Angsty Teenagers: The Bible is made up of feel-good fairy tales
The bible: Demonstrates stories that detail some human history, reflecting on our evil nature and the evil we commit against our creator and others, and how God often interacts with man in spite of that evil.
Angsty Teenagers: shocked Pikachu face but why is there bad stuff in there?!
Watch your head OP, the entire point is flying over it.
God does not interact with man in spite of evil, according to the bible, he encourages and rewards it. Because the bible is made up by evildoers to justify their ways and solidify their power
Makes me think of my favorite verse to quote in arguments: Pslam 137:9 - Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks (NIV).
Context is important. It’s a song of imagined - and not executed - revenge. The writer is wishing that what happened to their kids also happened to the invaders kids. The Babylonians dashed Jewish kids against rocks, and the Jews didn’t respond in kind - couldn’t in fact, because the Law forbade it.
I was dealing with racist far right people on FaceBook and, I forget the exact context but, some lady quoted the Bible at me to support her claim of racist superiority and I just shut her down with the classic Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Well, one of the dudes pretending to be Paul. Initial probably-actually-Paul is like “Why wouldn’t we have women in church leadership? They were leaders when we were being hunted by the Romans.”
Honestly though, I feel like there’s just not enough green tabs as a whole. Plenty of OG misogyny in the religious law sections.
The caption is BS and the markers don’t actually correlate with the topics, even though the topics are all present in there.
And actually there’s a pretty interesting history of empowered women buried underneath the later misogynistic revisions, which is the case for both the OT and NT in separate developments.
The term you’re looking for is univocality According to the consensus of biblical scholars, the bible does not have this property. Accoring to most of the ~40,000 ministries, the bible is assumed by fiat to have this feature.
It’s 39,000+change denominations including all the dangerous cults^†^ but not including non-denominational churches, who are typically too small and localized to be part of a ministry, but some are big enough but pretend to be small and non-denominational so as not to draw too much attention (because US law enforcement really doesn’t want another Waco or Jonestown)
Some of these are actually extinct like the Shakers – nope, we still have one Shaker village – but between the 1970s and now, a lot of liberal / relaxed / left-leaning denominations faded into insignificance, correlating to a rising popular atheist movement. (Before the new atheists of the aughts and places on the usenet and the internet where atheist philosophy could spread, it was constrained to academics and scientists and hobbyist philosophers. Richard Dawkins was moved by the 9/11/2001 attacks – enabled by radical religious suicide attackers – to not just promote that atheism should be an acceptable norm, but we should challenge the rhetoric of churches, many of which were already a lot more politicized than they were supposed to be while retaining tax-exempt status.
My numbers come from the (defunct?) Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance in the aughts, which tried to catalog all the religions of the world and what they believed (and how they differed from their adjacent schisms).
(FIXED)
† In 23rd century parlance, when we say cult we usually mean an NRM (New Religious Movement) that is dangerous. There are plenty of NRMs that are not dangerous (that get cult status anyway and harassed by US law enforcement) and there are plenty of old religions (more than a century-plus) that are dangerous, but not regarded as cults.
Jonestown happened when I was a kid, so when Waco happened, I did some rabbit-hole dives into cult phenomena how they entrap people, so I’ll nerd out about it from time to time.
And don’t get me started on Far Cry 5 and its failure to actually look at how cults work. (Of course Ubisoft was afraid of losing business from getting called out by the rising Christian nationalist movement in the US.)
But they’re not the same, so at least one of them cannot be accurate. At the very least, it’s a copy error by a scribe, but that still means current biblical canon cannot be considered infallible, which is a big deal if you come from a tradition that demands you accept infallibility as a core doctrine.
Because they are family members and friends, and that’s a cynically reductive way to view people. I used to be one of them and fully bought in to that belief system for decades. If arguments don’t matter to them, then I never would have examined those beliefs myself, and changed.
The book has been controversial, particularly for the explicit illustrations of sexual intercourse described in the text itself. In critical circles, it has drawn fire over whether and how literal the illustration job is, or should be.
It’s fine as a holy book that we should all treat as the literal word of god, but don’t you dare draw those raunchy sex scenes from my holy book
Theyve been quite clear what counts as good is what god commands. Which means those are all actually good. That also makes god’s goodness very meaningful.
At uni a friend of mine wrote a book review of the bible that began, "Not since Naked Lunch has such a dull book been saved by the constant barrage of sadomasochistic homosexual pornography."
Alas it was pasted onto a sheet of paper and photocopied over 20 years ago now and I doubt it was saved. I don't remember anything else about the article, but I presume it was very undergraduate. That line was a killer though.
Add comment