Some atheists take issue with people who cherry picking the Bible but I've never understood why doing so is a problem. If we encourage people not to just follow dogma, if we want people to be curious and think for themselves, taking from Christianity what an individual finds valuable and dismissing the rest is perfectly reasonable. Some people, mostly Christians, seem to think if someone believes parts of the Bible apply to contemporary life and parts do not they are not "true Christians" but from my external perspective there is no such thing as a true Christian because none of them completely agree. Even the catholic Popes don't agree with one another. Why? Because each, like everyone else, discerns what is of value, what isn't and what works.
I've also heard the argument that if someone isn't going to follow everything in the Bible why follow it at all, why call yourself a Christian. I don't agree with everything the US government does but I'm still American. I'm not going to move to Sweden, even if is a better country, because there are good things in America that I value. I can be an American and still disagree with certain American laws or policies.
Here is an exert from an article by a Christian on the cherry picking:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/in-defense-of-cherry-pick_b_7305860.html
Rather than being used as an epithet, perhaps cherry picker should be a compliment, an acknowledgment of discernment, wisdom, judgment, and responsibility. In actual fact, all religious believers (and nonbelievers) cherry pick their sacred texts or cultural traditions, even fundamentalists, even those who deny doing so. A book like the Bible or Quran contains passages that contradict each other, or that demand a level of perfection (or cruelty) that is simply unattainable for most believers. Whether we are Christian or Muslim or post-Abrahamic freethinkers or practitioners of some other spiritual tradition, the question isn't whether we cherry pick, it is whether we do so wisely and well, based on some higher principle that tells us which passages are spiritually nourishing and which should be discarded.
Humanity's shared moral core provides guidance in this regard. Religion scholar Huston Smith says that the world's great wisdom traditions converge on three values that he calls veracity, humility, and charity, each of which both constrains and enhances the others. Veracity means truth telling and truth seeking, including honest self-appraisal. Humility means recognizing that each of us is just one among many and that the yearnings and insights of others matter. Charity, in the King James sense, is not merely generosity but love, the kind that seeks to value the pleasure and pain of others on par with our own.
The Golden Rule, which can be thought of as a shorthand for these values appears in some form in virtually every religious or secular moral philosophy, and likely is encoded into our genes in ways that scientists are just beginning to understand. As Christian author Rachel Held Evans has said eloquently, in Christianity, this ethic is woven into what Jesus calls the greatest of the commandment, to love God and to love your neighbor, the latter being the tangible manifestation of the former. This, he says, sum up all the writings of the Law and Prophets. In the book of Matthew, he warns against false prophets, saying, "You will know them by their fruit." The Apostle Paul lists the fruit of the spirit as love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, meekness, temperance and faith. "Against such, there is no law," he adds, recognizing that these virtues are respected not only within but also outside the nascent Christian community.
These are the measures that let us know what fruit is worth keeping, and what is not. Cherry picking a sacred text doesn't leave a person without a moral core, lost in a world where anything goes, as some fundamentalists fear. Rather, it anchors that moral core to something clearer, deeper, and more durable than the bindings of a golden book.
We all cherry pick to some extent with everything, selecting on the basis of personal beliefs and values. And honestly, we probably don't have issues with people that cherry pick the "right" parts of the bible that don't rub us the wrong way. Cherry picking is a term used selectively to criticize those who pick the "wrong" parts.
I would still use the term to point out that the people slamming LGBT rights, for example, using the bible should not exclude the parts that slam their own church members. While you can argue the concept of cherry picking per se is not bad- it isn't- but for people to select out one set of conditions to use as a means of judgment in my view are being hypocritical.
It is more about the hypocritical way that it is applied than the act itself. does that make sense?
What I find a problem is when a person who claims the bible is the literal word of god and then cherry picks. If one considers it allegorical then one has to cherry pick to make it work. And it is so easy to cherry pick the bible because one can just about prove what you want to with the 'authority' of the bible by linking verses together, whether they were meant to be linked or not. Plus one can 'interpret' the meaning of key words just about as one wants to--which is a form of cherry picking. Just look at all the ideas that have been proven by the bible to be correct--slavery, war, killing, claiming people of color are not really human, multiple marriage partners, Jew killing, witch burning--and on and on. And we don't have any of the autographs of any of the bible's books, and the oldest scraps we have don't agree with one another, so one can cobble together a bible to suit your fancy.
The reason why it both pissed me off and makes me laugh at the same time how christian cherry pick the buybull, the same as muslims do the quran, is because of the absolute hypocrisy of it.
When you see a preacher get up on stage and belt out how god will send all gays to hell and how they are unclean, he is using the bible as a front of that, and thus spreading this hate mentality to others who listen to him, thinking if a preacher says its so, then it must be gods words too, so they all think the same, that gays are unclean and need to be avoided.
The preacher uses just one line from the bible to make this hate filled tirade.. and yet those of us who know full well the stories in the bible, we know that the same thing said in this book against gays, is the same message given across by those who should have slaves, against those wearing mixed fabrics, against those who work sundays, and all this other shit that these hate preacher do not even mention.
When was the last time a preacher pointed at someone in his audience and yelled at them they will burn in hell for what they are wearing? When was the last time a vicar told his congregation they must take in slaves?
This is my stand against these hate spreading degenerates, they choose parts from the bible as their ammunition against people like gays and atheists, and spread that hate to others, and yet when you call these pieces of shit up on it, well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1e_DXJOMWg
You get people like this.
Why? Because "god" is the all motherfucking knowing! "God" is the omnipotent, omniscient, omni some other bullshit. He knows all and everything out of his mouth is for a mother fucking reason. It is all absolute perfect because "god" can do no mother fucking wrong!
So...even though "god" knows everything about everything from what atoms will do even before he created them to see what they did or that he knows all about comets long before he had any idea of creating them he knew every mother fucking thing....except how to beat armies with iron wheels and apparently anything about feminine napkins.
Quote from: stromboli on June 10, 2015, 12:31:34 PM
We all cherry pick to some extent with everything, selecting on the basis of personal beliefs and values. And honestly, we probably don't have issues with people that cherry pick the "right" parts of the bible that don't rub us the wrong way. Cherry picking is a term used selectively to criticize those who pick the "wrong" parts.
I would still use the term to point out that the people slamming LGBT rights, for example, using the bible should not exclude the parts that slam their own church members. While you can argue the concept of cherry picking per se is not bad- it isn't- but for people to select out one set of conditions to use as a means of judgment in my view are being hypocritical.
It is more about the hypocritical way that it is applied than the act itself. does that make sense?
I see the problem of hypocrisy but I also believe there is a deeper issue. You brought up LGBT rights. The Bible has very little to say on the topic of homosexuality, particularly lesbianism, yet Christians use the Bible to justify their condemnation of gay marriage. Some Christian act like they are just following rules, saying they didn't make the rule, God did. This is an abdication of responsibility for their beliefs and actions. The problem isn't the passages in the Bible referring to homosexuality, it's the fact an individual picks those passages to support their established ideology and justify their actions. If every passage referring to homosexuality were removed from the Bible I'm convinced some Christians would find another reason to ban gay marriage. Everyone likes to think they are objective, rational and reasonable but most of the time people don't operate that way. Human don't naturally look at facts in an objective manner and draw a conclusion, they have an idea and then look for facts to support that idea. "Because the Bible tells me so" is not an honest reason because every person cherry picks. If an individual doesn't like gay marriage there is reason deeper than a Bible verse and many people need to reflect and peel the onion of their thoughts and feelings to find the truth.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 10, 2015, 01:24:00 PM
I see the problem of hypocrisy but I also believe there is a deeper issue. You brought up LGBT rights. The Bible has very little to say on the topic of homosexuality, particularly lesbianism, yet Christians use the Bible to justify their condemnation of gay marriage. Some Christian act like they are just following rules, saying they didn't make the rule, God did. This is an abdication of responsibility for their beliefs and actions. The problem isn't the passages in the Bible referring to homosexuality, it's the fact an individual picks those passages to support their established ideology and justify their actions. If every passage referring to homosexuality were removed from the Bible I'm convinced some Christians would find another reason to ban gay marriage. Everyone likes to think they are objective, rational and reasonable but most of the time people don't operate that way. Human don't naturally look at facts in an objective manner and draw a conclusion, they have an idea and then look for facts to support that idea. "Because the Bible tells me so" is not an honest reason because every person cherry picks. If an individual doesn't like gay marriage there is reason deeper than a Bible verse and many people need to reflect and peel the onion of their thoughts and feelings to find the truth.
The thing is, the kinds of people who have been so easily swayed by the bible and lack the capacity to analysis and learn later in life, are those who are so just as easily lead on by hate preachers and governing bodies who tell them what to think and feel. Truth and reality don't matter to these kinds of people, because they are content being told what to think and feel, even following someone in their hate filled march thinking its what they want to do as well.
Quote from: Munch on June 10, 2015, 01:31:32 PM
The thing is, the kinds of people who have been so easily swayed by the bible and lack the capacity to analysis and learn later in life, are those who are so just as easily lead on by hate preachers and governing bodies who tell them what to think and feel. Truth and reality don't matter to these kinds of people, because they are content being told what to think and feel, even following someone in their hate filled march thinking its what they want to do as well.
I'm later in my life and don't think I lack the capacity to analyze and learn. I also don't think I am that different from the average person.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 10, 2015, 01:58:18 PM
I'm later in my life and don't think I lack the capacity to analyze and learn. I also don't think I am that different from the average person.
I was more referring to the kinds of people that simply don't, making them easily lead by such indoctrination.
Mike made a good point- if the bible is the literal word of god, cherry picking would be unnecessary. That by itself is a good argument against it being literal. And I still think that it is hypocritical to use certain scriptures-specifically Leviticus- to condemn one set of people versus using verses in the same book that criticize other sets.
I'm kind of glad that most Christians cherry pick what is good in the New Testaments, and avoid the Old, like so many radical Muslims don't.
Quote from: Solitary on June 10, 2015, 03:28:33 PM
I'm kind of glad that most Christians cherry pick what is good in the New Testaments, and avoid the Old, like so many radical Muslims don't.
Well its more contrast between a radical Muslim country and western countries, because the laws themselves bend around religious extremism in muslim countries, while in western countries the law has, over centuries gotten to the point if someone did do what the bible tells them in full, they'd be arrested or even put on death row for it.
Most of the Christians I know don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God, that God actually wrote it. They believe men wrote the Bible, that it was inspired by God but isn't meant to be taken verbatim as a set of concrete rules for living in the twenty-first century. They have no problem with mixed fabrics , tattoos or same-sex marriage because for them that isn't what Christianity is about. One of my Christian coworkers says she thinks Jesus would vote for same-sex marriage because "the message of Jesus was one of love and Jesus reached out to everyone." She is cherry picking and I suppose she could also be accused of hypocrisy because she is choosing the message she likes and ignoring Leviticus. I know some conservative Christians would like to believe the Bible is a literal and beyond interpretation but that itself is an interpretation, they interpret the Bible as fact.
The problem is, when a christian or muslim says 'that's not what my religion is about', it actually is. The ones cherry picking and saying their religion is about something else, are simply making up the rules as they choose, trying to work in religion to their own take on life and what it means to them, weaving it around it.
Quote from: Munch on June 10, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
The problem is, when a christian or muslim says 'that's not what my religion is about', it actually is. The ones cherry picking and saying their religion is about something else, are simply making up the rules as they choose, trying to work in religion to their own take on life and what it means to them, weaving it around it.
From my perspective that is what every religious person does.
I really shouldn't be speaking on behalf of Christians. My understanding of them is sketchy at best.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 10, 2015, 04:20:08 PM
From my perspective that is what every religious person does.
I really shouldn't be speaking on behalf of Christians. My understanding of them is sketchy at best.
Well all I mean is from the most unassuming christian to the most hate filled gay stoning despot, every one of them who uses the bible as their mantle are all on the same boat, and can all, in their insanity, justify their beliefs from it as they take the scripture as ammo. The only thing you can hope for when you meet a christian, is that they are sane enough people, and not someone looking for a group to discriminate and harm before of how he/she was raised to believe thats how its done.
The fact that some Christians cheery pick from the bible is proof enough to demonstrate that there is no objective morality.
Quote from: Termin on June 10, 2015, 05:00:22 PM
The fact that some Christians cheery pick from the bible is proof enough to demonstrate that there is no objective morality.
I'm not sure that is the case. If the Christian God is real and Grand Poobah of morality the cherry pickers could 1) be acting immorally by not following the Bible verbatim or 2) being doing exactly what God wanted by acting in the manner of Jesus and their conscience. It could be the literalist Christians are acting immorally, especially since the Christian God isn't big on clarity, consistency or communication. Whether a Christian is doing God's will is supposedly up to God to decide, but objective morality would still exist.
Of course being an atheist I need not give a thought to all this flapdoodle. As the saying goes...
(http://rlv.zcache.com/not_my_circus_not_my_monkeys_poster-rc84903c43b174247b01ca0072c7c72a9_wvf_8byvr_512.jpg?bg=0xffffff)
If God didn't expect people to take the bible literally, why the fuck do we keep being told that he does expect that. And if the text so outrageously misrepresented his true character, why hasn't he popped down to earth again in a burning bush to tell us to change the bits where he comes across as a bit of a brainless old psychopath with fetishes.
I don't mind cherry picking per se. Jefferson famously removed much of the Bible and kept the parts that he liked.
The thing that really pisses me off is to simultaneously cherry pick and say that this stuff is inerrant. If it's inerrant, why the need to cut anything out?
I do think theists should be encouraged to be more rational and get rid of the more egregiously horrible stuff. But sweeping this stuff under the rug and then trying to pass the religion off as some progressive, enlightened thing when it never was anything of the sort and then expecting us to go along with that...words can't describe how dishonest that is and how bad it would be for us to approve of.
We don't need fantasies more in tune with modernity, we need less fantasies altogether.
Cherry-picking just demonstrates that their ultimate guidance for cherry-picking in the first place doesn't come from their "holy" texts.
What bothers me about the cherry picking is they never acknowledge the fact that while they are selecting the best parts , it does not mean that everyone else will.
Quote from: Termin on June 26, 2015, 11:42:04 AM
What bothers me about the cherry picking is they never acknowledge the fact that while they are selecting the best parts , it does not mean that everyone else will.
Yeah, I see this as a huge problem. The cherry pickers will never acknowledge that they are doing that. They will insist that the way they see it was the way it was meant to be seen--if only you could lift those damn scales from your eyes and heart.
Each person constructs their own religion from the available mass of information they have presented to them. This is one reason people usually have the religion of their relatives. It also explains the ability to shift religions, they simply reset their religiousness and draw from a new pool of beliefs. Rejecting material they're not comfortable with makes it possible to construct a belief system that works for them.
Tis a matter of control. If the Pope does the cherry picking, and can get all the cardinals in line, who get all the bishops in line, who get all the priests in line, who get all the lay people in line ... then you got the Middle Ages. The problem was, literacy and printing destroyed all this, even if there had been no Protestants around protesting. The problem with cherry picking is letting individual lay people do it on their own ... the system was never set up for this. Of course in Judaism and Islam, we do the same thing. So there is a problem with authority ... y'all are just not cool with every Christian playing Pope. And you probably wouldn't care for an authoritarian system either. When every citizen is king ... you have anarchy. That is why democracy doesn't work, not even in a nuclear family. My Dad was an R and my Mom was a D ... and they cancelled each other out! When you have democracy plus violence ... you have mob rule. When you have authoritarianism plus violence ... you have patriotism.