c’mon, there’s a perfectly fine Pit thread for that.
That’s fine in a social discussion, but it leaves something to be desired, or could even be seen as disingeneous, in a discussion about religion.
I’d say some element of awe/worship/reverence is needed to kick it into “religion”, but that’s IMO. And I don’t agree that religion is organised worship - that’s why the phrase “organised religion” has such currency, to distinguish it from the private worship that still deserves the mantle religion.
I’m sorry. This is evidently so very clever that I missed the point. :o Would you mjind explaining it to me?
Coming back to the thread, without pie, I must ask: is that an obscure use of the word kidney or just a typo?
A “cherry-picker” is one who selects the parts he likes out of a whole and leaves the parts he doesn’t like. An arguer who takes on the parts he likes in his argument, in other words, and disclaims responsbility for the other parts. In this case, liberal Christians were being accused over in the Pit, I think, of being “cherry-pickers,” for claiming reverence for some passages in the Bible while freely rejecting other passages, and some of them objected to that label.
To me, it’s a Pratchettism, but I just googled and I’ve seen it used in non-Pratchett
contexts as a very English archaism.
OK, I understand this, but how are you going to distinguish libXtians from fundies who are* just as guilty* of cherry-picking (like glossing over all the liberal bits of Jesus’ message)? Plus, c’mon, you lowered the tone a little bit with your one-line post. At least stop to explain why the name is more suited to libXtians than any other.
Ahhhhh thanks. I have no objection to the term. I am a cherry picker when it comes to the Bible and with reason. Evidence abounds that the books of the Bible , the NT in particular, has been altered as it passed through many hands on to ours. The very books that we have were selected in part to support a preconceived doctrine. Passages were altered for the same reason. The logical conclusion of all of this evidence is that the Bible cannot be the inspired inerrant word of god. If any of the texts were ever anything close to that the fact is we don’t know what the original texts were.
My own take is that the truth Jesus offered is cloaked within the writings of men. My goal is to try and discern what Jesus actually taught from the alterations of men. I do that by trying to connect to the source of all truth that he described. Believing that God speaks to the hearts of all men who seek to listen I also find useful insight in other religions and writings. In another thread I mentioned a book I am reading by Gandhi that IMHO is every bit as inspired as the NT. Perhaps more so because we have the authors original words rather than some altered version.
If that’s cherry picking I’m all for it.
Is it dishonest when cherry picking to keep the good fruit and toss out what leaves a bad taste in your mouth?
That must be the one too long for me to wade through. I hope I didn’t miss anything to profound.
I agree that a discussion of religion requires a little more. Even in a discussion about religion we may respectfully disagree about the meaning of a term without either being right or wrong. I realize that for most people Christianity means certain beliefs about the divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus. IMHO the fact that *most * do doesn’t makes other definitions less valid, only less common.
Hmmmm here’s a distinction I’m having a hard time making. I guess it’s as above. For the most part religion denotes some sort of organized and agreed upon common belief system. The less common private worship definition is also valid.
Anywho, I appreciate your input.
That’s cherry-picking, but it’s taken on a disagreeble connotation for those accused of it. The real problem with the accusation is that that if the Bible is just a text with some fine passages and some that are not-so-fine and some that are downright repulsive, and you may select freely as to which ones please you, non-believers can opine, “Fine, I agree, only I have even fewer passages that I approve of than you do, so few in fact that I quite reasonably reject the Bible entirely for guidance as to how to live my life, and since I’m differing from you, Mr. Liberal Christian, only as to degree, I think it would be nice if you’d afford my point of view the same amount of weight and respect you’d like to get from me and from No-So-Liberal-Christians.” This seems to them, somehow, fighting words, so a little conflict arises.
As to the fundies, as I understand it, they tend to accept the entire Bible, instead of rejecting offensive passages as made by human crafters making mistakes right and left, but simply claim incredibly tortured interpretations of the passages they don’t care for, sometime resorting to the old “God’s ways are mysterious and not to be understod by the likes of us” gambit, or anything else that will allow them to claim that the Bible is a super-human document and every word of it is the word of God.
I’m not sure that is the only possible logical conclusion. If God inspired the original writing, couldn’t he have inspired any selections or alterations that happened since that time?
I agree with you. My hope is that liberal Christians who cry “Jesus is the way!” will realize that it isn’t the name Jesus or the image of a white bearded man that Jesus pointed to. It’s the inner journey and the true path for each of us. The physical person of Christ is merely a sign helping to point the way. We can embrace and love our chosen path while still respecting others right to find their own. In the final analysis the images are only a tool to discover the spirit within.
People who claim to worship the truth ought to spend more time and energy actually seeking it. Clinging to an obviously untrue belief in the face of ample evidence against it is not an act of acceptance. It is an act of self deception and denial. We all do this to some extent so we don’t need to judge harshly. We do need to defend ourselves against those who wish to impose their on own belief system on others in an oppresive way.
I suppose. I think that requires we begin by assuming that the book was part of the plan. I see no evidence that’s true. It is simply assumed because of tradition and the rest of the justifications arise to support the assumption. Actually studying the evidence I can’t call that logical.
Studying the history of scripture, and how it was passed on, why certain books were included while others not, or seeing that people can’t even agree on what “holy” books are legitimate, it seems reasonable to conclude that none are truly the word of God. They are books written by men. Any insight or understanding we might glean from them comes from within. The books are merely tools to stimulate the inner journey, as are many other things.
Different people mean different things by referring to the Bible as “the word of God.” Some of these meanings are quite compatible with the fact that the Bible consists of books written by men, and with the evidence about how they were selected, edited, and passed on; others, not as much.
Hmmm in that sense the term word of God would only seem to be a traditional use rather than a real religious belief.
Would these folks give equal credence to the tradition of others holy books? Are all these books equal parts of mankind’s religious history? If God supervised all the rewrites as well, did he also supervise every book considered holy? I think thats an unreasonable strech of what we’d call logical.
In what sense? I wasn’t referring to any particular sense of the term, but pointing out that there are many senses in which the term is used. What sense did you have in mind? What do you understand by the term?
I tried to search some church websites to see if I could find the official word on what various Christian denominations believe about the Bible and how/whether they understand it as the “Word of God.” The following two are the only ones I found. If anyone else has any others, feel free to post them.
What do Lutherans believe about the Bible?
What Is The Bible? according to the Presbyterian Church USA
Thanks for the links. Interesting.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. My thoughts were that if people really understood more details about the history of the Bible and it’s many changes and additions as it passed through the hands of various scribes they would be hard pressed to consider it literally the word of God. In a traditional sense they might refer to it as the word of God.
From those two links it appears they see it in the more literal sesne although I may be wrong. My objection is that they seem to place the 1st priority on the books themselves rather than our own personal relationship with God.
Please reread the links, especially the Lutheran link. It agrees with you right down the line!
Neither the Presbyterian link nor the Lutheran link indicates a literal interpretation of the Bible. When a denomination believes in the literal interpretation, they almost always will make a point of mentioning it in their statement of faith. The Lutheran link specifically mentions that they believe that it is “inspired” by God which has a different meaning than being the literal word of God.
I grew up in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church which had split from the larger Presbyterian Church. It also did not believe in the literal interpretation. None of these churches can be considered “fundamentalist.”
United Methodist and Episcopal Churches also do not believe in the literal interpretation of Biblical scripture. Nor do Unity and Unitarian.
His view of mysticism is transcendent. And although your summary is meant to be a damning parody it is largely true. Except that his argument is that meditation and hence access to the transcendent is an empirical discipline that can be rooted in science. No dogma required and it is dogma that he objects to.
I’m not down with his views on torture though.
Thanks. I did reread them. The Lutheran in particular specifically recognizes mans influience within the Bible. That at least requires people to examine the writing more carefully and use their own reasoning. The other specifically refers to the Bible as the Word of God but you’re correct. It doesn’t specify a literal translation. If that is the point being made about the different shades of meaning in the term “word of god” then I agree. I am aware that many christian churches do not promote a literal interpretation of the Bible. My objection isn’t just with that. I have a good friend who is a Lutheran and a brother who is a Methodist. They both see the Bible as perhaps not completely literal, but as having an iconic authority that IMO is unrealistic.
What is described in the Lutheran link requires more of the weight to be shifted to the individual in discerning what is valuable and meaningful to us today. The other link refers to the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. I suppose what I’m hoping for is that people will put their ability to think and look within in a place of higher authority than the written word. There are a lot of sources out there that I think are inspiried or can help inspire us. I think the Bible is great but I stress the importance of looking at it realistically.
Well for levels of respect the non-Christian gets full levels of respect as the Liberal since they both have a consistant beleif system.
The Literalist though does not possess a consistant beleif system, since the Bible is self contradictory in several places. (how many sheep on the Arc being a classic one). And deyond this is non consistant in its moral code.
If anyone bases their moral code on a non consostant scheme, then they are worrysome to me. They are a random factor that could by such become dangerous at any time. Unlike a racist who has a consistant but repugnent moral code and so can be ignored and whom most people recognise as disgusting and not to be followed.
The inconsistant moral code is more dangerous, as it can seem fari and good for a great deal of time. Gaining popular support from well meaning people. Only to be able to change through the actions of someone like a Phelps but with more charisma, who could unite the entire group into a new moral state where all are supposed to be anti-homosexual (since the Bible taken literally could be used to espouse that cause) or anti-Islam (since again the Bible can be used to espouse that cause [beware false profets] ).
The mutability of morals which are based on literal reading of the Bible seem to be a great danger.