Is it possible to cherry pick and follow what you like?

[Kenny]

The problem with cherry picking is that it can be an egocentric search like trying on shoes until one finds the shoes that fit.

.

I think this is a great statement

 

[Kemosloby]

Yes but then you're labled a non conformist.

 

[Deidre]

The problem with cherry picking is that it can be an egocentric search like trying on shoes until one finds the shoes that fit.

But very few people own just one pair of shoes.

 

[Indagator]

Nah i dont think it is a good idea. Real truth can only be objective by cherry picking you are being subjective thus what you are finding are not truth at all.

 

[Deidre]

How dare you stray from the strict atheist path! You disgrace Our Lord Richard Dawkins, and the blessed Lawrence Krauss (who sits at his right hand, none of this "left handed" nonsense please). Eternal punishment awaits you...well hold on I'm an atheist, so you'll have to stand on the naughty step for a while...maybe Richard and Lawrence will throw some science books at you that you'll have to dodge. How do you like that apostate?

Seriously, the bigger question your post asks is the direction of religion in the First World in the future. Does it become an amalgam of beliefs taken from many faiths to act as a lifestyle accessory? Something to help us through this "veil of tears"? If so, good I say, as long as people understand this stuff isn't worth dying for, and certainly not worth killing for. I'd like to think that is the way things are going, but I suspect that would be overly optimistic. To answer your question, of course it is okay to cherry pick, I'd say there isn't an organised religion in the world that doesn't do so. If I could replace every fundamentalist with someone who thinks like you, I'd do so in the blink of an eye.

lol Lord Dawkins. I do happen to think he thinks this of himself.

I agree with what you're saying. And by cherry pick, I don't mean all the comforting parts, but really the parts that make sense to me both in mind and heart. I can't accept that a talking snake persuaded the 'first humans' to thwart God's plan and now we are all paying the price, for their first 'sin.' I can't accept many things that just reasonably speaking from a rational view, sound absurd. Sound like a father telling a bed time story to his kids. I don't believe that we are too stupid to handle Truth. This used to be what my own father would tell me - he is a devout Catholic. ''Faith is a mystery'' and all the lines that make a kid afraid of God and also in wonder of Him. But, I followed Christianity for a while, and I think it was about five years ago, or so when I read Charles Darwin's life story, how he was a devout Christian, and how he dismantled the Bible. It's thought that on his deathbed, he was agnostic...and maybe never fully left his Christian roots.But, it was then that I left Christianity, and thought...why are Christians afraid to accept the theory of evolution? Why was I taught to fear science, or to question it so much, but I was told to never question my faith, as a kid? It all seemed odd, even as a young child.

It is hard sometimes to view other religions without the lens of Christianity guiding me. I've viewed Islam, Buddhism Left Hand Path, etc all with this lens that doesn't make you see accurately ...reality. I think that's it wholly possible to take what resonates (not necessarily what is comforting) and apply it to our lives. There are many teachers in the world, Jesus said ''you'll know them by their fruits.'' According to the NT, Jesus didn't seem to think that there were no other teachers in the world, then or to come, but to just look at their fruits, and you'll know if you should listen to them. But, Jesus also talked about salvation, this is something we don't see in other faiths - there isn't a human being setting out to save the world from hell.

Anyways, this is all a rambling mess to say...I don't know if we are to overthink this too much, but rather absorb what we learn, decide if it truly seems rational, decide it moves you, decide if it changes you for the better. Much of all we need comes from within, even Jesus said...''the kingdom of God is within you.'' All open for interpretation, I guess? lol

Thank you for what you said, btw. You're sweet.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The problem with cherry picking is that it can be an egocentric search like trying on shoes until one finds the shoes that fit.

I don't see a problem here. While it can be egocentric, it doesn't have to be. Depend's who's doing the picking.

I find the ancient religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam interesting and important in understanding the the view of God and Revelation at the time they were written, and can see all the religions revealing of the progressive nature of human spiritual evolution. In this consideration I found Judaism, Christianity, and Islam most problematic because of their egocentric view of considering their religions complete as the fathers of their religion believed and no further revelation is allowed, negating the spiritual value of the rest of the world, and future revelations.

I don't see completion or even egocentricity as much a problem as lack of religious tolerance.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't see a problem here. While it can be egocentric, it doesn't have to be. Depend's who's doing the picking.

Who is doing the picking remains the big "I"

I don't see completion or even egocentricity as much a problem as lack of religious tolerance.

Tolerance is only by degree how we 'tolerate' those that believe differently. If we need to tolerate those that believe differently, there comes times of cultural tension when find the need to be intolerant, and often worse often war sometimes to extent of attempting to exterminate those we previously tolerated. That is the nature and historical fact of the differences between the ancient religions in history.

 

[DeepShadow]

The problem with cherry picking is that it can be an egocentric search like trying on shoes until one finds the shoes that fit.

Well, yes. Religion isn't shoes. While I wholeheartedly support your right--even responsibility--to test beliefs as you learn them, part of the purpose of religion is to push us to achieve greater potential, rather than just approve of us as we are.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, yes. Religion isn't shoes. While I wholeheartedly support your right--even responsibility--to test beliefs as you learn them, part of the purpose of religion is to push us to achieve greater potential, rather than just approve of us as we are.

You missed the use of an analogy here. back up and try again. Ken S understood even though we disagree on many things.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Who is doing the picking remains the big "I"

I don't know what this^^ means.

Tolerance is only by degree how we 'tolerate' those that believe differently. If we need to tolerate those that believe differently, there comes times of cultural tension when find the need to be intolerant, and often worse often war sometimes to extent of attempting to exterminate those we previously tolerated. That is the nature and historical fact of the differences between the ancient religions in history.

We? I tolerate those that believe differently every day. Never had the desire to even proselytize, let alone exterminate any of them.

Yeah, I get that people historically killed over religious intolerance, but I honestly don't see @Deidre going out and picking off people that believe differently from her because she cherry-picked and became Eclectic.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You missed the use of an analogy here. back up and try again. Ken S understood even though we disagree on many things.

Okay, let's ride this horse once more around the track...

So rather than picking out shoes that fit comfortably, it's better to just walk around with blisters on your feet so you don't ruffle any feathers? Better to bend your beliefs and principles to conform to an organized religion than to pick what works for you?

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know what this^^ means.

The big "I" is the ego. It is in the mirror.

We? I tolerate those that believe differently every day. Never had the desire to even proselytize, let alone exterminate any of them.

The ego speaking.

Yeah, I get that people historically killed over religious intolerance, but I honestly don't see @Deidre going out and picking off people that believe differently from her because she cherry-picked and became Eclectic.

This simply not the reality of the nature of human nature in relation to who tolerates who in terms of the nature of religious belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, let's ride this horse once more around the track...

So rather than picking out shoes that fit comfortably, it's better to just walk around with blisters on your feet so you ruffle any feathers? Better to bend your beliefs and principles to conform to an organized religion than to pick what works for you?

No, that is not the answer, despite devoted believers going up 500 marble steps of the cathedral on their bare knees in 95 degree heat carrying a 100 pound cross on their back.

 

[Deidre]

The big "I" is the ego. It is in the mirror.




The ego speaking.



This simply not the reality of the nature of human nature in relation to who tolerates who in terms of the nature of religious belief.

I'm only speaking of my own choices as they relate to beliefs and faith, not tolerating or not tolerating anyone else's views. I'm sorry, I'm confused as to what you mean?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The big "I" is the ego. It is in the mirror.

Perhaps your mirror. Don't presume to know me or my Self because you don't.

The ego speaking.

Bzzt!! Wrong again.

This simply not the reality of the nature of human nature in relation to who tolerates who in terms of the nature of religious belief.

Because as we all know, generalizations are always 100% accurate.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, that is not the answer, despite devoted believers going up 500 marble steps of the cathedral on their bare knees in 95 degree heat carrying a 100 pound cross on their back.

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps your mirror. Don't presume to know me or my Self because you don't.

I do not presume to know myself. I am subject to the rules like everyone else

Bzzt!! Wrong again.
Because as we all know, generalizations are always 100% accurate.

No, because all generalizations are inaccurate.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. make em walk the steps again and again until they repent.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, because all generalizations are inaccurate.

I think you missed the sarcasm in my statement.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Nah i dont think it is a good idea. Real truth can only be objective by cherry picking you are being subjective thus what you are finding are not truth at all.

There's no way for you to ascertain 'real truth' except through your own subjective evaluation. And there's no reason to think that one place has all of the 'real truth.'