You can't quote that without also quoting:

   Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. -- Exodus 34:7

▲ Kaliboy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is literally true now that we understand epigenetics a bit more.

	▲	jibal 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲ Exoristos 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Except that the writer in Ezekiel is proposing a new deal (in the voice of God) for his intended audience: basically, if at this point in the negotiations you forsake behavior A, various criminality and oppression; I will promise B, not to hold your relatives responsible, and C, to rescue those you've oppressed. (Also possibly D and E -- it's a long passage.)

▲ incr_me 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not?

▲

nkrisc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want. There’s a verse for A and NOT A.

▲

Kaliboy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's weird. I don't have this with the Bible. But maybe I haven't read those passages. Do you have some examples?

	▲	jibal an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How is it possible to not be familiar with this common criticism? e.g., Leviticus prohibits wearing clothes woven of two different types of fabric and calls for killing adulterers, anyone who curses their parents, etc. etc. which millions of cherry pickers ignore while constantly referring to the bit about laying with a man as with a woman.

▲

wizzwizz4 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a verse for "humans only have one rule: don't eat that apple" (Genesis 3:3), but the narrative in which this verse appears makes it obvious that this is no longer the case by the end of the chapter. Much of the Bible is presented as a history, and the rules presented are superseded, amended, qualified or augmented by subsequent rules throughout – although not usually so soon as this.

This poses a problem for cherrypicking, but exactly the same problem is present when cherrypicking from any legal tradition: that doesn't mean that the law is meaningless, only that cherrypicking is not an appropriate way to read it.

▲

jibal 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But they weren't touting the bible or offering it as an authority, just saying that one particular statement was "aspirational" but has practical problems ("To isolate children from the iniquity of the parent would require the dissolution of the family").

▲ jibal 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course one can quote the statement that one agrees with and not the statement one doesn't agree with, unless the intent is to review the work that contains them, which it wasn't.