Posted: Apr 13, 2019 3:04 pm
by willhud9
Rumraket wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Except many Christians and Jews and Muslims don’t preach the infallibility of their holy texts

They don't preach it, or they don't believe it? There's a difference.

Both. Inerrancy and infallibility are two concepts most lay people don’t really consider accurate. Do the majority of Christians believe in a literal global flood? No. Why? Because they accept the story as allegory, myth, and symbolism.

Sure fundamentalists do, but are they the moderate Christians/Muslims being talked about? No.

and preach that the holy texts are bit one facet of their religious tenets.

Nobody has claimed people exclusively get their religious ideas from their scriptures. In fact Harris has stated the opposite, exactly concerning moderates. They are moderates BECAUSE they also taken on secular or other extra-scriptural views, and are as a consequence re-interpretating the scriptures in a non-literal way (or, as he's also completely correct about, they some times simply forget some of the bad passages exist and ignore them).

Then Harris is a moron and needs to take a course on sociology and anthropology and realize what religion is. Religion has always been about social-cultural issues facing societies. It adapts to culture. It evolves and shapes itself to civilization. The Greco-Roman world much to the chagrin of entlitenment elitists was very much a religious world where their religion blended with their culture.

When you remind these people of the Bad Passages(tm), they will invariably offer up some laughable rationalization for why that passage is still true and still probably the inerrant word of God, it's just that "it was meant for another time". Oddly enough the idea that it is just backwards bronzeage bullshit doesn't enter their minds.

And you like Harris have examples of this? Or just your own anecdotes?

How do I know they do this? Experience. Even some atheists do it, they "excuse" certain biblical passages as just being intended for another time. A strange moral relativism creeps in, where some things no matter how cruel or barbarous can be totally okay just because they happened a long time ago.

Well considering I’m a moral relativist and considering I think absolute morality is bollocks I think you’re hard pressed to convince me that the morals of 100 AD were not just as valid as the morals of 2019. Different times. Different perspectives. Applying morals anachronistically through the past is fallacious for many reasons. Not least because society progresses. It’s a goal of civilization to adjust and change.

Particularly the topic of slavery will have their heads explode in acrobatic mental contortions. Somehow Gods commands about biblical slavery (who to take as slaves, how to deceive them into indefinite servitute, and when and how to beat them) was morally fine because that was just the culture at the time, but slavery in the united states was bad. Apparently that wasn't "just the culture at the time" too.

Not really :dunno:

Go figure.

Harris loves his no true scotsmans

How so? Where is the no true scotsman fallacy? It's like you've forgotten what that even is.

Quite simply he states that moderate Christians aren’t exactly Christians because they cherry pick their verses. If they were consistent they’d follow their holy text by the book. It’s the kind of mentality which I rebutted Quas with against Islam. Like I said it sounds like Harris doesn’t know what he’s talking about or what religion actually is.