The Bible Doesn't Support Human Rights

Oct 11, 2018
The Bible Doesn't Support Human Rights
  • From Lambchop:

    There is not a SINGLE VERSE anywhere in the Bible that acknowledges that people have basic, fundamental, inalienable rights. Also, and consistent with that observation, there isn't a single verse that states that slavery as an institution is bad. Oh, sure, slavery's acknowledged, condoned, regulated, even commanded at different points, but it is NEVER identified as the evil it is, the rank abuse of human rights. Because human rights don't exist within the Bible.

    For example, starting in Matt. 11:20, we see the jeez declaring that entire CITIES will suffer a fate worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, will be "brought down to hell", all because the handful of MEN he met weren't impressed with his dumb little magic tricks. So ALL the people. Including the ones the jeez never met! All the women. All the children. All the babies. All the old people - Jesus wants EVERYONE to be punished just because a few men weren't sufficiently impressed with him to adequately feed his ego. WHERE is this kind of attitude acceptable?? We'd be rightly OUTRAGED if someone suggested destroying an entire CITY because of the behavior of a few of its residents! We feel that everyone should be judged on the basis of their own actions (a concept the Bible is *distinctly* unsure about) and that it's WRONG to punish a bunch of people because this one guy over here did something. That is simply ONE of the aspects of the Christian's jeez that is utterly unacceptable to us as modern people.

    In the jeezy parables, he often depicts a scenario where the person in power (ruler, master, owner, boss, employer) has ALL the rights and can do whatever he wants to the unfortunates under his control, who aren't even allowed to run away. This includes whipping them, cutting them in pieces, tying them up and tossing them out into the night (to the mercy of whatever beasts roamed that night back then), imprisoning them indefinitely, even killing them - and there is no suggestion that the powerful person is every answerable to anyone at any point. For examples of this, see the Parables of the Unforgiving Servant, the Great Banquet, the Wicked Husbandmen, the Talents/Minas, and the Faithful Servant. Keeping in mind that the words "servant" and "slave" are synonyms within the Christian scriptures. "Servant" does not imply any more freedom or agency than "slave" does. They are the SAME THING.

    Note this passage from the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, after describing the miscreant's punishment: So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don't each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds. You don't have any recourse; you won't have anyone who can protect or defend you; you'll be UTTERLY HELPLESS against what this "heavenly Father" decides to "do TO you". Nowhere in any jeezy parable do we see that the workers deemed unacceptable can just go work somewhere else - no, they must be PUNISHED!!! That's not acceptable within a human rights framework. It also indicates an "honor culture" mindset rather than a "culture of law", in which each person is expected to be a law unto himself, a vigilante, because there is no functioning legal structure within which differences can be settled and wrongs brought to justice. The jeez thought that beatings and whippings, even *murder*, were perfectly *fine* as expressions of the powerful party's displeasure; we do not permit employers to assault their staff, or householders to assault the help. We've developed FAR beyond that. But the Christians' jeez hasn't. It can't, fixed as it is within that primitive, barbaric, violent, pre-Enlightenment perspective.

    At no point does a jeez parable include a line like, "At this point, the owner called the police." No, the powerful parties in the jeezy parables take matters into their OWN hands and do whatever they please to the unfortunates involved.

    And in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, the jeez frames the workers' payment as a function of the employer's GENEROSITY, not as a function of their labor OR their right to be fairly compensated. In fact, the jeez depicts an unfair employer who pays different workers different rates, cheating the longer-working workers. Many Republicans have stated openly that this parable means that our employment laws should permit employers to pay different workers different rates for the same work, which violates human rights.

    That's because the unknown authors of the Bible's texts were writing from what they knew, which was MONARCHY. And in a monarchy, only the monarch has rights; everyone else must do as they are told. This is regarded as such an exemplary system of government that we frequently see references to God Itself having arranged its own realm into a "heavenly kingdom". That nonsense about "only begotten son" only makes sense in the context of a HUMAN monarchy - look at all the trouble King Henry VIII went to in his quest to sire a male heir! But a god - a REAL god - could have as many begotten sons - and daughters! - as it wished (because limitless) and send one or more of each to every population on earth! WHY should we think that an "Almighty" is subject to the same restrictions as a human man?? Also, we've outgrown monarchies; the only functional monarchies left in the world are in the Islamic theocracies, and we all know about their abysmal human rights records.

    For example, take a look at this pronouncement of the jeez, from Matt. 13:

    "Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a dragnet, that was cast into the sea, and gathered some fish of every kind, which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach. They sat down, and gathered the good into containers, but the bad they threw away. So will it be in the end of the world. The angels will come forth, and separate the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth."​

    Notice that "good" and "bad" aren't even defined!! HOW could anyone permit this kind of horrific assault against human beings when their "crime" can't even be defined?? Also, this falls into the category of "cruel and unusual punishment", which we have outlawed.

    We simply are so much *BETTER* than the Christians' god and their jeez that it's incomprehensible that Christians are able to tell us, with a straight face, that they, or their religion, or their bible, are in any way qualified to provide guidance on ANYTHING.
  • Loading...
  • Loading...