Cherrypicked religion - A set menu vs buffet

[stuffandthings]

Well the books where all written centuries ago by people with completly differant fears and concearns so expecting 21st century people to ascribe perfectly to bronze age cultures values is pretty unrealistic. Nevermind that their are broad variety of sins not mentioned in the book simply because they hadnt been created yet,

The quest to return to ancient purity is self-defeating since we cannot even conceive of what that would look like. Personally I'd recommend dropping the whole thing and being a non-alligned monotheist, but honestly you can ascribe to general principles and insights without worrying about the often disturbing minutae.

This brings up an important distinction in this discussion, the difference between an individual 'cherry picking' from within their own religions and different sects or denominations within a religion 'cherry picking' tradition and scripture to fit a new credo.
There are plenty of religions that don't demand adherents be completely 'kosher' to their rules, only stating that following the rules is a form of voluntary devotion. Which is why you'll see Hindus chowing down on meat when its considered a more religious thing to abstain. Most religions have a much narrower list of must-believes or must-dos than their 'rules' would seem to suggest. Even Catholics in the Middle Ages and Renaissance were constantly debating and arguing within the church, and as long as they didn't cross too far beyond some lines, a spectrum of beliefs were allowed. There's stuff that will be debated until the very end because there's scriptural evidence for both sides on some issues, like alcohol, women in ministry, or lending money at interest.

All the minutae were debated with deadly seriousness, and every denomination has a reason for what they chose on things like women in ministry, communion, baptism. It's not haphazard.

And I'm tired of people thinking a religion can't be true because it seems complex, and then just making up their own.
People want God to be simple, they want a religion to have every single loophole question answered, no debates, clear as day. But then you would know it was fake. Because nothing in the natural world is that easily explained. I don't know how my own microwave works, and scientists are constantly arguing about what makes the protons in the nucleus of an atom stick so close together, why should I get all pissy when God is hard to understand in the details.

Basically, I will take a religion that comes from outside myself, even if that religion is flawed and confusing and full of grey areas on the margins, because, for me, the center of Christianity is solid and simple: incarnate creator of the universe sacrificing himself to himself so that justice was served for all the hurt in the world. I've never received any kind of direct revelation from the spiritual realm, so I know that if I were to start going buffet style through the world's religions I would be making a big ol' feast of lies.

There's a big difference in the Yahwist religions between doing something 'sinful', and believing something heretical. When I sin, like cruising around on the Farms milking cows, I don't pretend it's not a sin. That is different than people picking some sins and saying, despite what their religion teaches, "Naw, totally good, Not sin." They're doubling down sin with heresy.

 

[Emperor Julian]

And I'm tired of people thinking a religion can't be true because it seems complex, and then just making up their own.
People want God to be simple, they want a religion to have every single loophole question answered, no debates, clear as day.

Actually I don't think various arnt true because it seems really really unlikely, my thoughts on ancient laws vs modern application is just low key critique of how the relation between the initial worshippers and the eventual reality, if you're a Christian you don't have to worry about this since it only really applies if the religion only exists in the contexts of people It's only really relavent if you don't believe.

 

[stuffandthings]

Actually I don't think various arnt true because it seems really really unlikely, my thoughts on ancient laws vs modern application is just low key critique of how the relation between the initial worshippers and the eventual reality, if you're a Christian you don't have to worry about this since it only really applies if the religion only exists in the contexts of people It's only really relavent if you don't believe.

I wasn't criticizing that part of your post at all. Trying to apply the worldview of the middle east 2000+ years ago to the modern world because you hold to both biblical inerrancy leads to a lot of funny hoop jumping to watch through history. And studying what the worldview was back then is fascinating from even a secular perspective. You can't take the history or the context out of religion. Which a lot of hard core fundies get really wrong by reading the bible without that perspective. I told a doomsday fundie once that I thought most of the Book of Revelation had already happened because it was allegorically talking about the persecution of the church under Nero and I could see her brain breaking.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

This is my main beef against Reform J.ews, they basically took removed everything meaningful in the religion and kept the label of J.ews (primarily for victimhood points). The end result is a godless community that will eventually reach extinction due to marrying outside religion and substituted politics for faith (and on that way betrays the very foundations of their religion for woke points, like the ones that support giving the temple mount to the palestinians).

It's not even that I'm a hardcore J.ew, I don't keep any of the bizarre laws that J.udaism has, but at least I don't try to rewrite the religion into something that fits in with my western debauched life style.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

I think the central reason religious people cherry-pick is the fact that there is increasingly a glaring disconnect between what people expect from religion, and what religion apparently expects from them. While there is no clear consensus on what constitutes a religion, it seems to me that all of them serve the same fundamental purpose: to provide people with comforting answers, a shared sense of community, and a set of teachings which make life less complicated.

The problem is that a great deal of these teachings are centuries out of date, and to apply them to the modern world is often nonsensical at best, or downright barbarous at worst. Considering that, cherry-picking is probably the most sensible option, at least for those who don't wish to live without religion.

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

This is my main beef against Reform J.ews, they basically took removed everything meaningful in the religion and kept the label of J.ews (primarily for victimhood points). The end result is a godless community that will eventually reach extinction due to marrying outside religion and substituted politics for faith (and on that way betrays the very foundations of their religion for woke points, like the ones that support giving the temple mount to the palestinians).

It's not even that I'm a hardcore J.ew, I don't keep any of the bizarre laws that J.udaism has, but at least I don't try to rewrite the religion into something that fits in with my western debauched life style.

Well, to be fair, there's a central question in Judaism: "What is a J.e.w?" Shit I got a great idea for a new kosher whiskey
And that question has at least a million answers, if not more. I don't think there's any other religion whose observants, ideology whose adherents, or ethnicity whose people ever asked that question earnestly, or rather, were forced to ask that question earnestly. There were a lot of purity wars, where the adherents of an ideology fought on the principles of their ideology, like the Bolshevik-Menshevik war in the Communist Party of Russia, or the multiple Schisms of the Catholic Church, but probably none of them doubted themselves being what they are.

I think the closest to this are people stuck between two identities - multi-racial people, and those born from a politically or religiously mixed marriage.

This obviously doesn't apply to desperate virtue-signallers asking themselves "Am I woke enough? Am I even woke?".

 

[Pomniman]

Well, to be fair, there's a central question in Judaism: "What is a J.e.w?"

A miserable little pile of Shekels.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Well, to be fair, there's a central question in Judaism: "What is a J.e.w?" Shit I got a great idea for a new kosher whiskey
And that question has at least a million answers, if not more. I don't think there's any other religion whose observants, ideology whose adherents, or ethnicity whose people ever asked that question earnestly, or rather, were forced to ask that question earnestly. There were a lot of purity wars, where the adherents of an ideology fought on the principles of their ideology, like the Bolshevik-Menshevik war in the Communist Party of Russia, or the multiple Schisms of the Catholic Church, but probably none of them doubted themselves being what they are.

I think the closest to this are people stuck between two identities - multi-racial people, and those born from a politically or religiously mixed marriage.

This obviously doesn't apply to desperate virtue-signallers asking themselves "Am I woke enough? Am I even woke?".

I could understand different sects of religion that are based on different ways to interpret the text. But Reformism is literally giving up on interpretation and chaining the religion for modern politics.

 

[stuffandthings]

I think the central reason religious people cherry-pick is the fact that there is increasingly a glaring disconnect between what people expect from religion, and what religion apparently expects from them. While there is no clear consensus on what constitutes a religion, it seems to me that all of them serve the same fundamental purpose: to provide people with comforting answers, a shared sense of community, and a set of teachings which make life less complicated.

The problem is that a great deal of these teachings are centuries out of date, and to apply them to the modern world is often nonsensical at best, or downright barbarous at worst. Considering that, cherry-picking is probably the most sensible option, at least for those who don't wish to live without religion.

This is true when the teachings are things like women should cover their heads in church or Christians should be living in moneyless communes. But fundamental teachings like the nature of God, the basic history of how God interacted with people, and the basics of what God expects from people don't go out of date for any theistic religion. Those are the core parts, and starting to cherry pick those means the religion is just the opium of the masses. There's no comfort in death or hurt if you know the comforting words are lies you cherry picked.

For the people that really believe in their God or Gods, religion isn't about comfort, it's about truth. If the supernatural exists, it exists like a law of physics. It's not something we can change for our own comfort. We can debate it, study it, and argue about the applications, but we can't say gravity isn't working for society any more, lets shut it off.

On the very first day of my intro to religion class in college the professor had two quotes on the board.
"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night," Frank Sinatra.
"When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." Dietrich Bonhoffer.

Two very different ways of looking at belief. Sinatra wants lies for comfort, Bonhoffer believes in sacrifice for truth.

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

I could understand different sects of religion that are based on different ways to interpret the text. But Reformism is literally giving up on interpretation and chaining the religion for modern politics.

That's the Great Endgame for identity-based politics, to use a protected characteristic as a shield and a cudgel, to form lobby groups, and to get as rich and relevant as possible.

 

[c-no]

One common doctrine among many Christian denominations is that salvation comes from faith, not works. The commandments aren't "follow these rules or you will go to hell." They're seen more as a set of practices to lead you on the right path. ONLY Jesus can save you. And he has the power to save ANYONE so long as they accept that salvation.
It's generally assumed that someone who truly accepts Jesus into their heart would gladly follow the commandments without fear of repercussion. But failure to do so doesn't necessarily put you on the naughty list. It's just a sign that you must seek to strengthen your bond with Him.

As far as I remember with learning about the commandments in a Christian school, I remember being told the commandments of the Old Testament besides the Ten Commandments were pretty much just for the ancient Israelis. Granted one could say is this is just some sort of apologism or whatever but then again, what the hell is one gonna expect from a belief that more or less was born years after its messiah walked the earth and all the books were more or less compiled centuries later with all the linguistic differences and everyone coming in with their own interpretation of what a bunch of ancient Israelis recorded on tablets and scrolls.

Well the books where all written centuries ago by people with completly differant fears and concearns so expecting 21st century people to ascribe perfectly to bronze age cultures values is pretty unrealistic. Nevermind that their are broad variety of sins not mentioned in the book simply because they hadnt been created yet,

The quest to return to ancient purity is self-defeating since we cannot even conceive of what that would look like. Personally I'd recommend dropping the whole thing and being a non-alligned monotheist, but honestly you can ascribe to general principles and insights without worrying about the often disturbing minutae.

The whole thing really is self-defeating since not only does it all come from another age where morality is no doubt different, it's all also not gonna go well with people today that would think following what ancient Israelis did would make them closer to God. Then again, there's already some people thinking in something like speaking tongues is the true way to pray. Plus if one were to even think of back then, their reasons would also differ in that pork back then had parasites and no germ theory and also the likelihood that you had some rules established to separate the ancient Israelis from all the other cultures around them.

This is true when the teachings are things like women should cover their heads in church or Christians should be living in moneyless communes. But fundamental teachings like the nature of God, the basic history of how God interacted with people, and the basics of what God expects from people don't go out of date for any theistic religion. Those are the core parts, and starting to cherry pick those means the religion is just the opium of the masses. There's no comfort in death or hurt if you know the comforting words are lies you cherry picked.

For the people that really believe in their God or Gods, religion isn't about comfort, it's about truth. If the supernatural exists, it exists like a law of physics. It's not something we can change for our own comfort. We can debate it, study it, and argue about the applications, but we can't say gravity isn't working for society any more, lets shut it off.

On the very first day of my intro to religion class in college the professor had two quotes on the board.
"Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night," Frank Sinatra.
"When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." Dietrich Bonhoffer.

Two very different ways of looking at belief. Sinatra wants lies for comfort, Bonhoffer believes in sacrifice for truth.

With the idea of things like the nature of God, how God interacted with people, and the expectations towards people, wouldn't it also be possible for some people to cherrypick one of the things within them? I can expect one cherrypicking when it comes to how God interacted with people, at least in ignoring God killing numbers of them (though the tard in me that sat in a Christian school would more likely rationalize than cherrypick in the reasons why) or even cherrypicking the nature or character of God? I'd imagine that with how God's portrayed, some people will cherrypick the idea of God being a kind diety that killed himself on Earth for everyone and others focusing solely on the kill count and just going on how it's not a loving god if you had a whole city burned for sexual deviancy of some sort.

 

[stuffandthings]

As far as I remember with learning about the commandments in a Christian school, I remember being told the commandments of the Old Testament besides the Ten Commandments were pretty much just for the ancient Israelis. Granted one could say is this is just some sort of apologism or whatever but then again, what the hell is one gonna expect from a belief that more or less was born years after its messiah walked the earth and all the books were more or less compiled centuries later with all the linguistic differences and everyone coming in with their own interpretation of what a bunch of ancient Israelis recorded on tablets and scrolls.

You're right about the 'rules' (Levitical Law) in the Old Testament not applying to Christians, but this is something directly taught in the New Testament. In the book of Acts the disciples and early church leaders got together to debate if Greeks and other pagans needed to become Jewish before becoming Christian. When using any holy text as a guidebook for life, it needs to be seen the as a whole, and to separate things all people are commanded to do for all time, and specific rules or laws for a specific time or place.

With the idea of things like the nature of God, how God interacted with people, and the expectations towards people, wouldn't it also be possible for some people to cherrypick one of the things within them? I can expect one cherrypicking when it comes to how God interacted with people, at least in ignoring God killing numbers of them (though the tard in me that sat in a Christian school would more likely rationalize than cherrypick in the reasons why) or even cherrypicking the nature or character of God? I'd imagine that with how God's portrayed, some people will cherrypick the idea of God being a kind diety that killed himself on Earth for everyone and others focusing solely on the kill count and just going on how it's not a loving god if you had a whole city burned for sexual deviancy of some sort.

If we're talking about Christanity or Judiasm, some things aren't made completely clear in the Bible or Torah and so get argued about. I mean, almost all of the Jewish religious writing is just Jews arguing about how to interpret or apply the laws. Churches differ on things like predestination. Some denominations are very clear where you're 'supposed' to be on any given issue, and others are more flexible in the grey areas. But there's a difference between different interpretations of Bible verses, and just pulling a Thomas Jefferson and taking a knife to the book, cutting out anything you don't like.

If you're choosing to interpret and apply the text a certain way, you're still treating it as authoritative. So people who find ways to rationalize the Israelite ethnic cleansing of Joshua and Judges, or the Jews or Catholics finding a million loopholes in their canon law.

Somethings are mushy and gray in a religion. Do we have free will or only seem to? Does God experience time linearly or does he exist outside of it? What does baptism do? What is the afterlife like? Depending on the religion, these can be wide open for a person to decide individually without becoming a heretical wishy washy 'build-a-bear' cuddle god maker.

But some things are very explicit in a religion. And in every religion there are a few foundational beliefs that if you pull them away you don't really have the same religion anymore, just some kind of Unitarian gobbeldy gook that can't even pretend to be divinely inspired. Moses received the Law from God on Mt Sinai. Jesus is the incarnate Son of God who rose from the dead. Mohammad is God's Prophet. Karma is real and affects your rebirth. Reincarnation is real and we need to escape it. Joseph Smith looked into a hat full of rocks and read a book that was across the room and under a blanket. If you pull those foundation blocks out because you think they're not true, then you really have no point in calling yourself that particular religion anyway.

 

[TheRatcatcher]

Considering how the bible has gone through multiple iterations before. I wouldn't be surprised if there were certain verses deliberately left out for the sake of political power.

 

[Slap47]

Identifying as an atheist is hard because most of them are spergs who actually call themselves philosophers.

The reality is that religion is NOT on the decline. More milquetoast protestant churches like Anglicanism and Methodism are on the decline while more evangelical/serious religions like Mormonism, Pentecostalism and Seventh-Day Adventism are exploding. Middle of the road Christianity has little to no appeal. It is the more hardline religions that appeal to people.

https://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

Let's use Catholicism in Latin America to make the point. Catholics are leaving the Catholic church in droves and the Catholic Church has had to become like the Pentecostals to survive.

Considering how the bible has gone through multiple iterations before. I wouldn't be surprised if there were certain verses deliberately left out for the sake of political power.

They got rid of circumcision because the Romans hated it. Christians directly referred to masturbation to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Jews. Protestants then brought it back in the USA to fight masturbation. It's maddening.

If I understand you right, I've heard it called 'cafeteria Christianity,' and you can expound on that for other religions.

Religion has traditionally been communal and the breakdown of the community had lead to the rise of personalizing religion.

 

[Crichax]

I think this phenomenon can actually help create freer societies in religion-dominated countries. Sure, it will lead to a few bad apples and I'm not sure how much empirical evidence there is to back it up, but I just have a gut feeling that this might help to gradually loosen restrictions on what societal rules you have to follow, what religion you have to worship, and etc.

 

[stuffandthings]

Considering how the bible has gone through multiple iterations before. I wouldn't be surprised if there were certain verses deliberately left out for the sake of political power.

Cite your source please?

I can give you some sources, but they don't fit your narrative of someone willfully editing books of the Bible for political gain.

In every single bible of quality, the parts that are in disagreement between different early manuscripts are clearly marked. Two big examples would be the ending of the Book of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery. Those are in brackets, because some manuscripts don't have them. In other minor instances the differences are usually at the bottom of every column. 'Some manuscripts have X' or 'Meaning of Hebrew unclear.' No one is trying to hide anything from anyone.

There are seven books included in the Catholic Bible that most Protestant churches don't use. But the reason they were cut is linguistic. The cut books were first written in Aramaic or Greek, not Hebrew. Meaning they were written much later than the rest of the Old Testament. You can still find them a read them if you want, but there's nothing much in there that would be a religion shattering revelation if it was considered scripture by all.

Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Christ. Portions of nearly all the books of the Hebrew Torah are accounted for there, including some entire texts. There's nothing of significance different. Nothing that changes the meaning of anything.

The early church didn't compile the BOOKS circulating in the early church into the New Testament until more than 300 years after Christ. But when they were deciding which books to keep, they had a narrow criteria, cutting out a lot of books of later church history not because they weren't true, but because they weren't about Jesus or one step removed from Jesus. Or cutting gnostic gospels because they were so out of line from the then universally accepted gospels that had been circulating for much longer.

But more importantly to your statement, there was no debate about cutting out verses or chapters of any given book. The book was either genuine or not. And by that time the manuscripts had traveled from the middle east to northern Africa to Rome, and beyond. We have hundreds of partial manuscripts from the first three centuries after Christ from all over the Roman Empire. And when the thousands of manuscripts are brought together, there's nothing in the differences that amounts to a earth shattering change in theology.

There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have fewer than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work.

If you think the book is lies, fine. But it would be lies from the very inception. The person putting the scroll to the papyrus for the first time would be the liar with an agenda, not the believers who in good faith copied it.

I know I've gone full sperg on this thread. I'll take my puzzle pieces. But I just want people to make the best argument for their side that they can.

 

[TheRatcatcher]

Cite your source please?

I can give you some sources, but they don't fit your narrative of someone willfully editing books of the Bible for political gain.

In every single bible of quality, the parts that are in disagreement between different early manuscripts are clearly marked. Two big examples would be the ending of the Book of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery. Those are in brackets, because some manuscripts don't have them. In other minor instances the differences are usually at the bottom of every column. 'Some manuscripts have X' or 'Meaning of Hebrew unclear.' No one is trying to hide anything from anyone.

There are seven books included in the Catholic Bible that most Protestant churches don't use. But the reason they were cut is linguistic. The cut books were first written in Aramaic or Greek, not Hebrew. Meaning they were written much later than the rest of the Old Testament. You can still find them a read them if you want, but there's nothing much in there that would be a religion shattering revelation if it was considered scripture by all.

Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Christ. Portions of nearly all the books of the Hebrew Torah are accounted for there, including some entire texts. There's nothing of significance different. Nothing that changes the meaning of anything.

The early church didn't compile the BOOKS circulating in the early church into the New Testament until more than 300 years after Christ. But when they were deciding which books to keep, they had a narrow criteria, cutting out a lot of books of later church history not because they weren't true, but because they weren't about Jesus or one step removed from Jesus. Or cutting gnostic gospels because they were so out of line from the then universally accepted gospels that had been circulating for much longer.

But more importantly to your statement, there was no debate about cutting out verses or chapters of any given book. The book was either genuine or not. And by that time the manuscripts had traveled from the middle east to northern Africa to Rome, and beyond. We have hundreds of partial manuscripts from the first three centuries after Christ from all over the Roman Empire. And when the thousands of manuscripts are brought together, there's nothing in the differences that amounts to a earth shattering change in theology.

There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have fewer than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work.

If you think the book is lies, fine. But it would be lies from the very inception. The person putting the scroll to the papyrus for the first time would be the liar with an agenda, not the believers who in good faith copied it.

I know I've gone full sperg on this thread. I'll take my puzzle pieces. But I just want people to make the best argument for their side that they can.

A Brief History of Bible Translations | CARM.org

An overview of the history of biblical translation, with particular emphasis on how we got our English translations

carm.org

Not to sound like a fedora tipper, it’s why I don’t trust the so called word of god.

 

[stuffandthings]

A Brief History of Bible Translations | CARM.org

An overview of the history of biblical translation, with particular emphasis on how we got our English translations

carm.org

Not to sound like a fedora tipper, it’s why I don’t trust the so called word of god.

It's an interesting article, but I don't see how it proves any point about how close any modern translation is to it's original source in the Bible. The article basically concludes:

Coverdale argued that, far from obscuring or confusing the text, multiple translations help the reader better understand the text through careful comparison. They serve, in a sense, as commentaries on one another to help explain the meaning of passages that may be difficult in one. It seems that Coverdale's viewpoint has prevailed in our era. Most contemporary English-speaking Christians are not dogmatically committed to only one particular translation, but often read from several. Indeed, modern translations have not even utterly supplanted the classic KJV, which is still widely purchased, read, and quoted. Instead, they have come alongside it and added to the study tools of the modern Christian to aid in understanding. And understanding has always been the point of translation since the very beginning of Christianity.

There's nothing hidden. If you want to dig into every single manuscript copy of the Old and New Testament in the original Hebrew or Greek, or study an interlinear Bible with a direct word for word translation, it's all there. Most of it on the internet. The Bible isn't just a religious text, it's a artifact of historical significance. Look for the editions of the Bible that secular scholars use. People with no religious views at all have translated the book, and studied it. If you pick up a New American Standard Bible, (the most literal widely read translation) you are reading a modern word for word translation of fourth century manuscripts that still exist. It's not a trick.

 

[Niggernerd]

Slay the heretic before turning the other cheek so you can face the next lost soul that needs to be guided by gods blade of justice.

 

[Slap47]

It's an interesting article, but I don't see how it proves any point about how close any modern translation is to it's original source in the Bible. The article basically concludes:

Modern religious thinking was basically kicked off by men like John Donne. They read the Bible in every possible language and couldn't reconcile the old testament with the God they had in their gut. They literally decided to just discard it all and use the King James because it felt right. It's not too convincing to people not already believing but it keeps believers beliving.

The reality is that the Bible has been inconsistently translated and its origins are entirely political. A bunch of Roman aristocrats gathered at Nicaea, Chalcedon and Carthage and hammered out the original Christianity. Eastern Orthodox was structured by Emperors and Czars. Catholism was structured by Emperors and Popes from corrupt Italian mob families. Protestantism by the needs of the German princes and later local interests.