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.
The one point is that not everything in Leviticus is wrong just because it’s in Leviticus. The idea that we can’t mix fibers or plant different types of crops in the same field? Not relevant. The idea that we should love our fucking neighbor? Care for refugees fleeing persecution? Still relevant. Even more relevant now than it was 3000 years ago, now that we’re facing a refugee crisis greater than any other in human history.
The United States is not a fucking lifeboat. We’re not going to sink if we give too many poor people from Mexico jobs.
Being a decent person and caring for other people is still fucking relevant.
The other point is that American Christians claim the Bible is the true and literal word of God, and then ignore the parts of it they don’t like.
Because if you can decide, you know, that one part of the Bible that tells you to welcome the stranger or love your neighbor as yourself is not actually the word of God and doesn’t have to be obeyed, why should we think the bits in the Bible about eternal life in Christ and eternal conscious torment in Hell are any more real?
If the Bible isn’t to be taken literally, salvation isn’t to be taken literally, is what I’m getting at. And if you don’t believe in salvation, why be a Christian at all?
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?
The standard, for me, is to throw out the ignorant superstitious bullshit (like taking enemy civilians as slaves and killing homosexuals) and keep the timeless moral principles (like loving your neighbor as yourself).
Because I’m not a Christian. I respect the Bible as part of my cultural heritage, not as divine revelation. And I’m happy to throw out the bullshit and focus on the good stuff.
And I’m going to ask Christians “if you really believe in the Bible why do you ignore the parts about loving your neighbor” because hopefully it’ll get them to think about what they believe and become better people as a result.
And I’m not going to ask them “if you really believe in the Bible why don’t you take your neighbors as slaves” for the fucking obvious reason that convincing them to take their neighbors as slaves won’t make them better people.
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.
Okay, two different points here.
The one point is that not everything in Leviticus is wrong just because it’s in Leviticus. The idea that we can’t mix fibers or plant different types of crops in the same field? Not relevant. The idea that we should love our fucking neighbor? Care for refugees fleeing persecution? Still relevant. Even more relevant now than it was 3000 years ago, now that we’re facing a refugee crisis greater than any other in human history.
The United States is not a fucking lifeboat. We’re not going to sink if we give too many poor people from Mexico jobs.
Being a decent person and caring for other people is still fucking relevant.
The other point is that American Christians claim the Bible is the true and literal word of God, and then ignore the parts of it they don’t like.
Because if you can decide, you know, that one part of the Bible that tells you to welcome the stranger or love your neighbor as yourself is not actually the word of God and doesn’t have to be obeyed, why should we think the bits in the Bible about eternal life in Christ and eternal conscious torment in Hell are any more real?
If the Bible isn’t to be taken literally, salvation isn’t to be taken literally, is what I’m getting at. And if you don’t believe in salvation, why be a Christian at all?
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?
The standard, for me, is to throw out the ignorant superstitious bullshit (like taking enemy civilians as slaves and killing homosexuals) and keep the timeless moral principles (like loving your neighbor as yourself).
Because I’m not a Christian. I respect the Bible as part of my cultural heritage, not as divine revelation. And I’m happy to throw out the bullshit and focus on the good stuff.
And I’m going to ask Christians “if you really believe in the Bible why do you ignore the parts about loving your neighbor” because hopefully it’ll get them to think about what they believe and become better people as a result.
And I’m not going to ask them “if you really believe in the Bible why don’t you take your neighbors as slaves” for the fucking obvious reason that convincing them to take their neighbors as slaves won’t make them better people.
Makes sense?
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.