>>17349375>>421555660I think there's also the matter of sustainability to consider. Let's assume that in the modern day, people all have sex to procreate. Almost everybody gets married and is fruitful and multiplies. Medicine ensures those 30-50% of children who in earlier ages died young (as God intended) now survive. You end up with an average fertility rate of 5 or something like that, which pretty much is the norm in Africa, despite their circumstances - which means a far higher number is technically possible. 5 is conservative.
The human population would double every 20 years or so.
This leads me to what seems to be the most predictable flaw in the bible: it can't keep with the times. Why should your "rules for life" book still be applicable 2000 years later? It assumes the world is static, as God made it, presumably. It's almost on the level of Islam, which insists on doing everything like the Prophet did in in 600AD.
Who in their right mind thinks such rules would work in industrialized, globalized society?
That's precisely also why the Christian morality falls short.
>turn the other cheekOnly works when you are surrounded by those "neighbors"; familiar, similar, good Christian people with the same outlook.
It's a limited, static book.
tl;dr taking these books literally is brain dead
And no, God did not write them.
