Everyone "Cherry Picks" and that's OK

Originally posted by Great King Rat
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.

Well in case you did not know, God did not allow Abraham to go through with the sacrifice.

So it begs the question, why did God ask him to do it in the first place?

If you consider that pagan religions back then were steeped with child sacrifice, the answer is obvious. God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his child which sent a message to the rest of the world that child sacrifice was abhorrent to him and would not be tolerated.

We can't make out all of his logic, but some we can.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Well, no. No one is truly sane. There are just varying degrees of insanity.

Critical thinking is the best means of fighting the insane parts of ourselves. We are full of emotions and prejudices and biases and our ego shields us from truth if it would prove us misguided or wrong.

I suppose there are different motivations for "cherry picking". Doi ...[text shortened]... processes information against the background of our own experiences, personality, and the like.

You know, it's not that I disagree with what your saying. Critical thinking is essential to the process of discovery. We all have a long way to go to arrive at the truth of matters related to all the topics we debate about everyday.

It's a good thing. I'm learning. I enjoy discussing and debating about these things.

Concerning, though, the matter of "cherry picking" I have this to say. Aside from the evident benefit of the use of cherry picking as a tool of critical thinking, in a general sense, cherry picking for the purpose of injecting into a text a meaning not supported by the overall context is an error in critical thinking, and only serves to cloud the intended meaning of the text by overlaying a bias or presupposed idea into an otherwise correct interpretation.

Consider this concept critically for a moment and don't jump to the conclusion that it's false or not possible. It's an error in critical thinking to not think that the scriptures of the Bible are, when viewed as the words of God, understood best by allowing them to interpret themselves. That's where the real critical thinking comes into play.

I know you won't agree with that, but it's something to think about.

Originally posted by josephw
You know, it's not that I disagree with what your saying. Critical thinking is essential to the process of discovery. We all have a long way to go to arrive at the truth of matters related to all the topics we debate about everyday.

It's a good thing. I'm learning. I enjoy discussing and debating about these things.

Concerning, though, the matter of " ...[text shortened]... inking comes into play.

I know you won't agree with that, but it's something to think about.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/1-25.htm

There lies the true problem. It results in this...

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-5-20/

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
That's not true.

All it means is that you are a thinking person and the text must win you over and convince you. It says nothing about who/what is more important.

A thinking person can talk themselves into and out of a great many things, it doesn't change
what I said about scripture.

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.

If you believe in moral absolutes who would you posit as the universal law giver for the moral absolute that you have just stated? Or are you making a moral judgement based upon your subjective opinions that apply only to yourself and to no one else?

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.

You are right, but i would take it a step for word to say all churches are "cherry pickers". Favoring a few trophies and disregarding those of another church altogether.

i observed the children in a large family, how they would express their love/relationship of their dad. The children, who were age 3-5 would say, "he is my daddy, not yours" , in reference to their older brothers and sisters.

In the same way i look at many churches (or individuals) who place themselves on those pedistals. "I know God, you don't" . All i can do is shake my head. 'Children, He is our God - Every ones.'

To me those most important cherries are 1) Love God, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

Originally posted by josephw
You know, it's not that I disagree with what your saying. Critical thinking is essential to the process of discovery. We all have a long way to go to arrive at the truth of matters related to all the topics we debate about everyday.

It's a good thing. I'm learning. I enjoy discussing and debating about these things.

Concerning, though, the matter of " ...[text shortened]... inking comes into play.

I know you won't agree with that, but it's something to think about.

Agree that "injecting" meaning and ignoring context are dubious ways of reading.

Disagree that words can interpret themselves. Only an intelligence can interpret.

Also disagree that there is always one, correct, interpretation. This changes the Bible from a Living Word into a dead one.

Originally posted by KellyJay
A thinking person can talk themselves into and out of a great many things, it doesn't change
what I said about scripture.

My focus wasn't on what you said about scripture. My focus was on how you demeaned yourself in comparison to it.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
You are right, but i would take it a step for word to say all churches are "cherry pickers". Favoring a few trophies and disregarding those of another church altogether.

i observed the children in a large family, how they would express their love/relationship of their dad. The children, who were age 3-5 would say, "he is my daddy, not yours" , in referen ...[text shortened]...

To me those most important cherries are 1) Love God, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

I like the analogy of the dad. In much of Christian thinking, this image is marred by the principle of condemnation for sin. My earthly father never condemned me like that when I screwed up. So why can't the heavenly father also cut his kids a little slack?!

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
My focus wasn't on what you said about scripture. My focus was on how you demeaned yourself in comparison to it.

I don't believe I have done that, instead I simply put things into their proper perspectives. If I believe scripture is the Word of God who am I to judge what is important or not?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
"Resonating" is not necessarily a simple "agreeing with what you already believe". Sometimes you read something on a topic you had not considered very much. Other times it's a different way of thinking about a known topic. There can be a spark of interest that becomes resonance upon further consideration. [Essentially, a 'learning' process.]

Sure, you may learn from it, but ultimately you are not accepting its dictates but rather judging it. This may be fine when following a political philosophy or human leader, but doesn't work so well for religion.

I'm surprised to see a logical person such as yourself repeating a statement like, "if you can't trust all of it, then why should you trust any of it?" Rather than responding to that statement, I think I'll give you the opportunity to retract it. If you decline, THEN I'll respond to it. 🙂
You may respond to it. I think it is a good argument. Note carefully the reference to 'trust' ie the need to take something on its own authority rather than because it 'resonates' with you. The Bible makes some extraordinary claims that you must either accept or reject without supporting evidence or argument. It seems to me to be illogical to accept some at random and equally illogical to only accept the ones you like.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe I have done that, instead I simply put things into their proper perspectives. If I believe scripture is the Word of God who am I to judge what is important or not?

You are the person who judges that the Word of God is worth following.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I am advocating truth-seeking, which involves not only finding information that challenges, and occasionally defeats, your own preconceptions, but also down-playing, or ignoring, things that aren't so important, and also discarding things that are found wanting after critical examination.

And there lies the path to atheism.

Originally posted by whodey
Well in case you did not know, God did not allow Abraham to go through with the sacrifice.

So it begs the question, why did God ask him to do it in the first place?

If you consider that pagan religions back then were steeped with child sacrifice, the answer is obvious. God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his child which sent a message to the rest of t ...[text shortened]... rrent to him and would not be tolerated.

We can't make out all of his logic, but some we can.

You're a sick puppy, Whodey. You're an example of what religion does to an already disturbed mind.

God did not command Abraham to kill his son to show that sacrificing is wrong, he did it to test Abe's loyalty to God. This is what is required of you religious freaks; unconditional loyalty to your leader.

God blessed Abraham after stopping him last minute from murdering his son, a clear sign it was all about obedience. Obedience to his leader. If the goal is to show that sacrificing children is bad, you don't bless the person who you've just stopped from mindlessly sacrificing his son because God told him to, you moron.

Notice also how the murdering Abraham still feels like shedding some blood for god, by sacrificing an animal. For food? Clothing? Nah, the bloodshedding is done for The Lord.

Oh yeah, great stuff. Telling a father to take his child to a mountain to kill it there, let the child carry the wood himself, wait until the very last second before saying "Psyche! Just kidding!" What a wonderful experience that must've been for the child.

And still, I bet you love Your Lord, right? F***ing mindless drone.