Nine theists decide whether or not theists should have special rights. Does that seem right to you?
I always thought it was pretty far out for a contemporary democracy to have lifelong appointments with the word “supreme” in the title.
In the rest of the world this usually indicates something well divorced from democracy.
Like almost everything with the US government: it is built around the idea that a bunch of rich white slave owners would act in good faith.
Also, from a quick google, we were looking at an average life expectancy of 30-40 in the 1700s/early 1800s. Which speaks even more to how only rich white men were supposed to have any power. But it also is why “a life time appointment” wasn’t really a big deal. Elected in your mid to late 30s and you MIGHT make it 10-20 years before your slaves finally ripped your dick off.
How much of that life expectancy was infant mortality? Or preventable diseases that didn’t affect the upper class people who would get lifetime appointments?
But I think the idea was to have an impartial third party that was unaffected by political maneuvering necessary for near constant elections.
Unfortunately it hasn’t worked out for us so much lately.
Most of it. If you lived past puberty you’d live to be a normal age, 50+. Kids tended to die of disease, but once you’re basically an adult, you’re a lot harder to kill.
Don’t I know it.
Indeed. The actuarials will give a solid life expectancy for those that reach appointment age.
There was a lot of child death pulling that life expectancy down.
I’m a Christian that was raised on the ideology of the separation of Church and State and I’ve never understood why extremist Christian rhetoric determines so many of our laws. Almost the ENTIRE debate on abortion comes down to Christian ideologies - ideologies that we ourselves can’t fully agree on but insist on pushing onto others. My philosophy is the golden rule of doing unto others and all that. Condemnation is why we get a bad wrap and so many of us spit in Jesus’ face by constantly judging and condemning others for things we don’t agree with or even just don’t understand.
Similar background, but I was always strongly encouraged to read scripture myself. When I started pointing out how the scripture was pretty clearly in opposition to most popular Christian dogmas, it wasn’t the dogmas that were seen as the problem, it was ME for pointing them out.
Scripture is pro-abortion, it does not condemn homosexuality in any way, it does not contain even the concept of hell, nor does it does not support the concept of heaven as an afterlife destination; but it does demand you always treat others with respect and dignity (even your mortal enemies!) and that you worry about your own failings rather than others. You are to live by example, not edict or meddling.
Modern “Christians” are not followers of Christ, but enemies. They spit on his teachings and the scriptures. They are an army of anti-christ cultists.
“And I will tell them bluntly: You were never one of mine. Get out of here, you criminal trash.” - Matthew 7:23
That was growing up on Judaism. Those things weren’t even a conversation.
It feels like Christians are anti-christian, as if a hate demon infiltrated and corrupted thier own faith. Does all organized faith end up this way? Or has always been this way from a deceitful inception.
it does not condemn homosexuality in any way
That’s not true though.
It condemns homosexuality both in the old and new testaments.
It does not. Now, generally when someone online pushes back on this statement they fall into one of two buckets… those who think of themselves as Christian and push back defensively, or those who despise Christians and push back because most Christians espouse this lie. I won’t assume either, but I will set the record straight because that dogma is NOT scriptural and that dogged, deliberate lie needs to be put to an end. Feel free to ask questions if you want.
You mentioned both the Old and Testaments… since Paul’s greek statement in the “New Testament” (“male-bedder”) follows the phrasing of the Old (LXX), I’ll explain that one (because Paul’s word choice means he was citing Deuteronomy).
Leviticus 18:22 NKJV: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
First, that is actually a fairly accurate translation (especially for the NKJV), so there’s no need to dig too into Hebrew or Greek in this case… just a grammar and a bit of historical context.
Jewish scholars hold a doctrine that scripture does not waste words. This isn’t necessarily pivotal here, but it’s a good entrypoint for this exercise.
The phrase “You shall not lie with a male” would be perfectly clear on it’s own… and yet that is not actually what it says… so why does scripture include the qualifier “as with a woman”?
Before you read on, think about that. What is the specific difference between “lie with a male” and “as with a women” that scripture is trying to clarify?
Now, we don’t have to guess at this. It’s not a mystery, and it never has been.
The word “woman” here (issah) is also the word for “wife”. It does double-duty… based on context. In this context, it’s a deliberate choice that carries both meanings simultaneously
The year is 2,000 BCE… you are a young man and you want/need a wife. How do you get one?
You buy her. You buy her from whoever owns her. Often, that is her family (well, her father, specifically)… but not always. A man who owns slaves can have sex with any woman he owns… but according to Jewish law, he would need to marry her. She doesn’t have a choice in the matter.
Are you seeing where this is going? Men can be property, but they are not to be made subservient to their owners in the same way women are.
Using modern terminology, the way we’d phrase Leviticus 18:22 is “You may not rape your male slaves as you do with your female slaves.”
Yes, by modern standards all this is gut-churningly awful. But these writings were not made us - they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews living thousands and thousands of years ago, raised in cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now. When you keep the context in mind, most (not just much - most) scripture is abundantly clear… not just on the WHAT… but the WHY.
But at this point, the conclusion of either interpretation should be the same:
The Bible is not a workable moral guideline for modern life.
Neither “Thou shall not sleep with men like you would with women” nor “Thou shall not rape men like you would women” are acceptable.
I do not disagree. But I also like to remind people that “The Bible” isn’t a singular work. It’s a collection of many historical texts by many people over from many different cultures and regions and situations covering a wide variety of topics.
I think there are valuable philosophies to gained, but there are certain things you can point to as “foundational” - and no matter what you are reading you always have to go back to those foundational concepts. Those are:
- The Noachide Laws
- The Teachings of Yeshua
The Noachide Laws essentially boil down to:
- False Gods: Don’t worship inanimate objects.
- Blasphemy: If YHWH reveals themself to you, remain reverent.
- Murder: Do not kill unless there is no other choice.
- Dangerous Sexual Behavior: Rape, incest, promiscuity; selfish behaviors that place others at risk.
- Theft: Do not steal.
- Animal Cruelty: Treat animals humanely, particularly those used for food.
- Justice: Establish and maintain courts and systems of justice.
The Teachings of Yeshua boil down to:
- Always show YHWH love, respect, reverence, and deference.
- Always treat others with love, respect, reverence, and deference… even actual enemies.
- Worry about your own shortcomings, not others.
- 2 & 3 are the outcomes of #1, and #1 is the outcome of 2 & 3. They are inextricably linked.
Everything else should be taken a historical document, not an universal omnicontextual moral precept; Yeshua states as much more than once. You do not need to be religious at all to find philosophical value in the foundations… and as far as the scripture is concerned, that is perfectly fine.
It does.
You mentioned both the Old and Testaments… since Paul’s greek statement in the “New Testament” (“male-bedder”) follows the phrasing of the Old (LXX), I’ll explain that one (because Paul’s word choice means he was citing Deuteronomy).
If Paul cities the old testament you explained, then him not using “as with a women” - since scripture doesn’t waste words - means these are two different (negative) statements about homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22 NKJV: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
What you left out, is the part where it says both shall be killed.
Men can be property, but they are not to be made subservient to their owners in the same way women are.
Using modern terminology, the way we’d phrase Leviticus 18:22 is “You may not rape your male slaves as you do with your female slaves.”
Ok, so in that case, what’s the male slave to do?
He cannot disobey his master, as the bible tells that he should always obey him.
But, if he is raped, he will be killed.
That doesn’t seem very fair, or even neutral about homosexuality. It’s negative.
But these writings were not made us - they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews living thousands and thousands of years ago, raised in cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now.
In that case, what about the part in the new testament?
That was supposedly written for us, right? It doesn’t use the “as with a woman” phrasing.
Yet it also clearly has negative things to say about homosexuality.
What you left out, is the part where it says both shall be killed.
Because that’s not relevant to the discussion. But since you brought it up, remember that I explicitly mentioned that the context is “cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now.” So let’s keep that context in mind. Chattel slavery was normal.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit. But in this case there is a very specific prophetic context that we’ll touch on shortly.
Since we’re on the topic of familial/household abuses, note that the concept of “consent” does not exist here. Re-read Leviticus with that in mind, especially when reading about having sex with the neighbors wife, the daughter-in-law, or the father’s wife (which is not necessarily your mother). Consent is not a prerequisite to any of these offenses.
Now also remember, I said these two things:
- “…they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews…”
- “When you keep the context in mind, most (not just much - most) scripture is abundantly clear… not just on the WHAT… but the WHY.”
One thing neither of us has addressed here is the WHY. You shifted from Lev 23 to 20, but missed this: the scripture spells that out the WHY clear as day just a few verses later…
“Therefore you shall observe and obey all of my rules and all of my rulings so that the land where I am bringing you to live will not spit you back out.”
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there’s a good chance we can agree on that. So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts… the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH’s own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
Ok, so in that case, what’s the male slave to do?
He cannot disobey his master, as the bible tells that he should always obey him.
But, if he is raped, he will be killed.
That doesn’t seem very fair, or even neutral about homosexuality. It’s negative.
Yes, you got all of this right. Again, the slave is chattel and is handled like any other property. By modern sensibilities this is horrific, but this is a historical document that is not by, for, or about us (westerners living thousands of years later in an unimaginably different world and culture). You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it’s own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it’s meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
In that case, what about the part in the new testament?
That was supposedly written for us, right? It doesn’t use the “as with a woman” phrasing.
Yet it also clearly has negative things to say about homosexuality.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them. Paul was further challenged by working with Hellenists… yet another culture that would be alien to us, and decried a wide variety of activities he saw as sexual abuses; from temple prostitution, to slave abuse, to pederasty. And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be “put to death” - but to change their ways.
Now, remember this, because it is VITAL:
The Pharisees, having heard how Yeshua humbled the Sadducees (priestly caste), gathered together. One among them, an expert and lawyer of Torah (religious law) sought to test him.
“Rabbi, in all the Torah, which commandment is the most important?”
And Yeshua said to him: "You shall love, respect, and cherish the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, and all your thought. This is the most important and fundamental commandment.
But the second is equal to the first: You shall love, respect, and cherish your neighbors no less than you love, respect, and cherish yourself.
These two commandments are the foundation on which all the Torah and all the teachings of the Prophets are based.
Whenever you read scripture - any of it, even Paul - and even if you ignore all the other teachings of Yeshua Hamashiach, remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua’s ministry.
Because that’s not relevant to the discussion.
It is relevant to the discussion. Because it shows that the old testament thinks homosexuality is bad, which you deny.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit.
You’re not really making the case for a loving god and bible here.
What you have made the case for however, is that the bible views homosexuals as animals, as lesser than people.
All the while, you claim that the bible doesn’t save negative things about homosexuality.
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there’s a good chance we can agree on that.
If you think so, you clearly haven’t read the bible, at all.
So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts… the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH’s own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
And it was paramount that all homosexuals be killed, to safeguard these wanderings.
You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it’s own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it’s meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
You can shift and twist the context all you like, it’s there clear as day: the bible says a lot of negative things about homosexuals.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them.
Reiterate them? So the parts about slavery being completely ok and fine is jesus’ teaching reiterated?
Good to know. Everybody sets him up as a swell guy and a hippy, but it turns out he supports slavery.
And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be “put to death” - but to change their ways.
Which again, show that homosexuality was put in a negative light. According to the bible, it’s a sin that must be changed.
It explicitly says homosexuals cannot get into heaven, after all.
remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua’s ministry.
Thatfully, I don’t have to go to ministrations or read of bigoted supernatural tales to delude myself into thinking I’m a good man, so I’ll skip that, thanks.
deleted by creator
Here’s an idea: FUCK the goddamn bible.
Agreed.
We have no reason to care what it says, and if you can’t all agree on what it says then it is worthless even to you.
I think you misunderstood. I’m not a christian criticizing atheism, I’m an atheist criticizing christianity.
I’m refuting the propaganda that the bible is actually a good book with good morals that some christians like to spread.
This just shows how Christians pick and choose which hills they will die on from the Bible based on their feelings rather than actually being steadfast in their dedication to scripture
You people are real fucking quiet in the face of Christian Nationalism. You either need better PR or silently can’t wait for the “kingdom of God” to take over and wipe us atheists out finally.
We try but we’re facing the same horde of angry assholes you are. And no help from the pulpit. We’re a pretty small minority.
We try but we’re facing the same horde of angry assholes you are. And no help from the pulpit.
The problem is, modern Christianity is more of a social club than a religion, and too many Christians are afraid of the church-social ramifications of calling out their brothers and sisters in Christ/simply have not committed to letting the teachings of the bible ACTUALLY dictate how they live.
As someone raised Christian, IMO if ur not ready to become a pastor yourself to BE that help from the pulpit, or go have serious conversations with your church leaders, or try and organize church members for a demonstration, or SOMETHING, you’re not actually living out Christian values.
The Christian faith calls you to put aside your personal comfort in order to help others and do what’s right. If you don’t believe strongly enough to follow that through to its’ full extent, what’s the point of being a Christian?
I have to educate my Christian family members on how to be respectful towards LGBTQ+ people because nobody in the church is willing to tell their “brothers and sisters in Christ” that the way they speak of others isn’t Christ-like and is harmful.
Obviously I don’t know what you have or haven’t done, I don’t mean this to say you aren’t trying, but I feel like for people who truly believe the Christian faith it requires pretty radical lifestyle changes that would lead to either reforming the church or being forced out of a congregation.
deleted by creator
I apologize but I’m not sure I understand. If you mean “us people” as a whole, then I can’t deny that a lot of the anger is justified. The Christian banner has been used to say and do a lot of terrible shit by evil and misguided people. I may not agree with your stance, but I respect your free will and right to believe what you believe. You have as much a right to exist as anybody else does.
Damn it I wanna be mad. 😡
You’re ok though.
🤣 Thanks. You’re ok too. Everything is so fucked up now and so much of the shit we see and hear every day just stokes the fire. It’s easy to be mad at things we shouldn’t - I do it too. You have a good one, alright?
I love demanding action from random people for the words and actions of assholes because they belong to some incredibly diverse group that also contains shitheads. It’s so much easier than having to recognize people as individuals with their own values and judge them accordingly.
I’m going to go accost some hippie Universal Unitarians and demand they answer for the Westboro Baptist church. Maybe do the same to some Muslims and Jews later.
Because they organized and acted on a long-term plan, supported by a political party that courted them for votes.
Those aren’t even ordinary theists, as you would find them in most places. But extreme Christians (nutcases) that have run explicitly on a platform of giving Christianity and Christians special privileges.
Nope. At least 3 of the judges should be (open) atheists if Americans were to have proper representation.
Closer to 1 judge, but we can still dream
Close to 3, if we are counting “nones”, which is what would be even better, really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States
The wiki article only lists “nones” at 23% (in 2014), which would be 2 judges. If you look at the link from pew research above the nones include 7% of a group called “nothing in particular (religion important)”, so I only counted atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular (religion not important)”.
I’d settle for a couple agnostics tbh
Been like that forever. Maybe we just had a brief intermission. :/
As an atheist and a Jew I’m really tired of being doubly second-class in this country.
Soon they will try to outlaw atheism
It already is in some places, as in if you are an atheist you cannot run for office.
which places in America?
Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas
But it is unenforceable because it has been ruled unconstitutional. Source
Pretty soon it will be, oh sure you’re allowed to stone someone to death as long as you’re doing it in accordance with your sincerely held religious beliefs.
So basically, sharia law.
I just want shakira law where the hips dont lie
Look. I’d had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, “That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”
Its my sincerely held religious beliefs that these people should have their face beat with a hammer.
Sharia law.
Freedom is a two-way street. Remember that one person’s freedom ends where another begins, and vice versa. If that line is ever allowed to be crossed, freedom ceases to exist. Allowing discrimination (based on inherent human traits) crosses that line.
There’s no free speech quite like Christian free speech ⚔️
And it’s one of the main reasons for the collapse of the country and inevitably fighting that will follow.
Well, obviously xtians have had their special privileges eroded enough as is, it’s long overdue that their unwarranted special privileges are enshrined.
Wtf can we even do about this?
Go out and vote for a president who supports these types of Supreme Court judges
Do i need to be clearer?
Why?
Because of things like abortion rights for just one example. He has not been very fiery on the issue. Just quiet and lackluster. And he is the one in the bully pulpit currently.
removeded about Trump too and still do.
Not allowed to vote so this is the only outlet to say anything. People like us depend on the ones able to vote to do it responsibly and logically. Being a part of a religion should definitely not make someone ineligible but Biden has consistently made his religion match how much he is able to do on the job.
He was the first vice president from Delaware and the first Roman Catholic vice president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
If people did not want Christian rule then we would quit electing leaders who are ruled by religion.
@verdantbanana @YoBuckStopsHere not sure of the link. You can be someone who follows a religion without it becoming part of their job! So why reference Biden?
Always found it funny how given the intentional separation of church & state, how the religious actions of US leaders was followed closely. Up until #trump who was a joke & the US RW christians didn’t care. The end justified the means if you follow hate-filled religion!
If christian politicians werent sabotaging non christian upcoming politicians, more politicians would stop lying and claiming to be religious.
