1289
An Alabama woman was imprisoned for ‘endangering’ her fetus. She gave birth in a jail shower
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
1289 points (98.5% liked)
News
23311 readers
3682 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
🤣 What do you think hell is exactly?
Weird how the author of City of God and one of the most famous Christian thinkers of all time completely disagreed. You got to love a flexible moral system, it allows anyone to claim to be the True Scotsmen authentic deal and condemn as heretics everyone else.
Augustine was wrong about Christianity, St. Paul was wrong abojt Christianity, Jesus was wrong about Christianity, every single Christian thinker was wrong about Christianity except one random on Lemmy.
I can look it up tonight if you really want but basically Augustine argued that you are allowed to go after heretics as long as you do it for love of their souls. If they couldn't be convinced of their "errors" by talking you were allowed to use violence since burning in hell is so much worse.
As I said it is pretty amazing how every single person can just declare themselves the true Christian whenever they want.
Well, the reality is that most people who call themselves Christian are wrong about many things, but not everything.
Augustine subscribed to the Just War theory, which flies in the face of loving your neighbour as well as your enemy, and "Nor will they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4)
That being said Augustine wasn't wrong about everything. The Bible is a thick book, and people back then didn't have the resources that exist today. I can look up any word or topic within the Bible directly or from additional resources in mere seconds, whereas anyone from even 50 years ago had to scan through pages manually.
How lucky we are to have the single True Christian in our midst.
Honestly, do you even know the Biblical languages? Could I give you a random sentence in Hebrew or konic Greek and you can translate it? How about Aramaic? Because take a guess which one of us in this conversation can. Before my deconversion I was planning to be a Biblical Scholar. Fortunately I saw the light in time.
Ah, so then you know that the commonly accepted Trinity doctrine isn't supported by the Bible, and John 1:1 isn't the evidence that it's usually presented as. Because the first "God" is the·osʹ which is preceded by ton which is a definite article (ie, the God). And Koine Greek did not have an indefinite article. So if predicate noun isn't preceded by a definite article, then it's an implied indefinite (ie, a god). And in fact many translations render the indefinite the·osʹ as either "divine" or "godlike", because without the definite article, those are equally valid ways of writing that verse.
Sigh. A yes or no would have sufficed. You don't need to know Greek to know the Trinity was made up later. You can just look at the arguments made two centuries later.
While you are at it John 1:1 is just a retrocon. The OT contains the sentence "let us create the world" which comes from the older views of the Hebrews that there were more than one god. It is also there to pick a side in an argument that St. Paul hinted at; when did Jesus become important. He of course viewed it at the Easter miracle, Mark author puts it at baptism, Matthew and Luke authors put it at conception, and the last gospel finishes the trend and makes it prior to conception. A common trend of religion, to one up itself as time goes on. Also a big borrowing from the cultures around them that loved dying and rising God myths.
Now instead of copying and pasting a Wikipedia quote why don't you answer the question? I hand you a randomly selected book from the Bible in its original, can you read it yes or no? If the answer is no you might not want to lecture others on translation issues.
Well yes, technically there were more than one god. The word "god" means "creator". Even Satan is referred to as "the god of this system". This is why there is always a qualifier before "God" such as "the True God", "Almighty God", etc. As "God" itself is just a title and not a name. The Bible gives the name for "Almighty God" as Jehovah. And yes, some people say "Yahweh", but even Jewish scholars have agreed recently that Jehovah is the historically accurate pronunciation.
But back to "let us create the world", Jesus is identified as the Master Worker. The person who physically created everything, aside from himself.
Colossians 1:15-17 - "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist"
Aside from the characters the·osʹ (because I can never write with my own keyboard the same way, and I definitely didn't use Wikipedia), I didn't copy and paste anything.
Hell is not in the Bible.
The words often translated as hell are She'ol and Ge'henna.
She'ol is translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit in the King James version.
The word itself is derived from sha'al which means "ask" or "request" because "the grave is always asking for more". Implying that death is always waiting. (Death in this context being the state of death, not "Death" the horseman, which itself is figurative).
She'ol is not a specific grave, but rather the "common grave of mankind". It refers to the state of being dead. As in "everyone goes 6ft under".
It doesn't refer to a "place of hell" and sure as hell (heh) doesn't refer to a place of torture.
Ge'henna is a short form for "Valley of Hinnom". It was a place outside of Jerusalem where Kings Ahaz and Manasseh engaged in idolatrous worship which included child sacrifices. Those Kings and their followers were executed and had their bodies dumped in that valley, left to rot and not buried, so that carrion eaters would desecrate their bodies and deprived from an honourable burial. And then the place was turned into a garbage dump to further dishonour them.
Jeremiah 7:31 - "They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart."
So saying someone went to Ge'henna was akin to saying someone displeased God so badly that they will not be honoured by Him and he finds their actions "detestable".
Nothing to do with a place of torture.
This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you. There are descriptions of hell in the Talmud, I trust Rabbis to know more about Judaic beliefs of the time they are living in vs someone 20 centuries later who is not even Jewish.
People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it's entomology doesn't mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented. When I say Dartmouth to you do you think "mouth of the Dart river" or do you think of the famous school there? Does your answer change if someone of a different religion from you 20 centuries later argues that "really what they meant to say is"?
It's not opinion. It's based on historical studies and historical linguistics. This is not something I came up with out of thin air. It's been studied and verified by experts from around the world.
Even the Wikipedia page about She'ol states "Within the Hebrew Bible, there are few – often brief and nondescript – mentions of Sheol, seemingly describing it as a place where both the righteous and the unrighteous dead go, regardless of their moral choices in life."
That's something Jesus said about birth the righteous and unrighteous. It's the figurative "place" where everyone goes when they enter the state of death.
The site myjewishlearning.com says of hell in the Talmud:
"there is generally no concept of judgment or reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man"
That's partially true. But there are many many supporting scriptures, old manuscripts like the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other historical texts that do not support the notion of eternal torture, hell, or an "evil" afterlife.
And now you are goalpost moving. Sheol is not geheniham and never was. There is about 800 years of thought you are condensing into a single time period, a time period that we know there were arguments about this. At the supposed time of Jesus there were at least three versions of the afterlife floating around. What you are doing now is making those three into one and pull stuff from 800 years prior and saying that is part of it as well. Do you agree with every single idea people had in 1223 AD?
Yes you are right about one thing but what you are right about doesn't matter. The 8th century BC Jews didn't really have a concept of judgement in the afterlife. That however tells us nothing about 1st century Jews.
I'm not moving the goalpost at all. The discussion is about the definition of the word that in some English translations is rendered "hell".
The discussion about She'ol and Ge'henna is that it's those words translated into "hell".
So to discuss what "hell" is, the original meaning of those words need to be considered.
Yes and the original 1st century meaning to those early Christians you are quoting it meant a very bad place you burn forever in. It doesn't matter that 8 centuries prior the word didn't even exist.
I gave you a specific example, Dartmouth, before and you are not acknowledging it. A word means what it means when it is spoken, the entymology is interesting but not the definition the word has forever.
Then how did the 1st century Christians interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5?
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all"
And how about all the times that Jesus referred to those who have died as being asleep? The comparison between death and sleep isn't a coincidence. When sleeping we kinda cease to exist temporarily. The part that's "us" goes away. Aside from dreams (which actually accounts for only a small portion of time unconscious, and we only remember a tiny fraction of dreams anyways) we don't think, feel, or even care about anything.
Your example of Dartmouth is irrelevant. The colloquial definition of a word in common language doesn't factor in, because we are looking at the scholastic definitions. And doing so would give us context of the origins of the word Dartmouth, the region it refers to, and how it was used later on. And that way we get a full understanding of what the word used to mean and how it's used today.
Doing the same thing for the word "hell" gives us that important context. So your example is irrelevant.
The same way they understand that their Messiah was supposed to be named Emanuel but wasn't and that he was supposed to be from Bethlehem not Nazareth and that he was supposed to usher in the last days but didn't. Christianity isn't really big on consistency.
Not relevant.
Incorrect. Very relevant. You are defining words with a 8th century understanding for a 1st century people.
It is, but not when citing ad-hoc scriptures.
He was born in Bethlehem. His family then moved to Nazareth. His birthplace is Bethlehem, so saying "from Bethlehem" and "Jesus the Nazarene" are both correct.
He wasn't supposed to while on earth.
Just because you don't care for the analogy doesn't mean it's wrong. It's entirely relevant. Again, this isn't something I came up with. It's been agreed upon by many Bible scholars.
How is that not relevant? How is understanding the basis and origin of a word and the evolution of its entomology not relevant?
Btw, the understanding of those words go back even further than the 1st century. It's simply been reinforced and ratified by 1st century texts and newer manuscripts.
The origins of the word Ge'henna, for example, are not disputable. The intent and usage of the term are also clear once you have the context.
Edit: etymology, not entomology
Hearsay written decades later and not even consistent. The two accounts disagree on why it happened, what path they took, and what year it happened in. Also it doesn't even make sense that Joseph wouldn't have stayed with family. Nor that you would have to return to your birth place for a census. The other account with Egypt is just to solidify the Moses connection. It is so clearly a retrocon based on someone noticing the discrepancy. Not a single record shows the Massacre of the Innocents or the requirements to return home for a census. Not one.
And some of you present here will not taste death before all these things comes to past.
Well tell them to come here and argue instead of sending someone who can't support their own argument.
Dartmouth
Yes Jewish writings that make it clearly to be hell.
And here we still are as we read those words.
I haven't supported my own arguments, eh? I guess the Bible isn't the only one with revisionist history.
Pertinacious.
"When I say Dartmouth to you do you think “mouth of the Dart river” or do you think of the famous school there?"
Personally, I think of the school. But that's irrelevant because when I look into the word itself I can find all the information about the word and where it came from, why it was used, etc. I understand what you're trying to say. You're implying that the words had an original meaning long before the Bible was written, and that the meaning had changed by the time of the Bible to mean "hell" as a place of eternal torture.
But that's not the case, and most scholars agree that both She'ol and Ge'henna (two words often associated with hell, and even translated as "hell" in some Bibles) did not refer to a place of torment or an afterlife at the time of writing. And those viewpoints are supported by other parts of the Bible.
If you see the words "It is right", you know it could mean "morally just" or "a relative direction". By itself it's ambiguous. But if in the next sentence you see "Be sure to not go left", then with the context you know that's a direction. This is a simplistic example, and the words She'ol and Ge'hanna are not ambiguous, but I'm illustrating that with additional context the meaning is revealed, and we see that with the other verses in the Bible.
You keep saying this, and I haven't seen you cited a source or shown some kind of supporting evidence (unless I genuinely missed it). Your comments are "trust me bro" and "nuh-uh!".
Argument from authority.
I see we don't know how "" work. I told you to go read the Talmud already and you didn't even put that supposed language ability you have work.
Well, do you have one?
Really? You're gonna pull that one and nitpick about proper grammatical use of double quotes?
What's the point? You want me to read it to satisfy this argument? You know it's a unreasonable and unattainable request just on the merit of the volume of reading alone, all for a "Reddit" debate. But you'll just position it as me not putting in the requisite work to approach your level of knowledge. It's the same argument flat earthers make when they say "show us an actual picture of a round spinning ball", but when presented with a satellite photo they just claim it's CGI, so they insist "if you didn't take the photo yourself, then you don't have any proof". Because it's obviously ridiculous for an average person to muster the finances and resources to get into orbit and take a photo just to win an argument with a flat earther.
I'm not going to read the Talmud based on your insistence, and frankly you already knew that. Which is why you said it so that you can try to chock it up as a "win". You do you.