Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible". Correct me if I'm wrong in that of course, but that is how what you wrote reads to me.
As causal links go, what causes are you suggesting? I don't want to attempt to put words in your mouth here, but your references are too abstract to discuss so far.
I will touch on this though:
> You make it sound like there's no causal link here. But a lot of the violence and bigotry in the world today is being explicitly propped up by religious texts. Many people crave certainty and a black-and-white moral fundamentalism, and there are sizable passages of the Bible that cater directly to that.
Violence and bigotry is a part of human nature. There's plenty of it that isn't propped up by religious texts at all that's most based in raw tribalism.
Sure, there are people who attempt to claim that their views are Biblically based...but they simply aren't. It makes people feel like they have something to hide behind. At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.
> Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess we're arguing semantics in this case. If something exists as a literal passage in the Bible, then someone can use that to support their views on the matter.
> At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.
I think this hits the nail on the head: the Bible, taken literally, is logically inconsistent, and requires subjective synthesis in order to draw the useful moral messages from the allegorical stone.
But why not just denounce the problematic parts as problematic?
Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible". Correct me if I'm wrong in that of course, but that is how what you wrote reads to me.
As causal links go, what causes are you suggesting? I don't want to attempt to put words in your mouth here, but your references are too abstract to discuss so far.
I will touch on this though:
> You make it sound like there's no causal link here. But a lot of the violence and bigotry in the world today is being explicitly propped up by religious texts. Many people crave certainty and a black-and-white moral fundamentalism, and there are sizable passages of the Bible that cater directly to that.
Violence and bigotry is a part of human nature. There's plenty of it that isn't propped up by religious texts at all that's most based in raw tribalism.
Sure, there are people who attempt to claim that their views are Biblically based...but they simply aren't. It makes people feel like they have something to hide behind. At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.