Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Rightwing groups across US push new bans to limit ‘obscene’ books in libraries
I heard there’s one book in there that talks about a pair of sisters who get their father drunk so they can take turns raping him. Are they banning that one?
wow, the bible is fucked up.
The Bible doesn't portray it as a good thing, and considers their descendants cursed.
A large portion of the Bible is: "here's all the ways people can be nasty, don't be like them".
edit: I seem to have missed the context of book bannings...
But do you know what it does portray as a good thing? Slavery!
Also no. It allowed servitude to pay off debts, but all debts were supposed to be forgiven after 7 years, and so it was strictly limited.
Where do you think the ideas that all humans are equal and deserve equal rights that reduced slavery in modern times come from?
Where do you think the ideas that all humans are equal and deserve equal rights that reduced slavery in modern times come from?
Definitely not the Bible, which tells women to be subservient to their husbands and enslaved people to obey their masters. I am utterly uninterested in the moral lessons of a book written by people who endorse debt slavery. Which, I guess still needs to be pointed out, is bad! Even if it’s “only” 7 years!
I understand your position, but I respectfully urge you to study more history, all modern western ideas of universal human rights are based on or heavily influenced by the Bible. Dominion by Tom Holland, despite the terrible name, is a good source on the subject.
Also, sure, we are partially past it, but considering that until 300 years ago almost everybody considered slavery a natural right, a 3000 years old law limiting servitude to 7 years is VERY progressive.
You are not convincing my queer trans ass there is anything worth studying in there to guide people morally. I had that inflicted on me for the first two decades of my life and literally have PTSD from it.
The history can be interesting, and it’s something people accomplished in spite of what is in that book, not because of it.
I'm really sorry you went through that, I hope you can find healing.
I imagine it's not much, and you don't have any reason to believe me, but because of it I wouldn't hesitate in protecting you in these dangerous times.
I believe you, I just think the average person doesn’t realize how damaging the Bible can be, especially taken literally. The use for it as a moral guide has long since been overtaken by philosophies like humanism, the same way that precise brain surgeries have eclipsed the trepanation practiced in the Neolithic.
Not that I think anything in the Bible can be taken at face value, but especially numbers and doubly so, the number 7.
World created in 7 days. Forgive others 7 times or 70*7. Etc etc. There’s no reason to believe the law of the land was literally a 7 year limit on slavery.
Still bad, but servitude =/= slavery.
7 in the Bible is usually a symbol for completeness. The 70*7 specifically is meant to be "unending".
It is very likely to really be a 7 years limit to debts.
And I would love if the Bible-thumping politicians proposed this debt limit for modern times, but they are all just hypocrites.
7 in the Bible is usually a symbol
It is very likely to really be a 7 years limit
Is it just me, or these don’t seem to jive with each other.
People like to align symbols with concrete action, most commonly for "good luck".
Still bad, but servitude =/= slavery.
My friend, biblical scholars disagree with you. Your holy book is very clear on this subject, and I would implore you to do a little research before saying shit like this.
I did study theology, but I certainly need a refresher.
Yes, the servitude can be considered a form of slavery, but I think it can be useful to distinguish as it's quite different from the more modern chattel slavery.
And I don't think it's valid today, these laws in the Bible were written in and for a specific context of time and place, and the commandments of love supersede it.
Until 300 years ago when slavery was considered OK, the biblical law on it would still be VERY progressive.
17 “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. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-19
The words of Jesus himself.
Until 300 years ago when slavery was considered OK, the biblical law on it would still be VERY progressive.
Not true. The bible was explicitly used by plantation owners in the Southern US to justify chattel slavery, and keep their slaves in line. They printed versions of the bible with all suggestions of concepts like freedom removed.
You keep telling yourself that what’s in the bible is different than slavery, but it is not. Your book gives explicit rules on how to treat your slaves, how to punish your slaves including beating them and how much you’re allowed to beat them (make sure it’s not so bad that they can’t recover in a few days!) It gives explicit rules on how you are to treat your Jewish slaves compared to Gentile slaves. How much slaves should buy and sell for.
You’re going to lose this argument. The only out is, “actually, slavery is OK” and I’ve literally seen Christians say this in order to justify their awful book.
He fulfilled the law, and did not have slaves.
The example of His own actions is to read the law with the perspective of protecting the weak, the "lesser", the vulnerable.
You should maybe ask yourself why you’re so eager to defend this.
You know what would be a great way to protect slave? Perhaps the best way? To take the (very fucking easy) step of saying “hey don’t own people.”
But instead he talked about slaves all of the time, and seemed to have no problem with them. Taken from wiki because I’m lazy:
The Bible says that Jesus healed the ill slave of a centurion[94] and restored the cut off ear of the high priest’s slave.[95] In his parables, Jesus referenced slavery: the prodigal son,[96] ten gold coins,[97] unforgiving tenant,[98] and tenant farmers.[99] Jesus also taught that he would give burdened and weary laborers rest.[100] The Passion narratives are interpreted by the Catholic Church as a fulfillment of the Suffering Servant songs in Isaiah.[101]
When questioned about the hierarchy of his followers, Jesus responds that “Whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” (Matthew 20:27).
Does not sound like the words or behavior of someone who wants to stop people from being slaves. Which is, seriously, like the lowest fucking bar on the planet.
You know what it reads like to me? A book that was written by people, of its time. And at that time, as you said, slavery was common practice. So the people who wrote it didn’t’ even consider that it should be on the table.
I'm not trying to defend slavery in the Bible, for the context those laws were written it was progress; but it also contains enough that made people 300 years ago start thinking "maybe slavery is not good".
Jesus' message is not for those who would have the power to own slaves; that last verse looks like a weird translation, it's supposed to mean that his followers are not to seek positions of power, but to act as slaves to each other.
I don't know if you edited or my app cut part of your text.
"You know what it reads like to me? A book that was written by people, of its time. And at that time, as you said, slavery was common practice. So the people who wrote it didn’t’ even consider that it should be on the table."
Exactly!
Also, Jesus said that in His kingdom the king is slave to all, and slaves are elevated to the importance of kings; even if a law allows it, it makes no sense for His followers to engage in it.
Abraham had sex with his (wife’s) slave Hagar to produce Ishmael – and both Hagar and Ishmael were then exiled after Abraham was able to conceive with his wife and produce Isaac.
Certainly not the kind of values I’d want for my family.
Also treated by the Bible as something bad.
Can you point to the verse that condemns that behavior?
There's no specific verse condemning it explicitly, but the overall arc of Abraham's story is that whenever he tries to be "clever" and fulfill God's promise on his own there are bad consequences, in this case the soured relationship between Hagar and Sarah, the need of God's intervention to save his son from death in the desert, and the origin of yet another people that would later antagonize the Israelites, the Arabs.
So, like, it’s just your interpretation?
Not just mine, AFAIK it's the most common one.
I think you’re missing the point of this conversation a little bit buddy. Go back and read all of the comments you’ve replied to and see if you can figure out what you’re missing from the commentary.
I missed the context of banning books?
Not true.
Why not? It does not say it explicitly, but the narration describes a series of negative consequences coming from it, and I've only ever seen it interpreted as bad.
- It allowed servitude to pay off debts
so, debt slavery?
Technically servitude is not the same as slavery, but still bad.
Considering that until 300 years ago most people considered slavery to be a natural right, a 3000 years old law limiting it to at most 7 years was VERY progressive.
but its practically the same thing. how progressive of the bible.
In that temporal and geographic context, yes, very much.
The bible explicitly condones slavery. Stop saying it’s “servitude”. Buying and selling humans as property. Using them as free labor. Beating them into submission.
This is slavery. This is all explicitly condoned in the bible.
Lol, bud… Just Google “slavery in the Bible”
You’re in denial.
Where do we think those ideas come from? The way you say that makes it sound like you don’t believe anyone could come to that idea without that specific religion’s religious text. That projection is, by far, probably the most frightening thing in this thread.
People are fully capable of being good without being forced to. Yea, most are stupid and plenty are nasty but to act like the ideas of baseline human freedoms must have come from the bible is so weird.
I'm not saying it's not possible, but that's how it happened in the Western world.
Would it later on happen "naturally" without it? Maybe; hard to say, we can only speculate since it's not how it went.
But even from a "Christian" perspective, I would agree, yes it would; these values align with God's will and He would have put these ideas in peoples' heads even if the Bible didn't exist.
Geez, so much for getting free will, eh?
There were scores of Christians who thought slavery was great. If the bible was really the ticket into being against it then it wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Instead we get The Americas™, a collection of stolen lands turned into a mire of plantations and now into prisons built on making said the prisoners work for pennies to prop up the rest of the country while many more “free” people are below the poverty line despite putting in their 40+ hours of hard, often physical, labour. Even people that are “paid decently” aren’t getting their fair share. Slavery coexists with the bible just fine, and in fact thrives more in more religious regions.
That doesn't hurt free will? Someone receiving a "revelation" is still free to act in it as they will; Christian theology also recognizes Natural/General Revelation in which anyone can find God's will just by observing the natural world and/or society. Apostle Paul called the Greek philosophers "prophets", and I personally think the title also applies to modern scientists.
(cont. Mastodon char limit)
I don't and can't disagree with what you said. The moment the powerful started using the Bible its message was twisted into supporting all sorts of evil, like those you mentioned.
But I believe the message of Jesus is that it is meant to be read from the perspective of protecting, helping, and freeing the weak, the "lesser", the vulnerable.
And it was others reading it this way that made the ideas that became human rights to spread in the Western World.
apologetics in 2025 makes people sound insane.
Depends on the apologetics, good apologetics requires dialogue with others' ideas, and Christianity got bad when it stopped doing it.
Have you read that steamy story about how Lot’s two daughters drugged him and rode their father’s cock?
So appropriate for kids.
Exactly the one I'm taking about.
So which of the banned books are you saying should be banned?
I'm not supporting banning books, just pointing that the Bible itself considers the events of that story bad.
Well, that depends on how you interpret it. I’d say quite a number of people interpret it incorrectly.
Within the story itself it doesn't show judgement, just "it happened", but later on the descendents of Lot's daughters are considered cursed peoples.
If there's criticism to be made to the story is that it may have been written this way to justify the Israelites being racist against their cousins.
I think more likely it was that fucking your dad got retarded kids who were cursed, so don’t fuck your daddy.
Leave it to the religious morons to interpret this as a way to kill someone. Trash.
A single generation of incest is usually not enough to cause bad effects, and anyway it's an at least 3000 years old story, that's what people "knew" at the time.
And this behavior is not exclusive to "religious" people, the nominally atheist USSR did very similar.
wtf are you on about? USSR? What on earth do they have anything to do with this?
Either way, this 3000 year old book needs to be put to pasture.
Just an example of not needing to be religious to create stupid justifications to kill people.
And what was the USSR’s stupid reason to kill people that relates to people using a book of fiction stories as a way to justify killing whomever they want?
So which books on that list do you think should be banned from libraries? The gay ones? The trans ones? Harry Potter?
My point is that people do it because they are people, not because they are religious.
I don't support banning any books.
It doesn’t matter to book-banners whether or not the thing they don’t like is portrayed as positive or negative. Just the fact that it’s there is enough for them.
Whoa, so you’re saying we shouldn’t ban books that have questionable themes if those themes teach a lesson?
Yes, I don't support banning books. One of the books in the Bible can even be considered pornographic (Song of Songs), but it has been considered a model for a healthy relationship.