Religion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,906 posts)

79. This is attacking the PA 'Year of the Bible' resolution

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 04:17 PM

Mar 2012

It's not meant to be a comment on Christians; it's a comment on the state House of Representatives (that's why they're mentioned on the board, and not 'Christians'), and the bible.

the House of Representatives declare 2012 as the ‘Year of the Bible’ in Pennsylvania in recognition of both the formative influence of the Bible on our Commonwealth and nation and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures.

http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2012/02/controversy_surrounds_pennsylvania039s_year_of_the_bible

Now, I can understand someone who passes the billboard not getting the message - reading the smaller print when you're in a passing car is not easy. There isn't such an excuse when you're participating in a forum discussion, however.

The board is sarcastically pointing out that one of the teachings of the holy scriptures is that slave should obey their masters. 'Paul' (whether the real one or not, I don't know), says this more than once:

Ephesians 6:5-9

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Slaves and Masters
5 Slaves, obey your masters here on earth. Respect them and honor them with a heart that is true. Obey them just as you would obey Christ. 6 Don't obey them only to please them when they are watching. Do it because you are slaves of Christ. Be sure your heart does what God wants.

7 Serve your masters with all your heart. Work as if you were not serving people but the Lord. 8 You know that the Lord will give you a reward. He will give to each of you in keeping with the good you do. It doesn't matter whether you are slaves or free.

9 Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. When you warn them, don't be too hard on them. You know that the One who is their Master and yours is in heaven. And he treats everyone the same.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A5-9&version=NIRV

Yes, Christians have reformed since then. But the bible has remained the same, and yet the PA House of Representatives decided to apparently break the 1st Amendment to wholeheartedly commend it to the state.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Atheist Billboard Offends Some African-Americans [View all] rug Mar 2012 OP

Just proves that... TreasonousBastard Mar 2012 #1

So they were mocking believers skepticscott Mar 2012 #2

C'mon, scott. Everyone knows that quotation is the crudest form of mockery. laconicsax Mar 2012 #3

But also one of the most effective skepticscott Mar 2012 #14

Your Bible must come with pictures. rug Mar 2012 #8

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #13

The picture, which is the offense, did not come from the Bible. rug Mar 2012 #19

Are you saying the pro-slavery quote is not offensive? nt ZombieHorde Mar 2012 #59

Your characterization is wrong. rug Mar 2012 #61

I see, this exerpt is directed toward some other kind of slavery. nt Deep13 Mar 2012 #117

It was writte 1800 years before Jamestown. rug Mar 2012 #118

Wait, really? Deep13 Mar 2012 #120

"what is the problem here?" rug Mar 2012 #123

Well 2000 years ago, when the book was written, slavery humblebum Mar 2012 #15

Missing entirely the point... TreasonousBastard Mar 2012 #16

'Scuse me? Warpy Mar 2012 #4

Explain that to the people who were offended by it... TreasonousBastard Mar 2012 #17

It was less tactful than I would have done Warpy Mar 2012 #22

I dare anyone to find a non offensive bible verse. Kalidurga Mar 2012 #5

1 Corinthians 13, 4-7 cbayer Mar 2012 #7

Matthew 5 rug Mar 2012 #9

Sure. ellisonz Mar 2012 #23

O course they were offended. kwassa Mar 2012 #6

They're not SUPPOSED to GET PAST it. They're supposed to GET it. saras Mar 2012 #10

You don't win people to your cause by insulting them. kwassa Mar 2012 #11

So recognizing and pointing out skepticscott Mar 2012 #12

no. you don't get it. kwassa Mar 2012 #18

Well if "the Bible supports slavery and always has", then why were the slaves led humblebum Mar 2012 #20

I'll see your jerry, and raise ya deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #26

It was also the norm when the books were written and compiled 2000 or so years ago. And nowhere humblebum Mar 2012 #27

So it's advocated except for Jews. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #28

I don't see it as being condoned or not condoned in that era. It was the humblebum Mar 2012 #32

So what can we throw out of the bible and what can't we? Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #35

You tell me. Last I knew, slavery had been abolished and Christians humblebum Mar 2012 #39

This is attacking the PA 'Year of the Bible' resolution muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #79

Two words: not smart. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #84

The resolution looks close to breaking the 1st amendment muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #86

It's not a question of 1st amendment rights or Separation of C&S, It's humblebum Mar 2012 #87

Why is it bigotry? (nt) muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #88

When a very sensitive issue is directed toward a racial group and their religion is also humblebum Mar 2012 #89

It's about what the bible says, not 'the religion of African Americans' muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #90

"If the picture wasn't used, then it wouldn't be connected with African Americans" - BUT humblebum Mar 2012 #91

But you still haven't explained why you apply the term 'bigotry' muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #92

It is bigotry in two ways: first, by targeting African Americans with such a humblebum Mar 2012 #95

It does condone slavery; in 1 Timothy 6, it says some Christians are slave owners muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #102

No, it is the intentional misrepresentation that makes me uncomfortable. Nowhere does humblebum Mar 2012 #103

Do you understand the meaning of 'condone'? muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #107

Nothing was being purposely overlooked at that time. Slavery was humblebum Mar 2012 #109

"You should not impose today's standards in trying to understand ancient cultures" muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #110

I wasn't aware that they were trying to force the acceptance of slavery on anyone. humblebum Mar 2012 #111

Your intentional obtuseness has become very boorish. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #112

Excuse me!? You seem to be engaged in exactly that. However, humblebum Mar 2012 #113

Please, just stop. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #114

So it was OK for the time deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #33

So show me the law that said we are to own slaves or one against not owning slaves. humblebum Mar 2012 #40

as ussual, you are the one making the claim deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #43

Nice dodge, but no you are the one making the claim. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #44

actually the billboard is deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #45

No sir. The focus of my previous response was to your assertion that a humblebum Mar 2012 #46

What would jesus NOT do... deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #47

Spinmaster. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #48

you said it deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #49

Then there would have been no reason to exhort abolition in that period, humblebum Mar 2012 #50

no reason? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #51

Definitely a spinmaster, deaky. humblebum Mar 2012 #53

a non-answer deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #55

Hardly a non-answer. Completely pointless is exactly what you have resorted to. You merely humblebum Mar 2012 #56

You can almost see the topic from where you've run to deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #60

You just keep on spinning don't you? Trying to cover up and justify such humblebum Mar 2012 #62

and you keep running from the topic deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #96

deacon, you are using reason, logic, and critical thought. Those things do not exist for him cleanhippie Mar 2012 #97

It's funny you mention Poe... deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #98

This possibility has come up in conversation before. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #99

very insightful, thank you deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #101

The US Constitution supported slavery when written 200 years ago Starboard Tack Mar 2012 #100

Thank you, kwassa Number23 Mar 2012 #82

WTF??!! Atheists are supposed to be doing the right thing with this billboard??!! Ecumenist Mar 2012 #21

"They're lucky they didn't get the asses cracked" - WTF? cleanhippie Mar 2012 #52

"I threaten with violence"?! You don't know what the hell you're talking about Ecumenist Mar 2012 #63

I got it from your EXACT words that YOU posted, in quotations above. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #66

"There is no need to advocate" - now that's rich. The topic at hand humblebum Mar 2012 #67

Thank you for your opinion. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #68

You know, "clean", I'm going to talk to you in a way that you MIGHT understand.... Ecumenist Mar 2012 #70

Ahh, more anger and personal attacks. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #73

it is clear what you are saying. seabeyond Mar 2012 #75

A Jury Voted To Let This Post Stand. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #77

So funny! ZombieHorde Mar 2012 #57

Yeah, racism is so hilarious. Try walking through a black neighborhood with Ecumenist Mar 2012 #64

What is the sign's commentary on race? ZombieHorde Mar 2012 #65

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #69

Wow, from violence to personal attacks. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #71

Assholes. n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #24

Yep, the Christian bible advocates slavery and that is very assholish. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #29

No. ellisonz Mar 2012 #31

So it's the image. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #36

Yes. ellisonz Mar 2012 #37

I'm not too happy with this one deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #25

Not a huge fan of the Sea Kittens campaign, but I get it. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #30

exactly deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #34

Seems to be happening more often these days, too. humblebum Mar 2012 #41

do tell deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #42

I agree with African Americans, this billboard is racist!! Obamacare Mar 2012 #38

What is the billboard's comment on race? nt ZombieHorde Mar 2012 #58

Thank you, Obamacare.. I think that certain people are dieliberately trying to be obtuse Ecumenist Mar 2012 #72

It isn't an atheist billboard. moobu2 Mar 2012 #54

Moobu, please understand what I'm about to ask..Why don't you feel that it's NOT Ecumenist Mar 2012 #74

i think this is one of the most hurtfully offensive threads that i have seen in a very long time seabeyond Mar 2012 #76

I agree Son of Gob Mar 2012 #78

I don't think it offended African-American groups because it was atheist LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #80

I can't believe there are those defending this billboard. Sal316 Mar 2012 #81

Thank you, Sal316 Number23 Mar 2012 #83

The only explanation of why it might be offensive I can see is LeftistBrit's in #80 muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #85

Here's the thing. Sal316 Mar 2012 #93

But we need to know why it's offensive muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #94

I can agree with being told why it's offensive. Sal316 Mar 2012 #106

Did English-language Bibles from the 1860s Boojatta Mar 2012 #116

I am having a lot of trouble understanding the current debate over this. cbayer Mar 2012 #104

Well, an explanation that it's because children can't understand the context does help muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #105

I suggest that it might be harder for those rarely confronted with bigotry to readily recognize it, cbayer Mar 2012 #108

It might not be racist. The billboard is merely highly offensive. kwassa Mar 2012 #127

Um, were they mad because the Bible says that... Deep13 Mar 2012 #115

They? rug Mar 2012 #119

No, I'm refering to those who claim to speak for it... Deep13 Mar 2012 #121

Like State Rep. Ronald G. Waters, chairman of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus? cbayer Mar 2012 #122

Bingo. Deep13 Mar 2012 #130

Not sure what you are saying here. cbayer Mar 2012 #131

Oh they must not be true Scotsmen. rug Mar 2012 #124

At least not true African-American Scotsmen. kwassa Mar 2012 #125

Do you even know what that means? Deep13 Mar 2012 #129

What baseless supposition. kwassa Mar 2012 #133

What do you assume? Boojatta Mar 2012 #135

and who would "they" be? kwassa Mar 2012 #126

Asked and answered. Deep13 Mar 2012 #128

No, you haven't. kwassa Mar 2012 #132

So, any answer? Deep13 Mar 2012 #134

Given that the billboard was Boojatta Mar 2012 #136

But if the Bible can be improved or updated... Deep13 Mar 2012 #137