Rational BAC

OK--

Back again. Also having 'puter problems again. AND THIS IS NOT A COP OUT. ----------Getting a black screen with white letters again saying my BIOS needs changing. ----Have tried system restore but can only go back 1 month or I lose very important things. And for some reason system restore does not seem to last very long.

Anyway 'puter working for now. Until I turn it off.

So where are we at. ?----

Oh yeah---Bumble Bee. ---among others I guess.

Anyway this will have to be chopped up some. Have to go to work pretty soon and have to shut 'puter down.

Try this one--or maybe 2

Did not mean in any way that numbers mean veracity. The fact that I mentioned that Christianity has almost 2 billion followers was just meant to show that it is a religion that should not be completely ignored as complete BS.

OK ---#2--------------There is no reason not to believe a supernatural event happened 2000 years ago either--------unless you think that so many people back then were complete idiots--especially the martyrs for Christianity--of which there were very many.

What the hell---let's go for #3 on Bumble Bee. -----and there are others as usual (You know this forum can be a little overwhelming--all you can do is tackle one by one)

#3 was probably questioning the veracity of cherry picking if I remember right

I still do not see why anyone whether theist or non-theist really has any real problem with cherry picking.

I have already stated that I do not consider the Bible to be inerrant. I have already stated that (most of the time at least), I consider the Bible to be completely man made and man inspired to try and explain something supernatural that they think did happen and which I also thing is quite likely to have happened.

And that God stayed out of it for the most part ---or even for all of it. I have no problem with any of that and still have no problem being a cherry picking Christian.

And that is it for now. Going to shut this sucker 'puter down and hope I can come back on in the near future (God willing and the creek don't rise)---------because I have to go to work.

Later------------

Mageth

Did not mean in any way that numbers mean veracity. The fact that I mentioned that Christianity has almost 2 billion followers was just meant to show that it is a religion that should not be completely ignored as complete BS.

So, in other words, you're using the 2 billion followers argument to argue for the veracity of Xianity.

You're contradicting yourself; that sounds like an argument from numbers fallacy to me. The number of believers is not relevant to the truth or falsehood of the belief, and should not even be used to argue that Xianity is a religion that should not be ignored as complete BS. One must examine the belief and not consider the number of believers to determine if the belief is BS or not.

CaptainOfOuterSpace

How about... it's dishonest, insincere, and completely baseless and unjustified.

Sabine Grant

I beg to differ....I pick my cherries based on what I consider to be healthy for myself as well as the rest of mankind. I see no dishonesty to considering what is productive to mankind and what is not. On the contrary.
Insincere? can you please explain that evaluation.
Baseless and unjustified... if the base and justification to a critical approach of the Bible are the teachings of Christ including His Character, one can find many bases to contest the actions of the Ot god.

mike_decock

In other words, you use the bible to justify what you consider to be healthy, rather than using it as a guide to what is healthy. In essence, you are your own authority and use portions of scripture to selectively reinforce your opinion while you veto the authority of other portions of scripture.

To me, that's the issue with cherry picking because what an individual thinks is "healthy" is as arbitrary as the individual. You cherry pick the "love your neighbor" sentiments while your neighbor cherry picks the "homosexuals are worthy of death" sentiments. What makes you "right" and the homophobe "wrong"? You're both using the authority of the bible to legitimize your own authority.

-Mike...

CaptainOfOuterSpace

I don't understand; are you saying that you believe in Jesus Christ, but you don't believe in the Hebrew god? Do you want to separate the OT and the NT into completely different religions, with the NT being somehow more true than the OT? What exactly do you base that upon? Is it just because reading the NT gives you a fuzzier feeling?

[teachings of Christ] != [critical approach of the Bible]

Mageth

In Sabine's defense, if one considers the bible to not be the inspired work of God but merely man's attempt at recording his understanding of God, then cherry-picking seems to be the honest, sincere, and justified way to approach the bible.

For example, one could consider the OT recommedations for killing witches, bad children, etc. to be merely man's flawed attempt at a moral law, perhaps applicable in their primitive society but no longer appropriate in todays more civilized societies.

But there still is the issue that mike_decock brings up; your neighbor can cherry pick parts that you find abhorrent, and that should not be applied in the society you live in.

One way or the other, I like cherry-picking because I wouldn't want to live in a society in which all of the rules of the bible were applied. Indeed, I think most if not all Xians cherry-pick, even those that claim to not be cherry-pickers. There's lots of stuff in the bible that, thankfully, most if not all Xians don't practice today (often claiming that some of the rules in the Bible, e.g. Paul's clothing restrictions, were intended for the society at the time and not intended to be directly applied in our time).

CaptainOfOuterSpace

Wouldn't you say this is circular reasoning? You're saying that the Bible is man's attempt at understanding God, and yet it's the Bible that speaks of this "God" in the first place. If the rest of the OT is so absurd and obsolete (as you admit), then why do you still assign any value to this "God" that the authors speak of?
How about a society where the Bible didn't exist?

BioBeing

Again - martyrs for Xianity does not prove Xianity correct. The terrosist who flew the planes into the WTC towers believed they were martyrs for Islam - does that make Islam correct?

You have not, to my mind, explained why you chose to believe that a god was involved in any way. OK - something happened 2000 years ago. A very charismatic preacher, perhaps, went about telling some stories. News of him spread by word of mouth. The stories got exaggerated. More people started telling stories. The Roman Emporer started to believe the stories. They became popular. Is that not a simple, rational, earthly explanation? Why does there have to be any more than that? What is your rationality for positing that a supernatural being was involved in any way?

Mageth

Wouldn't you say this is circular reasoning? You're saying that the Bible is man's attempt at understanding God, and yet it's the Bible that speaks of this "God" in the first place. If the rest of the OT is so absurd and obsolete (as you admit), then why do you still assign any value to this "God" that the authors speak of?

Well, you haven't been around here very long, so I'll forgive your seeming assumption that I'm a theist. I'm a diehard atheist, FYI. Just playing a bit of the devil's advocate in defending what I think is a bit of an unreasonable attack on the cherry-pickin' position.

BTW, I didn't "admit" that the "rest of the OT is so absurd and obsolete". I may personally think so, but cherry-pickers are free to select bits from there, as well. Actually, I happen to think that some of the myths and tales told there can teach even us atheists some valuable life lessons.

And no, I wouldn't say it was circular reasoning. If one believes in god, and believes that the Bible is a source for information about god (but not divinely inspired), then it's not "circular reasoning" for one to use one's discernment to choose relevant bits from the bible. One could, for example, consider Jesus as divine, a manifestation of god, and select his recorded teachings from the bible as a source of information about, and from, god, though the writers of the gospels were not "divinely inspired" but were merely recording what they heard from Jesus or witnessed Jesus do (or, rather, what was reported to them that Jesus said or did).

How about a society where the Bible didn't exist?

How about a society where the Tao Teh Ching didn't exist, or the works of Hume, or Paine, or Shakespeare?

I'm not a fan of censorship. Personally, I find the bible an interesting, though misinterpreted, book, and am glad we have it. It's some religious beliefs derived from the bible that I have problems with, specifically when attempts are made to force them on the rest of society.

I don't believe in the Biblical god (or any god, for that matter), but I think the Bible, like other Western and Eastern religious texts and myths, can be useful. I'd prefer a society where the bible, and other religious texts, are interpreted, understood and applied correctly (at least a few cherry-picked parts ).