Lot’s of religious folk around the world have moved away from such dilemmas by taking the view that their holy book should not be read in search of concretes but in search of principles. So, for instance, a person might take the “don’t work on the Sabbath” rule to be a concrete application of a broader principle, say, “get a day of rest, prayer and meditation one day a week”. Someone else might go further. For instance, I’ve heard one person say that the rule made sense as a law because otherwise masters would work their servants too hard; and, now that we do not really have the same (sometimes life-long) master-servant relationships of olden days, the rule is not very relevant any more.
In a sense, such an interpretative does not really make much sense: if one can consider the advice in the book and pick, choose and interpret, using one’s reason, then how is that book any different from some other non-holy book from which one gleans advice? (Particularly if one can completely drop some advice as being no longer relevant.) Yet, the approach works because what such people are doing is using reason in some spheres, while pretending to be following their holy-book. In principle, that works better than actually following the text religiously.
So, to make a long story short, a wedge you can sometimes use is to tell people to consider the principle. Just be aware that such a wedge can put them on a “slippery slope”.
The problem is that most religious folks cannot even consider that the “book” is capable of being contradictory. Their default position is it is an undivided whole that needs to be followed to live successfuly “spiritually”. Until this inviolable thesis is challenged,by them,the moment someone contradicts the “law” no further consideration is even thought relevent towards their position.
The ones who find their way out of this are the ones who try to apply the “law” consistently. To do this one has to grasp the principles set forth by this code. When one begins to investigate on the level of principles one discovers contradiction and no clear method of application in ones actions becomes possible. So how does one please a god whos message is A= non A.How does one do only “what they hear the father saying” when he “speaks” contradiction through his “word”?
The answer is “Check your premisies”! I was asked when I was struggling with theological integration [impossible] ,“have you considered the possibility that god does not exist?” This was a massive blow to me. Because I was intellectually honest with myself,I had to admit I did not even let the consideration into my mind! The same thing went for “is it possible the bible was written by men who where not writing in agreement with the other authors who are included?”
As soon as one asks these questions they become outcast and dejected. Scribulus this is the most self defining moments one can encounter. The strength one developes within, from having the courage to be true to ones own evaluations is the most important element of the process of individuation.
If theres any quote from the bible Id keep its this:
“Let every man be persuaded in his own mind”
