Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 05-14-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Mike, good point. Why cherry pick at all if what you pick is that with which you already agree. Why not just live life as you see fit and ditch the bible?

Starboy

CaptainOfOuterSpace · 05-14-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
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 ).

My apologies; i'm still getting acquainted. In my haste, I also didn't notice your astronomical post count. :notworthy

In my own defense, though, my comments were mostly directed at Rational BAC, who has a faith-based claim that it is his personal saviour that guides him in his cherry picking. He has yet to explain how or why this guiding takes place.

Overall, though, I believe that cherry picking is not bad, as long as it's from multiple and diverse sources. Cherrypicking only from the Bible, while still calling oneself a Christian, is what I find dishonest. Was it not cherrypicking that resulted in the inquisition? witch-burning? suicide cults? hitler?

Mageth · 05-14-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
Mike, good point. Why cherry pick at all if what you pick is that with which you already agree. Why not just live life as you see fit and ditch the bible?

Starboy

[devil's advocate]Well, it could be that one might find bits that one hadn't thought about before, that resonate with you, or that serve to modify one's own beliefs.[/devil's advocate]

Starboy · 05-14-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptainOfOuterSpace
Overall, though, I believe that cherry picking is not bad, as long as it's from multiple and diverse sources. Cherrypicking only from the Bible, while still calling oneself a Christian, is what I find dishonest. Was it not cherrypicking that resulted in the inquisition? witch-burning? suicide cults? hitler?

I am not sure that cherry pickin is good or bad. If you look for items to support your view and you are a homicidal maniac you will find them.

Starboy

Mageth · 05-14-2003, 01:52 PM

My apologies; i'm still getting acquainted. In my haste, I also didn't notice your astronomical post count.

No problem. Don't worry; I don't rely on the "argument from authority" or the "argument from astronomical post count".

In my own defense, though, my comments were mostly directed at Rational BAC, who has a faith-based claim that it is his personal saviour that guides him in his cherry picking. He has yet to explain how or why this guiding takes place.

Well, I definitely agree that's a valid question.

Overall, though, I believe that cherry picking is not bad, as long as it's from multiple and diverse sources.

I agree that one should be open to cherry pick from multiple, diverse sources. But I don't necessarily agree that someone who just cherry picks from the bible is doing something "bad".

Cherrypicking only from the Bible, while still calling oneself a Christian, is what I find dishonest.

Well, I don't quite see that. How is it "dishonest"? It may not be the best way to approach a spiritual pursuit, but I don't think it's necessarily "dishonest."

Was it not cherrypicking that resulted in the inquisition? witch-burning? suicide cults? hitler?

I'm not sure one could or should blame cherry-picking from the bible for all those atrocities. Selecting or misinterpreting parts of the bible may have played a part in those events, but things tend to be a bit more complex than that.

And I'm sure if one looked enough, one could find examples of atrocities committed by those who cherry-picked from multiple, diverse sources. In fact, Hitler apparently "cherry picked" from a number of mythologies.

Starboy · 05-14-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
[devil's advocate]Well, it could be that one might find bits that one hadn't thought about before, that resonate with you, or that serve to modify one's own beliefs.[/devil's advocate]

Sure why not. I am sure the folks of the first century and earlier had all sorts of novel life style practices that would fit right into the twenty first century. Not! This brings up one of my original questions to Rational BAC which others have also asked and he has studiously ignored. Why just the bible? Why not other documents? Especially those more in tune with this day and age?

Starboy

Mageth · 05-14-2003, 02:34 PM

Sure why not. I am sure the folks of the first century and earlier had all sorts of novel life style practices that would fit right into the twenty first century. Not!

Believe it or not, the bible doesn't just address 'lifestyle practices', and some teachings in many religious texts, including the bible, are universally applicable. The Golden Rule, though not unique or even original to the bible, is one such example, and a good one because it's universal and thus has been "discovered" and recorded in many religious texts.

But why fault someone if they find and apply the Golden Rule from the Bible, and it resonates with their own thoughts, but choose to leave off the bit about women being "submissive" to their husbands and silent in the church? I just don't see what the big problem is.

Starboy · 05-14-2003, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Sure why not. I am sure the folks of the first century and earlier had all sorts of novel life style practices that would fit right into the twenty first century. Not!

Believe it or not, the bible doesn't just address 'lifestyle practices', and some teachings in many religious texts, including the bible, are universally applicable. The Golden Rule, though not unique or even original to the bible, is one such example, and a good one because it's universal and thus has been "discovered" and recorded in many religious texts.

But why fault someone if they find and apply the Golden Rule from the Bible, and it resonates with their own thoughts, but choose to leave off the bit about women being "submissive" to their husbands and silent in the church? I just don't see what the big problem is.

Please take note of my use of the word novel. Also many of the practices were not and are not unique to Christians or the bible. I don't have to read the bible to know about the golden rule. [History of the golden rule] In fact I have a rule that I consider to be superior to the golden rule. It is something I picked up from Peter Drucker, it�s called the platinum rule - do unto others, as they would have you do unto them. If Christians would only practice this rule I doubt non-Christians would have a thing to worry about, but then it would take the teeth out of Christianity. They are a very aggressive, intolerant, thoughtless and annoying lot.

Starboy

Mageth · 05-14-2003, 02:56 PM

Did you miss where I said "The Golden Rule, though not unique or even original to the bible.."?

What difference does it make if it's 'novel' or not? What would be the problem with finding a universal truth or belief that is worthy of having (such as the golden rule) in the bible, or elsewhere for that matter, even if it's not 'novel' to the place you find it? Just like the "platinum rule" is not "novel" to you, and probably not novel to Drucker? Novelty has nothing to do with value in this instance.

They are a very aggressive, intolerant, thoughtless and annoying lot.

That's painting with a bit of a broad brush, there, Starboy. I'm sure some are just that, but then I'm sure some aren't.

mike_decock · 05-14-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
But why fault someone if they find and apply the Golden Rule from the Bible, and it resonates with their own thoughts, but choose to leave off the bit about women being "submissive" to their husbands and silent in the church? I just don't see what the big problem is.

The problem I have with it is that while the Bible has many good moral codes (golden rule, etc.), it contains many disagreeable ones as well (homosexuals are worthy of death, etc.) Whenever someone cherry picks the good stuff from the Bible, they add to the notion that the Bible (as a whole) is an authoritative voice for morality. This same authoritative voice can then be used by those who want to defend their own disagreeable moral codes.

As long as the Bible is seen as an authoritative voice by the moral majority, the authority will continue to be abused.

Would it have been easier or harder for slaveowners to justify slavery if the bible didn't have passages that supported it?

Would it be easier our harder to end discrimation against gays and lesbians if it wasn't for the biblical condemnation of homosexuality?

-Mike...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2003, 01:52 PM	#155
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	My apologies; i'm still getting acquainted. In my haste, I also didn't notice your astronomical post count. No problem. Don't worry; I don't rely on the "argument from authority" or the "argument from astronomical post count". In my own defense, though, my comments were mostly directed at Rational BAC, who has a faith-based claim that it is his personal saviour that guides him in his cherry picking. He has yet to explain how or why this guiding takes place. Well, I definitely agree that's a valid question. Overall, though, I believe that cherry picking is not bad, as long as it's from multiple and diverse sources. I agree that one should be open to cherry pick from multiple, diverse sources. But I don't necessarily agree that someone who just cherry picks from the bible is doing something "bad". Cherrypicking only from the Bible, while still calling oneself a Christian, is what I find dishonest. Well, I don't quite see that. How is it "dishonest"? It may not be the best way to approach a spiritual pursuit, but I don't think it's necessarily "dishonest." Was it not cherrypicking that resulted in the inquisition? witch-burning? suicide cults? hitler? I'm not sure one could or should blame cherry-picking from the bible for all those atrocities. Selecting or misinterpreting parts of the bible may have played a part in those events, but things tend to be a bit more complex than that. And I'm sure if one looked enough, one could find examples of atrocities committed by those who cherry-picked from multiple, diverse sources. In fact, Hitler apparently "cherry picked" from a number of mythologies.

05-14-2003, 02:34 PM	#157
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Sure why not. I am sure the folks of the first century and earlier had all sorts of novel life style practices that would fit right into the twenty first century. Not! Believe it or not, the bible doesn't just address 'lifestyle practices', and some teachings in many religious texts, including the bible, are universally applicable. The Golden Rule, though not unique or even original to the bible, is one such example, and a good one because it's universal and thus has been "discovered" and recorded in many religious texts. But why fault someone if they find and apply the Golden Rule from the Bible, and it resonates with their own thoughts, but choose to leave off the bit about women being "submissive" to their husbands and silent in the church? I just don't see what the big problem is.

05-14-2003, 02:56 PM	#159
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Did you miss where I said "The Golden Rule, though not unique or even original to the bible.."? What difference does it make if it's 'novel' or not? What would be the problem with finding a universal truth or belief that is worthy of having (such as the golden rule) in the bible, or elsewhere for that matter, even if it's not 'novel' to the place you find it? Just like the "platinum rule" is not "novel" to you, and probably not novel to Drucker? Novelty has nothing to do with value in this instance. They are a very aggressive, intolerant, thoughtless and annoying lot. That's painting with a bit of a broad brush, there, Starboy. I'm sure some are just that, but then I'm sure some aren't.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.