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.

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

Meanwhile, a few chapters later in the same book:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

TBH I can’t blame Christians for being confused about what love looks like if this is what they believe God says.

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

The purpose of my jellybean thought exercise was to show that “I don’t know” and “I don’t believe” are not mutually exclusive. Basically:

I do not believe [x] != I believe [not x]

I don’t believe in String Theory. String Theory may be correct for all I know: I am not a physicist, and my understanding of String Theory is cursory at best.

Because I do not have enough evidence to warrant belief, I cannot say I believe in String Theory. But that same lack of understanding means I must also say I don’t believe that String Theory is false.

Say you have a jar full of jellybeans. We know that the number of whole jellybeans in the jar must be either even or odd.

If someone asks you if you believe the number of jellybeans in the jar is even, you can and should say “no” if you haven’t counted them or otherwise gathered any evidence to support that conclusion. To believe something is to say you feel it is more likely true than false, and you can’t say that about the given proposition.

Importantly, this does not mean you do believe the number of jellybeans is odd. The fact that one of those two things must be true does not mean you have to pick one to believe and one to disbelieve. It is perfectly rational to reserve belief either way until you have evidence one way or the other. You do not believe it’s even, nor do you believe it’s odd.

So, if we define “atheist” as “someone who does not believe in any gods”, I think you meet the definition of atheist. Just like the person in the above example does not believe the jellybeans are even & also does not believe they are odd, you don’t need to believe “there are no gods anywhere” to not believe “there is at least one god”.

Abstaining does less than nothing for the actual victims of the genocide in question. You think the dems are going to change their stance on Palestine because a bunch of leftists are withholding their votes? Most of their corporate donors are most likely either pro-Israel or don’t care. They’re going to decide it’s a safer play for them to pivot right to try and scoop up lukewarm centrist dipshits, guaranteed. Things get worse for women, immigrants, LGBT people, and the working class in general but hey! At least your hands are clean!

The way to effect electoral change that may actually have a snowballs chance in hell of helping Palestinians is to support anti-genocide reps in primaries and local elections. Get your city to pass ordinances boycotting Israeli products, accepting Palestinian refugees, and supporting international aid organizations. Even if your good local reps can’t make any of that happen, you’re getting more anti-genocide policy makers in the system who may run for higher offices next cycle.

Leftist organizing has always been from the ground up. If you want an anti-genocide president (which I fucking do too!), then work on creating the infrastructure to produce one instead of stomping your feet and insisting the Overton Window move your way ex nihilo.

Didn’t know worms could vote!

The big divide in the US is not so much between Republicans and Democrats as between people who invest and people who don’t. For a man of his means who is running for America’s second-highest office, Tim Walz is on the wrong side.

God forbid a leadership position go to someone not in the ownership class!

In 2022, 58 per cent of Americans owned stock, either directly or indirectly through mutual funds. Based on his 2019 financial disclosures and his 2022 tax filings, the Democratic vice presidential nominee is not one of them.

So? The average American, who has maybe a 401k and some options thru their company, still has more shared class interests with someone who owns no stocks whatsoever than with someone who doesn’t have to work for a living.

The rest of the article fails to load, but looking at the author’s other pieces, we see she thinks price gouging is a myth and that another recession might actually be a good thing. She’s either so out of touch she may as well be from outer space, a soulless corporate sellout, or intentionally writing ragebait with an economic coat of paint.

I feel you in a big way, but to be totally fair: corporations becoming states has probably trended towards the better from a zoomed-out perspective, and political leaders lying all the time has probably only become more visible than ever.

The entities that were doing all the colonialism for the past several hundred years have been private companies, and they did huge amounts of slavery and genocide. Blackwater is bad, but the East India Company was worse. This is not to say that things are good now, only that they aren’t like worse than they’ve ever been.

And I think the present day has a greater expectation of political leaders being accountable to the people they govern than most of history. Back in the days of monarchs and oligarchs, there was no mass media to tell everyone they were lying and no likely consequences for the liars even if there were.

Again, I empathize a huge amount with what you’ve said & I am also disappointed that the world we’ve created isn’t better than it is. I just personally think that the above two are trending in a more optimistic direction, even if they’re still objectively pretty bad.

Fifty-three percent of respondents hold a “very or somewhat” unfavorable view of the system, while 40 percent hold a “very or somewhat” favorable view.

I swear to God, you could ask “Do you enjoy being hit in the face with a hammer?” in a poll and 30% - 50% of my countrymen would answer “yes”. At least one third of this country lives in a completely different reality.

Thank you for your wonderful and informative comment! I went out back to see if she was still there / look for an egg sack, and snuck another pic. She’s quick! Ran up the fence as soon as she saw me!

RIP Kumoko.

True that! Almost got a face full of this guy earlier this week:

I wonder if spiders put webs in front of windows to catch bugs that fly towards the light, or if they put webs all over a building and we only see the ones near the windows?

Cute comic!

Well yeah. Who gives a fuck about a 2% increase in the GDP? Prices are high and wages are low.

Maybe not the best decision in the world.

HOWEVER:

1. Many DSA folks (at least in my local branch) are not happy with many of national’s decisions lately.

2. Fuck you if you’re looking down your nose at the DSA while the extent of your political involvement is only just voting every once in a while.

This was a tactical misstep, sure. But my local DSA is still out there showing up for protests and strikes and unions. They’re getting bills passed in through the city council and getting open socialists elected. If the DSA is the only leftist group near you and you let this blunder stop you from doing any real activism, you’re guilty of the exact same purity testing bullshit.

BRONCO IS TAKING HIM INTO THE SCREWS, KENNY!

I spent all afternoon reading that comic, having to call it a night on chapter 93. Thanks for the link!

1. Rape does not always involve physically overpowering someone. Someone may coerce someone else into sex with blackmail, lies, threats, or abuse of a position of power.

2. Erections are controlled by a person’s autonomic nervous system. A man can get hard even when he is not turned on or consenting to what is happening.

3. Not all rape involves a penis. A woman who sticks an object into a man without his consent is committing rape. Rape is about power and control over another person, and the rapist need not be directly stimulated for rape to occur.

Getting involved in some local leftist groups has been the biggest infusion of hope in this respect for me. They’ve gotten two open socialists elected to nearby city councils (and are working on a 3rd!), run some successful salting / strike support campaigns, and are a growing problem for a local big business that I shan’t name because things are ongoing.

Talking to some of the older heads there, tons of recent events have been followed by waves of people signing up. The Bernie campaign, Trump’s presidency, the George Floyd protests, the recent overturning of Roe. Every one of these has moved more and more people to action. I won’t pretend to know if it’s enough to make meaningful change on a national / global scale, but it’s been good for my outlook on life to see it happen near me, especially in the American south.

I’m glad I’m not the only one with that criticism. I enjoyed the first game so much more because of that.