You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you (graphic)

[Algernon Moncrieff]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God." - Leviticus 19:33-34

[JNelson6563]

1. Cherry-picking bible verses that support their views.

It's what they do. Of course there are so many awful things in the bible, if you're a hateful soul, you're bound to find some biblical justification for it in there somewhere.

Julie

[cleanhippie]

5. And of course, as the OP demonstrates, also cherry-picked a verse

To support HIS view.

Which pretty much makes the bible, or any "holy text" absolutely worthless as a source of morality or ethics.

Using garbage to refute garbage only makes a big pile of garbage.

[tabasco]

6. The OP proves the hypocrisy of the fundies quite nicely

But thanks for your concern!

[tabasco]

11. Reading comprehension not one of your strengths?

The OP is not advocating a point of view, he is simply displaying fundie hypocrisy.

But thanks for your concern.

[eggplant]

9. Um, no.

Nowhere does the OP state what their own view is. Rather, they point out a rather glaring inconsistency in arguments made by others.

Your conclusion that this statement reflects on any inherent value of "any holy text" is absurd.

And before you paint me with the same broad brush, nowhere in my post did I state what my own view is either, as it too is irrelevant to the OP.

[cleanhippie]

12. Uhm, yes. Using one cherry-picked verse to refute another cherry-picked verse is the epitome

Of hypocrisy.

My point is that ambiguous quotes from "holy texts" are worthless as argumentative supports.

[eggplant]

14. Your point seemed to be much more of a rant about "holy texts" in general.

But you then seemed to smear the OP for it. As for cherry picked, the OP selected another line from very near the first one -- this isn't cherry picking.

The OP was only saying that the people to whom the post was addressed (people who claim to follow *everything* the bible says) contradict their claims through their inconsistent application of just that one small section of the bible.

That's it.

But feel free to continue to hijack this thread towards your personal opinion on the merits of that text in the first place, which has nothing to do with the intent of the OP. And feel free to continue ad hominem attacks on the OP as you do so.

[n2doc]

2. And of course they ignore the new testament as well

[Duppers]

8. Excellent! nt

[freshwest]

3. NO inconsistency. They treat their neighbors with hate already. 'Charity begins at home'? NOT.

They despised and wished grave harm to the 47% in 2012 and during the shutdown and credit default fiasco of 2013. That's a lot of people on their hate list. They're not going to stop now.

[Archae]

4. This is the same book that glories in rape, genocide and tribal atrocities.

[1monster]

10. Actually, those who use Leviticus as their set of base values are not really Christians

anyway. They just think they are.

[IronLionZion]

13. Hateful people tend to look for evidence to justify their disgusting behavior

bible verses didn't turn them into haters. Haters went looking for bible verses.

This is the case with all sorts of things. Whenever there is some questionable scientific study that benefits a certain industry or product, look to who sponsored the study.

There's lots of leftist stuff in the new testament for liberals who might be interested.