Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[Dan Mellis]

I never said this, you misinterpreted my words. I did not say that a disease exists solely to punish a certain section of society.
I said: "Maybe it's a glimpse into Aids. Homosexuals (new infections in US) are more vulnerable to getting aids (blood contact when having Aids can lead to Aids to death):"

I think you're trying to sit on the fence, but by directly contradicting yourself. You're making the point that the bible might be pointing to AIDs, because gays are more likely to get it. In your next breath, you say that actually 80% of new infections worldwide are because of heterosexual liaisons. Now you're right back at the claim that there are more infections in gays and I'm not sure how you're getting there after producing statistics to say the opposite is true?

If you do believe the bible says homosexuality is sinful because they're trying to avoid AIDs, then you believe in a curse. God created everything did he not? including AIDs? Which he made infect gays more than straight people, then forbade homosexuality because of it. If a disease is more or less for a section of society (again, you said this when you said the bible was forewarning of this; the implication is that God made it so), then it is a curse (or punishment, if you preer that term

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I appreciate your feedback.

OK... here's the example. This is true.

I am watching a video. It is anti-Islam. The video admits it. In the middle of the video, there's some rather fair-minded information that arguably puts the whole video in perspective and shifts it from being outright 100% propaganda to anti-Islam criticism.

Because of the middle part, I can't go back to the person who posted the video and say, this is propaganda. 50 minutes of it is propaganda, but the 5 minutes in the middle is not.

However, I think the opinion that the video is propaganda has merit. Why?, because 50 minutes vs. 5 minutes is overwhelmingly onesided.

If someone goes back to the person who provided the video and says, "This is propaganda", the obvious counter is "Did you watch the whole video? The middle part qualifies the rest."

The counter to the counter is, "Well... yeah but, that was only 5 minutes of a 55 minute video, you are Cherry Picking the good parts out of the bad."

I agree... in this example, I think the person who posted the video is Cherry Picking. But maybe not. What do you think?

But... this is just an example. I actually think the video I am speaking about is remarkably fair minded and also at the same time it is anti-Islam. Strange, but true.

In fact, I may choose to use some of the data in the anti-Islam video as evidence to support my pro-Islam bias if needed in the future.

However, I can't use the video as the source. Because... by ignoring the anti-Islam material in favor of the 5 minutes of fair-minded data that is in the video, I am Cherry Picking the good parts out of the anti-Islam video.

But again, based on your feedback, maybe that isn't Cherry Picking... I don't know.

What do you think?

As "cherry-picking" usually (in the most often used meaning of the term) means selecting only the bits that make your particular point and ignoring the rest that may contradict you, I would say the example you raise is definitely "cherry-picking."

However, back to what I was originally getting at, what I am not sure of, is whether criticism itself can be considered "good." I would say criticism is neutral - perhaps an attempt to get someone else geared more toward what the critic thinks is "good." So the ends of criticism may be looking to make something "good", but the criticism itself? I don't know. Just thinking that someone pointing to a bit of valid criticism in the middle of a propaganda video and asking "why is this here?" still isn't necessarily someone questioning why there is something "good" within a piece of otherwise "bad" or negative information.

I would think the only time someone might actually question something "good" or "positive" and why it appears in a text or piece of media, would be if they are expecting or looking for the entire piece of media to contain only "bad" elements, and actually desire that to be the case. When they saw the "good," it would seem out of place, and break their expectations, and they might question its presence.

And this is where I am saying criticism of The Bible is the opposite case. That we are told, and are therefore expecting that The Bible is "good." And then we run into parts of it that are decidedly "not good." When we hit those parts, criticizing is along the lines of "Hey - I thought you said this book was good? What's this bit about how to run your slave trade doing in here? Can you explain this?" And I think that then the continued/heated "argument" comes in when none of the explanations are satisfying, and the ones claiming that the book is "good" keep saying that the text doesn't say what it actually says - when we critics can read just fine, thanks very much.

It breaks down and becomes a sort of insult to intelligence, and no one ever wants to own up to the fact that, hey, maybe The Bible does contain some stuff that is just not morally okay by today's standards. Or they don't want to concede that today's standards in some of these respects are decidedly better, and so The Bible definitely appears outdated and misinformed. So the person doing the questioning gets frustrated, because they are just stone-walled at every turn with "answers" that do not, in the least, satisfy the questions being posed. And the believer gets frustrated as well because their answers only bring on more questions - as well they should! This stuff should be questioned all the way back up to God - because reasoning, will (and should) always win out over "because I said so." Always.

 

[Audie]

Hmm as I thought. Quote-mining is always a disreputable practice. If you were to read it in context (Luke 22 35-38) the meaning would be clearer. This is after the Last Supper, at the time of Jesus's betrayal, when he was about to be arrested and possibly his disciples with him. He is telling them to be prepared for trouble. He goes on to say:-
"Because I tell you these words of scripture are destined to be fulfilled in me: "He was counted as one of the rebellious". Yes what it says about me is even now reaching its fulfilment".They said, "Lord, here are two swords". He said to them, "That is enough".

He is not calling for people to be killed. Having a sword or two to enable his disciples to defend themselves in a sticky situation would have been normal practice at the time.

No doubt precise verbatim records of his
exact words are at hand for this analysis.

The function of a sword is to kill. Disassemble and /
or pierce the body of the victim.

Secondary purposes include ceremonial and
decorative uses.

A sword might also be used to intimidate, or frighten
away someone.

If it is your contention that "Jesus" wanted sword(s)
at hand but would forbid that they actually be used,
that is fine. Be as absurd as you like. It is a necessary
skill for defenders of the faith.

 

[dybmh]

@A Vestigial Mote,

Yes... precisely... I 100% agree with you... a person cannot claim the bible is "good" and deny the bad without getting caught up in contradictions and hypocrisy.

It's a flaw in the arguments of almost anyone claiming an inerrant Christian bible as written.

People really should stop trying to prove it. It's a lose-lose.

 

[leroy]

@A Vestigial Mote,

Yes... precisely... I 100% agree with you... a person cannot claim the bible is "good" and deny the bad without getting caught up in contradictions and hypocrisy.

It's a flaw in the arguments of almost anyone claiming an inerrant Christian bible as written.

People really should stop trying to prove it. It's a lose-lose.

Why can’t a Christian simply say “I don’t know” ie “I don’t know why the bible promotes things that seem morally wrong to me” For some reason Christians are expected to answer to every single question while atheist seem to have the freedom to simply answer “I don’t know”

I would also add the fact that if you assert that the bible is morally wrong, then you are grating that objective moral values exists, which would lead to the question, if atheism is true ¿how do you explain the existence of OBV ?

 

[Muffled]

I believe it only is bad for those who love sin

 

[stvdv]

I think you're trying to sit on the fence, but by directly contradicting yourself. You're making the point that the bible might be pointing to AIDs, because gays are more likely to get it. In your next breath, you say that actually 80% of new infections worldwide are because of heterosexual liaisons. Now you're right back at the claim that there are more infections in gays and I'm not sure how you're getting there after producing statistics to say the opposite is true?

You misread again. One link talks about homosexuals in US (as I quoted), the other is about a group (worldwide). SO you can not compare them.
I feel no need to debate on such a thing. If you do not agree, that's fine with me. But you better read correct if you try to find fault in what I wrote.

If you do believe the bible says homosexuality is sinful because they're trying to avoid AIDs, then you believe in a curse. God created everything did he not? including AIDs? Which he made infect gays more than straight people, then forbade homosexuality because of it. If a disease is more or less for a section of society (again, you said this when you said the bible was forewarning of this; the implication is that God made it so), then it is a curse (or punishment, if you preer that term

You better listen to me if I say something.
1) I am not a Christian
2) I do not believe that homosexualtity is sinful
3) I do not believe in curse

In your replies you try to impose on me, that I believe in sin and curse, while I tell you time and again "NO, I do not believe in those"

I shared my feelings/beliefs/opinions. Those are personal. I don't impose them on you. I don't claim them to be true.

SO they are not to be debated. And I don't feel any need to defend my feelings to you. Claims are debatable, feelings are NOT

If I make a claim then you can debate if you feel it is wrong. But I am not the person who makes claims normally.
If I share my feelings about things then it's not proper to start debating them. Then you can share your feelings about it if you feel like it.
No need to find fault with my feelings. They are my feelings, not for you to judge my feelings and even fill in how I feel according to you.
Remember, you do not know me at all. So

 

[Dan Mellis]

I have 2 responses

1 nor the truth of scripture nor the truth of a particular verse is dependent on whether if you personally like it or not. (this response would apply as an answer to all the controvertial verses in the bible) you can’t conclude that the bible is not inspired, just because there are some verses that you personally don’t like

2 the verse is probably talking about “gay sex” in a context of adultery or promiscuity. And the author is clearly using exaggerated language, If I say something like “I would kill for some Oreo Cookies” you would know that I am not literally willing to kill someone for an Oreo Cookie. In the same way nobody is claiming that gays should be put to death literally. After all there are no historical records of ancient Jews making a holocaust with gay people, so clearly ancient Jews knew and understood that the text is not meant to be taken literally.

1: I don't accept the bible as truth whatsoever, and simply claiming it as being true doesn't affect the truth of it. We can only judge it on its logical merit unless you can prove god, and it isn't a logical book. Therefore, I'm inclined to say I have no reason to believe its true regardless of my personal feelings about its morality. Although I will concede that these have no impact on its truth, only its worth to society.

2: So gay sex is only permissible to a married gay couple? But gay marriage is not ok accroding to christianity, so my point still stands. Functionally, there is no way, going by biblical morality, that homosexuality is allowed. Secondly, I don't think that's very clear at all! And although there aren't records of ancient jews stoning people to death for being gay (I'm not taking you at your word here by the way, I'd have to look that one up) there are most certainly records of attempts at extermination of other groups at the behest of "god". It's different saying "I'd kill for an oreo cookie" and "you must kill someone for wanting an oreo cookie."

 

[Muffled]

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.

Good let's concentrate on the verses that say we can repent our sin and have Jesus as Lord and Savior to keep us from sin.

 

[Muffled]

Isn't that the old testament?

I believe when it comes to the old ****, it doesn't stink as bad but it is still ****.

"stuff" for those who can't figure out the asterisks.

 

[Audie]

I believe it only is bad for those who love sin

We understand; belief is what believers do. They
believe things.

 

[Dan Mellis]

You misread again. One link talks about homosexuals in US (as I quoted), the other is about a group (worldwide). SO you can not compare them.
I feel no need to debate on such a thing. If you do not agree, that's fine with me. But you better read correct if you try to find fault in what I wrote.



You better listen to me if I say something.
1) I am not a Christian
2) I do not believe that homosexualtity is sinful
3) I do not believe in curse

In your replies you try to impose on me, that I believe in sin and curse, while I tell you time and again "NO, I do not believe in those"

I shared my feelings/beliefs/opinions. Those are personal. I don't impose them on you. I don't claim them to be true.

SO they are not to be debated. And I don't feel any need to defend my feelings to you. Claims are debatable, feelings are NOT

If I make a claim then you can debate if you feel it is wrong. But I am not the person who makes claims normally.
If I share my feelings about things then it's not proper to start debating them. Then you can share your feelings about it if you feel like it.
No need to find fault with my feelings. They are my feelings, not for you to judge my feelings and even fill in how I feel according to you.
Remember, you do not know me at all. So

Apologies, I thought given the argument that you had these views about homosexuality. However, I took issue with the "curse" thing as you seemed to be being illogical (saying the bible was pointing at aids as a "gay thing" but not saying it was some sort of punishment, given (i thought) you believed in God's creation) - however if you aren't a christian then it's pretty hard to see how you'd believe in curses. So sorry again...

Just to address the first part though, you CAN conpare them is the US not a part of the world? To use that argument, you'd have to explain why the US can be used as an exception for this purpose... i.e. god only applies his rules there.

I apologise if you didn't feel I was listening to you - I completely misunderstood where you were coming from and misunderstood your arguments.

 

[Muffled]

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

isn't God and heaven watching?

I believe He is and He has a better aim than I do.

 

[leroy]

1: I don't accept the bible as truth whatsoever, and simply claiming it as being true doesn't affect the truth of it. We can only judge it on its logical merit unless you can prove god, and it isn't a logical book. Therefore, I'm inclined to say I have no reason to believe its true regardless of my personal feelings about its morality. Although I will concede that these have no impact on its truth, only its worth to society.

2: So gay sex is only permissible to a married gay couple? But gay marriage is not ok accroding to christianity, so my point still stands. Functionally, there is no way, going by biblical morality, that homosexuality is allowed. Secondly, I don't think that's very clear at all! And although there aren't records of ancient jews stoning people to death for being gay (I'm not taking you at your word here by the way, I'd have to look that one up) there are most certainly records of attempts at extermination of other groups at the behest of "god". It's different saying "I'd kill for an oreo cookie" and "you must kill someone for wanting an oreo cookie."

1 I agree, the default answer should be that the bible is not the word of God, unless proven otherwise, the burden proof is on the Christian… and apparently we both agree, the truth of the bible is not dependent on whether if you personally like it or not.

2 All I am saying is that the fact that ancient Jews didn’t stone to death gay people, stongly suggests that the text was not meant to be taken literally, and ancient Jews understood that the command was not meant to be taken literally.

I really haven’t reflect much on the bible and gays, but my best guess (that might be wrong) is that the bible doesn’t condemn a loving and honest relation between 2 men. It simply condemns gay sexual activity in the context of rape, adultery, promiscuity, etc.

 

[Audie]

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...

It is a thing to notice about those who would'st
apologize for the faith, that they tend to do the
opposite of the pick and choose you refer to

What I see over and over is, if you quote
something that does not suit, well, you are
taking it out of context...and then they weave
a fantastical web around the plain words,
until they mean something quite different.

Carry off the young virgins, after killing the
rest of their family?

No prob! They are doing the girls a favour, by
marrying them!

And anyway, their family was the badguys
who started the trouble, it was just self defense
to breach the city walls and kill everyone
but the virgins.

Any psychopath would understand perfectly.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Apologies, I thought given the argument that you had these views about homosexuality. However, I took issue with the "curse" thing as you seemed to be being illogical (saying the bible was pointing at aids as a "gay thing" but not saying it was some sort of punishment, given (i thought) you believed in God's creation) - however if you aren't a christian then it's pretty hard to see how you'd believe in curses. So sorry again...

Just to address the first part though, you CAN conpare them is the US not a part of the world? To use that argument, you'd have to explain why the US can be used as an exception for this purpose... i.e. god only applies his rules there.

I apologies if you didn't feel I was listening to you - I completely misunderstood where you were coming from and misunderstood your arguments.

Good let's concentrate on the verses that say we can repent our sin and have Jesus as Lord and Savior to keep us from sin.

That's convenient, given our last conversation about who gets to go to hell.

 

[Audie]

1 I agree, the default answer should be that the bible is not the word of God, unless proven otherwise, the burden proof is on the Christian… and apparently we both agree, the truth of the bible is not dependent on whether if you personally like it or not.

2 All I am saying is that the fact that ancient Jews didn’t stone to death gay people, stongly suggests that the text was not meant to be taken literally, and ancient Jews understood that the command was not meant to be taken literally.

I really haven’t reflect much on the bible and gays, but my best guess (that might be wrong) is that the bible doesn’t condemn a loving and honest relation between 2 men. It simply condemns gay sexual activity in the context of rape, adultery, promiscuity, etc.

How do you know that it is a fact they did not stone such to death? They were into stoning adulterers.

 

[Dan Mellis]

1 I agree, the default answer should be that the bible is not the word of God, unless proven otherwise, the burden proof is on the Christian… and apparently we both agree, the truth of the bible is not dependent on whether if you personally like it or not.

2 All I am saying is that the fact that ancient Jews didn’t stone to death gay people, stongly suggests that the text was not meant to be taken literally, and ancient Jews understood that the command was not meant to be taken literally.

I really haven’t reflect much on the bible and gays, but my best guess (that might be wrong) is that the bible doesn’t condemn a loving and honest relation between 2 men. It simply condemns gay sexual activity in the context of rape, adultery, promiscuity, etc.

I can concede those points, although I don't necessarily agree. My only issue though is what you mean by "promiscuity". I took that to mean sex outside marriage but I could be wrong...

 

[Dan Mellis]

How do you know that it is a fact they did not stone such to death? They were into stoning adulterers.

I think he probably meant that he isn't aware of any evidence that they stoned gays specifically to death, which I'm fine with. I entirely agree though, if we look at the broader context it's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.

 

[dybmh]

Why can’t a Christian simply say “I don’t know” ie “I don’t know why the bible promotes things that seem morally wrong to me” For some reason Christians are expected to answer to every single question while atheist seem to have the freedom to simply answer “I don’t know”

I would also add the fact that if you assert that the bible is morally wrong, then you are grating that objective moral values exists, which would lead to the question, if atheism is true ¿how do you explain the existence of OBV ?

With all due respect, I think you are stereotyping Christians.

regarding my personal opinion of morality... I'm afraid you will perceive it as an artful dodge... but here it goes:

From my perspective: discussions of morality without examining the circumstances on a case by case is non-productive.

If I had to describe my version of morality, it is:

What is moral? It does no harm.

An over simplified catch-phrase at best... admittedly.

Regarding OBV: help me. I am so sorry. I just google-searched it, and it's a stock trading term?

I would be happy to discuss it [OBV] with you, but, I need a little help understanding where you're coming from. --blush--