• solsangraal@lemmy.zipEnglish
    863·
    3 months ago

    oh, you don’t think the bible is real? let me throw some bible verses at you, that’ll change your mind

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      34·
      3 months ago

      This was one of my issues when I was a Christian. There is no external authority that the Bible was the inherent word of God and no way to ensure that the words within it were transcribed or even translated within the Authority of God.

      There is a whole study of Bible hermeneutics that is about finding authority within the Bible.

      You know how in the show Community Abed was always trying to meta the show? Imagine that, but really not funny and it’s taken seriously.

      • cetvrti_magi@lemmy.world
        27·
        3 months ago

        Another problem with Bible (and other similar books) is that it doesn’t make sense that omnipotent god would communicate to humans trough vague book that would have many different interpretations and possibly have it’s meaning changed a bit with translations to different languages. At least there are Christians who accept that events from Bible never happened.

    • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
      136·
      3 months ago

      Cults are small. Christianity is big. And it was Christians who, during the satanic panic, created a false association in pop culture between cults and abuse. See, back in the 60s, the hippie movement was turning young people away from Christianity and towards new age spiritualities like wicca and thelema. The christians had to put a stop to these cults, so they created a myth that cult=abuse.

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
          37·
          3 months ago

          If cults can be big, then there’s absolutely no difference between a religion and a cult. Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity). Christianity is clearly neither. I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity. Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic. The fact that Christianity is not a cult, and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important. We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.

          • Senal@programming.devEnglish
            4·
            3 months ago

            Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity)

            Sure, but that’s a fairly narrow definition that ignores a large proportion of the actual dictionary definitions.

            I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity

            A somewhat subjective take that doesn’t really explain how the term cult would imply “unjust apology”

            Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic

            Not true, by any commonly accepted definition of the word.

            edit: the term cults can include groups “targeted by the Satanic panic” but that isn’t a strict definitional requirement.

            The fact that Christianity is not a cult

            Christianity does in fact meet many of the dictionary definitions of the word “cult”.

            You could argue that the normalisation of christianity excludes it from adhering to the definitions that mention “unorthodox” or “small” but those definitions are relatively few.

            and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important.

            How so ?

            Other than power and money i mean.

            We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.

            I can’t find any reference to the word “cult” that, when applied to christianity. would absolve them of the egregious historical shitfuckery perpetrated by and for them.

      • iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
        16·
        3 months ago

        Eh, I’m gonna go ahead and keep calling any group with charismatic authoritarian leaders/councils a cult. The word “cult” is inherently tied to worship which involves giving up some of your own agency or, at least, taking things on blind faith or admiration.

        Any time you have adherents giving up their free will/agency, that’s abuse and manipulation, to me.

        • phar@lemmy.ml
          3·
          3 months ago

          Cult - charismatic leader is still alive. Religion - charismatic leader is no longer alive. That’s how I see it, at least.

          • iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
            1·
            3 months ago

            I get that. I definitely leave my definition open for transfers of power from an initial leader to another authoritarian leader or surviving council of leaders that will keep the grift going.

            Edit: Or for transfers of power from an initial group or figure of a generally helpful movement to those who would co-opt those ideas or movements for their own goals.

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
          16·
          3 months ago

          Okay, why don’t you go ahead and explain why thelema, one of the cults I mentioned, is abusive. And to help, here’s a comprehensive list of the rules of thelema as described by Alistair Crowley:

          Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

          That’s it. That’s the entire rules. Okay go!

          • iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
            4·
            3 months ago

            I’ll bite, lol.

            There are differences between the letter, the interpretation, and the on the ground practice or manifestations of any “law”. Here, the manifestations of this self proclaimed axiom lead to power imbalances, abuse, and conflict.

            Without getting too deep into the issues of power dynamics and the abuse of positive and negative rights/freedoms inherent in laissez faire philosophies, Crowley’s pithy statement immediately runs into problems whenever any person’s “will” runs contrary to another’s. At that point, the person with the greater resources (be they procured through grift, gab, inheritance, hard work, or a combination of these or similar traits) will usually dictate what happens and definitely has the stronger hand.

            I agree that Crowley’s philosophies and a lot of the esoteric writings and movements of the time and those that inspired them are very interesting. What we have passed down to us through record merits study/can help us learn more about human interaction and the ways in which people think.

            In the case of Crowley, he was certainly afforded quite the set of silver cutlery at birth with which to lord his ideas and will over others throughout his life. That (combined with his upbringing, learned social viewpoints, and personal psychology which those informed) led to him producing manifestos and, eventually, codifying his thoughts and whims into his writings on Thelema and magical practices.

            Already, when a figure shrouds their thoughts and goals in mystery and designedly inaccessible or mutable language (based on that figure’s preference at any point in time), I become wary and at least a little interested in the state of mind of such a person.

            Looking into Crowley’s personal history, as I have over the years, it is apparent that he is a product of his environment and really sought to reinforce his worldviews to overcome trauma and justify his own desires. Regardless of your take on the man, I think we can all agree that he was an eccentric and someone who, today, we would call a “weirdo”.

            Weird can be good, weird can be bad, but, most of all, what I see with Crowley’s eccentricities is a desire to live his life on his own terms by any means possible and to enforce his will upon others. As with any person, his eccentricities do not excuse his failed responsibilities to those he had the power to support and nurture (his family and progeny), nor does it excuse his predation on those of lesser means or will in order to further his own personal desires and goals.

            Now, can we glean some good out of the ideas penned by such a troubled and eccentric figure? Sure. Any person’s work is subject to critique, interpretation, and integration into our own worldviews. Do I like the seemingly reactionary and petulant take on personal advocacy that Crowley’s philosophies can inspire? At times, I do. I see its value as an initial reaction that can spur further thought and introspection and I think that looking into philosophies like this has definitely broadened my own education and worldview.

            What I think is most important with cult or cult like figures like this is to put everything into context and read between the lines. No reasonable, sane, or caring person is going to ask someone else to strictly adhere to standards and tenets they have not set for themselves and threaten significant consequences for nonadoption of those principles.

            When you have a leader, follower, or council asking others for or imposing such rigorous adherence to their worldview or preferential dogma, it’s a good sign that you have a cult on your hands.

            Edit: Cleaned this up and clarified a couple sentences as I had a duplicated word and an autocorrect misspelling thanks to mobile.

            • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
              12·
              3 months ago

              Okay good analysis. I’m certain Thelemites have come up with solutions to some of what you describe, but I’m not a Thelemite so I can’t say what they are.

              But it seems to me that your complaint with cults is essentially that they are religions, and that religion must always be abusive. If so, I see no need to pin the abuse on the word “cult”.

              Take Dalmatians. Dalmatians are black and white with spots, make for popular firefighter companions, and are all dogs. Because Dalmatians are dogs, we also know that they have four legs, fur, sensitive noses, wagging tails, and loyalty to humans. But these traits aren’t traits of being a Dalmatian, they’re traits of being a dog. If you point at a golden retriever and say “that thing has four legs and a tail! It must be a dalmatian!”, you’re wrong. It’s a dog, and it shares dogness with Dalmatians, but not dalmatian-ness.

              Likewise, if your complaint with cults is that they are religions and religions are abusive, there’s no use calling religions cults just to point out their abuse. You’d be better off calling them religions.

    • endofline@lemmy.caEnglish
      26·
      3 months ago

      Yes, folks who don’t read Bible don’t realize how much bible says about money, trade and economy. Proverbs book is my favorite, the deuteronomy book I leave for older brothers in fath ( kidding :-) )

    • psud@aussie.zone
      6·
      3 months ago

      It’s more:

      1. a man sees something he doesn’t understand. He makes up a story to explain it.
      2. The story is shared among a tribe for generations, occasionally a skilled storyteller improves it
      3. Eventually writing is invented, the story at some point is written down, maybe improved one more time as it’s put to paper
      4. It’s copied over generations, occasionally improved by good writer, it is adjusted and added to a collection of stories about God and his prophets and miracles

      Even had the writers wanted to fact check the stories, they couldn’t, they had spent too long in oral transmission.

      Even the new testament wasn’t written by the people who were there at the time, it was more like telling the stories that your grandfather heard from his grandfather

      People are pretty prone to improving stories they tell, they make them flow better, they make people’s motives clear when really they were hidden

      • debil@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 months ago

        Add to this tons of translations to different languages, not to mention different versions of the book in the same language. So it’s a massive buffet where anybody can pick whatever suits their taste.

    • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      52·
      3 months ago

      To put a finer point on it, your understanding of the author’s understanding of the thing in this instance is a third Venn circle without much overlap to those first two. 🤌🏾

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    16·
    3 months ago

    One of the most frustrating things of dealing with bible people is when the request for proof comes up. They just point at the Bible. Like it’s some text that has deep references to verifiable and cross referenced historical fact. Like Pontious Pilate’s administration leaving records of some guy doing magic on the regular, him getting in fights with rich people, or even just a criminal docket of hanging a magical guy.

    Nope. They just point at their book as proof of itself.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      8·
      3 months ago

      what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

      And when they still point to that bible of theirs, start quoting your favorite incest story.

  • SuckitM0ds@lemmy.world
    91·
    3 months ago

    i saw a post the other day that was all atheists talking about what they were going to do if project 25 and christian theocracy begins to take over america. it was inspiring. we don’t fuck around. ya’ll have been warned.

    • ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world
      251·
      3 months ago

      the fuck’s wrong with you?

      she doesn’t care about the Bible but people forcing religion and their religious rules on everyone else is why she’s out there with that sign; she’s fighting for her freedom from religion and her personal rights.

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          6·
          3 months ago

          she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.

          “We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption […in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)

          A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.

          Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.

          Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)

          This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.

          This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.

          Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.

          Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.

          Others may find them stifling.

          You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.

          If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of your faith.

        • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
          6·
          3 months ago

          Purpose - control large groups of idiots whom can’t be bothered to think for themselves

          Please elaborate on nuclear family then how nuclear fits into the bible as it was harnessed 1943 years after the death of your so called Messiah

            • Raverbunny@aussie.zone
              4·
              3 months ago

              See, that’s the problem, at least in the USA, the religious nuts who are too scared of their own mortality feel the need to push their narrow minded religious views on others, so people are not actually free to reject it, it is being forced into others, but I guess that’s the Christian way.

              Funny thing is the Christians wanna act like they so high and mighty and point out the evil things people are doing in the name is Islam but they are exactly the same anyway. From my views as an atheist not living in a religiously opressed society, Islam and Christianity both have extremist followers that do the most evil deeds in the name of their own belief which Boone outside of their circle jerk gives a fuck about. Religions are more responsible for death and hardship than anything else in history, and that’s by a large margin.

              So I don’t care what others believe in, just don’t keep trying to push your views on others.

            • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
              4·
              3 months ago

              You missed the 1943 part of that. 2000 years of knowledge has been gathered and put down so we can advance humanity and you idiots are still looking for answers of a 2000+ year old book

              I very much doubt that nuclear was even a word when the shit was invented.

              Seriously you have had too much bible it is rotted your brain

    • RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works
      161·
      3 months ago

      I really love having the tag feature. It’ll help me remember in the future when I’ve met someone that slut shames people to defend Christianity

      • odelik@lemmy.today
        12·
        3 months ago

        Right?

        Like maybe she wants to be able to dress comfortably without the rules of some goat herder’s book of fairytale and moral values.

        Or the right to speak without a man to speak for her.

        Or to open a bank account without her husband or father being on the account too.

        Or one of the other thousands of things women have had to deal with, outside of fucking sexual freedom, or still deal with thanks to this holy book.

        Also, she should be able to have sex freely with other consenting adults without shame too.

        • irreticent@lemmy.world
          8·
          3 months ago

          What I don’t get is why you automatically assume that just because she doesn’t agree with what’s in the Bible that she’s promiscuous. Where does she mention sexuality?

          Everything you ranted about was predicated on your assumption that she’s a slut and it all falls apart when you realize that your assumption is could be wrong.

            • irreticent@lemmy.world
              7·
              3 months ago

              It has been explained repeatedly why someone might oppose the teachings of the Bible. They have nothing to do with sexuality. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit your agenda.

              • Frank Ring@lemmy.world
                27·
                3 months ago

                Maybe it is. By curiosity, I studied the Bible for many months, maybe years, without identifying myself as a Christian.

                It probably shaped many of my worldviews.

            • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
              5·
              3 months ago

              If you fat shame a person, it could bring motivation to become healthier.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/

              “exposure to weight bias triggers physiological and behavioural changes linked to poor metabolic health and increased weight gain.”

              “The more people are exposed to weight bias and discrimination, the more likely they are to gain weight and become obese, even if they were thin to begin with”

              “Fat shaming is also linked to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and exercise avoidance”

              What you are advocating for directly leads to higher rates of obesity.

            • Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
              4·
              3 months ago

              Being fat is objectively bad for your health. Sure. But being sexually active is objectively good for your health.

              Shaming anyone though, rarely leads to any positive change. Probably the opposite.

    • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
      14·
      3 months ago

      God is made up and the bible was written by dillusional human. Who are you to shame promiscuity when priests around the world fuck little boys.

      You can fuck off with you high and mighty beliefs

      When you die you rot in the ground that’s it

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          6·
          3 months ago

          Everybody is prone to sins and misconducts, me, you and priests too.

          Should the people actively preaching against sin, supposedly following religious best practices, actively steeling themselves against sin not be substantially less likely to ever engage in such misconduct?

          You’re not actually making a point here, you’re putting the very real threat of abuse by religious officials using their power in religious institutions as a means to groom children on the same level as the average person.

            • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
              5·
              3 months ago

              Suppressing them.

              Your entire argument here is around discouraging sexual promiscuity (which is exclusively being advocated for specifically with consenting adults) and yet you also argue that a lack of reproduction/sex directly leads to grooming.

              You can’t have both sides.

              On top of that, many aspects about the church can lead to grooming that aren’t sexual repression, namely the power dynamics of religious officials, and the idea that those who are religious are more inherently “ethical” or “good” than others, and are thus less likely to do wrong.

    • Melllvar@startrek.websiteEnglish
      5·
      3 months ago

      The answer is: because she doesn’t benefit from it.

      What does this imply about those who agree with it?

    • Uberflussig@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      3 months ago

      Just for the sake of an open response to this, in the case you’re not actually trolling. Do you really believe this woman does care about the contents of the bible? Or can you see the imo more logical point that she cares about certain political movements not agreeing to the seperation of church and state, leading to actual policy based on a religious book you don’t believe in or agree with?

      In that case, where is the need to actually believe in the bible or it’s teachings just to put in the effort of making a sign and protesting? At that point you’re protesting the consequences of a select group of people pushing their religious dogmas on everyone under the veil of politics. Which unfortunately still seems to happen in current times imo.

        • Uberflussig@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          3 months ago

          I agree that religious beliefa are generally on the decline, but that’s not objectively a good or bad thing.

          The word virtue unfortunately has too many meanings in this context:

          Virtue meaning

          However virtue, if defined as moral excellence, simply does not exist in a fully objective sense. The best definition I can try to personally approximate is to “choose your own actions in such a way as to minimize negative and maximize positive effects on the people they affect”. If I use that definition to reason about the virtuousness of being sexually liberal, I cannot see it as anything other than a virtue, other than hurting others by e.g. being promiscuos within a relationship.

          On a more general note, monogamy was not always the norm. Historically a lot of cultures have thrived under polygamy or similar systems. The most well-known one (assuming you’re from North America) are the Mormons, which accept and encourage polygyny.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      3·
      3 months ago

      Actually no. People read a book and then behave the irrational ways, all of which is okay, but the problem is that their actions make our lives worse. We have a problem with their actions. We care about their actions. We don’t care about the book they read.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 months ago

      Maybe it is because there is no hard proof for it, and its adherents are using their unproven bible to tell her what to do?

        • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
          9·
          3 months ago

          So do you see that your religion is bullshit? Or do you believe in all of it? Or do you just pick and choose what you want to believe that fits your narrative to make you feel good at night?

          Just curious.

            • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
              6·
              3 months ago

              I don’t believe in religion. It’s bullshit. I could go on for weeks pointing out passages that are ignored now (why? it’s gods word right?) What makes your “god” the god? It’s all a scapegoat and really I believe it was just an early form of government. It has NO business in schools or our government and should 100% should be paying taxes.

                • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
                  6·
                  3 months ago

                  I don’t need an angry sky guy to threaten me with hell to be moral and ethical. I also don’t need him to give me meaning and purpose. I can do that all on my own. I believe in karma, be a good human.

        • odelik@lemmy.today
          6·
          3 months ago

          I’d say the same thing in a memes community since this showed up in my “Everything” feed.

          Your response came off very mansplainy and misogynist by overlooking a ton of shit and at the end went to, “lol, she wants to have sex!”.

            • odelik@lemmy.today
              7·
              3 months ago

              Maybe, just maybe, she doesn’t believe in that book and doesn’t want your values shoved down her throat.

              Maybe she wants to be able to dress comfortably without the rules of some goat herder’s book of fairytale and moral values.

              Or the right to speak without a man to speak for her.

              Or to open a bank account without her husband or father being on the account too.

              Or one of the other thousands of things women have had to deal with, outside of fucking sexual freedom, or still deal with thanks to this holy book.

              And lastly the freedom to have sex with whatever another consenting adult or adults as she pleases without your fucking judgment.

              Judge not, that ye be not judged.

              For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

              Mathew 7:1-2

                • odelik@lemmy.today
                  8·
                  3 months ago

                  It doesn’t matter, I don’t believe or live by your book. Neither does she.

                  But your book does say that, you, as a believer, shouldn’t force your beliefs down somebody else’s throat by judging them.

                  So kindly, fuck off with this shit and let people live their lives however they want unless it impacts you. Just like I’ll do, but I’ll do it because I’m a descent fucking person.