- cross-posted to:
- atheism@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- atheism@lemmy.world
The malnourished and badly bruised son of a parenting advice YouTuber politely asks a neighbor to take him to the nearest police station in newly released video from the day his mother and her business partner were arrested on child abuse charges in southern Utah.
The 12-year-old son of Ruby Franke, a mother of six who dispensed advice to millions via a popular YouTube channel, had escaped through a window and approached several nearby homes until someone answered the door, according to documents released Friday by the Washington County Attorney’s office.
Crime scene photos, body camera video and interrogation tapes were released a month after Franke and business partner Jodi Hildebrandt, a mental health counselor, were each sentenced to up to 30 years in prison. A police investigation determined religious extremism motivated the women to inflict horrific abuse on Franke’s children, Washington County Attorney Eric Clarke announced Friday.
“The women appeared to fully believe that the abuse they inflicted was necessary to teach the children how to properly repent for imagined ‘sins’ and to cast the evil spirits out of their bodies,” Clarke said.
Give Deuteronomy 21:18-21 a check. Abridged version for you: unruly children should be stoned. What she did is biblically justified. You’ll also find some “fun” stuff that should guide her actions in Exodus 21:15-17 and Psalm 137:8-9.
Of course, someone could play that game that Christian denominations love to play - where you redefine the canon for to include/exclude books based on which actions you want to justify. But that’s from the Pentateuch, so kind of hard to brush off. Why is this disgusting shit there on first place?
In the meantime, the Satanists actually have rules to act with compassion and to not harm children. Yup.
Christians also love to play the “that group there is not Christian, even if they follow the Bible and call themselves Christians”. I see this fairly often here… except that it’s towards Protestants (that, acc. to the local mindset, includes Mormons, for the annoyance of both).
Oh boy! Bible verses taken out of context! Let’s look into these, shall we?
Deuteronomy was about preparing Israel for the coming of Messiah. It’s not a command for today’s Christian people. Same with Exodus. They exist as historical record.
Psalm 137 is lamenting what Babylon did to Israel. It was an eye for an eye rhetoric, as the Babylonians had murdered their children. Again, Psalms aren’t prescriptions. They’re songs written by a Jewish king.
Mormons aren’t Christian. They reject the Trinity for a start and have additional scripture, just like Islam with their Qur’an or Jehovah’s witnesses with the Watchtower publications.
Ah yes, the continuously exhausting tradition of Christians who believe in one doctrine introduced hundreds of years after the death of Jesus Christ (trinitarianism) denying the beliefs of Christians who believe in other doctrines introduced after the death of Jesus Christ.
Our beliefs have much more in common than you think.
The trinity is literally in the Bible and Jesus Himself literally referenced it.
The concept of the trinity defined by the Nicene Creed is vastly elaborated compared to the verses in the New Testament that refer to it. At the same time, there are several instances where the trinitarian view of God is nonsensical, such as when the Father announces His acceptance of Jesus’ baptism, or the numerous times Jesus stated that He was “returning” to “His Father”. How would a single being return to Himself? Why would He engage in ventriloquism at the scene of His baptism?
Regardless, we both believe in Jesus Christ, even if we believe in different things about Him. We are therefore both Christians.
What you described the trinity as being was Modalism, which the Nicene creed doesn’t teach. The definition of the trinity is in the Athanasian Creed.
To lay what the Bible clearly teaches:
There is one God. Jesus is God. Jesus always existed. The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is referenced in both testaments. The Father is God. The Father always existed. Jesus prays to the Father. The Father and the Holy spirit are both present alongside each other at Jesus’ baptism. Jesus flat out equates the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together when talking of Baptism.
God is above creation and our laws. We only understand our unitarian nature - that we can only be in one place at one time. Just like how we being three dimensional creatures can only relate to three dimensions. So it wouldn’t make sense for God to abide by our laws, but to be manifest in three persons spanning time and space and the laws of this universe.
This is exactly the same doctrine as the Godhead. God the Father is God. God the Son, Jesus Christ, is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Three together in unity, all present during the baptism of Christ. All eternal.
I don’t see a disagreement here.
No it isn’t, Mormons believe in three gods and that the father was once a human like us.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng&id=p18#p18
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng&id=p2#p2
Okay, but you’re talking about an entirely different doctrine now: Deification.
Regardless, I consider myself a Christian because I worship Jesus Christ. Every religious service or act I have ever participated in has been done in His name. The most significant doctrines I believe in were preached by Him.
I find the idea that because I don’t believe in the Athanasian Creed I am therefore not a Christian to be absurd and impossible to support authoritatively. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion on this matter.
I reject your opinion entirely.
So you’re claiming that there is a context where beating children to death with rocks is a good thing? As a humanist, I’m glad I don’t have to make desperate excuses for those kinds of doctrines. Are you suggesting that the Old Testament is not the word of your god? Because if so, we would agree.
The Old Testament isn’t just a historical record for your religion. It is the moral foundation upon which your entire belief system is based. If the old Testament is a weak, rotten, crumbling, amoral structure, then all of Christendom never had legs to stand upon.
And it is.
Didn’t say it was a good thing. Description, not prescription. King David was angry, generally this falls under “imprecatory psalms”. Basically nobody in the Bible was perfect apart from Jesus which is the whole point. Selfish laws are given and screwed up things happen. Saying the Old Testament is a literal word of God is unfortunately an oversimplification which even some Christians don’t pay too much attention to as they should. It’s a historical record of God’s people. Sure there are good lessons and things to learn in there, and it demonstrates why we needed Jesus. But basically everyone has some form of shortcoming apart from Jesus. It’s there for honesty (criteria of embarrassment) rather than for flat out glorification.
Christianity is hinged primarily on the Life, death and most importantly - resurrection of Jesus Christ. When God became incarnate as a man and lived the perfect life to die a death we all deserved.
Then the word of your god is imperfect. Especially so for corrupting the moral behavior of humanity for some 4000 years. Had your scriptures condemned slavery, genocide, child sacrifice, torture, rape, and war from the beginning, your religion could hold the high ground. But it condoned it instead, just like all the other religions. Just like the bloodthirsty kings and greedy priests who made it up in the first place to justify their lusts. Just like Christians have always used it to oppress others and enrich themselves.
Seriously though, you ought to read your Bible. And while you do, I dare you to ponder these questions:
“How would I know whether this is the word of God, or if Satan wrote it pretending to be God? If Satan wrote it, how could it be any worse? If God wrote it, why isn’t it any better?”
You basically just skipped over what I said, because the Bible is not literally the word of God. The old testament was the compilation of scriptures that the second temple Jews used in the time of Jesus that Jesus mentioned, and the New Testament were all written first generation/apostolic accounts of Jesus and theology. So of course there’s going to be descriptions of evil, compromises made with evil to fulfill the greater picture, concessions, etc. Even Jesus made this clear about Old Testament law:
Matthew 19:8 ESV He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
So when it came to laws regarding Israel, they had to have laws to prevent immorality from leaking in and also have laws about keeping slaves as taking slaves was normal in that society. But it is worth mentioning that the slaves were treated better in comparison. Israel could barely behave with these concessions nevermind without. And in the grand scheme of things, you’re forgetting this is a finite life compared with infinity.
Heck. People nowadays cannot even obey Jesus’ “do not divorce your wife” law. We still need framework to compromise with that.
I’m glad you agree that it literally is not the word of god. But it is a book which condones all those things I listed before, which means that it also is not a book of morality or wisdom. Any book which says that it’s ok to kill, enslave, and rape children, or to beat people to death with rocks for who they love may, indeed must, be completely distrusted in every way by a modern reader. At best it is a collection of unreliable historical texts by ignorant, backward, corrupt leaders of an ancient world.
But that leaves you with the problem of believing that these people got it right when it comes to the existence of the god you worship today. It further leaves you with the problem of the history of your religion being one of ruthless adherence to the worst teachings of the Old Testament. Whereas the modern interpretation of a kind, gentle, loving Christianity is a totally modern fiction meant to erase the crimes of European colonialism.
I’m astounded that you’d try to convince anyone that slavery is something you can handwave away. The fact that your religion ever condoned it ought to be considered proof that you’ve been tricked into devil worship the whole time.
I take contextual analysis for granted because it’s what you’re expected to do with any sort of text, but including it here would be verbose.
Let’s add more context then: Matthew 24 (in special 24:37-39) and plenty other parts of the Four Evangelia claim that Jesus is coming back (something that Mormons stick to), while Matthew 5:17 justifies enforcement of the Pentateuch laws. And yes, you should look at the context of those too, not that it’ll change much.
What do you get, in the big picture? That that law is still valid, specially with some Always-Imminent® second coming happening. What she’s doing is biblically justified - she’s enforcing an old but still valid law, that is about preparing Israel for the coming of the alleged anointed/saviour, for the event of his second coming.
…or alternatively that the bible is a bunch of bollocks, and even when read correctly (i.e. with context being taken into account) you’ll get it prescribing shitty things, that no decent human being would follow in 2024.
Side note: the Deuteronomy isn’t expected to be treated solely as a historical record. @Olhonestjim@lemmy.world already handled it.
Under the exact same reasoning, most Protestants aren’t Christians either.
The scriptures part is messy. The bible that one Christian group follows may or may not coincide with the one that another follows.
Matthew 5:17 is showing that Jesus fulfills them and brings them to realisation. Not enforcing them.
Protestants don’t reject the Trinity?
That interpretation of “no enforcement” is clearly an ad hoc not justified by the text. Here’s same excerpt in two other languages, for reference:
In both you see the usage of verbs that convey “finishing it”, “completing it”, “making it full”, as if the older laws were an incomplete set, and whatever Jesus was preaching was in addition to them. (The English translation as “fulfil” is rather accurate.) It clearly implies that the old laws are still valid, alongside the new ones; and thus should be enforced alongside them.
The Latin usage of adimpleo also conveys “I carry out [something]”; it’s specially relevant here because, if the implication of “carrying out the old laws” was to be avoided, the translator would’ve used compleo (non ueni soluere, sed complere) instead.
Also look at the rest of the excerpt, including the two following versicles. Your interpretation makes no sense in the light of what 5:18 and 5:19 say:
What is the text saying? “My laws are in addition to the old laws. Don’t break the old laws, not even a little one, or you won’t go to Heaven”.
The reason why I say “under the same reasoning, most Protestants aren’t Christians either” is that they reject some
nihilogicaltheological concept that some other group that considers themselves Christian accepts.That said some Pentecostal churches do reject it. Example here
Jesus was the fulfillment of the old laws as they were in preparation of His coming. And it depends what law Jesus was referring to. In John 8 He literally stopped a stoning which would have been justified under said law.
As Jesus said: Matthew 22:37-40 ESV
and St Paul also wrote about this:
Galatians 3:15-29 ESV
Christianity - The Gospel is Good News. As we are free from this law through Christ. And we can be freed from our sin.
Catholics and Orthodox, despite being ecclesiastical, still recognise Protestants as Christians even if lesser Christians. Oneness pentecostals aren’t considered Christians either. Denying the trinity is weirdly enough the first sign of being a cult.
Those excerpts from John and Galatians outright contradict Matthew 5. They simply show that the Bible contradicts itself.
Addressing specifically the text in Matthew 22:37-40: it does not contradict that the old laws should be still enforced. It simply emphasises the new laws.
A simple explanation is that Matthew (if he’s a historical figure) took seriously the old laws, and John (ditto) didn’t. So they made their character (regardless of being based on some historical figure or not) say different stuff in each of their books.
This shouldn’t be any surprise for anyone who, unlike Christians, doesn’t adopt the superstition of a self-consistent Bible.
The church? Maybe. People? It depends. I’ve seen over and over and over the Catholics here saying that Protestants are not Christians, and putting them on the same “bag” as Muslims an Jews.
That pops up specially often when some Protestant church gets on the news due to corruption.
So the first the Bible is saying something you want it to say to make the argument “Christianity bad”, and whenever teaching has context provided and is elaborated on further on in the scripture, then it’s a “contradiction”.
Got it.
I am highlighting that her disgusting and despicable behaviour is justified by the Bible, even if you dislike it (as a moral person should).
You can justify a lot of immoral shit through the Bible simply because it’s self-contradictory - if excerpt A says “do it” and excerpt B says “don’t do it”, you simply pick one and try to justify the other in the light of the one that you picked!
Historical context, textual context, versions, even which books should be canon… ultimately those are just the means that Christians use to fool themselves as justified in their actions, and to pretend that there’s no contradiction there. Not just on an individual level, but also in a church level, often forming new factions (oopsie “denominations”) based on which excerpt you should follow by the letter and which you should bullshit your way out of.
That might reach specially hilarious levels with the Mor[m]ons, but note - what they’re doing is nothing but what other Christian groups have been already doing since the Ancient Age. Including picking which books to consider canon.