is it cherry-picking or careful reading? how can a faith be based on an old book?

[Sha'irullah]

The divinity of ancient scripture is a sham and should be rejected. Be a Christian on the basis of a conception of moral good and human preservation and not on the basis of the Bible telling you to accept a commandment. None of these holy books are consistent or remotely factual and merely exist in context of culture and relevancy to time period. Draw up no holy books and new scripture for a modern era and leave the rest in history.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Interesting direction this thread has taken regardless of ones belief. The consideration that careful less biased reading of both the Bible and science is important in resolving the conflicts.

The standard must be that scripture and belief should not be the standard for interpreting science, and science should remain neutral and independent of religious beliefs.

Cherry picking science to justify ones belief goes hand in hand with cherry picking scripture to justify ones belief.

Well said, sir.

 

[Corvus]

Indeed. From the very source you cite:
"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely."

''Rather, it is considered an extinct close evolutionary "cousin" to the direct ancestors. This may not always be the case, though, as some fossil species are proposed to be directly ancestral to others, like how Australopithecus anamensis is most likely to be ancestral to Australopithecus afarensis.[3]''

The fact is transitional forms exist, proving evolutionary theory, finding the actual ancestors for any given species in a fossil record, is extremely unlikely. Given the scarcity of fossils and the rarity of fossilization events.

I did not claim we have all actual ancestors represented. Transitional forms that represent side branches of actual ancestral forms. God, sometimes I feel genuine hatred for creationists, utterly, without reservation. Makes me puke.

 

[Corvus]

Well said, sir.

LOL....

 

[Socratic Berean]

''...God, sometimes I feel genuine hatred for creationists, utterly, without reservation. Makes me puke.

Corvus - I appreciate the emotional stock you have in this particular issue and your honesty about your feelings. Your passionate stance reflects a sharp mind.

If you are up for an objective look at the broader issue of transitionary forms (strengths and weaknesses), I'm all in. Start another thread, put out for discussion the fossil example that you believe is the best candidate for a true transitionary form, and open the floor for civil discourse.[/QUOTE]

 

[shunyadragon]

Corvus - I appreciate the emotional stock you have in this particular issue and your honesty about your feelings. Your passionate stance reflects a sharp mind.

If you are up for an objective look at the broader issue of transitionary forms (strengths and weaknesses), I'm all in. Start another thread, put out for discussion the fossil example that you believe is the best candidate for a true transitionary form, and open the floor for civil discourse.

I agree, I did not have an opportunity to address this topic yet, and approve of a separate thread.

 

[Raj V]

Hello,

I began my religious journey in christianity but lately I find that I cannot trust the bible so much anymore. Some of it is clearly false because science has disproven it, for example Noah's Flood. Other things are genuinely cruel and do not seem to reflect a loving Creator, such as the wars in the bible.

Other christians tell me what I do would be cherry-picking. IE, I take the good things from God but not what does not appeal to me. But how could I justify war and terror? The ancients were surely inventive about that and often in the bible there is no love but only subordination and attempts to be loyal to this scary God it speaks about.

But consider that, if I read any other book, I normally find something to like in it and something I do not like. When I read Lord of the Rings I enjoy reading about Frodo's courage and his friendship to Gandalf. But I do not like Saruman the White One and do not have to worship him. Why would I make Frodo and Saruman do the same ugly things? Frodo is good and Saruman is evil.

But in the bible I am told about a terroristic God who wants to be known as the God of love. Does not necessity tell me to accept a loving God and not a scary God?

Yes. You have to cherry pick. Otherwise you will be picking leaves, branches, dirt and possibly thorn. What you are doing is right but may need minor tweaks plus I am not sure what level of passion you have.

Jesus is the only heavenly manna/food and you have to pick His words out of the Gospel. Does not mean that you should not consume earthly but it is not universal, timeless Truth as the heavenly.

Do not be troubled by wars, sickness, pain, cruelty. None of is caused by God and if we were to face it for other reasons if you you reach out to real Him, you would get relief or strength to bear.

God is spirit of lofty principles of Love, Selflessness, Truth, Righteousness, wisdom, contentment ... Even in case of absence of an external being these principles themselves are a panacea. God if He is, offers a multi fold leverage on the returns.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. You have to cherry pick. Otherwise you will be picking leaves, branches, dirt and possibly thorn. What you are doing is right but may need minor tweaks plus I am not sure what level of passion you have.

Jesus is the only heavenly manna/food and you have to pick His words out of the Gospel. Does not mean that you should not consume earthly but it is not universal, timeless Truth as the heavenly.

Do not be troubled by wars, sickness, pain, cruelty. None of is caused by God and if we were to face it for other reasons if you you reach out to real Him, you would get relief or strength to bear.

God is spirit of lofty principles of Love, Selflessness, Truth, Righteousness, wisdom, contentment ... Even in case of absence of an external being these principles themselves are a panacea. God if He is, offers a multi fold leverage on the returns.

Considering the nature of Biblical scripture, the history, and the questionable provenance of the scripture itself this is an idealistic rose colored glass view of an archaic ancient world view of the scripture makes it difficult to accept the claims of the diverse Christian beliefs today.

For me to be reasonable honest and objective, and still believe in God, I have to put the Bible into the context of the human view of God at the time it was written. This is true of pretty much all ancient religions that cling to past paradigms beyond reasonable logic and reason. For the most part the emotional 'sense of belonging' within a culture and society is the primary reason to believe. Because of this, you end up with many different interpretations, churches and sects trying to make sense of ancient conflicting scripture and apply it to the world today. Cherry picking scripture to make it comfortable is the way most people go.