> Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess we're arguin

> Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess we're arguing semantics in this case. If something exists as a literal passage in the Bible, then someone can use that to support their views on the matter. > At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification. I think this hits the nail on the head: the Bible, taken literally, is logically inconsistent, and requires subjective synthesis in order to draw the useful moral messages from the allegorical stone. But why not just denounce the problematic parts as problematic?