(July 30, 2021 at 3:46 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:(July 29, 2021 at 4:13 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Right; so my question is do you think misogyny can still be justified using the more conservative bottom-up approach? Is there a way to begin with something like the two greatest commandments in your premises and logically reach the conclusion that hatred and contempt for women is the way to go?
IDK. I mean, a lawyer certainly could.
The question becomes why were the misogynistic things written in the first place? Can someone who thinks the Bible is the revealed word of God justify ignoring something if it's in there? So we have two lines of logic we can use.
1. The Bible is the revealed word of God.
2. The revealed word of God ought to be regarded as true.
3. The Bible contains misogynistic ramblings.
Therefore, those misogynistic ramblings ought to be regarded as true.
The Golden Rule being foundational....
1. I ought to only do unto others as I would have them do unto me.
2. Misogyny is hurtful and disrespectful to some people.
3. I wouldn't want people being hurtful or disrespectful to me.
Therefore, I ought not be misogynistic.
It seems there is a tug of war between following the Golden Rule, and seeing the Bible as the revealed word of God. I suppose whatever wins that tug of war in someone's inner dialogue may determine how well the Golden Rule does. I want the Golden Rule to win. But that doesn't mean that's what Christianity is all about. I think if either side holds more sway over the average Christian, it's the revealed word side.
Specifics override the general. The golden rule is general, specific misogynist commands clearly override this, age / which was first/last notwithstanding.
If general rules would override specifics.....why even have specifics? This "love thy neighbor overrides any immoral command you find elswhere in the bible " bullshit is nothing but a smokescreen.
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
