Hacker News Reader

Comment by incr_me | Hacker News Reader

Why not?

One aspect of what I'm trying to share is that it is a bit of a stretch to quote one Bible verse expecting others to accept a one sentence summary of the context as sufficient explanation to apply the verse to a topic.

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.

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

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.

I think it's extremely possible to be familiar with the criticism without ever having seen specific examples. I certainly haven't. I guess I assumed it was something to do with people misunderstanding the difference between new and old testament, or something to that effect.

Your comment also does not seem to present any examples of this. You start talking about it, but then you move on to complaining about cherry-pickers instead of showing some other part of the old testament which happens to encourage wearing clothes woven of two different types or not killing adulterers or something.

The common criticism was

> Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want.

Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those, bible-defending pedants can see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup.

Over and out ... I won't respond further.

Then say the argument for what it is - “the text is often misunderstood and/or misrepresented”, not “the text itself is somehow hypocritical because people misuse it”.

I don’t even disagree with you, I just don’t get why you’re so purposely mislabeling it.

> not “the text itself is somehow hypocritical because people misuse it”.

I should stick with not responding, but I never said anything of the sort. And despite my many criticisms of religion and the religious, I have never in my life had the thought that the BIBLE is "hypocritical", just because it has inconsistencies and contradictions (which it genuinely does AS DOCUMENTED here, NOT merely people hypocritically misusing, misinterpreting, or cherry picking from it) -- ascribing hypocrisy to the bible is a category mistake.

> you’re so purposely mislabeling it.

So not only am I mislabeling something that I never labeled, I'm doing so purposely? And not just purposely, but purposely in extremis?

What an absurd and disgusting uncharitable personal attack. I will truly never respond to you again.

If I was being absurd and disgusting, I’d call you a name. Not every disagreement is a personal attack, even if you’re dedicated to being a victim.

>Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those, bible-defending pedants can see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup.

Right, you’re talking about the one that explicitly is not a contradiction, it’s a misunderstanding of new vs. Old Testament, which I specified in my first response.

This is the worst thing about discussing religion on the internet. People pretend to be so disgusted by it they simply CANNOT POSSIBLY discuss it, despite being just… completely wrong.

And of course the explicit contradictions are needed. If all you’ve got is “this seems backwards” and nothing more, that’s a sign you don’t actually have a contradiction - you have anger born of ignorance.

I'm more than happy to respond to moral issues you may have with the Bible, if you're interested in trying to understand it from a neutral viewpoint.

However I wasn't expecting this. I expected examples of contradictions.

God knows Christians these days are walking contradictions, so I understand your frustration and reaction, but I meant in the text.

The common criticism was

> Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want.

Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup.

> I'm more than happy to respond to moral issues you may have with the Bible

Are you effing kidding me? No of course I don't want a discussion about that with some rando godbot.

Over and out ... I won't respond further.

I asked because you brought it up... Good thing I didn't assume you were.

And yes I did see password4321's response. Been going through them since yesterday.

Assuming you are asking in good faith, I'm still going to Google that for you and paste the first link:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2014/05/30-pairs-of-bibl...

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.

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").

Reply on news.ycombinator.com