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 Much of the Bible is presented as a history, and the rules presented are superseded, amended, qualified or augmented by subsequent rules throughout – although not usually so soon as this.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