Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rational BAC · 05-11-2003, 02:51 AM

Tercel answered a lot of things about the way I would have.

Don't want to duplicate so will be back later with newer stuff ---still about cherry picking though.

Clutch · 05-11-2003, 06:38 AM

Tercel, I did not mean my remark (about whether most Christians would reject most of the OT) to be anything more than conjectural. What is "utterly bonkers" is really further point about BAC's characterization of the bulk of the OT as "garbage".

I strongly suspect that, even if phrased in terms of gentle demurral, most Christians would not assent to the description of the OT as predominately mistaken or irrelevant. Much, much more strongly, I suspect that even those who did take this view would have a reverential attitude towards the mistaken text that excludes calling it garbage.

Even though that's what much of it certainly is.

In any event, I explicitly bracketed that point as an aside. Did you or BAC have any response to the main point of my posts?

Thanks.

Clutch · 05-11-2003, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Don't want to duplicate so will be back later with newer stuff ---still about cherry picking though.

Well, not to belabour the obvious, but you did promise to take on all comers. And then you pretty much didn't.

You asked for problems with cherry-picking; I've explained a problem. Perhaps you might answer before presenting "newer stuff". Thanks.

Rational BAC · 05-11-2003, 06:53 AM

Sorry about that. Will have to reread all the posts and see more exactly what Tercel answered. And reread your very good questions.

I promise will get back to this.

I had to work yesterday and forgot today is Mother's Day so will be a little tied up. My own mother has passed away, but my ex-wife is still kicking and she is a mother.

I like to keep my ex-wife happy. ---------Best for all concerned.

Rational BAC · 05-11-2003, 07:08 PM

OK---Back again.

Will try and make some general replies and hope it covers some of the questions about the validity of Cherry Picking.

Does one have to believe the Bible to be inerrant to be a Christian? I don't think so. And the vast majority of Christians, who are cherry pickers just like myself, don't seem to think that inerrancy in the Bible is very important either.

There are fundamentalist Christians who would dispute that----but remember that they are definite minority of Christians.

It surprises me a little that some non-theists take the same position as fundamentalist Christians in this matter. ==== If you do not believe the Bible is without error, then you cannot be a Christian.

This has been discussed before--but we all know that the Bible was written at different times by different authors mostly from older oral traditions and compiled centuries later by committees.

So why would such a book coming from such sources be considered inerrant? Of course it is possible for a Supreme Being to do anything He wishes ---so it is at least conceivable that all of the Bible from all of those sources and all those translations and all that committee work----------is the divinely inspired word of God.

After all --anything is possible, but is it likely? I doubt that--and most Christians doubt that. It makes very little sense.

Whoops-----Got to get off 'puter right now ---------Sorry to break this off.

Back later

Starboy · 05-11-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Does one have to believe the Bible to be inerrant to be a Christian? I don't think so. And the vast majority of Christians, who are cherry pickers just like myself, don't seem to think that inerrancy in the Bible is very important either.

Rational BAC, from what I can tell of people that call themselves Christians, I sometimes wonder if the bible has anything to do with their professed religion at all. Here is a question for you � Are Christians required to take any part of the bible as inerrant and if so which parts? After all if you allow parts to be ignored can�t the entire thing be ignored?

Starboy

Rational BAC · 05-11-2003, 07:44 PM

Back again-----

So this is where I am------

Something did happen 2000 years ago that founded the largest religion on Earth. At least I think that is the most likely thing.----that something very important did happen.

From that point a fundamentalist Christian has it pretty easy---the Bible is the inerrant and divine word of God in all its parts and the Bible explains exactly what happened and explains God's thinking about all things.

I can't do that.

Sorry, but I cannot believe the Bible is without error and is the divine word of God in all its parts. I agree with all the non-theists completely about all the innaccuracies and the mindless gore, and the seemingly "divine" immorality contained in the Bible.

So two things are possible

1--------The Bible was divinely inspired in some of its parts and not others. ------

----I tend to believe that most of the time since it is somewhat likely. (I mean it is very unlikely that the whole Bible is in error)

What is divine and what isn't?------That is where Cherry Picking comes in. Using your own sense of logic and morality, your own sense of right and wrong-------and believing as a Christian who thinks he does have a personal relationship with his Saviour----I assume I am getting divine guidance in my Cherry Picking. (Now here is where I know I am going to lose a lot of non-theists)---That is the way it goes I guess. No good way to debate that one--it is based on belief --or faith if you will.

2-------The Bible was not divinely inspired at all.-------

It was written down by a bunch of fallible men and compiled by fallible committees. --------Trying to put down on paper what happened or what they at least thought happened. And mostly got it wrong. But got enough of it right for us modern day Christians to get a general idea of what Christianity is supposed to be all about.

I don't have a problem with that either. Why does the Bible have to be the divine word of God? Why could not God have done something 2000 years ago and just said to himself. "Let those suckers figure it out--I am not going to help a bit"----------God can do anything he damned well pleases you know or He could not be a Supreme Being.

So even with #2 you are back to Cherry Picking. The Bible is just an old artifact which probably has some divine truths in it but poorly transcribed. Like a detective, or an archeologist digging through ruins for treasure ---you have to try and figure out as best you can (and you know you could be wrong, but hope the Lord is guiding you in this)----------Christianity.

Enough for now anyway.

Starboy · 05-11-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
What is divine and what isn't?------That is where Cherry Picking comes in. Using your own sense of logic and morality, your own sense of right and wrong-------and believing as a Christian who thinks he does have a personal relationship with his Saviour----I assume I am getting divine guidance in my Cherry Picking. (Now here is where I know I am going to lose a lot of non-theists)---That is the way it goes I goes. No good way to debate that one--it is based on belief --or faith if you will.

Rational BAC, you seem very dodgy to me. Are you trying to say that you do not take any part of the bible to be inerrant? Are you saying that you get guidance from god and that is what informs you as to what parts are inerrant and what parts are not? I will ask again, what parts must be accepted to be "truth" or inerrant or whatever in order for a person to call themselves a Christian? Is it only the NT or OT? Is it just Mark? All the gospels? The writings of Saul/Paul? What is it? Or is all of it just a Swiss cheese of errant/inerrant revelation? Is the bible the only place you can get revelation about god? If god is giving you guidance why do you need the bible at all?

Starboy

Kevbo · 05-11-2003, 08:23 PM

Are you sure that Christianity can be considered the largest religion in the world today? That may be true in the nook of the world where you live, but according to some statistic I saw a while ago, less than a third of the world professes to be any type of Christian by even the most liberal standards (i.e., Cherry-pickers welcome

)

Rational BAC · 05-11-2003, 08:26 PM

I don't think I am being dodgy at all. Just stating my belief in the best way I can.

I do lean toward the idea that none of the Bible is directly inspired by God. Assuming God would be consistent, then why would He intervene in some parts of the Bible (as far as actually dictating what he wanted written down word for word to whoever authored that part) and not in others?

It is much more likely that it was man and man alone who tried to write down as best what he could remember and what was generally remembered from oral traditions.

Does that make what was written down completely false? Not necessarily. Not even likely. But it was probably full of errors. As oral traditions, especially old ones tend to be.

As stated before, it is not necessary for God to directly intervene in the writing of the Bible. God can do anything He pleases or he would not be God. Perhaps what His wish was----a very large puzzle for us in our individual morality and intelligence to try and figure out as best we can. It could be all a test, you know.

And that is what a Cherry Picker tries to do. --- Try and pass a muliple choice test. And that is what makes him or her an excellent Christian.

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

05-11-2003, 02:51 AM	#51
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Tercel answered a lot of things about the way I would have. Don't want to duplicate so will be back later with newer stuff ---still about cherry picking though.

05-11-2003, 06:38 AM	#52
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Tercel, I did not mean my remark (about whether most Christians would reject most of the OT) to be anything more than conjectural. What is "utterly bonkers" is really further point about BAC's characterization of the bulk of the OT as "garbage". I strongly suspect that, even if phrased in terms of gentle demurral, most Christians would not assent to the description of the OT as predominately mistaken or irrelevant. Much, much more strongly, I suspect that even those who did take this view would have a reverential attitude towards the mistaken text that excludes calling it garbage. Even though that's what much of it certainly is. In any event, I explicitly bracketed that point as an aside. Did you or BAC have any response to the main point of my posts? Thanks.

05-11-2003, 06:53 AM	#54
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Sorry about that. Will have to reread all the posts and see more exactly what Tercel answered. And reread your very good questions. I promise will get back to this. I had to work yesterday and forgot today is Mother's Day so will be a little tied up. My own mother has passed away, but my ex-wife is still kicking and she is a mother. I like to keep my ex-wife happy. ---------Best for all concerned.

05-11-2003, 07:08 PM	#55
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	OK---Back again. Will try and make some general replies and hope it covers some of the questions about the validity of Cherry Picking. Does one have to believe the Bible to be inerrant to be a Christian? I don't think so. And the vast majority of Christians, who are cherry pickers just like myself, don't seem to think that inerrancy in the Bible is very important either. There are fundamentalist Christians who would dispute that----but remember that they are definite minority of Christians. It surprises me a little that some non-theists take the same position as fundamentalist Christians in this matter. ==== If you do not believe the Bible is without error, then you cannot be a Christian. This has been discussed before--but we all know that the Bible was written at different times by different authors mostly from older oral traditions and compiled centuries later by committees. So why would such a book coming from such sources be considered inerrant? Of course it is possible for a Supreme Being to do anything He wishes ---so it is at least conceivable that all of the Bible from all of those sources and all those translations and all that committee work----------is the divinely inspired word of God. After all --anything is possible, but is it likely? I doubt that--and most Christians doubt that. It makes very little sense. Whoops-----Got to get off 'puter right now ---------Sorry to break this off. Back later

05-11-2003, 07:44 PM	#57
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Back again----- So this is where I am------ Something did happen 2000 years ago that founded the largest religion on Earth. At least I think that is the most likely thing.----that something very important did happen. From that point a fundamentalist Christian has it pretty easy---the Bible is the inerrant and divine word of God in all its parts and the Bible explains exactly what happened and explains God's thinking about all things. I can't do that. Sorry, but I cannot believe the Bible is without error and is the divine word of God in all its parts. I agree with all the non-theists completely about all the innaccuracies and the mindless gore, and the seemingly "divine" immorality contained in the Bible. So two things are possible 1--------The Bible was divinely inspired in some of its parts and not others. ------ ----I tend to believe that most of the time since it is somewhat likely. (I mean it is very unlikely that the whole Bible is in error) What is divine and what isn't?------That is where Cherry Picking comes in. Using your own sense of logic and morality, your own sense of right and wrong-------and believing as a Christian who thinks he does have a personal relationship with his Saviour----I assume I am getting divine guidance in my Cherry Picking. (Now here is where I know I am going to lose a lot of non-theists)---That is the way it goes I guess. No good way to debate that one--it is based on belief --or faith if you will. 2-------The Bible was not divinely inspired at all.------- It was written down by a bunch of fallible men and compiled by fallible committees. --------Trying to put down on paper what happened or what they at least thought happened. And mostly got it wrong. But got enough of it right for us modern day Christians to get a general idea of what Christianity is supposed to be all about. I don't have a problem with that either. Why does the Bible have to be the divine word of God? Why could not God have done something 2000 years ago and just said to himself. "Let those suckers figure it out--I am not going to help a bit"----------God can do anything he damned well pleases you know or He could not be a Supreme Being. So even with #2 you are back to Cherry Picking. The Bible is just an old artifact which probably has some divine truths in it but poorly transcribed. Like a detective, or an archeologist digging through ruins for treasure ---you have to try and figure out as best you can (and you know you could be wrong, but hope the Lord is guiding you in this)----------Christianity. Enough for now anyway.

05-11-2003, 08:23 PM	#59
Kevbo Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NY Posts: 212	Are you sure that Christianity can be considered the largest religion in the world today? That may be true in the nook of the world where you live, but according to some statistic I saw a while ago, less than a third of the world professes to be any type of Christian by even the most liberal standards (i.e., Cherry-pickers welcome )

05-11-2003, 08:26 PM	#60
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	I don't think I am being dodgy at all. Just stating my belief in the best way I can. I do lean toward the idea that none of the Bible is directly inspired by God. Assuming God would be consistent, then why would He intervene in some parts of the Bible (as far as actually dictating what he wanted written down word for word to whoever authored that part) and not in others? It is much more likely that it was man and man alone who tried to write down as best what he could remember and what was generally remembered from oral traditions. Does that make what was written down completely false? Not necessarily. Not even likely. But it was probably full of errors. As oral traditions, especially old ones tend to be. As stated before, it is not necessary for God to directly intervene in the writing of the Bible. God can do anything He pleases or he would not be God. Perhaps what His wish was----a very large puzzle for us in our individual morality and intelligence to try and figure out as best we can. It could be all a test, you know. And that is what a Cherry Picker tries to do. --- Try and pass a muliple choice test. And that is what makes him or her an excellent Christian.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.