|
| ▲ | 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 Much of the Bible is presented as a history, and the rules presented are superseded, amended, qualified or augmented by subsequent rules throughout – although not usually so soon as this.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"). |
