I’m getting so incredibly tired of hearing from the cherry-picking fundamentalists (yes, I admit. I shouldn’t have listened to fundamentalist talk radio on the way home from work tonight).
Here’s a challenge for each of them: If the entire Bible is inerrant, then read each of its passages closely. Don’t skip these parts. If the Bible is truly inerrant, give each passage equal opportunity. Every time you quote a part that suits your immediate needs, quote one of these passages. Quote them each slowly and let the words soak in, if you dare. Focus entire church services around each one of these passages, if you dare.
Put each of these principles into practice, if you dare. You’d better hope that the police don’t catch you in the act.
Larry: The topic of this post is that cherry-picking Believers believers of Bible inerrancy are embarassed by many ridiculous passages of the Old Testament, which they thus ignore. If you wanted to contest this point, you could argue that the practices advocated are NOT ridiculous (i.e., by arguing that they DO have application in the modern world) or you might argue that modern day Believers DON'T skip over these passages. Maybe there are other legitimate approaches as well.
Instead, you've argued that I've found fault with false teachings of churches rather than with the words of the Bible. That is incorrect. I'm considering the actual words of the Bible that many fundamentalists advocate to be inerrant.
Then you argue that slaves (as described in the Bible) are the modern equivalent of Wal-Mart employees (rather than anything like the slavery that Americans abolished as a result of the Civil War).
I don't understand your point about hell and forced conversion.
I agree with Grumpy that you aren't coherent and that you are barely on topic. I do fear that your comments (with notable exceptions) are generally off-topic, tedious and preachy distractions to the serious points raised by many of the posts on this site.
Some people get completely obsessed with one narrow concept. All of us know people like that. I had a brother in law who joined AA and from that point on, everything that ever happened was, to him, a result of that evil alcohol. I know of people that say all the evils upon us are a result of one single issue, be it gay rights, abortion, racism, illegal immigration, etc., depending upon their particular focus. No matter what the topic, these obsessive people think everything boils down to that one thing, and no matter how hard pressed, they cannot see the fundamental flaws in their logic. They have become so obsessed with their great single issue that they can't reason, they can't take in facts that don't wholly support their position, they can't argue their position logically. Even if it were proved, beyond a shadow of any doubt to a rational mind, that the position was wrong, these people won't change their mind. They don't even know what rational is. They are boring and self deceptive. They think they are logical, they think they have a logical progression in their arguments, but they don't. Their minds are too full of roadblocks and detours. To analogize, if my goal is to always get to point B from point A, and I can never be deterred from that goal, then any pothole, detour, etc, is just going to be a hurdle for me to dodge. If presented with some fact I don't like because it doesn't support my issue, or some logical argument that leads to a conclusion I don't like, I'll hop over that pittfall, I'll avoid it by going around it, or anything I can do, just so I'm sure to get to the result I've already determined.
I have absolutely no problem with people who have an opinion or belief and who take a stand they can support. I enjoy that back and forth (some say I like to argue). I expect people to be able to use logic and facts, and if necessary, to adjust their opinion or belief to conform to the facts, or at least admit they don't know how that particular fact or argument fits in. I want those people to present arguments and facts that make me think rationally about my own particular beliefs, and I expect them to do the same about their own when I, or others, bring up different issues or opinions.
Larry's obsession is religion. He has a few well thought out comments and questions, and occasionally the comments actually have something to do with the post. But he couldn't effectively debate himself out of a paper bag, because he doesn't understand that he has established certain absolute premises for himself and everybody else, and it is those very premises that we question and ask for proof. As a result, he has predetermined the answer no matter what the question. He's getting to Point B, no matter how he gets there. His point B is that God said so and wrote it all down in a single book.
Larry makes it clear in his posts that he doesn't understand (and I'm not sure he cares, it seems to be the 'cross he bears') why some of us, myself included, rag on him. I don't believe he is capable of seeing where his logical flaws are. I'm one of those with lots more questions than answers. He doesn't help me answer those questions, at least not often enough to make it worth sifting through his illogic for the gems. I for one, am not going to waste my time reading any more of his comments. If I see his name, I know his argument: God told me that, therefore I can't be wrong. Even if he is right, and he may sometimes be, to use his vernacular, God gave me a mind to use it, not just to blindly follow.
In defense of Larry J, one has to admit that he expresses his (often circular) reasoning without the counterproductive invective that so plagues the blogosphere, especially in the emotionally loaded topic of faith.
I get the feeling from his posts that he is trying to understand why we don't understand what is so obvious to him. It goes back to my Failure To Communicate post. When one has unexamined assumptions not held in common, it is hard to even see why communication fails. I'm afraid the double-negative is the only way to express that.
At the risk of seeming like "an analyst without portfolio," Larry's deal is fairly straightforward: he has a view of god and all that entails which is to him wholly consistent and obvious and we who argue with him about it are only trying to negotiate with the mountain. The mountain (god) doesn't care. Therefore, it is our problem. To Larry, god says "be this way because I say so" and when we seem to complain about the rules like small children, Larry points out that "well, he's god, he can say that–and back it up. No point complaining. No point trying to negotiate."
It is difficult to make a case with someone who does that. They are like single issue voters, who don't care what else may be on the ballot.
When you study the lives of the members of the first Royal Soceity of Science in London (Hook, Boyle, Newton, et al) you see many trying to hang on to a religious world view in spite of what their new experimentalism was showing them. As a result, some could not step out of their habitual modes of seeing to grasp how new and how different science actually was–and became quaint footnotes in history. It is hard to leave behind a way of seeing. Very hard. Harder when that way includes peering into a mirror all the time.
I sense that Larry is in fact becoming more open minded. Compare his first posts to his more recent posts, and he seems to be developing the ability to see things from a broad(er) perspective. A good exercise for the mind is to pretend you are floating out of your body, up into the sky, past the clouds, past heaven, past the moon (i hope i didn't get that backwards), past mars, past the sun, past jupiter, past pluto, then quiet for a while, then past a few galaxies, now very cold, but peaceful, gaze with your mind, gently up and around to earth and the other planets in the universe. Time is of the essence, we are lucky enough to be in a bubble of spacetime in which sentient beings exist, please do not spoil OUR limited time with delusions of grandeur.
Something which bothered me the other day was a radio show where
a caller was expressing a viewpoint about a recent court ruling. Seems tame enough…but it wasn't her disagreement with the court ruling which irked me, it was the way which she justified it. She seemed convinced that the court's ruling was made by corrupt court officials who were acting against God's will. How convenient that whenever the courts work well, it is because God has acted and "the courts have spoken", but any decisions she disagrees with are automatically attributed to corruption. I'm not sure if I was more angry or upset that she was so utterly blind to her deeply imbedded circular thinking.
My first mistake was not looking around here more before joining a discussion, since it is apparently a requirement to think in lock-step with everyone else. The next was overlooking the requisite to stay on topic even when someone asks a question that leads off topic. Some things do not have "yes" and "no" answers.
I agree with the topic of the post, if it is that some christians are cherry pickers. I thought that was obvious from some of my comments. I could add quite a bit to the list. There are entire denominations that call themselves "New Testament Christians". I am niether their accomplice nor trying to defend them.
I don't celebrate Christmas, I don't decorate a tree. These were adopted from paganism. Each of those verses that I have looked at have a modern application or should serve as a warning because human nature has not changed. We have not become more intelligent just more intellectual.
Dan hit upon part of it: the believers and unbelievers have diverged to a point where they are not communicating even when it is attempted. I feel like a maggot in a petri dish with people standing around discussing my attributes. This is a diversion; it's not about me, my faults or my lack of writings skills. And it's not really about cherry pickers either. We all have developed an equally narrow focus {learning while ignoring} and like Mary {Luke 10:42} I have chosen the better part.
Larry the Holy Writes:
"The things that were written before time were written for our learning…Every word of the original writings is there for a reason"
Larry, please explain how anything existed BEFORE TIME! Also, how were the *things* translated into WRITTEN WORDS that people could read?
Most likely the Bible was written by men like me (you). Here I will give it a whirl…
SAMPLE: Bible Verses from King James Version 3.14159
"THOU WHO SWALLOWETH UNLEAVENED BREAD SHALL WALLOW IN THE FIELDS WITH SWINE"
okay that sucked…but it was the first bible verse I have written in years
"BEHOLD, HE SAID UNTO THE LORD! AMEN MY CREATURES. THE HOLY SPIRIT SHALL FOLLOW YOU IN YOUR JOURNEYS AGAINST THE HEATHENS OF THE SCRIPTURE! GOD IS OUR SAVIOUR"
"THIS ONE TIME, UNTO BAND CAMP, THE LORD SAW FIT TO WAVE HIS HAND AND TURN COUNSELORS AS EVILDOERS"
If Larry's posts do appear to be more open minded (which I don't know because I've quit reading them), I suspect it is largely due to the editing by our esteemed administrator. He edits now for length and value, and leaving out the majority of preaching and nonsensical rhetoric.
Scholar's frustration with the circularity with which some people treat court decisions echoes my own. Time and again we hear right-wingers complaining about so-called "activist" judges, yet they only seem to apply that label to judges whose decisions they dislike. If a judge follows the law (the way the judge is supposed to), but rules against the right-wing agenda (the Terri Schiavo case comes to mind), then the right-wingers rant and rave, and brand the judge an "activist;" yet when a judge violates the law by displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, they don't consider that judge to be an activist at all. The radical Christian right uses the label as nothing more than a pejorative term applied to judges who rule against their beliefs; the actual meaning of the term simply doesn't matter to them.
Per Larry, "it is apparently a requirement to think in lock-step with everyone else." Yes, Larry. Here's the "lock step" to which you are referring: we tend to be evidence-based writers, none of whom take the Bible to be self-proving any more than any other holy book.
Beyond this aspect of being "lock-step," you're off-base. Most of the authors and commenters at this site have never met each other. This site is not a close-knit conspiracy. We are always correcting each others' thoughts. I'll admit, though, that none of us quote passages from any holy book to critique each other.
I do consider you to be in a Petri dish. You've put yourself there. No one has referred to you as a "maggot." It's never occurred to me to do so. For me, you represent more than just "Larry." You represent a challenge I commonly face: How to get intelligent yet devout people to use something other than their well-worn holy books as the starting points to serious discussions.
As far as fairness. Please, Larry. Refer me to ANY other social commentary site on the Internet that gives you even 10% of the leash I've given you in your comments. Please show me any site where you strut your stuff (where you've taken the superior path, as you assert) where readers keep asking you for more of the same.
I'm partial to Ezekiel 23:20.
Link to Icelander's quote: http://bible.cc/ezekiel/23-20.htm
the page is full of quotes, of course all taken out of context. Liberals are the best at taking everything out of context and trying to distort it for their own perverted ways. If each of these quotes is taken with the entire context they true meaning will be seen. For example Genesis 19: 31 Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. 32 "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father."
This is Lot and his two daughters after they have fled Sodom and Gomorrah. While living in Sodom Lot and his girls were constantly bombarded with immorality of all kinds, especially homosexuality, so they (the girls) turned to immoral behavior. Please do not try to blame God for the immorality of people. When immorality is promoted then all people suffer.
Eric: Truly, you've lost me. When you tell me that to read and believe the Bible because the Bible is true and it proves itself, that has a strong stench of circularity. Insert Koran instead of Bible, and you'll agree with me 100%.
You say that Reading the Bible closer makes it a more impressive book. I have tried that many times, and I find that the self-contradictions and ambiguities come to the forefront when one reads the Bible closely.
I don't have all the answers. I don't have a clue about many important things. Nor do the smartest scientists. But based on hundreds of contradictions and ambiguities, nor is the Bible a credible source of answers for most of the serious problems facing humans today.
I didn't start out my life disliking the Bible. I developed my opinions about the Bible by taking the time to read it closely.
You wrote “You say that Reading the Bible closer makes it a more impressive book. I have tried that many times,”
Thank you for this point. I understand you. I was you at one time. None of it made sense. I was taught how to study it using basic literary study tools and everything changed. Also I put all of my preconceived ideas (all of us have them) aside and allowed the Scripture to speak for itself. Until you do that you will never be able to understand it. Be open-minded as the liberals say. You talk about all of these contradictions but yet never bring any of them in context with the original intent of the author. I can talk about how bad Shakespeare is all day long and use quotes that I do not understand to try and prove my point. When I study Shakespeare in its context trying to understand the authors intent then my idea about his works change dramatically, I know because I have experienced that too.
You wrote “I don’t have all the answers. I don’t have a clue about many important things. Nor do the smartest scientists. But based on hundreds of contradictions and ambiguities, nor is the Bible a credible source of answers for most of the serious problems facing humans today.”
Point in case, we are killing ourselves left and right with STD’s in this country, self-inflicted problems. If we follow God’s plan virginity until marriage and fidelity in marriage then STD’s would be wiped out. The problem is condoms are promoted which do not protect 100% (not even close) against STD’s. If we follow God’s plan we will solve the problem. If we use our wisdom and continue promoting immorality then we will have to bear the consequences. It is a shame that my daughter will have to grow up in a world where 8,000 new teens are infected every day by an STD.
Erik: "Just Say No" is a pretend theory based on no evidence at all. It leads to huge numbers of unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence-only education is a joke. I'm not knocking the importance of abstinence. I am arguing that it isn't an entire program. It must also be accompanied by responsible methods of birth control.
Perhaps you don't agree, and that's your right, for YOU. In my opinion this is a personal decision where people should be allowed to make their own decisions, hopefully guided by accurate information. The abstinence-only program is a fraud. It has been proven to not work over and over. See the comments here. http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/09/02/does-…
With the abstinence is a joke comment you further prove my point. “Sex-ed” glorifies promiscuity and puts abstinence down (something old fashioned, or impossible). Abstinence has lead to a drop (it always will) in unwanted teen pregnancies over the last 20 years. The “condom/birth control” method started in the 70’s and teen pregnancies rose significantly. In the 90’s abstinence programs were introduced and amazingly teen pregnancies dropped. You are just giving me your opinion. Opinions and elbows are similar, everybody has them. The facts speak for themselves but the liberals fight tooth and nail to suppress the facts and make up their own. If you cannot convince people to follow a broken system then just deceive them (liberal motto).
It is not an issue of right for me, right for you. The facts are the facts and the truth is the truth whether you “agree” with it or not. This whole idea of relativism (liberal lie) was forced upon me in school as well. I see through the “garbage” not that I know the Truth (it is interesting that the Bible says that we cannot discern good from bad so God has to tell us which is which, the liberals insist that we make up our own right and wrong, again a ridiculous argument). I may not agree that it is freezing in Siberia in the winter time but that does not change the facts.
Erik: The claim that relativism is the liberal lie is the conservative distortion. The philosophy of liberals is deeply grounded in ideas of caring for one another, seeking equitable distribution of resources and avoiding actions that are harmful to others.
If you go read the New Testament carefully, you'll find these ideas repeatedly expressed.
I'll let other readers consider for themselves whether I've been fighting your "facts" with mere "opinions."
You wrote “seeking equitable distribution of resources and avoiding actions that are harmful to others”
I have a few comments on this. First of all I lived in the former Soviet Union for a while and my wife was raised under the USSR so I understand what the equitable distribution of resources means. Take from all, make all poor, while a very select few live off the backs of the masses, in other words communism. My friend you do not want that because it forces people to cheat and steal, it destroys society, morals, etc. Is that what you want? If that is the case then you are not “avoiding actions that are harmful to others”.
In the New Testament the people were not forced to give up their possession to give to others. They did it willfully. Liberals want to redistribute wealth (by force, laws, taxes), they want people to live in a Biblical manner without God. That is impossible. Man’s heart must be first changed (you read the NT more carefully) then he will have compassion on his neighbor.
I like the way that you pick and choose what to argue against (cherry picking) yet do not respond to the comments/questions that I pose. You guys are all the same (no offense intended) I have gone done this path many times with so called "free thinkers" yet I find such a uniformity in your thought pattern. Interesting to note, right? Maybe it is because you have all been taught (brainwashed) with the same doctrine. I know because I was you at one time!!!
Teen pregnancy rates didn't particularly rise in the 60's and 70's. What rose was the incidence of it being reported. There was a parallel decline in the rate of mothers of teenagers having late babies just after their daughter was out of circulation for several months with some ailment. An occurrence about as prevalent as the 8 lb 5 month preemie first-borns of earlier eras. Every large town once had an orphanage, a storage house for abandoned babies. Try to find one, now.
A similar statistical disconnect is often hyped about the abortion rate. That the rate suddenly increased when it was made legal. Nope. The rate of it being reported increased. The illegal, dangerous and unreported practice died out as safer, accountable, legal channels became available.
But these opinions are only statistics that take a small amount of work to confirm. I generally consider them facts, truths.
As for the decline in teen pregnancies in the 90's, they were across the board. Not even significantly in the areas when abstinence only programs were imposed. The pregnancy decrease was roughly proportional to the increase in girls deciding to go to college. I'd bet that most of those were from schools with full sex ed programs.
Erik:
Where are you getting these stats on teen pregnancy? According to a very thorough study of teenage sexuality, teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. have declined from a high in the 1950's. Teen abortion rates have declined from a high in the 1970's. Researchers attribute the decline both to teens delaying sex, and increased contraceptive use. Births to out of wedlock teens have grown, however.
Also, countries like Sweden and the Netherlands which have less conflicted attitudes about teen sexuality and sex education have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and STD's than the U.S. Researchers found that parental attitudes in these countries were effective in communicating to teens that childbearing belongs to the adult years, and that sex should take place within the context of committed, monogamous relationships.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107….
Can you point to even one study that show that "abstinence plus" sex education, which gives kids tools for resisting pressure to become sexually active, but also provides detailed information about contraception and protection against STD's, is less effective than abstinence-only sex ed?
Erik: In response to your comment (4 comments above) you write that people in the New Testament weren't "forced" to give to the poor, apparently to contrast that with what you believe is the case now, where Americans are "forced" to give to the poor.
This comment interests me because it assumes that the government is not the will of the people. You are thus not a believer in the proper operation of the United States government. If you took steps to fix this disconnect (and thereby made the government responsive to the will of the people), THEN the government's rules compelling you to give to the poor would be your the will of the people.
I know this doesn't really address the massive disconnect you and I have regarding many other issues, but it is a point I found interesting.
Vicki Baker
I research the subject of teen pregnancy extensively as well as abortions. I can refer you to a couple of articles in the Detroit Free Press and NY Times. Those are not the only sources but they are a few. I am glad that someone started actually paying attention to the argument instead of just writing “well what I think is . . .”. Do you know how many babies have legally been murdered in the USA since Roe v Wade? I know your argument about botched abortions and the dangers. What I do not understand is the fact that we would legalize murder (put the majority in danger) in order to protect a few who are ashamed of their actions and secretly try to get an abortion. Would it make since to legalize murder since it is already taking place anyway? Not a very strong argument.
Have you studied the suicide rates among teens and homosexuals in Sweden and the Netherlands, trying to make immorality a social norm does not take away the pain and guilt. You can try but it will never work. God will always judge sin (sexual sin) no matter how hard you try to keep it from happening. There is an African proverb, “you should not tear down a wall until you first know why it was erected”. We tried to tear down the wall of morality in the sexual revolution of the 60’s and now our kids and grandkids are suffering the consequences. Instead of admitting the mistakes and trying to change we are making it worse by promoting more immorality. The baby boomers who were hell bent on bringing revolution are the most unhappy people in America today. Statistically proven of course. Why? When you turn your back on God there are consequences. You choose the actions but He gives the results/consequences. Again, I am not against teach age appropriate teens about sexuality but it must be done correctly, in a way that does not glorify immorality (but makes it shameful as it is) and degrade abstinence/virginity. Most sex ed classes glorify immorality as something normal and worth trying and make virginity out to be old fashioned or impossible. Sex is a wonderful gift from God given to a husband and wife within the confines of marriage. Anything outside of that is a shameful act.
Erich Vieth
How can you implement the redistribution of wealth without forcing some to give to others? Have you ever talked to anyone from the former USSR who was stripped of all that he had and deported to Siberia along with some of his family so that wealth could be redistributed? I have and it was not a pleasant conversation. Socialism will take us down that path again. If you do not learn from history then you are bound to repeat it.
Giving to the poor is a command that Christians must fulfill, because it opens the door to share the Gospel and bring the real help that they need. Throwing money at people and not addressing the root of the problem never helps. When the burden is taken from the Church and placed on the government you get the social mess that you have today. When none have responsibility then nothing gets done.
I notice there are no links in Erik's reply. I'm not surprised.
When none have the responsibility, then nothing gets done. I have two words for you: "social security." Or how about this: mosquito netting for those at risk for malaria. Did you know that our government spends some money for such netting. It's a very simple formula. Some tax money is taken from each of us, and it saves lives. But I suppose that's a bad thing for you because you didn't personally CHOOSE to do it yourself. I obviously disagree.
Are there bad government programs? You bet! How about most of what's going on in Iraq. You didn't choose to do that either, but I'd bet you love it.