• otter@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

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

    • psud@aussie.zone
      0·
      3 months ago

      It’s more:

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

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

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

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

      • debil@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

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

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

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

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

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      0·
      3 months ago

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

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

    • endofline@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

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

  • index@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    3 months ago

    I don’t think commenting under a clickbait picture is the best way to have a serious discussion

  • halvar@lemm.ee
    0·
    3 months ago

    Using the Bible as strict moral code actually makes you a better human being than most people are in my opinion. With that said, some parts (for example the one about homosexuality) are no longer relevant from a theolgical standpoint, so if someone tries to justify their hatred using the Bible it’s on them. I don’t say everyone should convert to Christianity, but the Bible might just be the greatest compilation of ethical guidelines to ever exist.

    • phar@lemmy.ml
      0·
      3 months ago

      I think it’s less the community and more the complete lack of logic based on what the text is their holy book says. If you use the Bible as a moral code, you are a horrible person

      • ChillPenguin@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        Exactly, I murder and rape as much as I want. Which is zero. Because I’m not fucked up.

        If the only thing stopping me from doing stuff like that is the words in an old book… There may be another problem there.

    • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      Do you realize that there has been a great wealth of ethical discussion in the 1700 years since the Bible was compiled?

      And you’re seriously going to tell me that the BIBLE, which condones genocide, slavery, the murder of homosexuals, etc, is more moral or ethical than ANYTHING that has been compiled in that time? Half of the Bible was written by litteral genocidal warmongers.

      You could put two random children’s books together, and it would be a far superior compilation of morals than the Bible.

      • index@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        The bible is different texts wrote by different people. Many people refer the canonical gospels as the bible, halvar is probably talking about that part

    • Bremmy@lemmy.ml
      0·
      3 months ago

      This feels like satire, and that’s saying a lot

      In my opinion, people who don’t need the threat of eternal damnation to be “good” people have better morals because they aren’t motivated by anything other than just not being a piece of shit. They’re naturally good people

      You’re telling me if someone has the urge to murder, but this fairy tale sky daddy is telling them they’ll be in eternal pain for doing so, that they’re morally better than someone who doesn’t have the urge to murder? “I would love to kill someone but I’m a selfish evil asshole and I myself don’t want to be in pain so I won’t kill this person, not out of empathy, but out of selfishness”

      You gotta be trolling

    • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      So then explain to me why it was ok for God to order his followers to destroy the Tower of Babel and slaughter those building it? I believe God’s logic was, “If they complete this tower, it’ll show the world they don’t need me, and we can’t have that.”

      How exactly was that ethical? Or should we discuss being allowed to beat your slave, so long as they don’t die within three days, you haven’t commited murder because they are your property? Is that the ethics and morality you’re speaking of?

      Or maybe it’s the “an eye for an eye” part, where revenge is completely justified? I believe it took a Hindu nationalist to add “makes the world blind” to actually make that statement ethical.

      Or maybe you’re trying to discuss one of the many, many instances of rape that occurs in the bible, but it’s completely justified and ethical because God said so?

      Personally, if you base your morals and ethics off of the Bible, you’re a piece of shit who justifies their immoral behavior using an outdated text as some kind of shield because you think, so long as you repent riiiiiiiiight before you eat the big one, you’re good. 🙄

    • P00ptart@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      My problem with what you said comes entirely from my personal experience. Most of the worst people I’ve come across in life have been theological Christians. Atheists tend to be bound by their own ethics, which I’ve found to be far more powerful than someone telling you how to behave.

    • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      This user, instead of thinking critically about his views after so many users present evidence against his claims, moans that he “didn’t realize what community [they] commented on”. Not attempting to interact with or even counter the information and arguments presented, he simply ignores it because his beliefs cannot hold against consideration and reason.

      • index@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        he simply ignores it because his beliefs cannot hold against consideration and reason.

        To me it look like the quality of discussion here is not really worth spending time with, they probably didn’t bother responding

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 months ago

      “Removed by mod”

      The guy shared his opinion and didn’t wrote anything offensive. The mods here are being as bigots as the fanatics they hate

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

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

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

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

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

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

      • cetvrti_magi@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

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

    • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

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

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

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

          • Senal@programming.devEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

            The fact that Christianity is not a cult

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

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

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

            How so ?

            Other than power and money i mean.

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

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

      • iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        3 months ago

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

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

        • phar@lemmy.ml
          0·
          3 months ago

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

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

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

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

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

          • iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
            0·
            3 months ago

            I’ll bite, lol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
              0·
              3 months ago

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

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

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

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