> What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. What we have here is you not applying the Principe of Charity

> What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. What we have here is you not applying the Principe of Charity and accepting the fact that Jesus was saying the things he was in a certain social and historical context. I don't know why you insist on approaching a religious text as a logic textbook. > My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. Coming from someone that has studied ethics, I can assure you that most ethical theories rely on value judgments at some point down the line. If this is your only criticism, the ethical theories of the Bible share many similarities with many non-religious theories as well. Sure, maybe Christian ethical theory is not as strong as something like Kantian ethics of duty, but we're splitting hairs here. Is it maybe a sub-optimal moral compass? Sure, but a moral compass nonetheless. > If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible here, but you are grossly overreaching. There are literally dozens of explanations of the above quote on the internet, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm. The translation also doesn't quite capture the fact that "hate" should probably be "loves less" or, more correctly, "honors less" or "treat with less affection."