• BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Meanwhile, a few chapters later in the same book:

    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    TBH I can’t blame Christians for being confused about what love looks like if this is what they believe God says.

    EDIT: Upon further reflection, I regret the way thus comment targets believers more than it does the problem in question. See: https://lemmy.world/comment/12608950

  • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    When I was young growing up Southern Baptist there was one time where the pastor preached about this verse, and the whiplash I felt when I heard family members bad-mouthing immigrants the moment they stepped outside is partly what led me to read the Bible myself, which led to me losing my faith.

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hello fellow former southern Baptist.

      I hate to admit it took me way too long to realize the blatant hypocrisy.

      Glad you made it out.

    • Willy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      did you ditch the family too? sounds like the Bible was actually ahead on this one so itsweird you dump the faith instead (not overall, just the way you told the story had a whiplash of its own)

      • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I suppose I excluded some important detail. The reason I had wanted to read the Bible then was so I could better understand God’s word and confront my family with that understanding. But reading the Bible didn’t clarify things for me the way I thought it would, instead of clear instruction on right and wrong I found more hypocrisy and contradiction, as well as a disturbing focus on the appropriate conduct of slave-owners and the treatment of women as property.

        Reading the Bible gave me the same whiplash I felt seeing the hypocrisy of the people around me, which made me realize that it wasn’t in spite of their faith, but because of it.

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Just because you disowned your family doesn’t mean you have to project your misery in everyone else.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.”

    James 5:1-6

    • manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

      Galations 3:28

      damn it just keeps coming up! Its like this whole bible thing was really trying to get this whole ‘dont be a dickhead’ point home, shame its not working so well

      • Broken_Orange_Juice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I disagree with the statement mentioned in the original comment, but this isn’t a proper argument against it. In that verse, they’re discussing who Jesus came for. Instead, you can look at Matthew 5, in the sermon on the mount, which says that Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. As such, the laws cannot be disregarded.

        • x0x7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          So then animal sacrifice is meant to be continued by Christians? The “did not come to abolish but fulfill” thing is really an explanation for abolishment. He didn’t destroy the law but completed it, so it’s done. And by law we basically mean Leviticus. So yes, Leviticus pretty much is irrelevant. By your argument and the argument embedded in OPs post Christians should still be stoning women and not eating pork.

          How can you know which chapter of Matthew starts the sermon on the mount and not know pretty much the most core concept in Christian theology? Like that is almost the whole central point of Jesus is that he abolished the law by fulfilling it. That and salvation. That’s like the two things.

          • Broken_Orange_Juice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Firstly, animal sacrifice had a purpose, and that purpose was replaced by the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus Christ. With the pork topic, I’m not entirely educated, but I know it’s a debated topic.

            To the actual meat of this, how could you take “Jesus didn’t abolish but fulfill the law”, then say that Jesus abolished the law by fulfilling it? I’ve been studying this across Romans 6, 7, 8; and also the entire book of Galatians both discuss the law in full. As I’m studying, I’ve also been writing an essay on the topic. I’ll share when I finish it. Until then, here’s a mini summary. Regardless, we can at least agree that Jesus didn’t contradict himself (assuming you’re coming from a Christian background).

            The law (Mosaic laws, Moses’s laws) was created for a few purposes: firstly, to prevent us from sinning aka doing the things that distance us from God; Second, many of the laws were created for the cleanliness and safety of the people, although most of these things are considered common sense today. We’re gonna focus on the former, being closer to God.

            Jesus commands that the greatest 2 commandments are to love God, and love others. In loving Jesus, you don’t want to sin, and avoid it as second nature. It’s 2 opposing forces, desires of the flesh vs your love of Christ, as the latter increases the latter will naturally decrease. In doing so, Jesus has fulfilled the purpose of the law, but still hasn’t abolished it. I could add verses if you’d like, but I’d have to double check where they are. The laws have still not been abolished though, since how are we to know what is sin unless the law shows us. Although, we still have the Spirit of discernment which allows us to differentiate the original purpose of the law, the intention of the heart, and allows us to widen our scope and know whether certain things are sin or not regardless of if they’re explicitly mentioned in the Bible. This same spirit allows us to determine whether something is just against the Mosaic law for health/cleanliness reasons (some people will claim pork is under this category, but as I said I’m not entirely sure), for avoiding Pagan traditions (like the mention of tattoos), or whether it’s truly distancing us from God.

            Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

            • themachine@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              You didn’t actually address the contradiction, you danced around it. Try to truly reconcile it.