As with everything else constricting, “religion for thee, not for me.”
Death for adultery? I’d like to think we’re more evolved than biblical law these days. For instance, I think he should be put to death for all the child rape but that’s just me.
We can put him to death for many things. No need to limit ourselves.
Reading the bible is an easy path to atheism
“Studying”, sadly, isn’t reading. But the eventual lawsuit about requiring Quran study will be fun. Not to mention when the church of satan steps in.
The SCOTUS will be like: “The founding fathers came to America to be slave-holding bigots, we’re not going to disrespect this by teaching other religions”
According to the Bible he’s the damn antichrist
I’ve legit heard this sentiment irl. Between qanon and Left Behind we lost a lot of folks to conspiracy.
The tiny little rural town I was raised in as a kid had a dog food factory, an itty bitty post office not much bigger than a port 'o potty, and an old shut down gas station. I think the town and surrounding area had a population of 300 or 500 (this was back in the 90s). It also had 10 churches (maybe more) all lined up along the bypass highway that went through “downtown”.
40 years later, as of last time I’ve been through, nothing’s really changed.
I only say this because I feel like kids already had plenty of options to study the Bible? Like half those churches did some kind of service 7 days a week, and on some days, multiple services. Services including Sunday School and Bible Study.
And let’s not forget sloth, gluttony, wrath, envy, vanity and pride.
are the seven sins in the bible?
quick search suggests notI mean, they aren’t literally listed out, but they are scattered through the bible verses, see here for example. I honestly think the fact that they are scattered across books buried in paragraphs of text kinda supports your argument tho.
Vanity and pride are the same sin, you forgot lust and greed.
Trump never cared for religion until he realised he can use it as a tool for oppression
Was religion ever intended to fill a different role?
It was/is a ruleset made by humans for humans to ensure cooperation within huge groups. Bit outdated nowadays but the concept is continued in form of laws, human rights, social norms etc.
I often reflect on the role it filled for mental health before the advent of science, psychology, and neuropsychiatry.
I was raised in a very opressive sect of protestantism, where I was instructed to pray and meditate. I find it analogus to visualisation and self reflection. I learned silence and meditation, I was put in situations where sitting silent by the hour listening to empty droning speech was my only recourse. My first awareness of the concept of mental illness was from bible stories of those people being healed implying their condition was not inherent to them, they were innocent.
The act of singing together about our beliefs and feelings has always seemed like a powerful thing that has vanished from our society, except at baseball games.
Right, so oppression.
Most religions have a lot of stuff about giving money to poor people.
It’s also commonly used to create a strong sense of “us”/“them”, inferiority to the unquestionable elite, superiority and self righteousness over non-believers, and a great way to force your underlings to do your bidding disguised as words from “God”, whoever that might be.
Sure, but it seems those same structures remain in place today but in a secularized form. Nation-States create this divisive sentiment which the bourgeois classes utilise in order to bid the oppressed against each others. The struggle between the state and the church is secondary to the material struggle between an upper and a lower class.
The “but” indicates some kind of opposition - is your stance that only one kind of oppression can exist at once, that some oppression is okay if there is worse oppression existing simultaneously or is your stance something else entirely, not properly indicated by your message?
These are not two distinct oppressions. Religion is part of the superstructure (i.e. the state, the laws, the culture, etc.) which is held up by the class struggle and the socioeconomic dynamics of power. Religion, like the state, is simply the tool and not the cause of oppression.
In a capitalist society, the superstructural institutions are mobilized to protect capital. Those could and were effectively conquered by the oppressed class at times in recent history, including religion. An example would be liberation theology in Latin America, or the movements of Marxist Muslim scholars in Central and South Asia.
You do see that gwl wrote “…use it as a tool for oppression”, correct?
Also an explanation for things we couldn’t explain. Humans hate uncertainty and randomness. A random flood is scary because it could repeat without warning, but if it happened because you pissed off the gods then you can just avoid doing that and you’re safe.
And who decides what pissed off the gods? Typically someone with something to gain from the changes required from the common folk.
Not necessarily.
If you think church in medival Europe: Yes.
However if you think shaman in an animistic tribal religion the material or hirarchical insensitive is far less clear.
Oppression can be a byproduct of religion but isn’t necessarily one.
Scamming money maybe?
Sounds very oppressive, yes.
Exact same question I had
An alternative heirarchy for second and third sons.
[Its_the_same_picture.jpg]
Look at basically every none-abrahamic faith
Especially those religions without gods per se, but rather concepts and ideas
You’ll always find in History a group that will push for the spread of a religion because it allows them to oppress others and take shit for themselves. And slaughter people who say no. Some religions may start as philosophical and social liberation for small groups, but it is still violence that spreads them the most in a larger society. Yes, even the ones about internal peace, as long as others create external riches and influence about it.
Looks up “Taoist Religious Wars” - 0 results
Everything is convenient when you close your eyes for whatever doesn’t suite the agenda. Yellow Turban Rebellion didn’t happen, or did it not qualify as a war?
The rebellion against the oppressive regime? That one?
Right! “The way of the great peace.” Peace for us, step 1: violently overthrow the corrupt ruling class. Not that I’m disagreeing, that’s an example of someone preaching peace and finding that it doesn’t exist without standing for the people, and protecting them from oppression means killing those that are doing the oppressing (Ed Sheeran in shame), we’re just putting that in a book and calling it a religion.
To be fair, in China through these ~500 years, every current of thought or philosophy was called a religion, and the line between religion, politics, and philosophy, was pretty much nonexistent. If someone had an idea and put it in a book so others can think about it, that was a religion. It’s a bit weird for us today to read “legalism is considered a religion? and legalism is… Absolute administrative power, everyone is equal under the rule of law? Sounds familiar… Oh, there you go, the ruler writes whatever he wants and then kills whoever he wants by designating them as enemies. Like those dummy thinkers and book-writers.” “all right, fine, let’s look at Mohism: egalitarian society and universal love, cool! First paragraph on Wikipedia: paramilitaries-- oh.”
I’ll admit I’ve dismissed them all as mumbo-jumbo but please correct me if I’m wrong - not eating cows (hinduism?) despite being a suitable source for protein seems pretty limiting. Living in celibacy with an odd haircut (Buddhism) is downright weird to me. Sihks seem alright, although those turbans (the name escapes me) seem oppressively heavy. Do you have any other religion in mind that isn’t a tool for oppression?
Edit: Sikhs are warriors with swords as part of their uniform. Doesn’t get much more oppressive than war. Scientology extracts wealth from the members to keep the leaders happy. I don’t know of any “concepts and ideas” religions. Please feel free to enlighten me.
Oh of course, the best religion, Leveyan Satanism
Objectifying women was considered oppressive last I heard.
Leveyan Satanism does that?
It’s atheism, but they formed a “religion” just so that they were able to use it as a form of activism against any religious freedom laws by going “oh, so we’re allowed in right?” to show the contradictory nature if they say no
Men and older women should dress in black robes during rituals, young women should dress sexy to please and arouse the men. Naked woman to be used as an altar when an altar is needed.
Edit: granted, this is according to the Wikipedia page on LaVeyan Satanism - maybe the spelling difference is of significance?
Hindu eat beef? It’s not against the religion to eat it.
That’s a misconception, they just make sure they die with dignity and lived as happy a life as possible.
Which some sects argue it’s impossible if they’re not living a wild life in nature, and argue one shouldn’t eat them ever (as there’s basically no such thing as wild cow anymore.) But there’s no ban, it’s just seen as immoral.
Sikh having a warrior thing is funnily enough fuck all to do with war. It’s a holdover from ancient times that’s just stuck around as part of it.
And those that don’t eat beef out of religious conviction that it’s not moral are not hindu, or is their religion not true?
They’re just a different subsection of the same faith
And nazism didn’t start any wars these last 10 years so it’s all good? Geez, I’ve selldom seen cherry-picking this obvious.
Spiritualism, Wicca, Taoism to a degree, Confucianism
Taoism basically wants you to disappear so that others can decide what happens next. Very oppressive.
Confucianism oppresses women heavily, they’re supposed to follow their father, husband or sons depending on what stage of life they’re in. Suicide to protect chastity after a husband has died has also been a theme there, as losing your chastity has been seen worse than starvation.
Spiritualism isn’t considered a religion where I’m from, can’t say I’m familiar.
Wicca seems to be whatever you want it to be, where many think there are two gods, some think there are many, some one and some none. Some seemingly think karma is a thing (called something else) which is very limiting (although mostly sound), while some say there’s no such thing. I guess those get a pass, as they don’t really exist as a homogenous group?
An incredibly uncharitable reading of all of them.
Taoism especially bad. It wants you and the world to become no longer at odds, with two main paths argued for it, you shape the world, or you let the world shape you.
Wicca it’s fully a faith about “customisation is the point” yeah, so it can be basically anything (though sadly a lot just use it as Christianity+)
Spiritualism is inspired by Native American faiths, and the root of it is “every thing, living or dead, have some sort of essence be it a spirit or a soul or just an amount of energy”, and then from that extends the idea that because of it you should treat nature and by extension each other with respect. Rocks have a spirit, trees have a spirit, dogs have a spirit, etc.
And profit from it.
Don’t forget, the Bible says loaning money with interest is a road to hell.
He took the road all the way into the mouth of hell, then set up signs pointing back the way he came from saying “Beware the road to hell!”
Just flood him with Bible quotes that emphasize why him and his family are sinners going to hell. Non-stop. Break the connection between Republicans and Christianity.
This is why candidates like Talarico are good for progressive and real Christians.
“I never really thought about hell, until I learned about people I wished it existed for…”
~ Me
They didn’t have that option before? The Bible was banned?
But the bible was for waving
I’m pretty sure that punishment was only meted out to women, even rape victims.
No, both partners were supposed to be stoned. If you raped an unmarried woman you had to pay her father and marry her.
Leviticus 20:10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death
Deuteronomy 22:23If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekels c of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
I’d rather be stoned than forced to marry my rapist. The Bible really fucking sucks.
For a long time in numerous places, marital rape was not illegal.
And people ask how atheists can know right from wrong without the Bible 🤦♂️
If those were my two options, I’d gather up the execution rocks myself
No, both partners were supposed to be stoned.
In practice this was rarely the case. Men were generally not stoned for rape or adultery.
My point is there is often a stark difference between the law and the application of the law. This is how conservatives hid behind the law, saying things like “There’s no systemic racism, look at the law!” while ignore the unequal application/enforcement of law.
In practice this was rarely the case. Men were generally not stoned for rape or adultery.
Everywhere, in every place that used that verse as a way to condemn adultery? Because that is a very broad statement to make about thousands of years and dozens of cultures. I’m sure it wasn’t consistently applied everywhere all the time, but to look at this as a legal code strictly analogous to modern law only and not a religious/moral code is a mistake IMO. You might be able to fool a judge or bribe a good ol’ boy, but you can’t fool God (which is what that would amount to for believers, who constituted the majority of people throughout history). The way that American conservatives use religion without really believing anything in it is an aberration throughout most of human history.
The way that American conservatives use religion without really believing anything in it is an aberration throughout most of human history.
I’m not convinced that’s true. The powerful have always used moral codes and laws selectively and misogyny has been dominant throughout history(there are exceptions, of course). Also, I don’t think the American conservatives “don’t really believe in anything”. I think they are held together by beliefs and feelings, regardless of whether their beliefs have an actual foundation in their religion. I think they they believe it does.
But that’s the fundamental problem with belief systems, it’s whatever the believer believes it to be. If someone hears something on Fox and thinks it comes from the bible, it’s a religious belief and is now a part of their religion, even if it contradicts their stated religious belief from 5 minutes ago.
based on this post maybe they do need to bring it back, that’s old testament, christians follow the new testament
i thought this was common knowledge
…christians follow the new testament
When its convenient, christians follow the new testament. When it’s convenient, they also follow the old testament. Christians quite often pick and choose based on what they currently want to believe.
Ah, but it depends on the context, because a lot of the more restrictive stuff that they want to force on people are sourced in the Old Testament.
Jesus, their messiah, says to follow the rules in the OT. Only Paul, a random dude who fell off a horse and had a hallucination, says those are done away with.
Christians either don’t know because they don’t read their book, or don’t care.
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to loosen the law or the prophets. I have not come to loosen, but to fulfill.
There are PLENTY of Christian sects that still teach fire and brimstone old testament style.
According to the word of Jesus, you need children to stone him to death.
The old testament was fulfilled
Good thing fulfilled doesn’t mean abolished. Take off your mixed fabrics, sinner.
