Which of the Nine Satanic Sins do you believe in?

submitted by Gravi from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LarrySwinger2 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

You are looking at the texts through a modern filter. They're both moderations of the situation before. The Leviticus portion limits where slaves may come from to outside nations. This reduces the prevalence of slavery, and unites Israel. Note that slavery was everywhere during antiquity and nobody saw abolishment of slavery as even remotely feasible.

The Deutronomy portion prevents raped women from remaining unmarried, because men would only marry virgins at the time. And fines obviously combat the crime.

Therefore, both laws are indicative of progress for the time.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Progress then does not deter from being vile today, as was the implication of prior comment, no?

[–]LarrySwinger2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No, it wasn't. We aren't talking about today; these laws stem from oral traditions that developed during the 13th century BCE. You're seeing it through the lens of a modern, radically individualistic point of view, that's why it seems vile to you, but that isn't objective. What passes for progressivism today, on the other hand, is a real source of villany.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why would I proclaim to deny the fact that the stories in both the old and new treatments are vile when they are? I hold a very low opinion of all religion, religious folk, religious figures, religious texts and all who are featured in them. They were vile then and they are vile now, as modern progressives are vile. You cannot claim they were not vile before due to being progressive only to vilify modern progressives for the same ideological nonsense. Religion is vile, and it is not merely my personal opinion but a general understanding that religion is, and has been a constant cause of harm to individuals, groups, nations and every person who comes in contact with them. There may be some positive outcomes as a byproduct of religion but this is not the rule.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Argumentum ad populum.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, appealing to the popular idea that ancient law is vile despite the few enlightened thinkers who proclaim them to be ahead of their time...Why on earth didn't I think that the genocidal, rapey bible was to be commended.

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Argumentum ad populum. And the Bible is against rape, in fact, two cities and an whole tribe are destroyed because of their fostering of rapists.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What's funny about this is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all portray Jesus as having many of the same complaints.

[–]DeadAndBuried 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wasn't John his gay lover? In which case, he'd hardly have a bad thing to say for his sausage buddy. The bible is obviously going to portray their son of le god in a positive light, not a conman who tricked simple folk with party tricks and wordplay to gain a following in spite of the Romans.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The gospel of John was not written by the disciple John. It seems to have come from Alexandria and may have multiple authors.