Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I agree that removing fundamentalists would be a positive thing. There is no such thing as good extremism. Too bad the only ways to remove fundamentalists are extreme and morally bankrupt.

Well, "removing" doesn't have to involve some kind of campaign of slaughter (I went back and edited that sentence shortly afterwards to remove that implication ).  I think it's possible for society to gradually move away from it.

Tons of it is insanity unless they really did mean for people to take the Bible less literally, in which case it seems fair and understandable. But the slavery and homophobic bits still send shivers down my spine

Well, if you take a book from that long ago, it's clearly gonna have stuff like that in it, since it reflects the viewpoints of the people who wrote it.  I wouldn't begrudge the writers of the Bible over it at all.

On the other hand, I guess it does make it questionable as a source for morality in the present day (which is one way it's being used badly - as a sortof echo chamber for one's beliefs, which allows bigots to think that God is on their side).

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

...And foreigners, such as those defeated in war.  Although it does to some extent limit how long you can keep and what you can do to slaves, I suppose.

[Jackrabbit]

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

The Old Testament Bible is honestly pretty f*cked up. To me there is no use trying to justify some of the stuff in there.

That's exactly what he's saying, that it was different back then. They didn't see that as fucked up.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's not even "religion," it's Christianity.  It's always Christianity, to the point where atheists will assume theists are Christian and argue as such.

To be fair,  there are some very amusing posts by a guy called afadly in their forums, which concern muslim proselitysm

[Svarte Troner]

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

The Old Testament Bible is honestly pretty f*cked up. To me there is no use trying to justify some of the stuff in there.

That's exactly what he's saying, that it was different back then. They didn't see that as fucked up.

Looked to me like he was trying to justify slavery in the bible by saying that working without pay to cover debts or work off a crime would be considered indentured servitude back then.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think trying to tear down the religion is the way to go about it. A), it strikes me as a totally impossible idea and B), it'll make people who just want justice done be painted as hostile, and there are over one billion Christians in the world, most of whom are moderate people who will nevertheless probably be completely outraged at people trying to 'tear down' their religion. Now, if you get the support of the layman in a religion, that's when change happens. It's a much more doable goal and much less confrontational. Don't fight someone's belief system, that's nigh impossible to change, but rather convince them that whether you're Atheist or Religion, shit like the molestation pandemic in the Catholic church cannot and will not stand.

Note that by "tear down" I mean "limit the politcal and societal influence of", not "destroy". A problem with the support of the layman is that it usually requires the support of the clergy to influence them in that direction. I don't like it, but that's how it is. The big problem with that is that, using the Catholic Priest molestation pandemic as an example, the clergy themselves are the problem and will obviously not allow themselves to be knocked out of power. Those even higher in the church created cover-ups to ensure their reputation isn't tarnished, which didn't really work out all that well in hindsight. If people within the catholic church really want to change, then it's in their hands to cause that change, not the hands of people without religion. The only way people without religion can cause an effect in this sort of situation is to try and convince people to abandon the church altogether. It's rather suprising how hard is, given that we're casually throwing around the words molestation pandemic in reference to the catholic church.

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

The Old Testament Bible is honestly pretty f*cked up. To me there is no use trying to justify some of the stuff in there.

That's exactly what he's saying, that it was different back then. They didn't see that as fucked up.

Why should it matter how they saw it? The US South in the 1800's didn't see slavery as fucked up either, but no one defends them, and rightfully so.

[Criptfeind]

I would defend them to some extent. I mean, you can not really put the blame on them personally. Sure, it was fucked up, but that is how things were.

[Megaman]

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

Many times you never worked off your debt and your family was indentured, For LIFE.

Then you were probably too far in debt in the first place.

[ArKFallen]

Many times you never worked off your debt and your family was indentured, For LIFE.

Then you were probably too far in debt in the first place.

If you can be called a Slave you definitely owe them way too much, or you're very unlucky(POWs).

[Reelyanoob]

Here's Leviticus on the matter of Hebrew slave customs (via wiki)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity

Leviticus draws a distinction between Hebrew debt slavery:
[...passages excerpted...]

and "bondslaves", foreigners:

25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you, you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.
25:45 Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property.
25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.

So to say it was only debt-slaves contradicts the bible (emphasis mine).

[Burnt Pies]

All the Racism and stupid decrees (I think somewhere it forbids wearing clothes made of blends of different materials.) in the Old Testament does kinda mean you have to take it with a handful of salt.

[Muz]

Eh, that website is mostly anti-Christian. I believe in the existence of a divine being, but not any (organized) religion, so pretty much most of the points there don't apply for me

Most of the 'proofs' out there are no more proof than a typical Christian website would replace #24 with "Ask why Satan causes so many problems" or #7 with "Understand heathen delusion" or #39 with "Realize that Jesus tried to save you". It's almost like a parody. Many of the Muslim sites also pose scientific facts from the Quran, similar to stuff like in #4 and #37. And some atheists would replace #48 with "Realize that prayer is a placebo", to cover how prayer actually does work in some cases.

[_DivideByZero_]

All the Racism and stupid decrees (I think somewhere it forbids wearing clothes made of blends of different materials.) in the Old Testament does kinda mean you have to take it with a handful of salt.

Maybe you could post that verse for us? "I think" does not make it so.

Remember the book of Joshua? The two spies were sheltered by a non-Jew, who was spared because she was righteous. Sodom and Gomorrah, on the other hand, rampantly sinned. God said that if there were as few as 10 good people in the city, he would have spared it.
You see it as racism because most non-Jews were in fact unrighteous at the time. It's not because of race, but because they were evil. It is not racism to say that lots of black people at my school listen to rap if it is in fact true that most people in that specific group fall into that category.

Remember, Jesus died for our sins. The wages of sin are death, and Jesus took that death for us. Before Jesus, people died for their sins. Now, people have a chance to, well, repent.

I'm not an expert on theology, but I hope that at least somewhat clarifies it.

[Blargityblarg]

All the Racism and stupid decrees (I think somewhere it forbids wearing clothes made of blends of different materials.) in the Old Testament does kinda mean you have to take it with a handful of salt.

Maybe you could post that verse for us? "I think" does not make it so.

Bam.

[Criptfeind]

The bible needs some serious interpretation and flexibility. Even after 50 years we think the people are barbarians, how do you think it would be after (6, 7?) 6 thousand years?

[Jackrabbit]

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

The Old Testament Bible is honestly pretty f*cked up. To me there is no use trying to justify some of the stuff in there.

That's exactly what he's saying, that it was different back then. They didn't see that as fucked up.

Why should it matter how they saw it? The US South in the 1800's didn't see slavery as fucked up either, but no one defends them, and rightfully so.

Oh, I do agree. My point was that it's really not relevant now days. People were messed up back then and they wrote it into their Big Book O' God. Nobody cares anymore, and nobody is into slavery because they're Christian.

In response to your other response, which I didn't quote because it's big and I'm lazy, I think that limiting political influence would be good, and should be the norm already, and limiting social influence would be good but that's a hell of a thing to do if you don't want a shitton of people up in arms against you, so it requires thought and planning. And I still think that getting people from both sides of the argument to agree that regardless of Religion, bad people need to be taken care of is a good idea, but I do acknowledge that it'd be hard. It's damn near impossible to get the clergy (the higher up clergy that matter) to change their ways unless there's a) a lot more people looking a lot closer at what goes on in the Catholic church (I know I'm focusing on Catholics here but go with what you know) and b) people who identify as followers of the Church protesting. There's probably other stuff too, I'm exhausted and I'm not coming up with a 25 point plan to revolutionize the church right this minute.