The top image is bullshit but the bottom one I totally agree with. Religion didn’t cause this, a religion caused this. Namely Islam. Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc had nothing to do with this. So fuck off with your interjection of fedora tier evangelical atheism. Pray to your hearts content but providing tangible help is better. Pray, but also be an answer to prayer if you can. Changing your filter on facebook and using a hashtag do nothing.
Would you say the same thing if Christians had been responsible?
No I wouldn’t because those people wouldn’t be acting in accordance with Christian doctrine. I also wouldn’t say the same thing if they had been Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs etc because none of those religions preach violence as a requirement under their religious laws. All of them can exist with a separate legal system a separate national culture, Islam cannot. All of them do not wish for a global dominance. I hate Buddhism but If a bunch of buddhists decided to murder a bunch of people I wouldn’t blame buddhism because that’s not supported in buddhist doctrine. What happened in Paris was supported by islamic doctrine , that’s the key difference.
“None of those religions preach violence as a requirement under their religious laws” so when yaweh told the Israelites to commit genocide against the amalycytes, the amarites, the gideonites, the dananites, & the canaanites for worshipping the wrong God that doesn’t count? Or where the bible says to kill friends and family that convert from Christianity/Judaism to another religion? Or to kill friends and family that talk about other religions? Or where it says to stone adulterers, gay people, & People who work on the sabbath? Or where jesus talks about how to properly torture your slaves based on their religion? None of that matters? I’m not an Islam apologist, and I don’t even think Christianity is “just as bad” as Islam, but Christianity & Judaism totally have violence written into their religious doctrine.
“Jesus talks about how to properly torture your slaves based on their religion” LOL stupid atheists
He fucking does, though.
No. He doesn’t. Disagree? Provide proof.
Luke 12:45-48: “The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes [whipped]. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”
First of all here is a version in more plain english
45But what if the servant thinks, ‘My master won’t be back for a while,’ and he begins beating the other servants, partying, and getting drunk? 46The master will return unannounced and unexpected, and he will cut the servant in pieces and banish him with the unfaithful. 47 “And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. 48But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.
Now here is the context. This is not an instruction to torture slaves, if that is what you have taken from this you either lack reading comprehension or you are being intellectually dishonest. If you back up a few verses you will see this is a metaphor, so not only is it not instructions on how to torture slaves, it’s not an endorsement of slavery because it’s not even really about slavery in any fashion it’s an analogy. It’s an analogy about the lords coming, now you can say well you interpret how you want to and I’ll interpret how I want to except there are some clear context clues for those who can read good. Like that it was called an illustration immediately before those verses you belched out. You want to criticize a belief system go ahead but let’s be honest about it shall we. It took me 10 seconds of google and 10 seconds of reading it’s not hard. The first result had literally every translation of the text available, so you probably realized it didn’t say what you claimed it did…which is why you chose the one with the most complex elizabethan type wording.
Upon further reading you seem to be right about this being an analogy, where God is apparently the slave master whipping his slaves and we’re the slaves, and people who never heard God’s will are slaves who still will be “punished” just slightly less. The problem with this though is Jesus presumably believes what he is talking about is moral which implies slavery is too.
But if implications aren’t your thing there’s still exodus which blatantly condones slavery. Exodus includes such guidelines as how a man can sell his daughter into sex slavery, or how you can beat your slaves as hard as you want as long as they don’t die in the next two days. Jesus said he didn’t come to rewrite the old testament, which is why the old testament (including exodus) is still printed and considered canon so he presumably doesn’t take issue with what’s in it.
But if you want something a bit newer look up Colossians 3: 22 where slaves are told to do as their masters tell them, and “work heartily” or ephesians 6: 5-9 where slaves are told to obey their masters the same way they do God.
The thing a lot of people don’t seem to realize, is that slaves at the time were simply people who couldn’t pay off a certain debt, and therefore had to pay it off through servitude. And they weren’t servants permanently, and they often left with something too.
Exodus 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.”
Deuteronomyy 15: 1 “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.“
Deu 15: 12-15 “If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to
you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you
shall set him free.When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and
from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him
as the LORD your God has blessed you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the
land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command
you this today.”
Deu 15: 18 “It shall not seem hard to you when you set him
free, for he has given you six years with double the service of a hired
man; so the LORD your God will bless you in whatever you do.”
And the bible certainly didn’t condone abuse.
Ephesians 6:9 “And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master (i.e. God) and yours is inn heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.”
And slaves were actually encouraged to be free when they could and were not supposed to be returned.
Deuteronomy 23:15 “You shall not hand over a slave who has escaped from his master to you.”
I might come back to this later, with more explanations and verses.
Imagine this conversation:
“wait, you own slaves? That’s super fucked up.”
“Yeah, but I’ve only owned them for Six years”
“Oh, well as long as it’s less than seven years, that’s fine.”
I don’t care if the bible stipulated you could only own your slave for a week let alone seven years. You shouldn’t own slaves period. The bible explicitly says in exodus 21:21 an owner can’t be punished for beating his slave if the slave doesn’t die in the next 2 days Also letting your slaves go free was only for hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves were made slaves for life.
The thing about Exo. 21:21 is that it depends. IN context with the rest of the chapter and verses around it, it seems to imply a conflict between the two; particularly initiated by the slave. Exo 21:21 mentions a rod, which in biblical context is synonymous with discipline. So in this context it most likely means that the slave was rebelling, and should they do get physically aggressive, the master was prohibited from killing. Not only because they were bought with money (which would be hurting himself financially), but because it would have been murder.
As for foreign slaves, yes the were kept long periods of time, but not necessarily permanently. Experiences differed. But they were to treated as the rest of the Israelites. They partook in religious circumcision (Gen. 17:13), festivals (Deut 16:11; Exodus 12:44), and was given the Sabbath to rest (Exo. 20:10). I’m no doubt sure that slaves were treated harshly then, but remember, slavery was much more common and different at these times with varying reasons.
Recent Comments