Not really, yeah it’s acknowledged, but it’s brushed off, if you mention any of the contradictions in the Bible or talk about even the rules in the New Testament people will look at you like you’re crazy and move on or go “yeah” and move on, no one really wants to actually focus on it.
**Reverend Lovejoy:**
Homer, I'd like you to remember Matthew 7:26. "The foolish man who built his house upon the sand."
**Homer:**
\[pointing a finger\] And you remember
\[thinks\]
**Homer:**
Matthew... 21:17.
**Reverend Lovejoy:**
\[confused\] "And he left them and went out of the city, into Bethany, and he lodged there?"
**Homer:**
Yeah. Think about it.
Rules are Rules.... unless they are inconvenient, then they are more of a suggestion. Unless that suggestion aligns with your prejudices, then they are super important and must be rigidly obeyed, unless you don’t want to.
Try asking christians, not atheists.
As a former christian, I won't deny that they do cherry pick but this isn't always totally arbitrary. The idea is that Jesus changes the rules of the game and they do not need to observe some of the "old" rituals, including intermediaries to ask for forgiveness and so on. Granted this also means the 10 commandments and a bunch of other stuff belong to the "old covenant"... so yeah.
The point is the bible is incoherent and the only way to observe \*some\* of what it says is by ignoring the other part. Premarital sex in particular is interesting since the bible is not clear about what "marriage" actually is, and social sensibilities about sex change over time. Many christians actually do abstain from premarital sex though, and way more stuff than you imagine which in many cases results in emotionally and socially stunted individuals. I would also try not to generalize and say "every christian" does or doesn't do something. Again, ask them.
The bible is so vague and convoluted, you can find justification for any viewpoint you're trying to support, even if it's directly opposed to something else in the bible. (If not, do what Christian leadership does and apply a little creative interpretation to suit your needs.)
The ones who don't cherry-pick are thought of as "extremists" or "fundamentalists," yet they are the only ones who actually follow what their book says.
I used to have a friend of a friend that would go on the longest rants on social media about how homosexuality was wrong... meanwhile she was 15 and had 3 pregnancy scares with her bf of 9 months. Nothing makes sense.
They have to. The dogmas of the bible are often mutually contradictory so it's impossible to follow the entire bible word for word without ending up in a mental institution or a morgue within a week. For example, one passage advocates [spreading the word](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A15-16&version=ESV), whereas another advocates [keeping your religious beliefs private](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6:2&version=ESV). You can do one or the other, but you can't do both.
Because if they admitted that the Torah applied forever, then they would have to admit that Jesus wasn't God. And that goes against their original goal of blending Greco-Roman and Jewish theologies.
Cherry picking is why you have so many sects. Assembly of God swear speaking in tongues is proof of the presence of the holy spirit, free will Baptist say that it is a waste of time. Certain denominations denounce homosexuality, others are inclusive about it.
"Turn the other cheek "doesn't get a lot of followers. Neither does the brother's keeper thing. The Pilate Handwashing School, however, has lots of adepts.
Christianity has always adjusted it's beliefs to fit in with each moment in time and in turn has really diluted the religion. Say what you want about Islam but they have never compromised on their principles and have emphasised the preservation of their faith.
If you mean individuals, yes. The ones that pick the wrong side are called “sinners”. And the Bible says that *everyone* is a sinner. So the idea is hard-baked into Christianity and the only people who are surprised by it are folks who don’t realize how it works.
In the novel *Elmer Gantry* the titular fire-breathing fraud pastor tries to get the other pastors in his town to support his plan to raid all the local bars and brothels. The Catholic priest declines, saying something like, “Our doctrine may be more rigid than yours, Brother Gantry, but it doesn’t come as a shock to us, as it appears to do to you, that sinners often sin.”
Back when I was a believer I had a church history teacher who pointed out that we here in the U.S. have a very different view of this than most people in Europe do. We tend to look at morals and the Bible as a set of rules to be obeyed whereas in Europe they tend to view them more as a set of goals to be achieved. If everyone is a sinner and all sinners sin, the European view is much more realistic.
> it's not a matter of is it true or not, it's a matter of believing it
And I don't. Because it's ludicrous.
> How many stories of people in jail that started being religious and changed and became good are there out there?
I mean I'm sure it looks really good in front of the parole board.
ofc u don't, I don't either, but I try my best to respect those who do, and I don't try to talk them out of it. Of course some of the conversions are fake, but some are not
and so what? Once they are asshole to you you have every right to be an asshole to them, what I meant is that atheism should not be like a religion, trying to get new members in
I never talk to people about their religion until they get in my face about it, which happens often because so many of them seem unable to cope with the fact that I don’t want to join their cult. That being said, I can’t say that I think it’s wrong for others to try to de-convert religious people if they want to. It’s pretty clear that religion, and bad thinking in general, is harmful to individuals and society as a whole. Why not try to foster a more skeptical world?
Well yeah the reason we criticize texts as literal is because there are people who think they’re literally true. Even then, certain texts don’t really make sense as metaphors. Stoning men to death for being homosexual, beating your slaves, women not being allowed to speak during church, etc. I don’t see how this is supposed to be figurative
Yes, the phenomenon is called cherry picking, otherwise known as the fallacy for incomplete evidence.
... how is this a question
Not everyone one grew up around religion, chill man
it's literally common knowledge
Not really, yeah it’s acknowledged, but it’s brushed off, if you mention any of the contradictions in the Bible or talk about even the rules in the New Testament people will look at you like you’re crazy and move on or go “yeah” and move on, no one really wants to actually focus on it.
Ugh obvious is obvious
I don't see too many of them renouncing all of their worldly possessions, so yes.
Show me even one Christian that literally follows every rule in the bible and I’ll show you my pet unicorn.
"...even the ones that contradict the other ones." \-- Ned Flanders
Ah Ned. The only *true* christian.
Orthodox Jews, but they not do the first half. They have many fat books dealing with how to keep both halves of every contradiction.
you have to. it's literally impossible to follow the whole thing. have you read it? we're not even supposed to go to the bathroom in town.
**Reverend Lovejoy:** Homer, I'd like you to remember Matthew 7:26. "The foolish man who built his house upon the sand." **Homer:** \[pointing a finger\] And you remember \[thinks\] **Homer:** Matthew... 21:17. **Reverend Lovejoy:** \[confused\] "And he left them and went out of the city, into Bethany, and he lodged there?" **Homer:** Yeah. Think about it.
Rules are Rules.... unless they are inconvenient, then they are more of a suggestion. Unless that suggestion aligns with your prejudices, then they are super important and must be rigidly obeyed, unless you don’t want to.
Or unless they want to enforce rules on others.
Try asking christians, not atheists. As a former christian, I won't deny that they do cherry pick but this isn't always totally arbitrary. The idea is that Jesus changes the rules of the game and they do not need to observe some of the "old" rituals, including intermediaries to ask for forgiveness and so on. Granted this also means the 10 commandments and a bunch of other stuff belong to the "old covenant"... so yeah. The point is the bible is incoherent and the only way to observe \*some\* of what it says is by ignoring the other part. Premarital sex in particular is interesting since the bible is not clear about what "marriage" actually is, and social sensibilities about sex change over time. Many christians actually do abstain from premarital sex though, and way more stuff than you imagine which in many cases results in emotionally and socially stunted individuals. I would also try not to generalize and say "every christian" does or doesn't do something. Again, ask them.
The bible is so vague and convoluted, you can find justification for any viewpoint you're trying to support, even if it's directly opposed to something else in the bible. (If not, do what Christian leadership does and apply a little creative interpretation to suit your needs.)
The ones who don't cherry-pick are thought of as "extremists" or "fundamentalists," yet they are the only ones who actually follow what their book says.
No! They also pick things that aren't in the Bible. Their view on abortion for instance has no biblical basis.
I used to have a friend of a friend that would go on the longest rants on social media about how homosexuality was wrong... meanwhile she was 15 and had 3 pregnancy scares with her bf of 9 months. Nothing makes sense.
Yes, because otherwise they’d be in jail for selling their kids, stoning people, and other obnoxious and criminal behaviour.
They have to. The dogmas of the bible are often mutually contradictory so it's impossible to follow the entire bible word for word without ending up in a mental institution or a morgue within a week. For example, one passage advocates [spreading the word](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A15-16&version=ESV), whereas another advocates [keeping your religious beliefs private](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6:2&version=ESV). You can do one or the other, but you can't do both.
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Duh
Because if they admitted that the Torah applied forever, then they would have to admit that Jesus wasn't God. And that goes against their original goal of blending Greco-Roman and Jewish theologies.
Cherry picking is why you have so many sects. Assembly of God swear speaking in tongues is proof of the presence of the holy spirit, free will Baptist say that it is a waste of time. Certain denominations denounce homosexuality, others are inclusive about it.
"Turn the other cheek "doesn't get a lot of followers. Neither does the brother's keeper thing. The Pilate Handwashing School, however, has lots of adepts.
Cafeteria Christian is nomenclature. Take what they like. Ignore the bad stuff.
Christianity has always adjusted it's beliefs to fit in with each moment in time and in turn has really diluted the religion. Say what you want about Islam but they have never compromised on their principles and have emphasised the preservation of their faith.
Well, they cherry pick which I think is wrong.
If you mean individuals, yes. The ones that pick the wrong side are called “sinners”. And the Bible says that *everyone* is a sinner. So the idea is hard-baked into Christianity and the only people who are surprised by it are folks who don’t realize how it works. In the novel *Elmer Gantry* the titular fire-breathing fraud pastor tries to get the other pastors in his town to support his plan to raid all the local bars and brothels. The Catholic priest declines, saying something like, “Our doctrine may be more rigid than yours, Brother Gantry, but it doesn’t come as a shock to us, as it appears to do to you, that sinners often sin.” Back when I was a believer I had a church history teacher who pointed out that we here in the U.S. have a very different view of this than most people in Europe do. We tend to look at morals and the Bible as a set of rules to be obeyed whereas in Europe they tend to view them more as a set of goals to be achieved. If everyone is a sinner and all sinners sin, the European view is much more realistic.
[удалено]
> it's not a matter of is it true or not, it's a matter of believing it And I don't. Because it's ludicrous. > How many stories of people in jail that started being religious and changed and became good are there out there? I mean I'm sure it looks really good in front of the parole board.
ofc u don't, I don't either, but I try my best to respect those who do, and I don't try to talk them out of it. Of course some of the conversions are fake, but some are not
> I try my best to respect those who do I can assure you that they have absolutely no interest in returning the favour.
and so what? Once they are asshole to you you have every right to be an asshole to them, what I meant is that atheism should not be like a religion, trying to get new members in
Whoever said that it was?
well talking people out of their religion isn't that?
Again, when did I say I was trying to push people out of their religion?
you're right my bad, I made a nonsense assumption
I never talk to people about their religion until they get in my face about it, which happens often because so many of them seem unable to cope with the fact that I don’t want to join their cult. That being said, I can’t say that I think it’s wrong for others to try to de-convert religious people if they want to. It’s pretty clear that religion, and bad thinking in general, is harmful to individuals and society as a whole. Why not try to foster a more skeptical world?
Well yeah the reason we criticize texts as literal is because there are people who think they’re literally true. Even then, certain texts don’t really make sense as metaphors. Stoning men to death for being homosexual, beating your slaves, women not being allowed to speak during church, etc. I don’t see how this is supposed to be figurative