In some cases context is definitely relevant, but for religion one’s it’s often:
Comment on A delicate balance
mc900ftJesus@lemy.lol 4 weeks agoThat’s a terrible counter argument. “Oh maybe he meant something different, you might not know the context he plainly said it in 8 different ways you just quoted”
kryptonidas@lemmings.world 4 weeks ago
solsangraal@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
funny how apologists rarely apologize
pimento64@sopuli.xyz 4 weeks ago
“This person held this opinion”
“There are several reasons that may be an inaccurate and reductive account of that person’s opinions and of historical events in general”
“Okay but, for real, that’s so wishy washy bro. Context? That’s just, like, a term. How pathetic.”
You’re making a great case for the Catholic Church burning uneducated people alive for voicing opinions.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
You’re making a great case for the Catholic Church burning uneducated people alive for voicing opinions.
tf?
pimento64@sopuli.xyz 4 weeks ago
There’s a button for that.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
I felt that it didn’t quite express the sentiment adequately.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 weeks ago
It’s certainly an argument I’ve heard a lot when talking about inconsistencies in the Bible. Usually it’s blamed on translation, missing context, or exaggerated retellings. It was written by many different people who weren’t necessarily talking to each other after all. I have a hard time taking any of it seriously.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
But not this bit of the bible. There can’t be any translation errors, missing context or exaggeration on this bit specifically because we like this bit.
theangryseal@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
A gay made me uncomfortable. That was god talking to me, you know. :/
That’s the thing that bothers me most with religious folks.
Their feelings are interpreted as the will of god.