• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It's a really good question.

I think to be brief, the simple answer is:

Most religious people do not believe in the Bible literally or completely. They do not let "The Perfect be the Enemy of the Good."

I think that's where the "Cherry Picking" accusation comes from.

I think the person is saying "Why focus on those bad parts while ignoring the good parts? That is Cherry Picking."

As to why the bad parts are left in:

I think that's because if people start changing the bible in the way you describe then that gives new ammo to bible critics in other ways.

I am being brief. If you want to speak about specific examples, or if you want more detail in any other way, please let me know.

:)
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Your question here is very interesting. First of all i think we must look at two things here.
First, the bible as far as i know do not say it is a sin to be homosexual in it self, it is the act of two people of same gender getting together to have sexual relationship that is seen as the sin. Why?

The nature intended it was needed a person of each gender Male and Female to make a baby, from the beginning (Adam and Eve) they was not supposed to enjoy the sexual part except for when giving new life. they was supposed to bring them self to a higher spiritual realm, using their life to cultiveate. But when Adam started to get attachments to the things around them (physical world and pleasure) already here the problem started with sin.
Sin can be seen in two ways, as something unwholesome or something evil. And doing wrong deeds does lead to suffering for one self or others. As spiritual beings humans was intended to do morally good deeds so they could enlighten to it. But since the temptations of the physical world has taken over the mind of humans they do not see their wrong doings anymore. And so too to the part where you qouted the bible. In my understanding the Christian teaching give example of how we should not live when it comes to attachments to the sexual. and not have sex with same gender as out self.
That is often the teaching in other religions too. because of the moral code religions do holds.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
so as we throw stones.....and cherries at each other.....

isn't God and heaven watching?
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?
There's always room for interpretation, keep in mind there's no way to actually lie as a male with a male as with a woman.

That aside, everyone has their own take on whether some things in the Bible are worth it or not. I think in Europe at least a lot of Christians are educated into Biblical history and the sciences, philosophy, so they will not take everything at face value.

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?
Everyone cherry picks, whether they admit or not. I think the Bible at it's best offers ethical guidance and mystical insight. There's also the historical cultural context we can read about, what the writers thought was important. There are a lot of parts of the Bible no one feels a need to quote or even remember, the part you're talking about seems to be one that should belong in that group...
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
My path doesn't have "scripture," but I think the folks who ask these questions make it a lot more complicated than it is. To illustrate, let me ask another question.

How do you decide what foods to eat and what foods not to eat on any given day?

All human decision-making rests upon the same basic processes. Interpretation of literature - religious or otherwise - is no different. We examine our options, apply our own faculties of discernment, add in a dose of personal preference, perhaps a bit of consultation with others, and poof... done. We make a decision. We're allowed to do that, after all. And we go about it in different ways and with different conclusions as we are not all the same persons.

Personally, I'm not interested in whitewashing things. Even if I had scriptures that contained things that someone else found unsavory, I wouldn't remove it. I view that in the same vein as doctoring your research data to get it to say what you want it to say. Nope... you have to deal with the data that does and doesn't support your hypothesis.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
It's a really good question.

I think to be brief, the simple answer is:

Most religious people do not believe in the Bible literally or completely. They do not let "The Perfect be the Enemy of the Good."

I think that's where the "Cherry Picking" accusation comes from.
:)

But to only partially believe the bible - but in the same breath hold it up as the only evidence for god? That's what confuses me. I'm struggling to understand your definition of cherry picking, or to be exact, what you think mine is.

Thanks for the friendly reply btw, much appreciated.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
Your question here is very interesting. First of all i think we must look at two things here.
First, the bible as far as i know do not say it is a sin to be homosexual in it self, it is the act of two people of same gender getting together to have sexual relationship that is seen as the sin. Why?

The nature intended it was needed a person of each gender Male and Female to make a baby, from the beginning (Adam and Eve) they was not supposed to enjoy the sexual part except for when giving new life. they was supposed to bring them self to a higher spiritual realm, using their life to cultiveate. But when Adam started to get attachments to the things around them (physical world and pleasure) already here the problem started with sin.
Sin can be seen in two ways, as something unwholesome or something evil. And doing wrong deeds does lead to suffering for one self or others. As spiritual beings humans was intended to do morally good deeds so they could enlighten to it. But since the temptations of the physical world has taken over the mind of humans they do not see their wrong doings anymore. And so too to the part where you qouted the bible. In my understanding the Christian teaching give example of how we should not live when it comes to attachments to the sexual. and not have sex with same gender as out self.
That is often the teaching in other religions too. because of the moral code religions do holds.

I'm struggling to follow a little - so is your argument that because we're designed to reproduce with the opposite sex, that's our only path? And if that's the case, because god says so?

There's a couple of issues with that. Firstly, the male body has a receptor which appears to be designed for nothing else but anal stimulation (sorry, graphic). Secondly, you have to prove the existence of god before using it as a valid argument - especially in matters as serious as sexual orientation and discrimination.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
But to only partially believe the bible - but in the same breath hold it up as the only evidence for god? That's what confuses me. I'm struggling to understand your definition of cherry picking, or to be exact, what you think mine is.

Thanks for the friendly reply btw, much appreciated.
Yes, You're right. If a person is holding up the bible as the only evidence of God, then they can't claim Cherry Picking, in my opinion.

Does that answer the question?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I'm struggling to follow a little - so is your argument that because we're designed to reproduce with the opposite sex, that's our only path? And if that's the case, because god says so?

There's a couple of issues with that. Firstly, the male body has a receptor which appears to be designed for nothing else but anal stimulation (sorry, graphic). Secondly, you have to prove the existence of god before using it as a valid argument - especially in matters as serious as sexual orientation and discrimination.
As a cultivator of Buddhism i can not say i follow the Christian God, but in my understanding of the biblical scripture there is the morality issue of having sex with same gender as one self.
According to the Christian God it is immoral to have that form of sex, and in my understanding it is only meant to keep the generations going. example two males can not get kids so they can nor reproduce.
Example a priest who is gay can be gay and still be a priest as long the person do not have sex with same sex as them self. if they do want to be a priest they can not continue the homosexual relationship (according to the bible that is)

As a buddhist i do not judge those who choose to live together, so it is not up to me to say what is right or wrong for them. i can only try my best to live a morally good life.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'

There's a couple of issues with that. Firstly, the male body has a receptor which appears to be designed for nothing else but anal stimulation (sorry, graphic). Secondly, you have to prove the existence of god before using it as a valid argument - especially in matters as serious as sexual orientation and discrimination.

OT (off topic) but I must be so unsophisticated, I had
no idea.
 
Top