this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1233 points (99.1% liked)

Political Memes

5483 readers
2488 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Thanks for the comment. If I may quibble:

and at the time they had many slaves[...]

If memory serves, the Mosaic laws are said to be delivered to the Jews 90 days into their wandering in the desert after crossing the Red Sea. Which means that the people who received these rules about slavery were all recently freed former slaves. Unless they immediately started re-enslaving each other while wandering the desert with manna raining from heaven and water springing up from the rocks, I would think that none of them owned slaves.

[...]something that they wouldn't be willing to change. Instead of this, God commands how to treat these slaves.

That line of reasoning has never sat right with me.

God doesn't want people to kill. He knows people will do it anyway. He doesn't say "Make it quick and painless when you kill someone." He says "Thou shalt not kill."

God doesn't want people to steal. He knows people will do it anyway. He doesn't say "Only steal from people who are well off and can afford to lose some possessions." He says "Thou shalt not steal."

I cannot imagine the guy who tells people to cut some skin off the end of their penis has any problem with making big asks of people.

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

[–] syreus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There is no archeological evidence of Israelites residing in Egypt at the time of Moses nor of their enslavement there.

It is widely agreed that the tribes of Israel decended from Canaanites and other locals.

I wish modern christians would revise the bible. It's not like they haven't done it before.

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's no time of Moses. Moses is a mythical character (a lot of Christian like myself has no problems with the findings of archeology).

[–] syreus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I can't speak with confidence on the existence of Moses or a figure that was the basis of the legend.

By the "time of Moses" I mean around 1300BCE.

It's hard to prove a man didn't exist. It's easy to state there is no evidence of Exodus as biblically described.

Modern Christians did revise the Bible (Mormons) and made it more wacky.

[–] Willy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't have much to add to the great discussion your having, but as a sort of side point,”Thou shall not kill” is such a vague and poorly phrased commandment, at least if that's the best translation. everyone seems to take it as “Dont murder people for most reasons” which is really quite different. the only way to stop killing anything actively is to be dead and that's not even an option if you can't kill. sorry I'm on phone so this is poorly and curtly typed, but all meaning to say that there has to be a lot lost with the really poor communication going on and not just by me. as I said earlier maybe it was better in the original language though.

Thou shall not kill” is such a vague and poorly phrased commandment

In modern English, yes. A few thousand years ago in Hebrew, the actions of hunting animals for food were probably not easily confused with murdering other humans.

[–] Broken_Orange_Juice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you for the quibble. I'm not the most informed on all these topics, and still growing in my faith and knowledge. The reason why I'll always argue for God despite not having all the answers is because I've had a personal experience with him, and as such will always strive to find an answer the aligns with God's existence, the same God as that in the Bible.

[–] BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure! And to be clear, my goal is definitely not to just challenge your faith. The most devout Christian I know IRL is also one of my closest friends.

The reason I feel compelled to jump on biblical slavery apologetics is the impact I worry it can have on people's views and actions in the present day. Slavery still exists, and I fear that arguments defending the slavery that existed under Mosaic law are eerily applicable to modern day trafficking in persons. That it wasn't as bad as the trans-Atlantic slave trade, that it was just indentured servitude, or implicitly that slavery is less reprehensible than murder or theft or lying.

All this being said, I do think the tone of my initial comment and first reply to you was unduly harsh. It comes across more as making fun of Christians than anything else, and that's not cool. I apologize for that, and I'll edit those two linking to this comment to reflect that.

[–] Broken_Orange_Juice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I find the point you mentioned about slavery being less reprehensible than murder or theft or lying quite interesting, since my understanding of the Bible is that all sin is weighed the same, being that the wages of sin is death. Not entirely sure how the slavery that existed under Mosaic law quite worked, but I don't think it could be justified in any way. Don't worry about your previous comments, I certainly didn't take them that way! Glad to have a respectful back and forth on a topic like this.