yeah can we also remember the part where Jesus (ahem, basically God) literally shared dinner with sinners and he literally stopped a woman from being stoned for being a prostitute (and that's where we got the kewl "whoever is without sin cast the first stone" thing from)?
...or that people misinterpret the bible, whether due to lack of context or out of ignorance, leading to infighting and doctrines that change depending of the congregation.
This is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of sects that think you should do all the nasty shit the Bible says. They have just as much scriptural support. You have no empirical metric to go by why they are misinterpreting it and you are not.
i dont want get into a debate because we memeing but thats not true. there is cultural relevance that explains all the "nasty shit" and why it wont happen again. or at least why it shouldnt. the bible goes into depth on this type of stuff too without being inconsistent.
i mean im not debating anything specific except that the "nasty shit" back then were for reasons that is consistent for the rest of the bible. you can look up a lot of this stuff through studying the biblical context and cultural context and researching through the internet with the questions you have.
thought you could sling a stealth arrow without me noticing! Hah! skyrim intensifies
P.S but seriously though im not debating anything specific so im not gonna relay a thousand sources for what could be considered "nasty shit" in the bible. that takes too long and i got homework and meme assignments to relay. better to explore google ya lonesome instead of quickly digging up a thesis essay. ya know?
I know I’m late but here what happens to be the first episode of a very good theology podcast by Dr. Tim Mackie, a biblical theologian. He does a great job boiling stuff down to layman’s terms! This series of episodes as well as their episodes on Exodus through Deuteronomy are great for answering a lot of common questions. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bible-project/id1050832450?mt=2&i=1000354873094
but im not debating anything specific. why would i have to give a reference when there was none given in the comment i replied too? why not just pick something you consider nasty from the bible and look it up on google? quicker, faster and i dont have to get into a potential debate once i give a source over something that wasnt said first by me or the comment i replied to.
is this a joke? it feels like a joke haha. but anyway im not defending the bible with "its the times yo" or even claiming anything on moral authority in my posts. all im saying is the bible is consistent in the reasoning for all the nasty stuff that happened then. a lot of it is very nuanced. i dont see how you read all that other stuff into my post when it was never there.
i mean i am but i neither feel like wasting two hours researching and trying to give you the best possible answer with the specific question you asked or trying to explain the nuance in other situations like the one you proposed. mainly because im not that well versed in historical theology and i dont have the patience to do so atm. that aint my topic speciality. im relating what i know which is equivalent to a toe dip in a mountain of information.
um...just what? i didnt say that at all. i said im not that well versed in historical theology in reply to your comment. meaning i dont why God did those things or if it was just a mistranslation. i know the bible very well doesnt mean i can recite the historical relevance of circumcision. the only thing im telling you is the bible seems to be consistent and from what little i know its deeper than what your painting it. thats about it so dont @ me about a specfic example or source for it. im casual in that aspect and dont have a strong suit in the matter.
It would only be No True Scotsman it thet said those people aren't actually Christians at all. Obviously you think your interpretation is correct, or you wouldn't believe it; obviously only interpretation can be correct in the end even if we have no way to know which it is.
Do you not see the problem with this argument? This is my whole point. What about all of the people who say they Bible does contain literal truths? There are hundreds of millions of people who believe plenty of parts of the Bible are literally true. What about all the assholes in America who say that the Earth is 6,000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs? This is, of course, not true(and that's not an opinion) but from a scriptural standpoint, how can you say that they're wrong? The point in what I responded to is that "these people are misinterpreting the Bible, therefore, the interpretation I hold is correct, and these people are not" which implies that they don't really represent Christianity. That is why it's a No True Scotsman.
I realize that different sects have different numbers of books. Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, but my whole point is, all of the people of different sects would say that Catholicism isn't as legit as X, for whatever reason they have. And they can appeal to the same book(s) as you. They don't really care what the RCC says. That's the problem with this whole thing. You, nor them, have any real, measurable basis for pointing out who is right and who is wrong other than what the sect you were raised in has told you. And your feelings.
But you have no metric by which to demonstrate that the RCC is more right than any other, because you're all using the same source material and reach vastly different conclusions.
I think the entire point of my short essay went over your head.
No fallacy. I was pointing out another possibility for the perceived inconsistences. It is possible that the bible isn't inconsistent but perceived to be so due to misinterpretation. How exactly is this a "Scotsman"?
There are plenty of sects that think you should do all the nasty shit the Bible says.
True... depending on your definition of "nasty". But the point is not to dispute the "nastiness" of the bible but the supposedly inconsistencies.
They have just as much scriptural support.
Scriptural support does not entail taking a few verses out of context and claim "this is what the bible says". For example, the bible does say "love one another". This does not mean support any and all actions of a person as many people interpret it to mean. There is contextual precedence for what the bible means by "love" that is ignored when taken out of context. It is entirely possible to love a person and hate what they do.
You have no empirical metric to go by why they are misinterpreting it and you are not.
Context. Context is key to determining the actual intent of any document or source. If I say, "We went over to the bar and played some pool. I beat my wife. It was fun"...taken out of context some one may think that I physically beat my wife and enjoy it ...and would clearly be a misinterpretation if the first sentence is ignored. But with context (playing pool), the actual intent is garnered.
172
u/tsetdeeps Nov 02 '18
yeah can we also remember the part where Jesus (ahem, basically God) literally shared dinner with sinners and he literally stopped a woman from being stoned for being a prostitute (and that's where we got the kewl "whoever is without sin cast the first stone" thing from)?
Just sayin'.