Do you 'Cherry Pick' the Bible?

Namaste Jesus said:
I'll make a comment for instance and someone will ask where it says that in the Bible. Then I'll end up finding the passage or passages that support what I said.
Click to expand...
Well text citation is not cherry-picking per se. It becomes so when certain texts are cited, and other texts dismissed, or when the reasoning to accept some texts but dismiss others is illogical.

My constant argument is: If one considers portions of the Gospels to be so 'wild' as to be obvious mythic fabrications – say the miracle stories, or the Resurrection – then on what basis can one logically and rationally consider other portions be treated as 'valid' or 'authentic' or in any other way worthy of consideration? None, as far as I can see.

I really don't mind if people believe or disbelieve. If however you do believe, then please be rational about it, because it makes it harder for the rest of us to be accorded any credibility if you're not.
 
Well if that is all it takes.... then yes, I can assume there are many people that don't cherry pick...and it appears I may be oneo_O:eek:
 
Well we've got points of contention on this.... it appears one says Cherry Picking is only picking the passages that suit your fancy, prove your agenda (as was/is done against civil rights) the other is saying if you don't consider all scripture (no matter whether you consider it metaphysic, metaphor, history or literal) consideration is the key...we'll differ on interpretation...

Thomas and Edgy provided two differing views of what cherry picking is...
 
Thomas said:
Well text citation is not cherry-picking per se. It becomes so when certain texts are cited, and other texts dismissed, or when the reasoning to accept some texts but dismiss others is illogical.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added. I believe that was my definition of cherry picking! The sticky in the wicket is who gets to decide when some texts are reasonable and others are not. Fundies do this all the time. It is THE definition of fundamentalism. You have stuck yourself in a bind here, I think. It is unrealistic to accept the entire package as is (i.e. many now say some of the Bible is history and some metaphor) AND as soon as anyone starts deciding which one is which 'for their reasoning' - Ta Da! Cherry picking!
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I believe that was my definition of cherry picking!
Click to expand...
OK!

Devils' Advocate said:
The sticky in the wicket is who gets to decide when some texts are reasonable and others are not.
Click to expand...
Quite, and that rests on the logic of the argument. Is is sound, or suspect?

Devils' Advocate said:
Fundies do this all the time.
Click to expand...
There are fundies of every ilk. Sure, creationists and right wing conservative Christians do it, but then so do liberals ... The selective methodology of the Jesus Seminar is a stand-out example of it, and so are the claims of the likes of Bishop Spong. It's just 'liberal fundies' cannot see that they are fundies!

I'm not saying you have to believe Scripture, that, in the end, is a matter of faith.

Devils' Advocate said:
It is unrealistic to accept the entire package as is ...
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone does, these days, but certain US fundie groups.

Devils' Advocate said:
i.e. many now say some of the Bible is history and some metaphor...
Click to expand...
And again, we've been saying that for hundreds of years.

The point is, on what basis do some claim 'this' is 'true' and 'that' is metaphor ... that's where the reasoning stands or falls.

Those who say the miracles are all metaphors on the a priori rejection of miracles are entitled to that pov, but that pov hardly constitutes a telling argument. It's an opinion at best.

Do remember we're talking about God here, so one might credibly expect a little more than the mundane.

Take the text of the man born blind, and treat it as metaphor ... then it collapses, because the text itself renders the popular metaphorical interpretation illogical.

So my contention would be:
A: Accept the miracle, or
B: Reject the miracle.

But don't invent some 'deeper metaphorical meaning' when the text quite clearly indicates there's no such thing going on. You're just inventing now ...

Devils' Advocate said:
AND as soon as anyone starts deciding which one is which 'for their reasoning' - Ta Da! Cherry picking!
Click to expand...
Then the whole peer review process of critique and reason, on which scholarship stands, falls under that definition.
 
39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?

41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

So the story goes...His parents say, "We don't know who Opened his eyes"...in the story Jesus explains the metaphor... In each healing of the blind...there includes a metaphor...like your faith has allowed you to see...

The 'miracle' cements the metaphor...causes us to remember it...the story has value...true or not.
 
That's an interesting take on the comments made after the miracle, to the audience, so in that sense it's an explanation of the miracle, the miracle has happened, which is why the dialogue you reference takes place.

The point about the healing of the man born blind is that he is not 'enllightened' after the miracle in any spiritual sense, that much is clear in his own words.

That's why I tend to read it as true.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Do you 'Cherry Pick' the Bible?
Click to expand...
To me the Bible always seemed like bits were missing and what is there seemed like it was in the wrong order somehow. So I sort of 'Cherry Pick' the Bible in reverse. That is, I don't throw any cherries away, but I tend to rearrange them a little and fill in the bare spots with cherries from other trees. Don't try to figure that out. It only makes sense to me.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top