I am aware. The question is, for those who aren’t atheist choir members and actually sincerely believe what they do, and that their religion is correct, how and why? I’m glad they discard the most problematic parts of their holy texts, but then on what basis do they do that if, unlike you, the atheist choir member, they actually believe their scripture is in some way from god, either through direct revelation to prophets or through a more touchy-freely guiding their hearts to write.
If no part of scripture is considered reliable, then there is no basis for a religion built upon that scripture. If some part IS reliable, then how did they settle on that part as distinct from the rest? It’s the whole “your church teaches salvation through good works while this other church teaches salvation through faith alone” debate or, more recently, “love one another” vs Leviticus 18:22–in fact, most of Leviticus and large portions of Exodus.*
*ETA: Oh, and don’t for a minute think I let the NT, or even the words attributed to Jesus, off the hook. There’s some detestable stuff in those later portions, too.
I think that illustrates my point. When presented with new evidence, science (medicine in this case) discards or changes its protocols. Religion tends to resist that sort of evidence-based change to protocols. It often doubles down or resorts to special pleading. That’s not to say religions don’t change. They do. But they remain well behind the learning curve.
You have quoted two posters, though you quoted one three times.
ASL simply restates the Euthyphro dilemma and claims the religious get around this by cherry picking. IOW, their arguments are poor. Saying “Your arguments are poor” in no way equates to “You are a horrible irredeemable scumbag.”
Recent arrival Rio Rico is kind of all over the place and it’s hard to follow exactly what his point is. However he seems to be saying merely that the Bible contains some disturbingly violent passages, which it does, and that believers choose to dismiss or rationalize those passages. Again, nowhere does he call anyone an irredeemable scumbag, or anything close. The worst he calls them is possibly unaware.
I think one of the main issues involved in this debate is that, unfortunately, everything is being fought on the Evangelicals’ turf (so to speak). Not to stay Evangelicals aren’t large or influential, but they aren’t even the biggest Christian denomination (the Catholics dwarf Evangelicals for one). Now I bring this up because there appears to be this notion that Biblical fundamentalism is the default reading of Scripture, when it is really just the default for Evangelicals. Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Orthodox, etc, consider Scripture as part of the interpretive gloss of the faith, but not entire.
The Catholic Church believes that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound together and communicate with each other and inform each other. And the Magisterium is responsible for interpreting the Word of God, either from Scripture or Tradition. John Wesley, creator of the Methodist Church, taught that the four sides that illuminate the Christian faith are (1) scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience (the Anglican Church from which Wesley came emphasized the first three). Wesley believe that Scripture was the primary source, but that it was not that only one (even the Lutherans who proclaimed ‘sola scriptura’ didn’t necessarily believe in non-interpreted Scripture, and this interpretation was not individual interpretation so they had some room for tradition, but not the Catholic tradition per se, and reason). I have read, though am not entirely certain about this, that the Orthodox Church teaches that the Church is above Scripture since the Church created Scripture. Considering that the earliest Scripture we have are Paul’s letters from ~50AD to churches that already existed, that makes some sense.
So, in most Christian traditions, Scripture is read and interpreted in community. It’s one of the reasons for the Holy Spirit to be around. And Scripture itself even alluded to the Church having authority on this when Jesus says whatever is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven and whatever is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven. And so things are decided together - different traditions have different ways of doing so. The ELCA in the US - one where I have personal experience - votes on these things with lay representatives having equal vote with clergy representatives (60% of the Churchwide Assembly is lay voting members, so lay members as a whole have slightly more say than clergy representatives for voting purposes).
There is one source that Christian churches should never consult when determining what their beliefs should be. That would be society at large. My denomination has no reason whatsoever to think that the opinion of atheists, agnostics, pagans, the woefully uninformed or misinformed, or anyone else matters to our faith. If outsiders could influence what we think we ought to do and believe, we would have no faith at all.
Your lack of approval for my way of life has no bearing on my eternal future, so I will not change to get praise from you.
Hey, I’m with you there! But then I don’t think your way of life has any bearing on your eternal future,either. As to the present value… well, I guess that’s on you. I prefer to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, personally.
ETA: One last parting thought. While I’m, uh, happy to hear you don’t see me or likeminded individuals as a source of truth, I’m still waiting to learn how you divine truth from the Bible, assuming you don’t take it all as… “gospel.” If you’ll forgive the pun.
If society at large, in the form of science, history, archeology, etc., has shown that parts of the books you depend on are incorrect, maybe you should pay attention.
Is it a really good idea to ignore any arguments against your faith? Can you refute them, or is the only response sticking your fingers in your ears.
Many atheists I’ve listened to on line have been devout Christians in the past, and far from being ignorant often know the religion better than some current believers. Want to ignore them also?
It cannot be said too often - the religious want to influence the behavior of others far more than the other way around. Or are you a persecuted believer because two gay people have the nerve to hold hands where you can see them?
Sure, sure, we’re all horrible irredeemable scumbags. Obviously you wouldn’t listen to us about anything.
Objectively speaking, from an outside perspective, it’s more interesting to ponder what you actually do consult regarding what your beliefs should be, and what that says about your belief system. As has been noted the bible is essentially worthless as a source of guidance, since support for damn near anything can be found in it, particularly if you’re willing to ‘interpret’. Which is a long way of saying that people don’t get things out of the bible, they read things into the bible. Which means the things necessarily come from somewhere else. Preachers, typically: religions in general and christianity in particular are simply an argument from authority. Fallible human authority.
Which is, itself, not a problem, but it does mean that when there are conflicts with objective reality, that the authority needn’t cede ground to reality.
Christians know the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. Why don’t most Christians keep Kosher or follow other laws of the OT? Because the NT changed everything.
As far as following every word of the NT, there’s a lot of discussion about it. There are interpretations that differ in different denominations and different places. These differences come from tradition, culture, and faith. These interpretations may make denominations seem almost unrelated, but the Bible remains the founding document for all of them. What society cannot understand about the whole Christianity thing is that followers of Christ have a faith that centers on forgiveness that is far more important than obedience to rules and participating in rituals. If we have faith, what society, science, history, or archaeology (which people who pay attention have noticed are always changing) say is irrelevant.