And of course for some authorities, the line they spout is highly changeable. Adherents love to adhere, even to rapidly changing guidance. c.f. A disgraced traitorous ex-President and his still-non-trivial following.
Yes they are, they are just following one person’s (non-authoritative) guide on how to pick and choose.
Yeah, this seems really obvious to me. The statement was that that poster doesn’t pick and choose which Bible verses to follow, but the Talmud isn’t the Bible. So, some extra-biblical authority picked and chose, and you follow that, you’re still picking and choosing.
Sure, from the POV that dominates this board. But for an Orthodox Jew that is the “right” way to interpret and follow the Law and G-d wants you to do that. You were allowed to and even expected to recur to study and philosophy to see how you can fit together following the Law and living in the real world.
Similarly Christian Orthodox/Catholic teachings don’t work on a sola scriptura system. So for some of these belief systems, saying “this is cherry picking” is kind of a moot point to argue with Maimonides or Augustine.
Is different from:
The Bible is self-contradictory, difficult to strictly obey, and very harsh. There’s nothing in the Bible itself that says to be less harsh, but since that offended modern sensibilities (from a few thousand years ago), they found ways around it.
I mean, there’s nothing that says that a wire around the neighborhood can make the whole neighborhood your provide domain, but very observant Jews use the eruv to do just that.
The Supreme Court picks and chooses the parts of the Constitution it wants to follow. Well, sort of…
Separately:
Denisovich may have been alluding to the Great Schism of 1054 when the Constantine consensus broke down and the Church split into Orthodox and Catholic factions. Later, heretical factions of Catholicism split off and then splintered into what is now Protestantism.
I generally agree with this take. A fraction of Protestants, the Evangelical grouping in the US, has successfully branded itself as Christianity in the US, at least among atheists. Orthodox Christianity in contrast is a small faith in the US, evenly spread across most states (with a modest concentration in Alaska). Perhaps comprising one half of 1% of the US population, according to Pew. By way of comparison, those in the Jewish tradition comprise 2.4% of all adults. Pew discusses Orthodox demographics in the US here: Orthodox Christians - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center
Worldwide, the Orthodox comprise 12% of all Christians.
Cite that American atheists are ignorant of the differences between sects of christianity?
This is hilarious. Of all the atheists I know, both of the apathetic and active types, most are 10X more aware of comparative religion than most Catholics and Protestants “lay people” I know.
I always got a kick out of this survey, where atheists and agnostics casually outscored pretty much every religious group (with, y’know, one exception).
Yeah. My general reaction to people, Christian or not, claiming that “Christians say/do x” is “Which Christians?”
ETA:
Just took that quiz. Got them all right. (Whether due to heritage or lack of belief is, I suppose, a question.)
Mostly agree. I’ll clarify in a moment.
…and I really didn’t mean to claim this.
Here’s one cite. Americans have been trending towards, “No religion”, with part of the reason being Christianity’s branding problem: it has become synonous with the sort of intolerance associated with, say, the Southern Baptist Convention. Gifted NYT Oped piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/opinion/christian-religion-brand-nones.html?unlocked_article_code=Ty3C9sghxv2FVG1fJcnlyPmyz4KVHa1UlFO1WFalR4_WlvPgChimAoAx2Z_bhsTMVzdp_vQD-OLYo1InPSURhhsjHUmig3ZEnv6TgyqYGVMPOM9bZYHckkqlwXDA-KbfWGcvFqp-km8h_r0EclgcjJgJwk0Shg7xWxIHw4WA1SFdBq-csRW6Rnxlsh6Pyted4moC6VR7dyz2-2F4oVxOYvjbONgm1MWrd_63xccVHnCi5PIfsn2wBuCtwdaO8q1VWsQTk8Ejwd0pzM0LKxlBff9_uOeKDjtyaVFJV6r6LrNgtZZkdwBLFGJTybU9QJqYENKFTUutrWaQaC9ptELLQUYNANzYvaCb&smid=url-share
Not a fantastic article to be honest, but it has this quote: ““Christianity’s got a branding problem,” Phil Zuckerman, a professor at Pitzer College who researches atheism and secularity, told me. It is seen by many as the religion of conservative Republican politics, he said, and there are otherwise believing people out there who “don’t want to be associated with that.””
Zuckerman isn’t the first person to make this claim: it’s fairly banal.
I’ve seen aspects of this phenomenon over the years among certain atheists on this message board, eg Der Trihs. While there are plenty of atheists here happy to take on agnostics and mainline Christians, most of the fervor is pointed at Christian beliefs with a distinct fundamentalist cast. Which is a small part of mainline US Christianity (and a large part of US evangelical Christianity). But nonetheless, the fundis have successfully taken claim to the Christian mantle in terms of branding, driving demographically significant numbers away from Christian worship.
That’s probably because most of us don’t feel any need to “take on” people who aren’t harassing us. Of course the people who are trying to write and re-write the laws and the culture to privilege their particular belief are going to be complained about more often and with more fervor than the people who aren’t doing that. And of course many of the people who aren’t doing that are Christians who follow versions of Christianity that don’t require them to do that.
I suspect that people who are quitting Christianity because they “don’t want to be associated with that” are quitting the churches that do behave like that. While some of them will shift to another branch of Christianity, some will quit religion altogether.
In light of The_Other_Waldo_Pepper’s link, showing that atheists score better on a religious knowledge test than other members of the religiously unaffiliated, I probably should have written something like, “A fraction of Protestants, the Evangelical grouping in the US, has successfully branded itself as Christianity in the US, at least among atheists the rapidly growing share of religiously unaffiliated Americans.”
ETA: Greetings k9bfriender. Reread post 339. It says “Otherwise believing people” are fleeing the church because of conservative Republican politics. Presumably few of those in transit are conservative Republicans. Though to further clarity the fundi branding project has had some across the board success, not always in the way intended.
I would change it to:
“A fraction of Protestants, the Evangelical grouping in the US, has successfully branded itself as Christianity in the US, at least among a growing number of Republican voters.”
You mean that atheists are the ones who actually read the manual and thought it BS?
At least many of them bothered to, which is an important first step.
Others just figured out it was all BS from independent sources.
Some of us went through the trouble of reading several versions of that manual and the manuals of other supernatural belief systems before declaring them to be equal in their bullshitedness…but with the caveat that if actual evidence is presented we’ll take a look at it.
Actually, I think that this puts us one better than most religionists out there. If there was a poll of religionists today, what percentage do you think are open-minded enough to keep the door open to other gods/goddesses?
Didn’t Jesus say something like, let him who is without sin cast the first stone? And when asked by Pharisees whether to stone a woman for adultery, no less.
No, I don’t think sola scriptura is incompatible with genuine religious belief, that is, scripture informing belief and not the reverse.
~Max
I aced it as well although TBF I might well have confused Kabbalah with Kaaba had I not read the article first.
For me personally, I think it’s because it’s like studying religion is like any other area of knowledge I pursue for curiosity’s sake without the baggage of being thrown into hell if I get it wrong. The fact I don’t think it’s real is immaterial. I have the Encyclopedia of Arda bookmarked, too.
Abrahamic, none. Dharmic, much more likely.
And his point is that the Talmud is not picking and choosing, either. That term implies something entirely arbitrary, rather than based on some sort of rubric. And it says that contradictions get ignored rather than explored.
It’s more like seeing the contradictions as a paradox, and you try to resolve said paradox. The resolution does not have to mean ignoring one part or the other. It can often mean finding a way for both to be true.
And that’s if you even read the Bible as a rulebook to begin with. But I presume @cmkeller does–at least, for the Torah.