Originally posted by BigDoggProblem "Cherry picking" is what sane people do when they read things.
"Cherry picking" when it comes to the Bible is to be expected. It can hardly be avoided. The Bible is a large collection of books written about a large variety of topics. It's only natural that some of them will resonate more than others with each reader.
Most people who've read the ...[text shortened]... sary, even inevitable perhaps, step, we wouldn't have any Young-Earth Creationists, for example.
The Bible is what it is. The Bible is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions.
What's even more disturbing is that those who claim that it is to be taken literally, nonetheless pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their "literal" interpretation, etc.
Furthermore, they somehow delude themselves to believe that because they take it "literally", they KNOW the word of God.
So it isn't just a matter of some of it may "resonate more than others".
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Once again with the all-or-nothing mentality. I find it completely impractical.
Say there was a god who 99% of the time did the morally correct thing. I'd probably be OK with following such a god, given that the 1% didn't include anything too horrible, such as eternal torment or genocide. It would be silly of me to completely rebel against such a g ...[text shortened]... Maybe YOU would throw all of it out if you couldn't practice all of it, but I'm not going to. 🙂
Was it immoral for God to ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac?
I'm guessing you would have opted out at that point.
No reply to my earlier post, so I'll quote 1Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
Originally posted by whodey Was it immoral for God to ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac?
I'm guessing you would have opted out at that point.
Yes.
What say you? Does God's unlimited power make it a-okay for him to command people to sacrifice their sons and daughters?
If you say yes, remember how close that places you to certain Muslims today who you hate who believe their god has commanded them to kill the infidels.
Originally posted by Eladar No reply to my earlier post, so I'll quote 1Corinthians 6:9
[b]Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a][/b]
The problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in the Bible that is condemned should be condemned. Yet they condemn homosexuality purely on that basis. They pick and choose to support their prejudice whether they want to admit it or not.
For that matter, in general they pick and choose what teachings to believe and not to believe. As an example I cited the belief that "women should be silent in the church." This comes from Paul. Paul said a number of things about women that, from what I can tell, the vast majority of Christians do not believe are true. They typically dismiss Paul's beliefs about women as being a product of the prejudices of his time and culture. But aren't Paul's beliefs about homosexuality also a product of the prejudices of his time and culture? Once again they pick and choose to support their prejudices whether they want to admit it or not.
Originally posted by twhitehead But when you take a large body of work and cherry pick it, then you cannot claim to be 'following' the body of work. If you pick stuff that 'resonates' with you, then you are basically just agreeing with what you already believe. A surprising number of people do this but don't realise it is what they are doing and attribute to the Bible some magical power ...[text shortened]... reationists do have a point. If you can't trust all of it, then why should you trust any of it.?
cherry pickers just dont pick stuff they agree with
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne The problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in the ...[text shortened]... nce again they pick and choose to support their prejudices whether they want to admit it or not.
He implied that homosexuality being evil is based on old testament. I simply educated him that it os not.
What say you? Does God's unlimited power make it a-okay for him to command people to sacrifice their sons and daughters?
If you say yes, remember how close that places you to certain Muslims today who you hate who believe their god has commanded them to kill the infidels.
Where did God actually have someone sacrifice a son or daughter?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne For that matter, it's not so cut and dried as to what Paul's actually saying either. There are contextual and translation issues.
Originally posted by Eladar Where did God actually have someone sacrifice a son or daughter?
God commanding someone to sacrifice his son - for whatever insane reason - is abhorrent and disgusting and vile. That god stops this at the last moment, because apparently his ego had been stroked enough knowing Abraham would do it, is not relevant.
That you don't see a problem here, is telling.
How much religious people - be they vile, disgusting Christians or vile, disgusting Muslims - accept from their Imaginary Friend is nauseating.
Originally posted by Great King Rat God commanding someone to sacrifice his son - for whatever insane reason - is abhorrent and disgusting and vile. That god stops this at the last moment, because apparently his ego had been stroked enough knowing Abraham would do it, is not relevant.
That you don't see a problem here, is telling.
How much religious people - be they vile, disgusting Christians or vile, disgusting Muslims - accept from their Imaginary Friend is nauseating.
Did he actually have the son killed?
No
Yet you claim evil while supporting the butcher of millions of unborn babies.
Everyone "Cherry Picks" and that's OK
13 Feb '17 19:47
Back to Top