Thread by @_Redtail_2, I heard Burning Bibles is trending. So I figured that this would [...]

I heard Burning Bibles is trending. So I figured that this would be good time to talk freedoms.

A thread.

First, let& #39;s talk about an important distinction:
Freedom-to and Freedom-from. Freedom-to is self-explanatory, as the inherent right of the individual to express oneself.

The corollary, the truth in antithesis to this, is the freedom-from, which is the inherent right of the individual to NOT express something against one& #39;s will.

Americans lobby for their freedom to express, often never taking into account or completely ignoring freedom-from.

There is this old idiom, "your punch ends where someone& #39;s nose begins." This idiom takes into account the limits of expression and it& #39;s impediments on another& #39;s rights.

Author Annie Dillard once put to paper an anecdote that encompasses much the same. I& #39;ll paraphrase it.

A Native approaches a colonial priest. They ask the priest if they are doomed to Hell if they did not know about God or sins.
The priest responds by saying "no, for if you did not know, God would be just and allow passage."
The native then asks, "then why would you tell me?"

This anecdote captures the freedom-from proselytization and how one& #39;s religious views have now infringed on someone else& #39;s. The Native in the tale is now forced with a decision of living piously for fear of going to Hell, or maintaining their own way of life and ignoring it.

This, in and of itself, is a predatory behavior, although we may not view it as such in a traditional sense.

But let& #39;s talk tradition for a moment here. Where do religious traditions come from? Why are some followed, while others not or forgotten? We& #39;ll talk examples as well.

A phrase to be familiar with: Religious syncretism. This is the blending of two religions, which often drops traditions that are incompatible, and adds in traditions that do not directly oppose the values of the other. An example of this would be the Christian Protestant baptism.

I once spoke to a chaplain about Protestant baptism.
He explained that in the Catholic view, a Priest blesses the water to make it holy, and the water literally cleanses you of your sins.
In the Protestant view, a baptism is a symbolic gesture. This is Religious syncretism.

The water itself is not actually holy, nor are you literally cleanses of your sins.
Over half of all Christians baptise their infants. This effectively sets half of all infants born to Christian families to be put in the same position as the Native in the anecdote, only this time

the infant does not have a choice; they have been proselytized into a religion & doomed to the consequences of not following that religion without their consent/knowledge. This is viewed as a parental freedom-to of religious expression and suppresses the individual freedom-from.

That said, there are problems with religious texts. Scriptures like the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, etc.

The first thing to note is that these texts are an account of God as told through the eyes of Man. This means that the Torah is an account of God BY the Prophet Moses.

All humans have an inherent bias. As such, there is no First Edition religious text, and each changing of the those texts are skewed into whichever way the rewriting prophet deems to fit their interpretation of God. Adam and Eve& #39;s tale was recounted hundred of years afterward.

Many modern-day theists have heard of Lillith, who in Jewish Mythology was actually Adam& #39;s first wife. She was allegedly made from the same clay as Adam, as opposed to the rib of Adam, as Eve was. Lillith was created to be Adam& #39;s equal, whereas Eve was created to SERVE Adam.

There is quite a bit of symbolism in this. In modern texts, Lillith has been scrubbed. From all interpretations I can find, Lillith was cast out for wanting her freedom to not be subservient to Man. It is speculated that upon her outcast, she was turned into the very serpent that

"tricked" Eve into eating from the Tree of Knowledge. In my speculation, the Tree of Knowledge contained the truth that Woman is not in fact subservient to Man, but that very knowledge was a threat to the wants of Adam, or, more likely, the narrator of Genesis.

Right from the very beginning, the patriarchy is rooted into the core belief of many major and prominent religions. Young girls are taught that they must serve man, as it is the way to receive God& #39;s grace. Young boys are taught that women are subservient to them and below them.

Yet, we don& #39;t find it appropriate to stone the adulterous anymore. We eat pork. Slavery, sublimation of self in favor of religious ideals, and arranged marriages are no longer practiced either. We don& #39;t sacrifice animals to God nor shower his temples in the fruits of our labor.

Some things in the Bible have been changed. The Greek word arsenokoitēs was interpreted to mean homosexuality in 1946, while the original use was to describe the practice of male-to-male pedophilia. Instead of condemning pedophilia, as originally intended, it pushed the agenda of

Anti-homosexuality. In fact, the Bible has verses supporting pedophilia, which is more concerning.
Numbers 31:1-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Judges 21:7-11
Judges 21:20-23
Exodus 21:7-10

Bible verses condemning pedophilia:
None after 1946.

So, we see inherent flaws in the system. We see systemic oppression and patriarchy. We see an agenda push and bias. We see the scrubbing of threatening ideals and show punishment to those who question or seek further knowledge.

So what is the solution?

Bible Modernization.

We must see religious texts as inherently flawed, and much like our constitution, it should and NEEDS to be modernized.

I have a friend who is gay and found a home in a small church in my hometown that believed in modernization of the Bible. He was accepted for being gay,

Where many other religious groups would have condemned him.

It& #39;s time to stop holding a two thousand-year old text to be the end-all be-all of what is right and wrong.

Once the interpretation is reset, after generations, the bigotry and patriarchy will be in the minority.

I don& #39;t know if censorship is the right answer. That in and of itself has its own implications.

So long as Man& #39;s current narrative of God is accepted, oppression will continue. The patriarchy, bigotry, and Zionism is deeply rooted in something that needs a modernist approach.

I do not condemn spirituality, but the current narrative & the religious groups who hypocritically praise parts that fit their agenda while condemning things that obviously don& #39;t.

We are all equal, we all have rights. That& #39;s the story we should be telling.

Thank you

End thread

Latest Threads Unrolled: