[kulahan]

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.

[jibal]

> 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.

[kulahan]

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.