Best as I can tell, this MB does little to dispel ignorance, for in every case it “dispels” it, in another it “spawns” it.
Go figure.
As far as bible knowledge is concerned, ignorance is pandemic.
You said I was witnessing, which I presume to mean that you think I was stating something which I can’t demonstrate factually. Between both the OT and NT, I’d venture to guess that you can, and someone has, supported near every philosophical standpoint there is. So the factual answer to whether someone should take the teachings with a grain of salt is, “yes”, the bible is self-contradictory right across the board.
There’s nothing “witnessing”-ish about it. People have used the Bible as justification for and against murder, for and against slavery, for and against equality of the sexes, for and against vegetarianism, for and against peace, for and against polygamy, ad nauseum. It’s perfectly easy to cite all of those examples, and just that’s going off the top of my head. The important point is that all of these people felt that they were using a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the work. But what it really means is that there’s enough content there, written by enough authors, in sufficiently dense text, that really what you get out of it, is what you hold in yourself and how someone else explained it to you to begin with.
Idunno, I do think a study of the Bible as literature is important–I say that as an English major (albeit one from a Southern Baptist university) who had to read the Torah, Koran, Bible, and NT Apocrypha in my World Literature survey, along with Gilgamesh, etc.
Had to take a survey on the Old Testament and New Testament as part of the graduation requirements, but the study of them as pure literature occurred separately, within the English department.
I’m not saying it’s not a majorly influential work worthy of study as literature. I’m saying you can still be considered literate even if you haven’t read it through (same as you can be considered literate if you haven’t actually read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and, for that matter, you can be considered literate if you haven’t actually read, say, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” or haven’t actually read “Ulysses” or what have you, even though they all are particular ways in which you could contribute to your literacy. You don’t have to have read every single important work of literature to be literate (and, indeed, no one has), nor even are there specific ones which can serve as litmus tests. You just have to have read widely.). Basically, I bristle at the notion that I’m not literate because I happened to pass up on this one particular book, no matter how much else I’ve read and been exposed to, including, among many other things, manifold unavoidable but indirect commentaries on that book.
Well not really. To review …
Given this take on things, the Golden Rule as it is generally presented is merely good advice. The fact that it “agrees” with the inclusive verses above is peripheral.
You’re not logically impaired if you can understand the point about integers (or Indistinguishable’s point about two groups of people):
- All integers that are not even are odd.
- All integers that are not odd are even.
To clarify: Integers are whole numbers. They can be even {…, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, …} or odd {…, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5, …}. Any integer that is not in one group is in the other. There is no middle ground.
The only way Christ’s statements could be interpreted as contradictory is on the assumption that there are people in an alleged middle ground. That assumption is completely foreign to the context and is antithetical to the missionary and pastoral themes of the Gospels.
So, adhay, can you clarify what it is exactly that you don’t understand?
Well then the two statements you linked to don’t conflict with one another. One says to treat your friends as your friends. The other says to treat your enemies as your enemies. There is only a conflict if you introduce the third statement, which is to treat everyone as yourself.
Good points, all. And you’re completely right–truth is, there were some canonical works that we had to read that I thought were of less literary value than others we didn’t have to read. Having not read Gilgamesh or every Shakespeare play doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme, and I suppose that having not read the Bible doesn’t mean anything, either.
Hell, I’ve never read any Tolkien. 
Ok, I’ll try. Let’s say there are 4 people, A, B, C and D. A and B totally agree with each other, D is in violent disagreement with A and B. C, otoh neither agrees nor disagrees with A and B. He’s undecided (he’s in the middle).
If A says "Any who do not disagree with us are with us (A and B), then C is included among us.
If A says "Any who do not agree with us are against us, C is excluded.
D, of course, has excluded himself.
Well, you’re introducing “disagree with” as separate from “is against”. (And similarly “agree with” as separate from “is with”). This distinction wasn’t part of the original wording. So let’s remove it. We’ll replace “disagree with” with “is against”, and replace “agree with” with “is with”. [You might say this is an over-literal reading of the passage and not actually in its spirit, but I think it’s fine]
So now your postulated scenario is that A is with B, D is against both A and B, and C is neither with nor against A and B.
And the two statements under consideration? The two statements were “Anyone who isn’t against me is with me” and “Anyone who isn’t with me is against me”. If A were to make these two statements, he would be making the claim that no one like C exists; that everyone is either with A or against A. And this is not a contradictory claim; it’s certainly logically possible that no one like C exists. It’s certainly logically possible that there are just two opposing camps and everyone aligns with either one or the other. This isn’t the case in the scenario you propose, but that just means it’s possible for A to be wrong.
Your scenario becomes one in which the two claims are both false. Well, fine, we can imagine both claims coming out false. But we can also imagine both claims coming out true (just remove C from the picture), which goes to show, they don’t contradict each other; they don’t comprise a logical inconsistency.
Let me put it this way: is it logically possible for the claims “Anyone who is not against me is with me” and “Anyone who is not with me is against me” to both be true?
Sure. We can imagine that everyone is either male or female, and that all males are with me, and all females are against me. Then everyone who is not against me is not female and therefore male and therefore with me, and everyone who is not with me is not male and therefore female and therefore against me. So both claims come out true.
It’s also possible to imagine scenarios where the claims don’t come out true, but that doesn’t matter. Because it’s logically possible for them to both come out true, they do not logically contradict each other.
No, A is pointing out that C’s and D’s both exist and that they’re DIFFERENT. That’s the point, C != D.
I’m not going to argue in favour of biblical inerrancy, etc, but couldn’t all of those passages be simply ruling out the possibility of there ever being any middle ground?
(I think that’s part of what Indistinguishable is getting at too)
If they collectively state that there is no way to be neutral, then they don’t acknowledge placement of any neutral positions.
missed edit
A cannot reasonably say both C=D and C!=D and not get called on it.
Consider the two statements “If you don’t love me, you hate me” and “If you don’t hate me, you love me”. Do they contradict each other?
No. That’s, shall we say, the inclusive couplet.
Ok. Now suppose let’s take “is with me” to mean “loves me” and “is against me” to mean “hates me”. Do the statements “If you aren’t with me, you’re against me” and “If you aren’t against me, you’re with me” contradict each other?
Now what is that quote about the answer being contained within the question?
Pay no attention to the above.
After rereading, yes they do contradict. I can’t imagine what I was thinking about.
And?
You now think the statements “If you don’t love me, you hate me” and “If you don’t hate me, you love me” contradict? What is the contradiction?
(How about the statements “If you’re not a male, you’re a female” and “If you’re not a female, you’re a male”. Do they contradict each other?)