← Back to context

Comment by ajross

4 months ago

Again, distinguishing "advocacy" as your criteria for censorship is censoring on interpretation. I know you are sincere in your opinions about this, they won't change, and I even share them.

They are still our opinions. We share the planet with people who think, equally inflexibly, that the bible does not advocate for slavery and genocide. And the way we do that without resorting to terrible violence (including slavery and genocide!) is by agreeing to disagree by not censoring each other.

7 comments

ajross

Reply
madaxe_again  4 months ago

But it does, and explicitly - it isn’t a matter of interpretation. Repeatedly god commands his followers to slaughter men, women, children, and even the animals of their foes. Repeatedly god tells his followers to enslave people, and that it’s fine to treat them abysmally as long as it’s not so bad that they die.

This isn’t my opinion of what the bible contains - any more than I could argue that Hellraiser is a cute movie about bunny rabbits.

Not all facts are subjective.

  • ajross  4 months ago

    "The bible is not a matter of interpretation" is literally, literally how you end up in religious wars. Seriously?

    • madaxe_again  4 months ago

      The reality of what is in the bible is not, no. It is written, in black and white. Yes you could argue about gnostic gospels and shit but what people accept to be the Bible has been a static set of texts for centuries now.

      Now, anyway, you need to stop talking smack about my mother, and I disliked the death threat you made just there, and I don’t need to know about what you do with fish in the bedroom.