Setting aside the fact that we're apex predators ourselves, how exactly could God have no responsibility for diseases and predators but still be responsible for humanity?
... or is the God you envision not responsible for humanity either?
-
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!
What's wrong with "cherry picking?"
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
... or is the God you envision not responsible for humanity either?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Scholars' researches about it.
That is very much a secondary consideration for anyone who is honest with himself or herself, IMO.
Furthermore, that is how it should be, as well.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
But what do you mean by 'sound'?
The scripture mentioned is certainly 'sound' to a lot of muslims.
Overall, I think a considered approach to a religion is a good idea, and that blindly accepting every jot and tittle of a scripture isn't considered... but neither is picking and choosing verses based on gut feelings.
Ideally, we should be able to come up with good reasons why we accept the passages we accept, and we should be honest about the implications of those reasons (such as, potentially, when they imply that you should accept other verses you reject).
Ideally, we should be able to come up with good reasons why we accept the passages we accept, and we should be honest about the implications of those reasons (such as, potentially, when they imply that you should accept other verses you reject).
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
It's not clear to me how scholarly research could determine that the words reported in some text reflect God's actual view, in any objective way
Everyone must make his or her own decision and take the responsibility for it. I just see no other way.
Even "relying on / trusting" the scripture is ultimately just third-partying that responsibility to scholars or other authorities, and that is really no better.
MD
qualiaphile
I think all religions are philosophies, rather than actual words of God. Since all religions are philosophies, and all philosophies work off earlier philosophies, they're are fallible and open to change and interpretations. To try and put things in perspective, the universe has trillions of stars, hundreds of billions of galaxies and God knows how many planets (pun intended). Can any book written 1400 years ago really capture such a power like an Abrahamic God has?
That's the problem with Islam, since it is supposed to be the literal word of God you cannot dissent or question. Any sort of dissent is seen as attacking God and a work of Shaytan. Like I said earlier, it stifles free thought.
As a spiritual theist, I do believe all religions try to capture the divine to some extent, even Islam. Heck there are some Azans and Nasheeds which even I find to be very beautiful. But to encapsulate God, when we don't even have a basic understanding of the universe or our minds is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst. And Islam has a lot of flaws in it, and it has a lot of the 'scientific miracles' wrong. So it is not the literal word of God.
The Islam you would be following is a very liberal form of Islam which isn't what most Muslims follow. It would be to follow it as a philosophy and a spiritual path rather than the literal, absolute word of God.
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Keep looking and cast a wide net.
Well, I look to the history of the world, in following the Abrahamic faiths…there has been a lot of blood shed in the name of God. Yes? However you justify all of it, that’s a fact. I’m not disliking Scripture for the sake of it…I see how some Scripture has hurt mankind because of those who cling to every word of Scripture as if every word came from the mouth of a god…we can see that it hasn’t benefitted societies, globally.
I happen to think that all of the Abrahamic faiths have a lot of beauty within, but also a lot of dark areas…that seem to suggest that God is a moody despot who if he doesn’t get his own way, there will be hell to pay. Literally.
I believe in a higher power, but I don’t believe that every word uttered about him throughout the ages, originated from him.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
That's not exactly what I was referring to.
If you are going to accept the Quran, for example, as being representative of the word of god in the first place, then you should have a good reason, other than your liking, to think of any passage as being a forgery, or in other words strictly man-made. If there is no hint of such a passage being a forgery then it should not be considered a forgery.
Let's put this into perspective: It is absurd to claim that the theory of evolution is not true merely because you don't like it, nor its implications. Truth doesn't depend on whether you would like something to be true.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Trusting scholars is in no way third-partying responsibility.
So how do you tell what's true from what's false? If you only screen out the things that are uncomfortable for you, won't you be letting through a lot of comforting lies?
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Koldo: no arguments about the correspondence theory of truth. At least not today. From me. I don't think there's much disagreement on that point, just a disagreement about whether that point is particularly relevant here. I think making it a choice between accepting an entire text and declaring some part a forgery is again a false one though. Or it conflates the idea of the authenticity of a text with the truth of its contents. We can believe some part of a text is authentic: i.e written by the same author as the rest of it, but think the human author was wrong, or at least not entirely right. It's not easy, imo, to boil most religious texts down to a set of propositions that all must be true or false in a binary way. That would eliminate a lot of the richness of expression found in religious tradition.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
The point I am trying to get at is: If the god you see on the scriptures is a moody despot then so be it. Don't "cherry-pick" scripture just because you prefer a different god.
I just don't see how you can possibly believe that.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that some of the text might be wrong, misguided or an outright forgery. My only concern is that you shouldn't disregard a particular part of the scripture just because you don't like what you are reading.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I take responsibility for my own choices and actions regardless of whether I have been instructed or guided by someone else.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
I read you as hearing the words "don't like" as indicating a fairly shallow whim or preference. In that sense, I agree with you. I think when Deidre talks about not liking apparently misogynistic positions within the scriptures, that probably is a more reasoned and considered disagreement, although still maybe expressed as "not liking" it. Beyond the wording, I think we may be substantially in agreement
I think "cherry pick" is not the best image to use. I don't take any scripture as literal but I do believe there is a core of Truth in all scriptures.
In the New Testament, I see that core in the two greatest commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Anything which is to me in conflict with the law of love is not something I accept.
In the Quran, I would pick the 99 names of Allah especially the first two Ar Rahman, The Exceedingly Compassionate, The Exceedingly Beneficent, The Exceedingly Gracious (to all of humanity and all creatures), and Ar Rahim, The Exceedingly Merciful. Anything that appears to contradict compassion and mercy is to me not something I should follow.
In the New Testament, I see that core in the two greatest commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Anything which is to me in conflict with the law of love is not something I accept.
In the Quran, I would pick the 99 names of Allah especially the first two Ar Rahman, The Exceedingly Compassionate, The Exceedingly Beneficent, The Exceedingly Gracious (to all of humanity and all creatures), and Ar Rahim, The Exceedingly Merciful. Anything that appears to contradict compassion and mercy is to me not something I should follow.