Punishing descendants is absolutely a part of the bible. Women experiencing pain during childbirth is supposedly a punishment for Eve eating the forbidden fruit.
Comment on Anon does some genealogy
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 week ago
AFAIK, in 1860 about 20% of families in the slave states owned slaves. Lots of those were probably relatively poor farmers - slaves or no, small farmers in the 19th century weren’t that wealthy. Also, since when does the Christian god condemn entire family lines?
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Patrikvo@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Yeah, she really shouldn’t have listen to the snake. Women could have been giving birth like a giraffe: Just standing there, muching on a snack while the baby just falls out.
blady_blah@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Shit, if that’s the case, I’m surprised Christians haven’t tried to outlaw epidurals.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 week ago
For some biblical figures really far back, yes, but as a punishment for normal (real) people?
brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Women are normal (real) people, I believe.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 week ago
According to the bible, Eva is the literal second human and first woman and IIRC lived for hundreds of years, so no, she’s not normal or real.
Davel23@fedia.io 1 week ago
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he’s citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it’s clearly talking about servants as a blessing. Not necessarily slaves. The words in question are עֶ֫בֶד and שִׁפְחָה. Basically every other translation I flipped through rendered this as servants, including the likes of culturally significant ones that Christians draw on for doctrine like the KJV and ESV.
Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something? 🤣
m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he’s citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it’s clearly talking about servants as a blessing.
Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.
I think the fact that other versions use “servants” is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.
Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something
No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they’ll see the bible advocating.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
The NRSVUE removed translation traditions. This is helpful, but the fact that both translations are correct, while for centuries if not millenia (in some cases the RSV versions ignored the Septuagint translations). While yeah, it’s still a valid translation, the word for “slavery” in our modern western lens typically conjures up images of chattel slavery where the slaves were enslaved for life as well as their offspring. Such imagery just isn’t really historically honest. Even throughout different time periods of the Bible’s writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
__hetz@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Christians already have to convince themselves of that. At least once it’s brought to their attention. It’s not exactly something that gets brought up during your typical Sunday School session.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
This type of thing is exactly what’s brought up during Sunday school
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 week ago
If all of the cited passages are actually talking about servants, they’re treating their servants so badly that the difference is merely semantic. Note that the US chattle slavery is unusually depraved, in mediterranean antiquity slaves were generally treated better than that (or so the surviving accounts would have us believe).
KombatWombat@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah, I don’t think it really matters what word is considered a better translation. It is talking about humans becoming property.
In Exodus 21:2-11, it says Hebrew men are restricted to being indentured servants for 6 years unless they volunteer for more. And Hebrew girls/women are sold forever, just not to foreign nations. And in Leviticus 25:44-46, it directly addresses that gentiles can be enslaved, sold, and inherited with no special restrictions.
A slave by another name is still a slave.
IronBird@lemmy.world 1 week ago
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs.
Source?
hanrahan@slrpnk.net 6 days ago
Is slavery even forbidden by the bible?
No its encouraged, as is your daughter marrying her rapist
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations
In the US they do this with Mexicans now but not Canadians… yet.
Exodus 21:7. says its ok to sell your daughters into slavery
as examples, working on the Sabbath ??
Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
froufox@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
who said anon is a Christian?
Aqarius@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Anon lost everything in the mameluk uprising
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 week ago
What non-Christian believes in hell?
froufox@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
anon!
kek_kecske_31@lemmy.world 1 week ago
In the Jewish part of Bible there are passages about inheriting sin as something you need to do something about (e.g. Cain and his lineage). But even there its not straightforward inheritance. With the New Testament in mind the post is even more bogus.
GrumpyBike1020@monero.town 1 week ago
Sir, this is greentext. It’s supposed to be bogus, that’s the joke
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 week ago
It’s pretty fun to dissect the bogus, though.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Generally the sin inheritance thing goes to everyone.
ferrule@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Not one jot or tiddle of the old law will be gotten rid of until Jesus comes back during end times. So said Jesus. Green text is on point.