Floppit, you can, they're fatal flaws in the idea that some all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god caused those words to be written down. Game over at that point.
At no point am I suggesting that that is the case, nor am I suggesting that the 'bad quotes' don't matter - just that to understand anything fully one cannot refuse to perceive all that falls outside of one's own expectations.
Rumertron wrote:
You are looking at this is back to front guys, if you don't mind me saying! Altruistic and kindness to others is a natural human quality. It is socially and personally advantageous for us to help each other, be kind and follow many of the values described in the sermon on the mount (for example). This has been arrived at though evolutionary processes. Religion stole those values from humanity and sourced them mythologically with god..as the weather once was too. And we owe nothing to religion for their existence.
Absolutely!! But that understanding isn't arrived at by solely attending to the dark areas of religion, quite the opposite, by including the altruism a better and clearer understanding is reached - we all know here that the book was written by people and it is more persuasive to acknowledge the altruism it also contains because it's more rational, and perhaps more importantly, these are the parts well recognised by followers. Just focussing on the negatives paints a picture of despotic writers in all parts and that's no more realistic than saintly writers - both are blind alleys easily pulled apart.
"Whatever it is, it spits and it goes 'WAAARGHHHHHHHH' - that's probably enough to suggest you shouldn't argue with it." Mousy.
