points39 points40 points ago
[–]InconsiderateBastard 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]vurplesun 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]CVTHIZZKID 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]InconsiderateBastard 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]vurplesun 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]vurplesun 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mindbleach 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points ago
[–]Wildperson -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]cludeo656565 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Diagonaldog 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dianthe 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]converseatheist 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]Zenigata 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]dianthe 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Conservativeone -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]Zenigata 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]CurkyHangles -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–]Zenigata 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]CurkyHangles -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–]Zenigata 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]CurkyHangles -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]Zenigata 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Mirked 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]zorno 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]zorno 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Goldlantern -4 points-3 points-2 points ago
[–]writesomethingwitty 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]JudgmentalChristian 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]i_flip_sides 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]RogueEyebrow 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]iknowadude 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]idmars10 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]xoites 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]panpanpansss 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BeefyStevey 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]polkadottree 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dorkrock2 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Paralda 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thelogster 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BilledDuckBill 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]r0tten 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Bigpapapumpyouup 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]StewieBanana 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]yooshi 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]HeresABookForYou 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DublinItUp 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]guillelon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]frodoschmodo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MacaqueAttack 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]J3DI 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MrWinks 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Icsifil 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]LuapNorAmabo4Prez 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Icsifil 3 points4 points5 points ago*
[–]MrWinks 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Icsifil 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]The4ChanScoot 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Samsy 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Not_Me_But_A_Friend 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JimmeyKirk -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]converseatheist 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]akharon 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]sTiKyt -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]dieselcupcake 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]xXxLe_RedditxXx -4 points-3 points-2 points ago
[–]stainonmyshirt 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]xXxLe_RedditxXx -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]stainonmyshirt 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]xXxLe_RedditxXx -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]stainonmyshirt 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]xXxLe_RedditxXx 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Draugo 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Senor_Wilson -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]theoriginalbrick -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]A5dr3 -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]xMcNerdx -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]klingon13524 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]bitemybubbles -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]mhtfc -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]CodeandOptics -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]CodeandOptics -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]redpossum -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]fludru 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]redpossum -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]fludru 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Leafygreeno -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]Hiscore[S] 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]writesomethingwitty 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]nicorette1234 -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]logifal -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–]WhipCream86 -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]WhipCream86 -2 points-1 points0 points ago