Yeah, and if someone thinks Leviticus, which was Jewish law more than 3000 years ago is still relevant for modern society, then I have a rather long list of inconsistencies and absurdities to show, aptly summarized by Martin Sheen in the west wing series.
I mean, isn’t the bad stuff also still “relevant” though? What’s the standard there? The Bible also says to treat people terribly, in ways that do seem relevant to modern life. Maybe we don’t have literal slaves in the same way, but we accept coercive and underpaid labor conditions for immigrants. There’s a part that says to kill homosexuals, and it’s not like hate crimes aren’t still a reality. Don’t you have to ignore the parts you don’t like in order to only follow the parts that say to care for others?
Well no, because the line between “superstitious bullshit” and “timeless moral principles” seems to be one you chose, where the standard is your own values. So it doesn’t make sense to me to criticize people for picking and choosing, when the real issue is that the line they chose between what parts are good or bad reflects values that are bad for reasons other than religion.
I agree with this a lot. The people who are the issue have no code of ethics that aligns with the Bible to yield a communal good outcome. They use it for a personal good outcome. Therefore, we would be arguing on completely different terms where we are each picking and choosing parts that we like to defend our opinion while ignoring the other side’s same logic. This makes the source material valueless because it has no consistency throughout its teachings where the two parties differ the most.
Yeah, and if someone thinks Leviticus, which was Jewish law more than 3000 years ago is still relevant for modern society, then I have a rather long list of inconsistencies and absurdities to show, aptly summarized by Martin Sheen in the west wing series.
deleted by creator
I mean, isn’t the bad stuff also still “relevant” though? What’s the standard there? The Bible also says to treat people terribly, in ways that do seem relevant to modern life. Maybe we don’t have literal slaves in the same way, but we accept coercive and underpaid labor conditions for immigrants. There’s a part that says to kill homosexuals, and it’s not like hate crimes aren’t still a reality. Don’t you have to ignore the parts you don’t like in order to only follow the parts that say to care for others?
deleted by creator
Well no, because the line between “superstitious bullshit” and “timeless moral principles” seems to be one you chose, where the standard is your own values. So it doesn’t make sense to me to criticize people for picking and choosing, when the real issue is that the line they chose between what parts are good or bad reflects values that are bad for reasons other than religion.
I agree with this a lot. The people who are the issue have no code of ethics that aligns with the Bible to yield a communal good outcome. They use it for a personal good outcome. Therefore, we would be arguing on completely different terms where we are each picking and choosing parts that we like to defend our opinion while ignoring the other side’s same logic. This makes the source material valueless because it has no consistency throughout its teachings where the two parties differ the most.