Religious Cherry picking-yay or ney?

[Terrywoodenpic]

If you asked any number of Anglicans in the street what they knew about theology, a large majority would say nothing.

I you asked them about the catechism, the thirty nine articles, Church dogma, to name the books in the New Testament, what Advent was, The church calendar, the name of an Anglican Saint, What part Mary plays in the Church. The difference between a priest and a Bishop... Most would just look blankly at you. This is as true of Church goers as those nominal members.

The Anglican faith is mostly expressed in worship..... Theology, and Dogma live in the weird world of priests.

 

[cyberman]

I voted 'other'.

To argue that we have to accept all of the Bible as true is as lazy as arguing that we have to reject all of it as false.

It is not a question of ‘cherry picking’. It is a question of doing some work and using your brain. Treat each book of the Bible as we would treat any other document from the ancient near east. That's how we do history. That's how we do textual criticism. The books are separate works, written by different people for different reasons.

Imagine I compiled an anthology of ancient Greek works. I included Herodotus, Homer, Thucydides and Aesop.

Herodotus claims to be history, has some things which are accurate but includes much rumour and fantasy. Thucydides claims to be history and is fairly accurate, but as with any source we have to be aware of inaccuracy and bias. No human historian is infallible. Homer is written as fiction but does contain some actual events. Aesop makes no pretence of being true stories, but can nevertheless be said to contain 'truths' about relationships etc.

Imagine two thousand years after I make this compilation, many of the original sources are lost. Historians find and peruse my compilation. An historian reads Thucydides and says "Ah, this is interesting - it confirms that the unrest in Sparta preceded the battle of something-or-another"

Would it make any sense to reply to that historian "You can only believe that if you also believe that the Hare and the Tortoise is a true story."?

 

[Levite]

Maybe I'm really Jewish!

Ha! What a score for us that would be!

But it sounds to me like your people are just as much in need of educated, thoughtful, cool-headed men and women to take up lay leadership as are mine.... Much as we'd love to have you, I think you're doing more good where you are....

 

[Skwim]

I believe all Christians, and perhaps those of other faiths as well, consciously or unconsciously cherry pick to some extent or another. I single out Christians because of all the contradictory elements in the Bible, which preclude any agreement with everything.

 

[Jainarayan]

Cafeteria Catholics.

 

[Skwim]

Cafeteria Catholics.

Actually, as I understand Catholicism Catholics don't read the Bible much at all (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). Instead, they rely more on what they're told.

 

[Jainarayan]

Instead, they rely more on what they're told.

And even then they tend to ignore most of it. The biggest issue is artificial birth control.

 

[Sir Doom]

I picked other.

I just make up what I like to believe. Other religions always seem... inadequate. Basically, I do cherry pick to a certain degree, in that I think every single religion with any sort of member base must necessarily contain some sort of wisdom and understanding or it just wouldn't exist. Certainly not for the scope of time that so many have. So in this way I am always ready to find those nuggets wherever they may be, and I'm not going to let silly things like talking snakes or winged donkeys stop me.

Because I've decided to form my religious beliefs in the way I do, and because I believe very much in our human right to freedom of expression, I have to say even the most blatantly self-serving forms of cherry-picking must be perfectly okay in all cases.

 

[Falvlun]

This is actually one issue where this forum has changed my mind. I used to consider cherry-picking a sign of weakness, either in the believer or in the religion, and ridiculed it accordingly. Now, I actually applaud it as a healthy way to approach religion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To be perfectly honest, I just couldn't not cherry-pick some things when it came to my beliefs. There were certain things that I felt compelled to reject and 'cherry-pick' out of my beliefs, even if I didn't 'consciously' want to.

When it comes to certain belief systems, I believe it's better to be inconsistent and kind rather than consistent and cruel. That is, if the belief system(s) in question don't allow for one to be both consistent and kind while following each and every one of its orders and commands.

 

[Willamena]

This is actually one issue where this forum has changed my mind. I used to consider cherry-picking a sign of weakness, either in the believer or in the religion, and ridiculed it accordingly. Now, I actually applaud it as a healthy way to approach religion.

They make good pies, too.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think in the religions we were raised in, assuming we had a religion, we accepted it lock, stock and barrel, whether it made sense or not. There was no global communication, so you didn't question or share ideas. Things have changed now.

 

[Willamena]

I think in the religions we were raised in, assuming we had a religion, we accepted it lock, stock and barrel, whether it made sense or not. There was no global communication, so you didn't question or share ideas. Things have changed now.

The world has changed, and not necessarily for the better, but globalization is the philosophy for the early 21st Century, and it's here to stay.

 

[Jainarayan]

For sure.

 

[Skwim]

This is actually one issue where this forum has changed my mind. I used to consider cherry-picking a sign of weakness, either in the believer or in the religion, and ridiculed it accordingly. Now, I actually applaud it as a healthy way to approach religion.

In as much as cherry-picking in religion is a matter of picking out those passages that support your beliefs and regarding them as evidence, and discarding those that don't support your beliefs and usually stand in opposition to your evidence, just how is this a healthy way to approach religion?

 

[Skwim]

The world has changed, and not necessarily for the better, but globalization is the philosophy for the early 21st Century, and it's here to stay.

Never heard of globalization spoken of as a philosophy. Just how does this philosophy read?

 

[Me Myself]

In as much as cherry-picking in religion is a matter of picking out those passages that support your beliefs and regarding them as evidence, and discarding those that don't support your beliefs and usually stand in opposition to your evidence, just how is this a healthy way to approach religion?

as "evidence" ? Never heard of that concept of cheryr picking. Cherry picking doesnt deal with the whys but the whats. "what" is cherry picking? taking freely from different texts or religions to form your beliefs

"Why"? depends on the person. "how" ? well I guess some do it because "this is evidence" but meh o.o

 

[Riverwolf]

Cherry-picking is the natural way religions evolve and remain relevant; without it, the spiritual aspect of religion would stagnate and become completely lost. Suddenly, the practices and beliefs are only held for comfort of familiarity, rather than actual benefit. In addition, the rules of conduct and ritual are done only because others do it, rather than in a way that's actually helpful to the individual and/or community.

It also causes radical misinterpretations and ludicrous explanations that make no sense which are ultimately detrimental.

Even fully organized religions formed through cherry-picking a pre-existing template (even if they claim otherwise, which they pretty much always do), so it's something that's done even if there is a legitimate attempt not to.

I cherry pick more than a little, but I do identify as Hindu because I don't cherry pick enough to call myself anything else at the moment. That is open to change in the future as needed.

So, not only do I say yay, I believe it's absolutely necessary.

 

[Skwim]

as "evidence" ? Never heard of that concept of cheryr picking.

Okay.

Cherry picking doesnt deal with the whys but the whats.

Without the whys the whats would be pretty meaningless.

"what" is cherry picking? taking freely from different texts or religions to form your beliefs

Quite possibly: however, as I phrased my post, it is within a religion, more specifically, Christianity.

"

Why"? depends on the person.

Pretty much, but I think the common denominator is as I explained: the support of one's beliefs.

 

[Skwim]

Cherry-picking is the natural way religions evolve and remain relevant; without it, the spiritual aspect of religion would stagnate and become completely lost. Suddenly, the practices and beliefs are only held for comfort of familiarity, rather than actual benefit. In addition, the rules of conduct and ritual are done only because others do it, rather than in a way that's actually helpful to the individual and/or community.

It also causes radical misinterpretations and ludicrous explanations that make no sense which are ultimately detrimental.

Even fully organized religions formed through cherry-picking a pre-existing template (even if they claim otherwise, which they pretty much always do), so it's something that's done even if there is a legitimate attempt not to.

I cherry pick more than a little, but I do identify as Hindu because I don't cherry pick enough to call myself anything else at the moment. That is open to change in the future as needed.

So, not only do I say yay, I believe it's absolutely necessary.

While this is obviously a selection procedure, I don't believe it rises to the level of cherry-picking very often.

Just to make clear what cherry-picking is, I came across this rather nice explanation on Wikipedia.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally."

​

Notice the necessary rejection of evidence that contradicts a position. This is key to cherry picking.