#anti bible | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shadowflayeronlyfanz2 · 27 days

Text

idk i just think ppl should stop basing their identities off of what a book says (this is about Christians and lesboys)

#anti lesboy #anti mspec lesbian #anti christianity #anti stone butch blues #anti Bible

36 notes · View notes

the-little-fox-in-the-box · 1 year

Note

Hi, I saw your post in the #anti christianity tag. I am interested what you think of Christianity in general.

Hmm... Let me answer that question with a story.

I was sexually assaulted by my uncle. I went to church some time after that. The priest said that if a man rapes a woman she will go to hell and he will go to heaven. Why? Because if the man, even on his death bed suddenly regrets his decision he will go to heaven, because he forgave himself for his deed and that means he loves himself and therefore has love in his heart. But if the girl will not forgive him she will go to hell, because she has hate in her heart, and no one with hate in their hearts will go to heaven.

I was horrified. I could never forgive my abuser. I knew I will hate that man with all my heart for the rest of my days (I never told anyone about it, because who would believe a guy?). I remember thinking "This can't be right" and so I did something that no Christan in my family has ever done before - I took the bible and read it. Sure enough, it was correct. More over, if the law hasn't changed I should MARRY him and marry no one else ever, because I would not be a virgin. I also have pierced ears, which is also a sin, I wear gold, eat seafood regularly, wear mixed fabric, play ball games, I shaved my beard once, I don't worship my physically abusive parents, which are all sins. The Bible also speaks of abortion twice as a punishment and all the cruel ways that you can and you should treat a person, how much you're allowed to beat your slaves, how god sent a bear to kill a few children for making fun of a bald man, how he punished a fallen angel for wanting to grant us wisdom, how he tortured his only son to appease himself and all the genocides and sacrifice to appease such cruel, heartless, murderous, blood-thirsty deity.

So it turns out I'm not atheist. I'm actively anti-theist. Particularly anti-christian. If someone tells me they're a Christian I immediately think of them as a bad person, because no good person would believe in such cruelty and insanity. And if they do something nice they do it not because they're Christan, but despite being Christan. But as they say, hate the belief, not the believer.

I think Jews are chill though, I never had a Jew knock on my door forcing me to convert to their evil cult of cannibalistic hippie demi-god only to start calling me slurs when they see my rainbow flag. They are the good ones.

#personal #fox talking about his life #anti-christian #anti christianity #anti catholic #anti religion #rape mention #anti christian #anti bible #fuck christians #fuck christianity #fuck religion #long post

48 notes · View notes

paradiseillusory1998 · 2 years

Text

Yahweh was and is an anthropologically complex god who could be very violent.

The Old Testament god was also a warrior god who could have been a ruthless general who committed his fair share of atrocities.

It is not intellectually honest to say that he was a god who was always devoted to peace.

He was a very violent deity.

More than many others.

But some considerations need to be made.

The bible does not speak of slavery but of servitude.

Two things that are different.

The bible also the old testament was with exodus 21:16 expressly forbids kidnapping a human and selling him.

That slavery / servitude allowed to Israel as well as being regulated to be much less violent and give many rights to the servant, who was mostly either a war booty or a criminal, has a well-defined time limit.

See Exodus 21: 2.

And of course there were exceptions as seen in exodus 21: 5-6 but they were voluntary exceptions where the servant for whatever reason decided to stay.

Not only was biblical servitude temporary and limited to 6 years but also weekly total rest was granted for all see Deuteronomy 5: 12-14

The bible also grants rights that did not exist in other cultures and are unlikely to exist afterwards.

For example as seen in Exodus 21: 26-27 a slave / servant who suffers permanent damage is released and if he is killed the offender must be tried as seen in Exodus 21:20.

According to soothing 25: 42-43 and talmud kiddushkn 20a the servants are not to be treated harshly and are to eat the same food as the master, enjoy the same comforts and reside in the same type of dwelling.

It was a type of servitude limited to prisoners and even then they are servants with enormous rights whose freedom is given in time for a maximum of 6 years.

Even female servitude and the situation of women were highly regulated in a positive way just see Exodus 21:11.

Which governs legal provisions to protect women from abuses that were widely granted according to ancient traditions.

It is certainly not a positive model or an ideal situation.

But it was an unpleasant situation that needed to be adjusted.

And even then it was a rare situation due to unpleasant circumstances such as economic disaster as seen in Kiddushin 20a and even then as seen in Nehemiah 5: 6-12 it was a situation that showed great indignation and in the nehemia texts urges the magistrates to condone the debts of the poor.

Of course there are exceptions and according to Levititicus 27: 28-29 there is talk of immolating men and women but there is the term cherem which indicates for what I know a condemned to death and / or an enemy doomed to destruction in war.

And there is no mention of a death but of a non-possibility of redemption from the sentence.

Now let's be clear it is not a beautiful thing but it is more similar to forced labor, however regulated, than to slavery as in Rome or Greece.

Furthermore, it must be considered that God and the bible show great ruthlessness.

Over and over again they commit objectionable best things at worst atrocity.

But although there are harsh and bloody verses, the ultimate goal and objective in the Torah and in the Old Testament was and still is universal peace.

See isaiah2: 4; Michael 4: 3 or Psalms 34:15.

But also Proverbs 3:17, Leviticus 36: 6, Isaiah 32:17.

Even when battle is encouraged in Deuteronomy 20: 1-4, the exaltation of battle is lacking.

Exemptions from war are shown in Deuteronomy 20: 5-9.

And in Deuteronomy 20:10 before any war there is always the offer of peace.

And in hilkhot malakshim 6: 1 it is obligatory to give the possibility of peace or to violate treaties or to deceive surrendered enemies.

In Deuteronomy 20:11, war only starts when peace is refused and the opposing national team refuses to give up their arms.

An attempt was made to stem the fury as seen with Deuteronomy 20:19 which prohibits the cutting down of fruit trees and therefore scorched earth.

It is also forbidden to kill civilians see Hilkhot Melakshim 6: 4 or Deuteronomy 20: 12-14.

In Deuteronomy 21: 22-13, a captive woman cannot be treated as a slave or a prostitute.

Even allowing marriage between Jews and peoples considered idolaters.

The exceptions are not due to racial or ethnic reasons in fact in Deuteronomy 28:63 God requires that even the Jews should be taken away from the land if they become corrupt.

The torah is not imposed against race and ethnic groups but against societies and cultures that are considered or have become corrupt and depraved and that have rejected peace and possible agreements.

It's not indiscriminate and we're certainly not talking about the Nazis.

After all, the connections were accepted and known.

See Genesis 38: 2 or 43:33.

Several prominent and positive and god-chosen people are not Israelites.

See the prophet Jeremiah who according to the peskta de Ravenna kahana 13.5 was Canaanite.

Now let's call it a total annihilation is certainly not a justification but it is honest to say that it is not a deliberate thing.

the wars waged were not motivated by ethnic reasons, the attempt at peace is always there, just like a regulated law to prevent the worst chaos.

And even then, peace is the ultimate goal and there is talk of exceptions.

Yahweh was a ruthless god but we certainly are not talking about a divinity who wants a state of eternal war and does what he does out of cruelty.

There are also contradictions.

Deuteronomy 16:10 the slaughter of gezer is retracted.

And the Amalekites are fought by David in Samuel 30 after their alleged extermination.

So it must be understood that the military terminology of the time was hyperbolic.

So yes of course the Jewish god and his faithful were merciless as they fought but they were not genocide.

Speaking also of the flood it must be said that unlike an enlil who did it on a whim, the biblical Yahweh did it for a moral question and for the corruption that a whole series of events brought (nephilim but this is another speech) enough see Genesis 6:12.

The biblical god does not need blood sacrifices just see Psalms 50:13.

In psalms 50 the moral sense is understood.

Noach / Noah is a common individual chosen for his morality and with a pact to ensure the survival of the human race, see Genesis 9.

The flood is not an act of revenge but an act of recreation.

And certainly it is not justifiable but the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the 10 plagues.

These are events that the bible are an extreme example of horror and inhumanity not something lawful.

They are exceptions due to complex circumstances, which Christians can hardly understand given that there are a lot of texts that should be canonical but are made apocryphal, see precisely the entire parenthesis of the nephilim.

Which its clear doesn't make it moral or justifiable.

An exception is not the norm.

The USA are not absolute monsters for the two atomic bombs launched at the end of the Second World War and for the many defects they have.

The bible itself is relatively more democratic than other ancient texts.

In Deuteronomy 17: 14-15 the monarchy was chosen and willed despite God's own advice not.

And even then in Deuteronomy 17: 15-20 there are abnormal legal limits.

And even then the torah shows a profound positive economic revolution as seen in Deuteronomy 10: 9_14: 28-29.

The New Testament is the logical progression of the Old Testament

Gradually throughout the Old Testament there is a progressive development of Yahweh and of his faithful.

That of the genesis is not that of the exodus which is not that of the Leviticus which is not that of Deuteronomy.

The Old Testament itself is the natural evolution of the Hammurabi code and the Sumerian myth.

This is not to justify Yahweh that anyone with a minimum of intellectual honesty will admit that he has done terrible things but it is to say that the situation is very gray and that there is a progression and a change of the Jewish people and their god.

#pro bible #anti bible #pro religion #anti religion #pro christianity #anti christianity #analysis

2 notes · View notes

nando161mando · 4 months

Text

369 notes · View notes

i-am-aprl · 6 months

Text

229 notes · View notes

booknerd693 · 27 days

Text

A good ritual for Ishtar Sinday.

Lord Satan be with you always. 🖤

#bible #burning #anti christianity #satan #hail satan #satanism #666 satan #satanic #theistic satanism #occult #hail thyself #satan is real #blasphemy #satanic rites #satanic ritual #devilman #actually demonic #fuck what they think #hot as hell

127 notes · View notes

harpidiem · 6 months

Text

American Decay 🌻⛓️🥩

bonus Chop-Top under cut

251 notes · View notes

gingebreadbeetle · 5 days

Text

This is just straight up a rant, so to be blunt; I am not a professional artist, I just enjoy drawing and know some of the basics. Also this is all just my opinion, so yeah, rant starts from here.

Viv’s designs of the sins that we’ve seen so far are horrible. They’re overcrowded, the colors are really basic or straining for me and it’s just … bad? It’s just bad, confusing and it feels like she looked up a wiki of (insert demon)’s animal, slapped on a Viv TM personality from the five different persona’s she has and oversaturated colored and called it a day.

Sorry if this is disjointed, I know Viv has talent as a artist and she has artistic merit, but I feel like in recent years her style and characterization has diminished ( compare pilot Adam to the show Adam example, for me the pilots design was much cooler ) and now her furry designs or biblical interpretations are just… bare bones, hollow. Like she’s read a question on a test but hasn’t engaged with it thoroughly and rushed it. C minus, Viv.

#hazbin hotel critical #anti vivziepop #hazbin hotel #anti spindlehorse #hazbin hotel critique #anti hazbin hotel #art #Idk man #I’m not like Picasso #I understand she has her own style #but as someone whose fallen back in love with Christianity #reconnected with the text #and has a deep appreciation for the Bible #it’s just not good enough #and I don’t believe the claims she has done research into works from Dante or Milton because of it

76 notes · View notes

balkanradfem · 3 months

Text

I was thinking the other day about how often biblical stories imply that any sort of species can be started with just one and one female of the species, and sells this as the correct (maybe only correct) way to start things. Like Adam and Eve, they're supposed to be the starters of humanity, one (presumably young) male and one again, presumably young woman.

It repeats again with Noah's ark, where two animals of each species are collected, one male and one female, so they could all 'start their species anew'. Noah's family also is presumed to be the regular, one male + one woman, enough to re-start the humanity.

I understand that these stories were written to establish and force the idea of nuclear family being necessary, good and the start of everything, and if you don't think further than 'oh yeah one male and one woman are capable of making a baby' and you stop thinking there, you might be sold with these stories. But if you think about it for a second further, the implications of this are absolutely atrocious.

One young male and a young woman, are never accompanied by their parents or their grandparents in the stories. They're purposely isolated from their families, or are presumed to not even have family, which means none of them has any support, anyone to go to for advice or help, nobody to rely on to do the massive amount of labour of having and raising even one child. This is already where it falls apart, two young people do not have the knowledge, experience or wisdom to raise a small child, alone. They need their mothers, they need their grandmothers, they need elders and community in order to be able to function - first of all tell me who is delivering that baby they're having? Where is her midwife? It's never mentioned how she gets through childbirth in those stories, apparently she just 'figures it out', while in reality birth is dangerous, and women need both emotional and physical support during labour. There's nobody in this story who knows how to deliver the child safely, or how to save one or both of them should the things go wrong. They both have a chance of dying and then the species is dead. This is all ignored and pretended not to be an issue.

So next in the story we're led to believe that these two young people have made a (mistake) baby and are raising it alone and this is fine. Even funnier is that they often first have a male baby, as an effort to repopulate their species, I mean yeah thats gonna do you a lot of good for sure. Two young people of the opposite sex, without any elders, community, family or support, have one significant power imbalance - the male will usually be physically more powerful, while the woman will be more intelligent, resourceful, adaptive, thoughtful, resilient, and infinitely more vulnerable during the times of labour. It has been shown again and again, that in these circumstances, males do not find it appropriate to protect and treasure the women, but they use their physical advantage to overpower and control her, and her reproductive abilities. But in the stories this is 'fine' because she should 'listen' to this dumber, bigger, less intelligent, more aggressive, more demanding, more exploitative, more dangerous, less useful creature who is completely parasitic and depending on her kindness, intelligence, ability to make food, reproductive abilities and sense of forgiveness of his crimes towards her, to survive. Women are apparently just supposed to be hosts for parasitic males, while isolated, not given a way to overpower him except poison, which is then again depicted as 'bad' because she should just resign to live in servitude to the creature if she wants to prove that she is 'good'. This is bullshit.

Let's look at the next stage, where even more disasters await us. So they raised their child, or children, who have only had these two people to look up to, so they've likely picked up the patterns of 'male is to be served or violence happens, women need to keep their head down and obey or the violence happens', and now the children are supposed to repopulate the species. With? whom? This concept relies entirely on incest? With children who have been raised on learning the massive power imbalance? We're supposed to have sisters accept sexual slavery from their brothers at this point, if we want to have a species of humans? The bible is promoting this?

The bible at this point realizes they've fucked up and write down 'well the sons just went to the nearest village to find girlfriends' OH YOU NEED A VILLAGE NOW DON'T YOU? Now you remembered that actually no, you will now rebuild a species without just one male and one woman and in fact, villages are necessary, and your story leads straight into incest and sexual slavery of women. Presumably the women in the village have whole families and not just two people put in this unnatural position of parasitism and power imbalance. But we don't know, we're supposed to remember 'one male + one woman is correct and nothing else is okay', when the concept is fucked up from the starts and they eventually cave and introduce a village, but do it casually like it doesn't really matter and the story totally wouldn't end up in forced incestuous pregnancies and making a mess of human gene pool.

It was so important for the bible to establish, and re-establish this concept because that is the only way for males to be able to isolate, use and control young women. The concept where women don't have their own mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, families, friends, and villages to protect them from abuse, that is the only scenario where one male can sit on his butt, call himself the 'provider' and then raise his voice and his hand whenever she doesn't do exactly as he says. It's disgusting, and there's nowhere else this can go except abuse. Males will never be unwilling to use their physical advantage to hurt and control women, and we've watched it for centuries, they were more willing to kill women than to accept that we have the right to vote,, the right to divorce them, the right to abort at will (they're still more willing to kill us than to accept this right). No woman is safe in an union with one male, without her family, friends, and a network of support. To live her entire life normally, she needs to rely on the knowledge, experience and wisdom of her elders, so she wouldn't have to do everything alone, and learn everything alone. Male, in return, usually learns all the tactics of manipulating and isolating a woman and will use those, so she needs to be ready and have strategies to defend herself, to be able to escape if it comes to that.

And sometimes, even when the woman has all the support in the world, the male still ends up killing her, because he gets a chance to do it, and it's always at the distraught and horror of everyone who loved her.

Thinking back, the concept of nuclear family had to be invented because males didn't feel like they were able to control the women enough. They likely needed to establish this because they noticed that women were able to go on uncontrolled, they were too 'free', too supported, too resourceful to just trap and control. They needed to convince women that the right thing to do was be alone with one male person who just happens to be stronger and that in fact, not doing so is dangerous and wrong. The concept of nuclear family put the control right in their hands where they wanted it, and it's still ongoing, and we're sick of it. It's a trap.

If you don't believe these stories have influenced our views, think about how males sometimes dream up concepts where they're the 'only male left on the planet', in company of the woman who they're interested in. They relish in these fantasies because they believe in that scenario, they're entitled to rape her. She isn't entitled to resist because then she's responsible for the downfall of humanity, for not repopulating the species, and they feel that this responsibility has to fall so heavy on the woman's shoulders that she will not possibly try to resist him. Women still do, women say right away that if they were the last one, they'd kill themselves instantly. Because we know and understand there's no repopulating the planet with just male and one female. There's just female sexual slavery and incest.

Possibly even the story of Adam and Eve is just a fantasy concept of one male who looked at a woman who was able to say no to him, and thought 'well, what if we were the only humans existing. How would she be able to refuse me then'. And he realized she couldn't. So he wrote it down and sold it as the ideal utopia created by god himself. And we've all been hearing his fetish fantasy like it's gospel. And then the rest of the story is focused on how wrong Eve is for resisting the rules of the male, and the even more powerful male god, how she'll be punished for eating a piece of fruit. We should have never fallen for it.

#anti religion #anti christianity #adam and eve #religion critical #radical feminism #radfem #feminism #noah's ark #bible stories dismantled #bible supported incest but changed its mind at the last second #anti marriage

77 notes · View notes

lilithism1848 · 2 months

Text

61 notes · View notes

coockie8 · 5 months

Text

"You can't create fiction about X problematic thing without explicitly condemning it otherwise your readers/viewers will think it's okay to do irl!"

Okay see well I was under the impression that since I'm not creating fiction for literal 5-year-olds that my readers/viewers would already be aware of the fact it's not okay to rape, torture, and murder people in real life without me spoon-feeding that to them like they're toddlers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you're over the age of 10 and still don't know that it's bad to hurt people in real life without a fairy tale telling you so, then that is 100% a you problem, like I don't know what to tell you here :/

#just anti things #anti bs #proship #proshipper #proship safe #tw: rape mention #literally every time an anti tries the ''this could make someone think this is okay irl'' argument on me #all I can think is ''K? Literally not my problem if some stranger needs to be told by fiction not to rape people in order to not do that.''#like if you need your morals spoon-fed to you by fictional media #then might I suggest you avoid horror and other ''taboo'' genres and stick to Dora the Explorer huh?#but we don't just eradicate things from existence because 0.1% of the people who *might* see it *might* try to act it out irl #like if that's the case the bible makes a grating vocal minority act like complete assholes #so are we banning religious texts now because some religious people get a little too into it and make people's lives difficult?

79 notes · View notes

matan4il · 10 months

Text

Okay, story time.

Years ago I was writing a paper for uni about a queer reading of David and Jonathan, and why it's totally legit (even intentionally invited by the text).

When I started doing my research for it, I discovered that while the queer reading of David and Jonathan is pretty well known in queer circles, there's very little in the way of actual academic material on it, whether we're talking about a literary, religious or historical analysis of the text and this interpretation of it. I had maybe 2-3 essays about queer reading of ANY part of the Bible. And most of ot? Was actually not that great. Very little of it was about anything objective, most of it was just a suggestion for a different subjective reading of the text. Which is legit, but not enough. Most of the time, for an interpretation to be considered legit, we have to show that it relies on something that objectively exists in the text.

And then I found this paper by a guy determined to DISPROVE the queer reading of David and Jonathan. Now when I barely have material that's in favor of a queer reading of David and Jonathan, why would I be wasting my time reading what was written against it? But I'm a weirdo, and I always wanna know the counterarguments that can be used against me, too. Yeah, even if I disagree with them.

AND OMG AM I HAPPY I'M LIKE THAT.

Because this guy? Did a PHENOMENAL job at proving that objectively, the bow is the symbol of masculinity to the ancient Israelites. This is relevant because a biblical verse mentions that Prince Jonathan gave David his bow. I'm gonna say it again, this guy proved that for any Israelite back then, regardless of the subjective place they come from, when they were reading the text, what they would get from it is that JONATHAN GAVE DAVID THE PHALLIC SYMBOL OF HIS MASCULINITY. Tell me that doesn't align perfectly with a queer reading...

So why was this guy, who's trying to disprove the queer reading of David and Jonathan, proving the gay potential of this moment? Because to him, if Prince Jonathan has a symbol of masculinity, that means he's a masculine man, and no masculine man can be gay. Yep, the guy writing this paper was so blinded by his own bigotry, homophobia and misconceptions about masculinity and sexual orientation, that he didn't even realize he was handing me a valuable tool to prove queer readings of David and Jonathan are 100% legit.

Why am I mentioning this now all of a sudden?

Because sometimes the haters and anti's of a fandom are actually precisely like that guy, and it both amuses me to no end, and also makes me wonder if they realize how much their efforts sometimes backfire, and instead of destroying my love for and belief in a ship, they actually end up reinforcing it.

If you ever feel down because of haters in your fandom, just remember this.

158 notes · View notes

whereserpentswalk · 22 days

Text

When the human known to us as Christ arrived in the underworld, gods and shades alike were horrified. It was always a big deal when demigods arrived in the underworld, but this one had died so brutally, a young man, not even old enough to grow a beard, tourtued to death at the will of his own divine parentage, the blood dripping from his shade's hands.

The high gods of the underworld brought him up to their tower to figure out what happened. Christ had recoiled from them at first, thinking they were Devils, but had to take Anubis's hand to ascend the tower's steps, as his legs were badly wounded. The gods of the dead looked at him with both sympathy and horror, it was the first time a he had seen a god look at him with either of those emotions.

Hades swore that this was his brother's doing, but even then it crossed a new line. The description of a god impregnating a young girl in Bethlehem fit what Hades knew of Zeus, but to harm his own son in such a way, as part of a ploy to try to gain all of Rome for him alone, had proven his brother's reign growing darker. Still, he took mercy on the young man, promising him at least three days safety in the underworld without his father trying to claim him again. Hades wondered if the poor girl knew when she held her child that he was born to suffer and die, just as the mothers of great heros knew their destiny. Hades hoped Chrsit would have a chance to stay longer, his wife would return in the fall, and he had the same kind eyes as her, she would probably like to know him.

Hel came to comfort Christ once he had a chance to rest. She helped tend his wounds, and pet his head, and for the first time christ was held by a divinity that didn't expect anything from him. And she told him stories of her father to cheer him up after meeting with such a horrible fate. And she told him that no father should ever do such a thing as what his father had done to his child, that if she had known in time she would have saved him. And she let him be comforted as a human, instead of being a lord of all humanity. And for a momment he didn't have to be the son of god who felt alone while bleeding and dying, but the son of the carpenter Joseph who had been reminded of home when he felt the wood of the cross.

He wasn't allowed to stay, his father wanted him back, back to be the bleeding prince of a new and lonely kingdom. And the underworld wept for him, not because the underworld was deprived of Christ, but because Christ was deprived of the underworld.

46 notes · View notes

paradiseillusory1998 · 2 years

Text

Yahweh era ed è un dio antropologicamente complesso che poteva essere molto violento.

Il dio dell antico testamento era anche un dio guerriero che poteva essere un generale spietato che ha commesso la sua giusta quota di atrocità.

Non è intellettualmente onesto dire che era un dio sempre votato alla pace.

Era una divinità molto violenta.

Più di molte altre.

Ma bisogna fare alcune considerazioni.

La bibbia non parla di schiavitù ma di servitù.

Due cose che sono diverse.

La bibbia anche l antico testamento era con esodo 21:16 proibisce espressamente di rapire un essere umano e di venderlo.

Quella schiavitù/servitù permessa ad Israele oltre ad essere regolamentata per essere molto meno violenta e dare molti diritti al servo, che per lo più era o un bottino di guerra o un criminale, ha un limite di tempo ben definito.

Vedasi Esodo 21:2.

E si certo c erano eccezioni come visto in esodo 21:5-6 ma erano eccezioni volontari dove il servo per qualunque motivo decideva di rimanere.

Non solo la servitù biblica era temporanea e limitata ai 6 anni ma anche settimanalmente veniva concesso riposo totale per tutti vedasi Deuteronomio 5:12-14

La bibbia accorda anche diritti che in altre culture non esistevano e difficilmente esisteranno anche dopo.

Per esempio come visto in Esodo 21:26-27 uno schiavo/servo che subisce danni permanenti viene liberato e se viene ucciso il colpevole deve essere processato come visto in esodo 21:20.

Secondo lenitivo 25:42-43 e talmud kiddushkn 20a i servi non devono essere trattati con asprezza e devono mangiato stesso cibo del padrone, godere delle stesse comodità e risiedere nello stesso tipo di abitazione.

Era un tipo di servitù limitato ad appunto prigionieri e anche allora sono servi con diritti enormi la cui libertà viene data a tempo di un massimo di 6 anni.

Perfino la servitù femminile e la situazione delle donne erano altamente regolamentate in modo positivo basti vedere Esodo 21:11.

Che disciplina disposizioni legali per tutelare la donna da abusi che erano ampiamente concessi secondo le antiche tradizioni.

Non è certo un modello positivo o una situazione ideale.

Ma era una situazione spiacevole che doveva essere regolata.

E anche allora era una situazione rara dovuta a spiacevoli circostanze come il disastro economico come visto in Kiddushin 20a e anche allora come visto in Nehemia 5:6-12 era una situazione che ha mostrato grande indignazione e nei testi nehemia esorta i magistrati a condonato i debiti dei poveri.

Certo si sono eccezioni e secondo levititico 27:28-29 si parla di immolare uomini e donne ma c'è il termine cherem che indica per quello che so un condannato a morte e/o un nemici votato alla distruzione in guerra.

E non si parla di una morte ma di una non possibilità di riscatto dalla condanna.

Ora sia chiaro non è una cosa bella ma è più simile a lavori forzata comunque regolati che a a schiavitù come in Roma o in Grecia.

Inoltre bisogna considerare che si dio e la bibbia mostrano grande spietatezza.

Più e più volte commettono cose al meglio discutibili al peggio atrocità.

Ma per quanto ci siano versi aspri e cruenti il fine ultimo e l obbiettivo anche nella torah e nell antico testamento erano e sono la pace universale.

Vedasi isaia2:4; michea 4:3 o salmi 34:15.

Ma anche proverbi 3:17, levitico 36:6, Isaia 32:17.

Perfino quando in Deuteronomio 20:1-4 si incoraggia alla battaglia manca l esaltazione alla battaglia.

In Deuteronomio 20:5-9 vengono mostrati delle esenzioni alla guerra.

E in Deuteronomio 20:10 prima di ogni guerra c'è sempre l offerta di pace.

E nell hilkhot malakshim 6:1 è obbligatorio dare possibilità di pace o violare i trattati o ingannare i nemici arresi.

In Deuteronomio 20:11 la guerra parte solo quando la pace viene rifiutata e la nazionale avversa rifiuta di abbandonare le armi.

Si cercava di arginare la furia come visto con Deuteronomio 20:19 che proibisce l abbattimento di alberi da frutto e quindi la terra bruciata.

Inoltre è proibito uccidere i civili vedasi Hilkhot Melakshim 6:4 o in Deuteronomio 20:12-14.

In Deuteronomio 21:22-13 non si può trattare come una schiava o una prostituta una donna prigioniera.

Permettendo addirittura il matrimonio tra gli ebrei e i popoli considerati idolatri.

Le eccezioni non sono dovuti a motivi razziali o etnici infatti in Deuteronomio 28:63 dio impone che anche agli ebrei qualora si corrompessero deve essere tolta la terra.

La torah non si impone contro stirpe ed etnie ma contro società e culture che sono ritenute o divenute corrotte e depravate e che hanno rifiutato la pace e possibili accordi.

Non è una cosa indiscriminata e di sicuro non parliamo dei nazisti.

Dopotutto i legami erano accettati e noti.

Vedasi genesi 38:2 o 43:33.

Diversi personaggi importanti e positivi e prescelti da dio non sono Israeliti.

Vedasi il profeta Geremia che secondo il pesikta de Ravenna kahana 13.5 era cananeo.

Ora chiamiamolo non è certo una giustificazione un annientamento totale ma è onesto dire che non è una cosa voluta.

Le guerre fatte non erano motivate da motivi etnici, il tentativo di pace c'è sempre, esattamente come una legge regolamentata per impedire caos peggiore.

E anche allora la pace è il fine ultimo e si parla di eccezioni.

Yahweh era un dio spietato ma di certo non parliamo di una divinità che vuole uno stato di guerra eterna e fa quello che fa per crudeltà.

Ci sono inoltre delle contraddizioni.

Il Deuteronomio 16:10 il massacro di ghezer viene ritrattato.

E gli amalekiti sono combattuti da Davide in Samuele 30 dopo il loro presunto sterminio.

Quindi bisogna capire che la terminologia militare dell epoca era iperbolica.

Quindi si certo il dio ebraico e i suoi fedeli erano spietati mentre combattevano ma non erano genocidi.

Parlando anche del diluvio bisogna dire che al contrario di un enlil che lo ha fatto per capriccio lo Yahweh biblico lo ha fatto per una questione morale e per la corruzione che tutta una serie di eventi ha portato( nephilim ma questo è un altro discorso) basta vedere genesi 6:12.

Il dio biblico non ha bisogno di sacrifici di sangue basti vedere salmi 50:13.

Nei salmi 50 viene inteso il senso morale.

Noach/Noè è un comune individuo scelto per la sua morale e con un patto per garantire la sopravvivenza della razza umana, vedasi genesi 9.

Il diluvio non è un atto di vendetta ma un atto di ricreazione.

E certo non è giustificabile ma il diluvio, Sodoma e gomorra, le 10 piaghe.

Questi sono eventi che la bibbia sono un esempio estremo di orrore e disumanità non qualcosa di leciti.

Sono eccezioni dovute a circostanze complesse, che i cristiani possono capire poco dato che mancano un sacco di testi che dovrebbero essere canonici ma sono resi apocrifi, vedasi appunto l intera parentesi dei nephilim.

Il che sua chiaro non lo rende morale o giustificabile.

Un eccezione non è la normalità.

Gli Usa non sono mostri assoluti per le due bombe atomiche lanciate a fine seconda guerra mondiale e per i molti difetti che hanno.

La bibbia stessa è relativamente più democratica rispetto ad altri testi antichi.

In Deuteronomio 17:14-15 la monarchia è stata scelta e voluta nonostante dio stesso consiglio di no.

E anche allora in Deuteronomio 17:15-20 ci sono limiti legali abnormi.

E anche allora la torah mostra una profonda rivoluzione economica positiva come visto in Deuteronomio 10:9_14:28-29.

Il nuovo testamento è la progressione logica dell'antico testamento

Via via nel corso dell antico testamento c'è uno sviluppo progressivo di Yahweh e dei suoi fedeli.

Quello della genesi non è quello dell esodo che non è quello del levitico che non è quello del Deuteronomio.

L antico testamento stesso è la naturale evoluzione del codice di hammurabi e del mito sumero.

Questo non per giustificare Yahweh che chiunque abbia un minimo di onestà intellettuale ammetterà che ha fatto cose terribili ma è per dire che la situazione è molto grigia e che c'è una progressione e un cambiamento del popolo ebraico e del loro dio.

#pro bible #anti bible #pro religion #anti religion #pro christianity #anti christianity #analysis #politic #war

0 notes

nando161mando · 5 months

Text

158 notes · View notes

ariesbilly · 13 days

Text

stranger things fandom never heard the phrase "every saint has a past and every sinner has a future" and it shows

#the way yall can NOT grasp the complexity of the human experience never ceases to baffle me #if you go around with the attitude of 'if you do anything wrong ever you will always be a Bad person even if you try to make ammends' it #will genuinely ruin your life #AND what kills me is yall tout yourselves as these open minded liberals who are anti cop anti justice system #we need to be more accepting !!!#until the SECOND a person you personally dont like starts acting up #and then the republican comes out REAL quick #the evangelical conservative bible thumper JUMPS out #you know how to be an open minded accepting person?#listen to the people you dont like #hear their stories #offer help #a good person does not only extent a hand to people they like #which... you all watch stranger things i understand why you dont get that message #cuz this is the show of 'the only good guys are the ones who think and act just like us'#so #i see what we're dealing with

48 notes · View notes