There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

greenmarty , (edited )

To lock her the drug addict to protect fetus is good. To deny mto-be-mother proper conditions and medical care equals to endangering the fetus thus responsible people should be judged as such as well.

I don’t think this to be religious question but rather legal question. She should sue the hell out of that prison and live from the half of the money ever after. But without drugs. Other half of the money should being to the kid and used for education etc.

MrShankles ,

That’s too logical. Even more logical would be putting money toward social reform programs, instead of blanketing everything under a prison system that does nothing to rehabilitate, and exists solely to punish

Surprised they didn’t throw more charges for “endangering her newborn” by giving birth in a jail shower.

Edit: I guess the prison system doesn’t exist “solely” to punish. It also exists to suppress any challenge to the status quo, extort money from vulnerable populations, and probably a whole list of other neat little “features”

greenmarty ,

Please read this> my respond to some one else, It’s also in this tread.

MrShankles ,

I wasn’t really disagreeing with you, just being a bit sarcastic saying your response is “too logical”. I’m in the US (which is where the article is from), and is why I mentioned needing better social reform… because our prison system is an atrocity. But I was honestly agreeing with you overall

greenmarty ,

Oh sorry for misunderstanding, my bad.
I agree, it’s a problem in the jail system, at least in this case or in general.

dragonflyteaparty ,

No, it’s not good at all. This leads to and has led to women being jailed for natural miscarriages or charged with endangering a fetus for taking prescribed medication or for eating everyday things like sushi and lunch meat. You may think I’m making a slippery slope argument. I’m not. This things have really happened. Women were charged with manslaughter for expressing a possibility of having an abortion, keeping the pregnancy, falling down the stairs, and having a miscarriage. The moment you criminalize a woman’s actions during pregnancy that relate to a fetus is the moment any action that could have any possible negative outcome is suspect. Suddenly women who have had miscarriages are all crime scenes unless proven otherwise. It’s not a slippery slope. Women have and are being jailed for having miscarriages.

greenmarty ,

Please read this my respond to some one else basically saying the same as you, It’s also in this tread.

TimewornTraveler ,

To lock her the drug addict to protect fetus is good

do you really think putting her in jail is going to prevent her from using?

Do you REALLY think that?

do you really think that’s a GOOD way, better than other options, to keep her sober?

greenmarty ,

Yeah i do. From where i come, if you leave drug addict on streets, they will continue their path of self-destruction regardless of their or others’ well-being.
So most effective solution is to isolate the drug addict from the source of addiction.

That your prisons sucks at upholding basic human rights, it’s not my fault. It’s yours for not giving a damn about it.

There are places where prisoners get chance to work, own pet, study to become doctors, programmers and most importantly they get good healthcare as not everywhere around the globe people don’t give a damn about people behind bars.

Also Locking her up doesn’t inevitable mean in the prison. Again difference of my background i guess. There are specialized institutions that hold drug addicts and keeps them sober long enough to give them chance to get out of the habit. I know people who went through that. I’ve visited such a place. It might be a farm with animals or house kinda reminding of those for abused women (house with multiple affected who share their experiences and live together for limited time.

Your blinding rage just prevents you to see what’s really wrong and what should be fixed.

TimewornTraveler ,

Okay first of all, there are drugs in prison. That is a fact. That’s what I was talking about and what you failed to acknowledge.

Second, I’m not the one blinded here. You are talking about “shoulds” and “ifs”. I am talking about the way things are NOW. You are advocating for sentencing her to one thing, and telling yourself it’s another.

The reality of HER situation NOW is that incarceration is going to make things worse. You can acknowledge this and advocate for a better outcome FOR HER while still championing reform of our systems.

greenmarty ,

Nah,

  1. I’m saying that locking her up to isolate her from drugs is better then letting her live on streets intoxicated from morning to evening. And I don’t even want to start what people desperate for the next dose do to get it.

Also those who wronged her are working in that prison.

And as last, don’t tell me you got no forced detox that is not in prison in Alabama - that’s where judge failed if your prison system is such anarchy and it’s supposed to be known fact.

You are quick to rage however you fail to see what part of the equation is not working. You would make situation worse just to prove yourself. That why you are blind.

Aurolei ,

What about the risk for the mother? Holy shit, she didn’t even have access to a basic maternity ward. America is fucked.

WaterChi ,

The mother? Conservatives view women as objects to be controlled and used. To them, she got put in her place. They view it as a good thing.

Vox ,

based on what I’ve seen and heard from conservatives women only exist to please men and incubate children, after that they “lose their intrinsic value” and should either be put in prison for ‘being crazy’ or made to raise children/cook/clean at risk of being made homeless (or worse) if they don’t comply

CeeBee ,

This case shows they’re doing precisely the opposite,” said Roth, who said the abuses Caswell endured were tantamount to “torture”.

No, it was full-blown torture. There’s no room for interpretation here.

Women across the country have increasingly been jailed for pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriages and stillbirths.

Geez. I don’t even know what to say. Miscarriages are way more common than people realize. In fact, it’s possible that miscarriages out number full-term pregnancies. There are so many NORMAL biological factors that could trigger a miscarriage.

It’s an incredibly complex and nuanced field of biology, and this simplistic mindset of “miscarriage means bad woman” is both disturbing and alarming.

Tavarin ,
@Tavarin@lemmy.ca avatar

I’ve read estimates that miscarriages make up as much as 75% of all pregnancies, but many are early so women just think their period was late.

CeeBee ,

Ya, I was going to mention that also, but I didn’t want to write too much in my comment

greenmarty ,

Off topic but which country and what demographic ?

bufordt ,
@bufordt@sh.itjust.works avatar

Earth and human.

The high rate comes from estimating the number of miscarriages that happen in the first 6 weeks, often before someone knows they are pregnant and the miscarriage is dismissed as a heavy or late period.

The traditional miscarriage stat comes from only looking at known pregnancies, and even it is likely higher than most people realize.

Regardless which stat you use, miscarriages are way more common than most people think.

greenmarty ,

I see so mothers of age 20-30yrs in Germany have same chance of miscarriage as 50-60 years olds North Korean mothers, that is 75%. Since evidently demographics doesn’t matter.

Now seriously, why i asked that: No source stated. Every age, country etc has this ratio different. Some countries have problem due to late pregnancies (35+yrs) due their culture. Other have trouble because of malnutrition. Some have better conditions.

So before i take number as fact and start to spread it as such, i want to know it’s a fact or at least narrow it down to the demographics and possibly the source.

Otherwise tomorrow there will be new expert say it’s actually 1% or 99% and according to this logic we would have to update our knowledge every-time.

bufordt ,
@bufordt@sh.itjust.works avatar

You missed the whole point. We don’t have good statistics from miscarriages, because everyone counts the numbers differently, and when you add in the fact that some people don’t really realize they’ve had a miscarriage, you have a very nebulous stat.

The point is that certainly miscarriages are more common than most people think, and likely even more common than that.

My comment was not to prove that their stat was correct, but to explain why the stat varies so much. Your comment about demographics, although I’m sure it was meant innocently, can be taken as looking to blame a certain demographic for doing something wrong that causes their miscarriage numbers to be higher.

greenmarty ,

I have not disproved the part that say unknown percentage of miscarriages takes place. It’s logical.

However if someone places exact number, it should be based on aomething. If the number has no base, as such it has no value l, at least for me.

As for second part about hatespeech accusations.
I don’t see how statistics can blame someone for doing something wrong .
To me the logic is vise versa. If some demographic group is not doing so well or is doing very well. It will be reflected in statistics if measured. If given source stats can be compared and differences in measurement methods reduced or highlighted.

PetDinosaurs ,

We had three before we brought my son to term.

CeeBee ,

Sorry to hear that. We were in a similar situation. It’s rough. My wife still breaks down emotionally on the projected delivery date of the first one we lost. All the what could have beens. 😭

I do think about it every so often, the only reason I don’t get as emotional is because I have terrible memory for remembering specific dates. Took me almost 10 years to get my wife’s birthday right. Still get it wrong sometimes.

shasta ,

A lot of miscarriages happen because something is wrong with the fetus. The “what might have been” would likely have been a lower quality of life than anyone deserves.

trolololol ,

I’ve never heard of it, but now I’m disturbed and alarmed about the people who hold that opinion.

RizzRustbolt ,

In their minds, women have one job. And if the baby dies, then the girl obviously did a bad job.

hperrin ,

Yeah, but god and Jesus and stuff, let’s punish women because we believe in Bronze Age myths.

LostWon ,

Actually, even in Bronze Age myths, life begins when the baby takes its first breath. If anyone wants, you can listen to an in-depth (and often very funny) discussion on Data Over Dogma’s “Abortion and the Bible” episode here.

hperrin ,

Sure, but we still need to punish women for having sex. (Genesis 38:24, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:21, Leviticus 19:20, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:18)

Schadrach ,

This (and policies of not naming a child until it’s lived a certain length of time) are direct consequences of high rates of prenatal and neonatal mortality. That is, life begins at the first breath because otherwise you have to consider an outright crushing number of dead babies. And when you are arguing divine justice is a thing, that gets real hard real fast.

LostWon ,

Absolutely. I’m sure high infant mortality rates had a huge influence on the parts of Hammurabi’s Code that got adapted into laws in the Bible. Until it could survive on its own, a fetus was basically the property of the would-be father (though so was the would-be mother, yuck), so they were obviously quite desensitized.

WaterChi ,

Iron age. You can be dismissive but at least be accurate

hperrin ,

The books are from the Iron Age, the myths are from the Bronze Age.

hubobes ,

Under His Eye

mstrk ,

blessed be the fruit

phoenixz ,

Toss ALL jail employees of the past 7 months in jail for torture, and toss the jailers.for that birth night in jaolmfor torture, and attempted murder of mother and child. I’m heavily against the death penalty but I’d make an exception for these religious fuckers.

Cethin ,

If they believe they’re right about it all, they also believe they’ll live eternally in happiness when they die. They should welcome it.

phoenixz ,

Jesus masturbates to this

Current republicans, probably

afraid_of_zombies ,

Another proud moment for Christianity

Dick_Justice ,
@Dick_Justice@lemmy.world avatar

“Do unto others”, and all that.

CeeBee ,

These people don’t have the right to call themselves Christian. They just use that word to back up their actions with unchallengeable authority.

afraid_of_zombies ,

How is that not Christian exactly?

CeeBee ,

The Bible doesn’t teach dominating and torturing people, for one.

Tinidril ,

Tell us you haven’t read the Bible without telling us you haven’t read the Bible.

Just in case you think that’s all OT, Eternal torture was a NT invention. At least when OT God ordered you tortured and killed, that was the end of it.

trash80 ,

Where is the command to torture people for eternity in the new testament?

madcaesar ,

🤣 What do you think hell is exactly?

trash80 ,

The guy said:

The Bible doesn’t teach dominating and torturing people, for one.

That hell exists is not teaching people to dominate and torture people.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Weird how the author of City of God and one of the most famous Christian thinkers of all time completely disagreed. You got to love a flexible moral system, it allows anyone to claim to be the True Scotsmen authentic deal and condemn as heretics everyone else.

Augustine was wrong about Christianity, St. Paul was wrong abojt Christianity, Jesus was wrong about Christianity, every single Christian thinker was wrong about Christianity except one random on Lemmy.

trash80 ,

Weird how the author of City of God and one of the most famous Christian thinkers of all time completely disagreed

If you have a compelling argument to cite, please do. I don’t pretend to know everything.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I can look it up tonight if you really want but basically Augustine argued that you are allowed to go after heretics as long as you do it for love of their souls. If they couldn’t be convinced of their “errors” by talking you were allowed to use violence since burning in hell is so much worse.

As I said it is pretty amazing how every single person can just declare themselves the true Christian whenever they want.

trash80 ,

As I said it is pretty amazing how every single person can just declare themselves the true Christian whenever they want.

“The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose”

CeeBee ,

Well, the reality is that most people who call themselves Christian are wrong about many things.

Augustine subscribed to the Just War theory, which flies in the face of loving your neighbour as well as your enemy, and “Nor will they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4)

That being said Augustine wasn’t wrong about everything. The Bible is a thick book, and people back then didn’t have the resources that exist today. I can look up any word or topic within the Bible directly or from additional resources in mere seconds, whereas anyone from even 50 years ago had to scan through pages manually.

afraid_of_zombies ,

How lucky we are to have the single True Christian in our midst.

Honestly, do you even know the Biblical languages? Could I give you a random sentence in Hebrew or konic Greek and you can translate it? How about Aramaic? Because take a guess which one of us in this conversation can. Before my deconversion I was planning to be a Biblical Scholar. Fortunately I saw the light in time.

CeeBee ,

Ah, so then you know that the commonly accepted Trinity doctrine isn’t supported by the Bible, and John 1:1 isn’t the evidence that it’s usually presented as. Because the first “God” is the·osʹ which is preceded by ton which is a definite article (ie, the God). And Koine Greek did not have an indefinite article. So if predicate noun isn’t preceded by a definite article, then it’s an implied indefinite (ie, a god). And in fact many translations render the indefinite the·osʹ as either “divine” or “godlike”, because without the definite article, those are equally valid ways of writing that verse.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Sigh. A yes or no would have sufficed. You don’t need to know Greek to know the Trinity was made up later. You can just look at the arguments made two centuries later.

While you are at it John 1:1 is just a retrocon. The OT contains the sentence “let us create the world” which comes from the older views of the Hebrews that there were more than one god. It is also there to pick a side in an argument that St. Paul hinted at; when did Jesus become important. He of course viewed it at the Easter miracle, Mark author puts it at baptism, Matthew and Luke authors put it at conception, and the last gospel finishes the trend and makes it prior to conception. A common trend of religion, to one up itself as time goes on. Also a big borrowing from the cultures around them that loved dying and rising God myths.

Now instead of copying and pasting a Wikipedia quote why don’t you answer the question? I hand you a randomly selected book from the Bible in its original, can you read it yes or no? If the answer is no you might not want to lecture others on translation issues.

CeeBee ,

The OT contains the sentence “let us create the world” which comes from the older views of the Hebrews that there were more than one god.

Well yes, technically there were more than one god. The word “god” means “creator”. Even Satan is referred to as “the god of this system”. This is why there is always a qualifier before “God” such as “the True God”, “Almighty God”, etc. As “God” itself is just a title and not a name. The Bible gives the name for “Almighty God” as Jehovah. And yes, some people say “Yahweh”, but even Jewish scholars have agreed recently that Jehovah is the historically accurate pronunciation.

But back to “let us create the world”, Jesus is identified as the Master Worker. The person who physically created everything, aside from himself.

Colossians 1:15-17 - “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist”

Now instead of copying and pasting a Wikipedia quote why don’t you answer the question?

Aside from the characters the·osʹ (because I can never write with my own keyboard the same way, and I definitely didn’t use Wikipedia), I didn’t copy and paste anything.

CeeBee ,

Hell is not in the Bible.

The words often translated as hell are She’ol and Ge’henna.

She’ol is translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit in the King James version.

The word itself is derived from sha’al which means “ask” or “request” because “the grave is always asking for more”. Implying that death is always waiting. (Death in this context being the state of death, not “Death” the horseman, which itself is figurative).

She’ol is not a specific grave, but rather the “common grave of mankind”. It refers to the state of being dead. As in “everyone goes 6ft under”.

It doesn’t refer to a “place of hell” and sure as hell (heh) doesn’t refer to a place of torture.

Ge’henna is a short form for “Valley of Hinnom”. It was a place outside of Jerusalem where Kings Ahaz and Manasseh engaged in idolatrous worship which included child sacrifices. Those Kings and their followers were executed and had their bodies dumped in that valley, left to rot and not buried, so that carrion eaters would desecrate their bodies and deprived from an honourable burial. And then the place was turned into a garbage dump to further dishonour them.

Jeremiah 7:31 - “They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart.”

So saying someone went to Ge’henna was akin to saying someone displeased God so badly that they will not be honoured by Him and he finds their actions “detestable”.

Nothing to do with a place of torture.

afraid_of_zombies ,

This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you. There are descriptions of hell in the Talmud, I trust Rabbis to know more about Judaic beliefs of the time they are living in vs someone 20 centuries later who is not even Jewish.

People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it’s entomology doesn’t mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented. When I say Dartmouth to you do you think “mouth of the Dart river” or do you think of the famous school there? Does your answer change if someone of a different religion from you 20 centuries later argues that “really what they meant to say is”?

CeeBee ,

This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you.

It’s not opinion. It’s based on historical studies and historical linguistics. This is not something I came up with out of thin air. It’s been studied and verified by experts from around the world.

Even the Wikipedia page about She’ol states “Within the Hebrew Bible, there are few – often brief and nondescript – mentions of Sheol, seemingly describing it as a place where both the righteous and the unrighteous dead go, regardless of their moral choices in life.”

That’s something Jesus said about birth the righteous and unrighteous. It’s the figurative “place” where everyone goes when they enter the state of death.

The site myjewishlearning.com says of hell in the Talmud:

“there is generally no concept of judgment or reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man”

People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it’s entomology doesn’t mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented.

That’s partially true. But there are many many supporting scriptures, old manuscripts like the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other historical texts that do not support the notion of eternal torture, hell, or an “evil” afterlife.

afraid_of_zombies ,

And now you are goalpost moving. Sheol is not geheniham and never was. There is about 800 years of thought you are condensing into a single time period, a time period that we know there were arguments about this. At the supposed time of Jesus there were at least three versions of the afterlife floating around. What you are doing now is making those three into one and pull stuff from 800 years prior and saying that is part of it as well. Do you agree with every single idea people had in 1223 AD?

Yes you are right about one thing but what you are right about doesn’t matter. The 8th century BC Jews didn’t really have a concept of judgement in the afterlife. That however tells us nothing about 1st century Jews.

CeeBee ,

I’m not moving the goalpost at all. The discussion is about the definition of the word that in some English translations is rendered “hell”.

The discussion about She’ol and Ge’henna is that it’s those words translated into “hell”.

So to discuss what “hell” is, the original meaning of those words need to be considered.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Yes and the original 1st century meaning to those early Christians you are quoting it meant a very bad place you burn forever in. It doesn’t matter that 8 centuries prior the word didn’t even exist.

I gave you a specific example, Dartmouth, before and you are not acknowledging it. A word means what it means when it is spoken, the entymology is interesting but not the definition the word has forever.

CeeBee ,

Then how did the 1st century Christians interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5?

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all"

And how about all the times that Jesus referred to those who have died as being asleep? The comparison between death and sleep isn’t a coincidence. When sleeping we kinda cease to exist temporarily. The part that’s “us” goes away. Aside from dreams (which actually accounts for only a small portion of time unconscious, and we only remember a tiny fraction of dreams anyways) we don’t think, feel, or even care about anything.

Your example of Dartmouth is irrelevant. The colloquial definition of a word in common language doesn’t factor in, because we are looking at the scholastic definitions. And doing so would give us context of the origins of the word Dartmouth, the region it refers to, and how it was used later on. And that way we get a full understanding of what the word used to mean and how it’s used today.

Doing the same thing for the word “hell” gives us that important context. So your example is irrelevant.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Then how did the 1st century Christians interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5?

The same way they understand that their Messiah was supposed to be named Emanuel but wasn’t and that he was supposed to be from Bethlehem not Nazareth and that he was supposed to usher in the last days but didn’t. Christianity isn’t really big on consistency.

And how about all the times that Jesus referred to those who have died as being asleep? The comparison between death and sleep isn’t a coincidence. When sleeping we kinda cease to exist temporarily. The part that’s “us” goes away. Aside from dreams (which actually accounts for only a small portion of time unconscious, and we only remember a tiny fraction of dreams anyways) we don’t think, feel, or even care about anything.

Not relevant.

Your example of Dartmouth is irrelevant. The colloquial definition of a word in common language doesn’t factor in, because we are looking at the scholastic definitions. And doing so would give us context of the origins of the word Dartmouth, the region it refers to, and how it was used later on. And that way we get a full understanding of what the word used to mean and how it’s used today.

Incorrect. Very relevant. You are defining words with a 8th century understanding for a 1st century people.

CeeBee ,

Christianity isn’t really big on consistency.

It is, but not when citing ad-hoc scriptures.

he was supposed to be from Bethlehem not Nazareth

He was born in Bethlehem. His family then moved to Nazareth. His birthplace is Bethlehem, so saying “from Bethlehem” and “Jesus the Nazarene” are both correct.

he was supposed to usher in the last days but didn’t.

He wasn’t supposed to while on earth.

Not relevant.

Just because you don’t care for the analogy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s entirely relevant. Again, this isn’t something I came up with. It’s been agreed upon by many Bible scholars.

Incorrect. Very relevant. You are defining words with a 8th century understanding for a 1st century people.

How is that not relevant? How is understanding the basis and origin of a word and the evolution of its entomology not relevant?

Btw, the understanding of those words go back even further than the 1st century. It’s simply been reinforced and ratified by 1st century texts and newer manuscripts.

The origins of the word Ge’henna, for example, are not disputable. The intent and usage of the term are also clear once you have the context.

afraid_of_zombies ,

He was born in Bethlehem. His family then moved to Nazareth. His birthplace is Bethlehem, so saying “from Bethlehem” and “Jesus the Nazarene” are both correct.

Hearsay written decades later and not even consistent. The two accounts disagree on why it happened, what path they took, and what year it happened in. Also it doesn’t even make sense that Joseph wouldn’t have stayed with family. Nor that you would have to return to your birth place for a census. The other account with Egypt is just to solidify the Moses connection. It is so clearly a retrocon based on someone noticing the discrepancy. Not a single record shows the Massacre of the Innocents or the requirements to return home for a census. Not one.

He wasn’t supposed to while on earth.

And some of you present here will not taste death before all these things comes to past.

Just because you don’t care for the analogy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s entirely relevant. Again, this isn’t something I came up with. It’s been agreed upon by many Bible scholars.

Well tell them to come here and argue instead of sending someone who can’t support their own argument.

ow is that not relevant? How is understanding the basis and origin of a word and the evolution of its entomology not relevant?

Dartmouth

he origins of the word Ge’henna, for example, are not disputable. The intent and usage of the term are also clear once you have the context.

Yes Jewish writings that make it clearly to be hell.

CeeBee ,

And some of you present here will not taste death before all these things comes to past.

And here we still are as we read those words.

Well tell them to come here and argue instead of sending someone who can’t support their own argument.

I haven’t supported my own arguments, eh? I guess the Bible isn’t the only one with revisionist history.

Dartmouth

Pertinacious.

“When I say Dartmouth to you do you think “mouth of the Dart river” or do you think of the famous school there?”

Personally, I think of the school. But that’s irrelevant because when I look into the word itself I can find all the information about the word and where it came from, why it was used, etc. I understand what you’re trying to say. You’re implying that the words had an original meaning long before the Bible was written, and that the meaning had changed by the time of the Bible to mean “hell” as a place of eternal torture.

But that’s not the case, and most scholars agree that both She’ol and Ge’henna (two words often associated with hell, and even translated as “hell” in some Bibles) did not refer to a place of torment or an afterlife at the time of writing. And those viewpoints are supported by other parts of the Bible.

If you see the words “It is right”, you know it could mean “morally just” or “a relative direction”. By itself it’s ambiguous. But if in the next sentence you see “Be sure to not go left”, then with the context you know that’s a direction. This is a simplistic example, and the words She’ol and Ge’hanna are not ambiguous, but I’m illustrating that with additional context the meaning is revealed, and we see that with the other verses in the Bible.

Yes Jewish writings that make it clearly to be hell.

You keep saying this, and I haven’t seen you cited a source or shown some kind of supporting evidence (unless I genuinely missed it). Your comments are “trust me bro” and “nuh-uh!”.

afraid_of_zombies ,

and most scholars agree that both She’ol and Ge’henna (two words often associated with hell, and even translated as “hell” in some Bibles) did not refer to a place of torment or an afterlife at the time of writing. And those viewpoints are supported by other parts of the Bible.

Argument from authority.

Your comments are “trust me bro” and “nuh-uh!”.

I see we don’t know how “” work. I told you to go read the Talmud already and you didn’t even put that supposed language ability you have work.

CeeBee ,

Argument from authority.

Well, do you have one?

I see we don’t know how “” work.

Really? You’re gonna pull that one and nitpick about proper grammatical use of double quotes?

I told you to go read the Talmud already and you didn’t even put that supposed language ability you have work.

What’s the point? You want me to read it to satisfy this argument? You know it’s a unreasonable and unattainable request just on the merit of the volume of reading alone, all for a “Reddit” debate. But you’ll just position it as me not putting in the requisite work to approach your level of knowledge. It’s the same argument flat earthers make when they say “show us an actual picture of a round spinning ball”, but when presented with a satellite photo they just claim it’s CGI, so they insist “if you didn’t take the photo yourself, then you don’t have any proof”. Because it’s obviously ridiculous for an average person to muster the finances and resources to get into orbit and take a photo just to win an argument with a flat earther.

I’m not going to read the Talmud based on your insistence, and frankly you already knew that. Which is why you said it so that you can try to chock it up as a “win”. You do you.

Tinidril ,

It isn’t a command, since humans don’t have that ability. Hell is described by Jesus in Luke 16. Humans being human, all sorts of temperal tortures have been justified as doing the victim a favor by potentially saving them from eternal torture, but I don’t think that is explicit in the text.

As an aside, over half of Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox primarily) consider the teachings of the church to be the primary root of the faith, not “sola scriptura” as came in with protestantism. All sorts of religiously justified torture arose on both sides of that divide though.

trash80 ,

over half of Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox primarily) consider the teachings of the church to be the primary root of the faith, not “sola scriptura” as came in with protestantism.

I have never heard that before. Thank you for your reply. The more I learn, the more I understand how much stuff I don’t know.

afraid_of_zombies ,

It makes more sense. The Bible has contradictions, sometimes within the same book. Matthew for example can’t seem to decide who the dad is. If you go sola scriptura you are basically stuck squaring the circle. If you have a Pope they can issue an official version that overrides everything. That’s why you see all those weird Bible literalists groups are prots.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Jesus is pretty clear in Mark that he talks in parables so some people won’t understand and go to hell.

Mark 4:11-12

trash80 ,

I’m pretty sure that the guy meant that the bible doesn’t instruct us to dominate and torture people when he said, “The Bible doesn’t teach dominating and torturing people, for one.” and not that hell isn’t in the bible.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I really don’t know what to say. You can read the gospels and see Jesus threatening people who refuse to kiss the ring with hell. You can see Paul doing the same. Do what I say or die and go to hell. Forsake your own family for me or die and go to hell. Hail me as king or die and go to hell. Bankrupt yourself and deoend fully on God (with me as proxy) or go to hell There are even verses where the man argues that the mystical components of the universe must and do bend to his will. Claiming to rule the Sabbath would be on the level of a modern human claiming to boss gravity around. But not content with that we have stories of him beating the devil and arguing with God

How is this not threatening people? How is this not assuming authority over people? Literally telling people to abandon their children and follow him is not authority seeking?

trash80 ,

The guy said, “The Bible doesn’t teach dominating and torturing people, for one.” You’re talking about Jesus “threatening” people with hell, not instructing them to go dominate and torture their fellow man.

You might look at Matthew 10:34–39 and Luke 12:49–53 to support your argument.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I am alright. I already got Paul condemning a couple to die for not giving him enough money right after he gave a list of people who annoyed him and said that they were going to hell.

No wonder that religion causes so many problems. All the founders are just these petty awful bitter people.

CeeBee ,

I have read the Bible. In extreme detail, many times. “Hell” isn’t a biblical teaching. It wasn’t even a concept to the ancient Jews and Israelites. It’s not OT or NT.

Show me something that directly supports a literal eternal torture from the Bible. And parables from Jesus aren’t supporting scriptures, because of their very nature being parables, which are figurative stories to convey a lesson or point for teaching.

afraid_of_zombies ,

. It wasn’t even a concept to the ancient Jews and Israelites. It’s not OT or NT.

First off it was. Secondly the Romans had a concept of it and Christianity is basically paganism with a Jewish accent.

which are figurative stories to convey a lesson or point for teaching.

Oh, if it is to convey a message then why did Jesus say this?

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

Let me repeat the moneyshot because I think you will ignore it

lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

Jesus is very very clear here that he speaks in parables so people who are not worthy won’t understand and won’t be able to repent or even stop what they are doing wrong.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Book of Revelations, read it, and get back to me.

CeeBee ,

I have read it. No hell. Can you cite specifics?

afraid_of_zombies ,

…yeah the whore of Babylon made out perfectly fine.

CeeBee ,

So no specifics then.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I just gave you one! Literally just fucking now. Why are you so determined to die on this hill? You are ignoring Scripture, you are ignoring what all the top minds of Christianity said, you are ignoring 20 centuries of culture, you are muddling definitions and demanding that because Jews from one century didn’t believe in hell that 800 years later Christians must not have. I bet there were a thousand priests and ministers and reverends and bishops out there this week alone who talked about hell. Why do you think so many parents in history were obsessed with Baptism? Why was Unitarianism banned over and over again if not for its doctrine of hell denial? Why so many paintings and stained glass and novels (Dante inferno, paradise lost etc) depicting a place that you are argue isn’t Christianity?

All of these Christians were wrong and you alone out of billions know what True Scotsmen Christianity stood for.

CeeBee ,

I was expecting something along the lines of a scripture with some supporting argument.

Since you mention the prostitute representing Babylon, I’m going to guess you mean Revelations 17:16

“these will hate the prostitute and will make her devastated and naked, and they will eat up her flesh and completely burn her with fire.”

The prostitute mentioned in Revelations represents false religion, not an actual person. And fire in the Bible is often a metaphor for complete destruction, as in destroyed so thoroughly that something can never be repaired or restored.

So the prostitute (false religion) will be destroyed so completely that it will never exist ever again.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Uh huh. What controlled studies did you conduct to determine that it was just a metaphor?

CeeBee ,

Many. In fact I was the lead the last major double-blind study. It’s in peer review right now, so you probably haven’t seen anything about it yet in any journals.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Believe it or not your sardonic comment was not subtle. I know, shocking.

clockwork_octopus ,

Tell me you’ve never actually read the Bible without telling me you never read the Bible

CeeBee ,

Tell me you’ve never really studied the Bible without telling me.

I have read the Bible, in detail, for decades. Go look at my other comments in this thread for an idea of what I’m talking about.

clockwork_octopus ,

Haha, are you high?! The Bible is full of torture! Look at the story of Job, or the commandment to rape young girls after slaughtering their families (Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” Numbers 31: 17-18)

If that isn’t enough for you, what about all of the various times god commands his people to stone each other for everything from cheating (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) to talking back to your parents (Proverbs 13:24; Proverbs 19:18; Proverbs 22:15)?

Or how about allowing torture with slaves? Check out Exodus 21:20-21 to learn more.

And before you go all “the Old Testament doesn’t count” on me like Christian’s are wont to do (as though picking and choosing various bits out is ok while ignoring all the fucked up bullshit instead of owning it and saying that yeah, women are worthless and deserve to be raped for no reason at all (Lot’s daughters, in case that wasn’t clear to you)) Jesus was tortured during his crusifiction, because I guess god wanted it that way?

So yeah, the god of your bible absolutely promotes torture. And if you’ve actually read it like you claim you have, you’d know that.

CeeBee ,

lemmy.world/comment/4605883

Look at the story of Job

So as I said in my original comment: the Bible doesn’t teach torture, not “torture is nevet mentioned in the Bible”.

what about all of the various times god commands his people to stone each other

This wasn’t torture, it was literally punishment or execution. And I know you’ll come up with some excuse like “why didn’t a soldier just do it?” or “why did those things merit execution?” You would be missing the point. We’re not talking about the differences in modern culture to theirs or societal laws. We’re talking about torture.

The article was about a disadvantaged pregnant woman who was tortured. Someone mentioned something about Christianity, and all I said “the Bible doesn’t teach torture”.

clockwork_octopus ,

Stoning was torture, as well as a form of punishment. They’re not mutually exclusive, just like the woman was in prison as a form of punishment, and lived though torturous conditions.

Did you read the rest of my comment? Those were teachings, and commandments by god to torture various people for various reasons. There are many more examples in the Bible, by the way. I just grabbed the first several to come to mind.

CeeBee ,

Stoning was torture, as well as a form of punishment

By today’s standards, absolutely. But in those days and in those cultures, it wasn’t.

Those were teachings, and commandments by god to torture various people for various reasons.

No they weren’t. The example of Job wasn’t God torturing him. It was Satan torturing him. The ultimate point of which was to show that people can/will be persecuted for their faith. Now a discussion on why it was allowed to happen is a completely different discussion.

I’m not sure what your point is with Proverbs 19:18. All it says is to “discipline your son (children)”.

Proverbs 13:24 - oh I see, you think disciplining with a rod means to beat the kid. Except the rod that’s referenced with discipline is the kind of rod a shepherd uses. And a shepherd doesn’t beat their sheep, they use it to guide by applying pressure here or there to coax the sheep to go a certain direction, and only when needed. That’s the discipline that’s being taught. Firm guidance to correct the path a child is on. It’s the same theme with God’s people being called “His flock”. A shepherd cares for all the sheep under his care. Even in one of Jesus’ parables he mentions a shepherd who leaves the flock to find a lost sheep and bring it back to the flock. All of these analogies are about diligent care.

Deuteronomy 17:2-7 - Executing someone for violating laws isn’t anything new and is not torture. Many countries still do it in some cases. We can debate the ethics of capital punishment, but our viewpoints are biased by modern standards. We have established governments and comprehensive legal infrastructures in place. We can call emergency services if something bad is happening or even a lawyer to deal with non-life threatening issue if it’s a legal matter. None of that existed back then. The constraints that ancient people had to work with, compared to modern times, necessitated a more “brutal” approach (for lack of a better word) to maintain order.

So to equate the ancient, yet simplistic, way of maintaining order with torture is entirely disingenuous.

edit: formatting

clockwork_octopus ,

Sure

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)”

“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)”

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Timothy 2:12

“But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head.”

Corinthians 11:5-6

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”

Colossians 3:22-24

“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them”

Titus 2:9-10

“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”

Peter 2:18

CeeBee ,

You’re cherry picking without context.

For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. It’s historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves (which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or “released” when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. It’s not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today). The only time a slave was to be beaten was for punishment, like attacking another person, stealing, raping, etc. It’s not like they had the local Sheriff’s office they could call, so land owners (who were often days away from nearby settlements) would be the legal authority of that area.

The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.

Ultimately the point here is that this isn’t a “teaching” in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.

Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didn’t specify, because there’s a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy) also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. It’s like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a “weaker vessel” (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.

Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? There’s two of them) how is this torture? It’s just about head coverings, and one that’s often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *“Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.”

Verse 15 also says “For her hair is given to her instead of a covering”

Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and that’s all that matters.

Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace “slave” with employee and “master” with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to “employee”.

Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.

Edit: clarified about indebted servitude being about paying off a debt

Tinidril ,

This is probably the worst abuse of the “but context!” argument I have ever seen. Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that’s what you want to see. There is no actual context that changes what these verses mean, and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.

CeeBee ,

This is probably the worst abuse of the “but context!” argument I have ever seen.

Context is king.

Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that’s what you want to see.

Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says “you must obey Jesus” means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.

and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.

I think you’re mis-applying a different historical context.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

“Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.”

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. It’s historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves

It’s not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.

(which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or “released” when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. It’s not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today).

Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if there’s a word for that…

The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.

Ultimately the point here is that this isn’t a “teaching” in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.

It’s not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.

Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didn’t specify, because there’s a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy)

You’re very clever, congratulations.

also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. It’s like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a “weaker vessel” (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.

You can give all the context you want, that’s sexism, plain and simple.

It’s like a chain of command for the purposes of order.

A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on what’s between your legs.

Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? There’s two of them)

Or not so clever, I guess.

We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.

Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.

how is this torture? It’s just about head coverings, and one that’s often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *“Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.”

The Bible doesn’t teach dominating and torturing people, for one.

Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to me…

Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and that’s all that matters.

Men aren’t forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.

Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace “slave” with employee and “master” with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to “employee”.

Except CEOs aren’t allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.

Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.

“Employees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”

And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible

CeeBee ,

Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if there’s a word for that…

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

“Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.”

“Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.”

“Although not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade.”

“The Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien.”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude

"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an “indenture”, may be entered “voluntarily” for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed “involuntarily” as a judicial punishment. "

Yes, there’s a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. I’m just focusing on the Biblical period.

Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and that’s “humans as resources” in the title).

You can give all the context you want, that’s sexism, plain and simple.

Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.” Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.

A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on what’s between your legs.

True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it’s “technically” possible, but how often does that happen?). I know you’ll disagree on this, and that’s fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this “order” isn’t oppressive in any way. There’s no privilege or power in the role (there isn’t supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). It’s only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A “leader” doesn’t control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, we’re going to disagree on this.

Or not so clever, I guess.

We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.

I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because they’ve been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.

Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to me…

Men aren’t forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.

Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.

Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.

Except CEOs aren’t allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.

Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didn’t read, and if they did they definitely didn’t have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.

That being said, slavery in the Bible isn’t what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.

Edit: formatting, clarification

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

“Broadly, the Biblical… equally to any other resident alien.”*

What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.

A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.

If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?

Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize.

I don’t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.

Is it though?

Yes. It’s literally “All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others”.

Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.

Ah, I see. “Seperate but equal”.

True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it’s “technically” possible, but how often does that happen?).

It is possible, and it does happen.

In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.

A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.

Would you support this?

That being said, slavery in the Bible isn’t what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.

“The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner’s control, especially in involuntary servitude.”

Yep, that fits.

I’ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.

And again, the rampant homophobia.

CeeBee ,

A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.

This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.

I don’t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.

Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.

Yes. It’s literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others

No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless you’re WestJet).

Ah, I see. “Seperate but equal”.

Just “equal”.

In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.

I did specify “large corporation” in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.

Yep, that fits.

Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era we’re talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.

I’ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.

And I’ll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. “Slavery”, as it’s used today, is technically “chattel slavery”, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word “slavery” has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isn’t. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. “Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.

SuddenlyBlowGreen , (edited )

This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.

Well, this one clearly does, as he’s trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.

Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time

They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It’s close enough.

No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities.

Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.

You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since you’re agruing for thr same thing, I guess it’s not so strange.

Involuntary servitude

Involuntary servitude

Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who weren’t freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.

And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries weren’t to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.

“Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job.

Voluntary servitude? Maybe.

Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.

But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.

There’s a saying that when democracy doesn’t favour conservatives, they don’t turn from conservatism, they’ll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they don’t turn of the bible, instead they’ll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and behold…

And of course the rampant homophobia.

CeeBee ,

Well, this one clearly does, as he’s trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.

You really should listen to Dan Carlin’s podcasts. (Even if it’s not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)

dancarlin.com/…/hardcore-history-68-blitz-human-r…

They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It’s close enough.

Laws were in place to prevent abuse. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Even today (with our laws and ways to monitor and report things) there’s abuse of literally every kind in every facet of society.

Your premise assumes that slaves in ancient Israel were regularly abused and their masters were harsh and uncaring. Historical accounts say otherwise.

Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.

It’s not like it comes with more pay like a job. It’s basically just more work.

You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits.

Because that’s what you’re choosing to hear. You’re ignoring all the other things I’ve said.

Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No.

Obviously not. Just as a prisoner can’t just go find a new prison or a criminal go find a more favourable judge. Involuntary servitude was a form of judicial punishment or a result of war.

But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery

Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.

and the bible supports it.

No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy. To the point that it’s considered a core teaching of Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 5:15 - “See that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others.”

Treat everyone well

Exodus 20:10 - “but the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your foreign resident who is inside your settlements.”

Workers/slaves should not be overworked.

Exodus 21:12 - “Anyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death.”

Exodus 21:16 - “If anyone kidnaps a man and sells him or is caught holding him, he must be put to death.”

Exodus 21:26,27 - “If a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.”

Physical abuse resulted in the slave being released.

instead they’ll start saying slavery was actually good.

No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

You really should listen to Dan Carlin’s podcasts. (Even if it’s not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)

I really don’t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.

It’s not like it comes with more pay like a job. It’s basically just more work.

It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.

Because that’s what you’re choosing to hear. You’re ignoring all the other things I’ve said.

I’m hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods you’re saying, yes.

You’re also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.

But they were completely equal, right?

Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.

I didn’t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.

It didn’t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.

It didn’t say that for child murder.

No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy.

Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then it’s the bible’s core message, but when something doesn’t look to good for it, then it’s just recorded in it, and also out of context.

How convenient.

If you haven’t noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.

No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.

Huh, so this wasn’t a quote used by you?

“In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.”

CeeBee , (edited )

I really don’t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.

LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.

Edit: I’m still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlin’s podcast “religious” and his content “whitewashing”.

It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.

If you’re referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree that’s wrong.

I didn’t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.

You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example

It didn’t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.

Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her “children” are the terrible things she does.

Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then it’s the bible’s core message, but when something doesn’t look to good for it, then it’s just recorded in it, and also out of context.

No. It’s a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.

Huh, so this wasn’t a quote used by you?

Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?

SuddenlyBlowGreen , (edited )

LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.

Sure bud, I’ll rephrase. I really don’t care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.

If you’re referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree that’s wrong.

Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.

Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.

Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.

You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example

Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.

No. It’s a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.

And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.

Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?

I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.

But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since it’s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.

And then of course there’s all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.

CeeBee ,

Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.

Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.

Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.

All of this is true. Hence why the “children” (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.

Sure bud, I’ll rephrase. I really don’t care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.

Ya, this here sums up this entire discussion quite nicely. You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say. So much so that you immediately attribute everything I say to ignorance and religious bias.

If you knew who Dan Carlin is, if you were familiar with his content, and, most especially, if you had listened to the Humane Resources episode, you would understand how utterly ridiculous your statements are.

Everything I have said has been met with either ignoring it, denial, or flat out ignorance. The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a “religious podcast” and still maintain that it “whitewashes” anything, all without even looking up the podcast (which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history) is rich and entirely telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.

I respect your opinions (I really do), but I can’t continue talking to you as you’re unwilling to even entertain the idea of listening to the “other side”.

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

All of this is true. Hence why the “children” (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.

Of course.

And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?

You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say.

I tend to do that when the person I’m arguing against supports such despicable things.

The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a “religious podcast” and still maintain that it “whitewashes” anything, all without even looking up the podcast

I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.

telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.

Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?

(which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history)

Are you his publicist or something? You’re trying really hard so sell his stuff.

It seems your forgot to answer this:

Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?

I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.

But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since it’s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.

And then of course there’s all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.

CeeBee ,

And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?

The only time that’s mentioned is once in Leviticus, and was specific to the ancient Israelites under the Mosaic law. Other things that were punishable by death were: adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, woman marrying and falsely claiming to be a virgin, sleeping with an engaged women, etc. At that time the term “Jew” was both cultural and religious, there was no difference. If you were a Jew (an Israelite) then you were under that law.

Without getting too much into it, the Bible says that Mosaic law is superceded by the Law Covenant at the time of Jesus’ death, and thus is no longer in affect.

The Bible further elaborates about how we should treat anyone.

Josiah 24:15 - “Now if it seems bad to you to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, whether the gods that your forefathers served on the other side of the River or the gods of the Amʹor·ites in whose land you are dwelling. But as for me and my household, we will serve Jehovah.”

If you don’t want to follow the Bible or serve Jehovah, you are free to do so, and no one can make you (according to the Bible itself, but obviously that hasn’t stopped things like the Crusades).

1 Peter 2:17 - “Honor men of all sorts”

Pretty cut and dry.

The reason I ignored this topic before is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion, which was “the Bible does not teach torture”. I haven’t even been advocating the Bible, only talking about that one topic. But like all people who either can’t admit being wrong, or are wilfully ignorant and obstinate, you completely disregarded everything I’ve said and keep going on about other things in the Bible.

I tend to do that when the person I’m arguing against supports such despicable things.

Ah, so if I said “everyone deserves respect” you would argue in favour of treating everyone terribly?

I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.

Like I said, if you knew his content from Hardcore History, any of it, you would understand how ridiculous your statement is. But just wait until you find out that some of the greatest minds regarded in science were Christian and believed in God.

Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?

Are you genuinely still asserting that I ever said “slavery was a good thing”? At this point you’re either just a troll or just really thick.

Are you his publicist or something? You’re trying really hard so sell his stuff.

No. I suggested his stuff once, and then just kept laughing (not mockingly, I genuinely found it funny) at how absurd your attempts to discredit Hardcore History is, based purely on your bias towards me.

I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.

And I’m pretty sure no one ever wants to be poor in the first place. But if wishes were horses…

But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude?

The sad thing is that you might actually think I believe that, despite every rational attempt at genuine dialogue on my part. Makes me wonder if you even read everything that I wrote, and have just been assuming.

And then of course there’s all the homophobia in the bible

The Bible says homosexuality is displeasing to God because it’s not how he intended romantic relationships to be. But it also says sex (of any kind) outside of marriage is also not ok. The big factor that people miss is that the Bible says to “hate what is bad”, it never says “hate who is bad”. You can hate the things someone does, but you should always treat them with respect, and even to love them as your neighbour.

But all of this is really relevant to the discussion about slavery in the Bible, right? It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you can’t argue the topic about slavery in the Bible on its own merit, is it?

Surely you wouldn’t try to discredit the source material in order to undermine your opponents arguments. Not you, never.

Anyways, I’m done with this discussion. You can reply if you like. I’ll read it, but I won’t reply if you keep misrepresenting what I’ve said and try to put words in my mouth. If you don’t, then I’m willing to continue.

But otherwise I’ll say nice chatting with you, and take care.

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

Without getting too much into it, the Bible says that Mosaic law is superceded by the Law Covenant at the time of Jesus’ death, and thus is no longer in affect.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Matthew 5:17–18

It’s still in effect according to your prophet and the son of your god, but you surely know more than him.

The reason I ignored this topic before is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion, which was “the Bible does not teach torture”.

You said: “The Bible doesn’t teach dominating and torturing people, for one.”

I gave to plenty of evidence, from the bible directly, that it teaches dominating and torturing people, you just choose to disregard facts because it does not agree with your narrative, which seems to be an epidemic with you religious types.

Ah, so if I said “everyone deserves respect” you would argue in favour of treating everyone terribly?

That (unlike slavery) is not a despicable things, so I won’t argue against it. Maybe try understanding my argument before trying (and failing) to come up with a snappy reply.

Like I said, if you knew his content from Hardcore History, any of it, you would understand how ridiculous your statement is.

Again, I won’t buy any of his content. I don’t care for slavery apoligists.

But just wait until you find out that some of the greatest minds regarded in science were Christian and believed in God.

I’m keenly aware that christians forced their religion on everybody they could when it was acceptable. Thankfully, it’s less acceptable now, but we still have ways to go. Thanks for reminding me how christianity pushed back the progess of science and humanity by centuries.

Are you genuinely still asserting that I ever said “slavery was a good thing”? At this point you’re either just a troll or just really thick.

You did quote the wikipedia article that said that…

No. I suggested his stuff once, and then just kept laughing (not mockingly, I genuinely found it funny) at how absurd your attempts to discredit Hardcore History is, based purely on your bias towards me.

I looked up his name and his christian podcast came up, I went to his website where he is selling is podcast episodes.

I didn’t need to discredit him, he did that all on his own.

The sad thing is that you might actually think I believe that,

So you just argue for this you don’t belive in and agree with?

This is you, by the way:

Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?

The Bible says homosexuality is displeasing to God because it’s not how he intended romantic relationships to be.

And he is a homophobe as well, what a surprise…

It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you can’t argue the topic about slavery in the Bible on its own merit, is it?

I would think you really didn’t need to argue the fact that slavery is a bad thing, but the bible and you seem to disagree.

The arguments was about if the bible teaches to dominate and torture people, by the way, not just about slavery.

I just though that you’d agree that slavery counted as dominating and torturing people. How wrong I was.

Surely you wouldn’t try to discredit the source material in order to undermine your opponents arguments. Not you, never.

Well, if the “source material” is a supposedly supernatural book and religion, and a pastor’s podcast for that religion, I really don’t need to undermine it, it already undermined itself.

I’ll read it, but I won’t reply if you keep misrepresenting what I’ve said and try to put words in my mouth.

How brave of you to leave an argument you lost.

I don’t misrepresent what you said, you’re just insinuating I did, becuase you realized your arguments sound really bad when you put them out there.

JokeDeity ,

And yet that’s how the Christian majority chooses to vote.

CeeBee ,

Being a majority doesn’t automatically make a group right. But unfortunately it does make them the loudest.

clutch ,

On the other hand the christians that are ashamed of this are not doing enough to show their disapproval

theywilleatthestars ,

And that’s why we don’t punish that shit with jail time.

Taleya ,

Fortress has arrived

HawlSera ,

I support some common sense restrictions on abortion…

This is not that, hell it couldn’t be anymore obvious that the GOP doesn’t care about life or the safety of the child, they just want as many rules on the books as possible to let them punish “Enemies of the party”

Duamerthrax ,

Welcome to the consequences of your actions.

HawlSera ,

Actually I vote Democrat exclusively because I’m aware that the GOP are domestic terrorists acting on behalf of Russian Homophobes, nice try.

See while I think just letting ANYONE get an abortion is morally wrong and that the procedure should only be done in extreme cases, like rape, ectopic pregnancy, incest, major deformity, and the like, etc…

I also realize Republicans are the opposite extreme in that they want NO ABORTIONS AT ALL and aren’t big on the concept of gender equality.

So I vote Democrat despite the Abortion issue, as I realize neither party has a satisfactory answer to it, but the Democrat Answer causes less problems.

It’s called “Don’t let Perfect be the enemy of Good”

sapient_cogbag ,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

Do you think people (in particular, yourself) should be forced by state violence to donate their organs to someone who needs it to survive? Especially when the forced donation process involves significant risk to your own life and health (though i do not think that aspect particularly important for my own reasoning, personally ^.^).

Because advocating for “”“reasonable”“” restrictions on abortion is advocating for forcing someone to act as, essentially, a breeding pod, forced to donate their body and organs.

HawlSera ,

I think Organ Donation should be an Opt Out rather than an Opt In.

Also Organ Donation isn’t done till after the person is dead, so your argument makes no sense.

Anyway, that aside, if you are in a position to save another person or prevent their death, and either don’t or even just expedite what was already going to happen… You’re a killer in my eyes.

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

How many kidneys have you donated?

HawlSera ,

3

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

So you haven’t donated any, you’re trying to evade the question.

Anyway, that aside, if you are in a position to save another person or prevent their death, and either don’t or even just expedite what was already going to happen… You’re a killer in my eyes

That means, by your own logic, you’re a killer.

HawlSera ,

I told you, I donated three

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

Whatever, I really don’t care about thr opinions of some hypocrite killer.

HawlSera ,

I’m not a hypocrite, I am merely not suicidal. If I were to donate my organs while I was still alive, I would be putting myself into unnecessary risk. Meaning I cannot blindly give them away, if I were to give them away at all, I would have to do so specifically because someone needed them and came to me for help with the understanding that if I refused they would die.

If you were paying attention, you would know that I do not advocate for a total ban on abortion, if bringing the human child to term is a non-negligible threat to the owner of the womb than an abortion isn’t just fine, it should be encouraged by a medical profession.

However if that is not the case, then an abortion would child murder.

Kinda like how if someone dying of kidney failure asked for my kidneys and I said no, I’m basically telling them to drop dead.

My logic isn’t inconsistent, you merely belong to a vocal minority of people who value self freedom over the lives of others. A vocal minority that was quite loud on reddit but seems to have migrated to Lemmy.

The kind of nut who would compare licenses to drive to licenses to use a toaster

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

Kinda like how if someone dying of kidney failure asked for my kidneys and I said no, I’m basically telling them to drop dead.

Currently, 17 people die each day on the organ transplant list. I’m representing one of them, and coming directly and specifically to you. Will you donate a kidney?

HawlSera , (edited )

I am not a lawyer, however I have no reason to believe that this is a sincere request. Instead I believe this is an attempt to propose a Preposterous question without evidence, in order to use my answer against me. And for that reason I refuse to answer it.

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

Yes, saying that anyone who doesn’t donate an organ to someone else is a killer is prepostorous, I agree.

HawlSera ,

Claiming to be rational and twisting someone else’s words around, do not go hand in hand.

sapient_cogbag ,
@sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub avatar

So you think a corpse should have more morphological autonomy than a living person?

People can also organ donate while alive lol ;p

sailingbythelee ,

See, what you call “common sense” restrictions is just you sticking your nose in a woman’s reproductive business.

Mind your own business. Leave a woman’s health care up to a woman and her doctor. That’s common sense.

HawlSera ,

I don’t care what spin you put on it pal. No one should be allowed to kill a human being on a whim.

Now if there’s something medically wrong with the fetus or the pregnancy is too taxing to be safely brought to term, that’s different.

But the fact that you’re being upvoted and I’m being downvoted shows that the wackos from Reddit have finally discovered Lemmy

I_LOVE_VEKOMA_SLC ,

No, it shows that most people are reasonable and understand that a woman who decides for whatever reason that she isn’t ready for the commitment of parenthood, that is her business.

HawlSera ,

You know what’s better than murder? Safe Surrender Laws

sailingbythelee ,

Wacko spin, eh? Thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as a reproductive authoritarian for all the women on Lemmy. If you think many women get an abortion “on a whim,” then you have bought into the right-wing propaganda.

BTW, saying that the decision to abort should be made between a woman and her doctor means that medical ethics becomes the guiding framework, as opposed to criminal law. The state has no business criminalizing reproductive health.

Canada has the best abortion law, which is to say it has no law on abortion. And yet, Canadian doctors are somehow not killing babies at 36 weeks “on a whim.” Hmmm, what could possibly explain that?

Gee-wiz, Cletus, maybe we don’t have to criminalize abortion in order to get “common sense” behavior.

IamRoot ,

Any proof of, “on a whim”?

HawlSera ,

Wow, strawman much?

dragonflyteaparty ,

So you’re a forced birther. Got it.

HawlSera ,

No I just am one of the people who don’t think it’s Misogynistic to have a problem with literal murder.

wide_eyed_stupid ,
@wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world avatar

Jesus, what a nightmare story. That entire article is filled with horror. She must have felt so terrified and alone.

“After Caswell delivered her baby alone and lost consciousness, staff still refused to render aid and instead took photos of her baby without her consent, her lawyers allege. When she returned to the jail from the hospital, staff denied her access to her prescribed breast pump and ibuprofen.”

Wtf is wrong with people? It’s so fucking petty and mean. I’m gonna assume that none of the staff will actually face any consequences…?

glitch1985 ,

Do they ever?

brihuang95 ,
@brihuang95@sopuli.xyz avatar

what a “pro-life” move right? letting a mother and a newborn baby almost fucking die in prison

ohlaph , (edited )

Yeah, at this point, they’re just being terrible humans.

RizzRustbolt ,

But excellent capitalists!

Buffalox ,

U.S.A. The country where sociopathy is celebrated as a virtue by about half the population.

If you had any doubts, the half is of course Republicans.

RoyaltyInTraining ,
@RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world avatar

Probably much less than half, but general apathy and the two party system distorts how that looks.

Duamerthrax ,

Don’t forget gerrymandering.

FordBeeblebrox ,

And lack of term limits!

dQw4w9WgXcQ ,

I like to believe that it’s not close, and that most of the republican voters have other strong opinions that align with the party. And thus the pro-quantity approach to birth rights is just something that follows the party even though they don’t agree with it.

I like to believe that.

In reality, I haven’t really spoken with or heard about any republicans who haven’t shaped their opinion in order to align with the party they are voting for.

Aceticon ,

More than half.

Unbounded Greed is sociopathy (quite literally doing what’s best for oneself without any consideration for others) and even a Deadly Sin according to the Old Testament and the normalization of sociopathy is a countrywide phenomenon (worldwide even).

What we see here goes beyond the ‘mere’ “have no consideration for the suffering of others when acting in self interest” into an actual “make others suffer to serve some petty personal psychological need” - it goes beyond tyhe not caring about the suffering others when acting for personal upside maximization of sociopathy and into the actual vilany of harming others for personal enjoyment.

Burn_The_Right ,

Conservatism is a plague of oppression, misery and death. It always has been.

If a conservative can find a way to cause harm, they must do it. That is simply who they are at their core.

militaryintelligence ,

Don’t need to do any better when I can just keep everybody else down

FordBeeblebrox ,

They have no plan for building or creation. Nothing about taking care of citizens. It’s misery and lashing out at the other and these motherfuckers build a whole personality around simply objecting to progress. They are a cancer and we need to cut it out before the whole world is metastasized out of existence

Chunk ,

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. This is democracy in action. Her community and loved ones want their society to be that way. If that’s what they want, well, it sure doesn’t affect me.

enthusiasticamoeba ,

You have to be brain dead to think there’s democracy in the US. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, two senators per state, the electoral college… Wake up.

hasnt_seen_goonies ,

I used to live in Alabama. This is a version of what they want. But I also agree with the chump who said “it doesn’t affect me”. Because that’s what allowed all the atrocities of history to happen. Sometimes you have to stop evil people from being evil.

yesman ,

I hear you. But looking around, the ratio of fools to wise people in government looks proportional to the population at large. Have you considered that direct democracy would just be the 4chan version of government?

And I’m only half kidding. Egalitarian political movements, even before Marx, have found “the people” to be much less noble and wise than anticipated. I believe this is a partial explanation for the revolution to authoritarian pipeline problem. Be it Bolivar, Lenin, or Castro, what do you do if the people vote for the old system, even when it’s contrary to their interests? Well, the historical answer seems to be: force them bitches to be free.

SirStumps ,
@SirStumps@lemmy.world avatar

This statement doesn’t make sense to me. Can you explain?

Chunk ,

Alabamans want their society to be this fucked up. I’m happy they are allowed to do this to themselves. “never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake” and what not.

KeenFlame ,

It affects you if you’re a baby just being born. What even is this take, world immature cup?

Chunk ,

Alabamans want their society to be this fucked up. I’m happy they are allowed to do this to themselves. “never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake” and what not.

KeenFlame ,

How are babies just being born your opponent???

You are just inhuman

vreraan ,

Keep saying it everywhere, sooner or later someone with a less closed mind than yours and with a bad day will hear it and will have no choice but to beat the shit out of you.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •