Any bible scholars out there?

Can a christian deny the old testament?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#41  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 7:27 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I am well aware that there are whole denominations that haven't actually read the bible.


In the same way that climate change is highly 'controversial'.


It's called cherry-picking.
And doubly so when people apply it to make a No True Christian argument.


Please expound on the "No true christian" comment? It sounds like you're accusing me of something I didn't do.

No, I am pointing out that claiming that anyone who claims to be, is a Christian leads to unfortunate consequences and that Christians often have to resort to fallacious No True Christian cherry-picking to avoid that.
In other words by cherry-picking the bible and then claiming the core message of Christianity isn't what the book says it is, and still claiming to be a Christian is silly.


Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

First, I'm not making the "claim" that a Christian is anyone who claims to be one, per se. However, just like the evolution of language words, like "christian," can change in meaning as a defacto standard. I don't see any extant definition of Christianity being objective. Certainly some definitions of the word can be more christ like or christ-adherent than some others, I suppose, but to completely extract whole swaths of the population from the christian set simply because of this or that minor point is also silly.

I am not doing that.
I am pointing out that those people cherry-pick to a greater degree than orthodox Christians.

PensivePenny wrote:
I know from personal experience, as well as my own reading, that not all christians agree with "original sin."

That's immaterial. It is the fundament of the Jesus story.
The only reason Jesus was send/came to earth was because God created the eternal sin/curse and that apparently only be undone by sacrificing his son, who is also himself, to himself.
That's in the NT. If you do not believe that, that's fine and your choice, but that does mean you are cherry-picking and ignoring the origin and core message of the religion you claim to adhere.

PensivePenny wrote:
It is mainstream and perfectly acceptable.

I never said it wasn't.

PensivePenny wrote: A dog with 3 legs is still a dog.

But the correct analogy in this case, is Dogists claiming there isn't a dog and that you can have any pet and still get to go to heaven.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#42  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 7:29 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
There's nothing theological about it.
It's about language, laws and reason.
If something is fulfilled, it's done and over with.


Nope, that's not how language works.
I can start defining chairs as 'four legged animal', but that will mean I cannot participate in conversations about chairs or mammals.



Then it is irrelevant to the question of whether the OT is still valid.
Because that's what that verse is being used as an excuse for.


So there is only one possible interpretation?

No. The point is that apologists bring up the bit about 'fulfill' to claim that Jesus fulfilled the laws of the OT and for that reason the bits of the OT they don't like, can be ignored. Which is cherry-picking, because when you pointed that also invalidates the 10 commandments, they start all manner of mental gymnastics to square the circle.


I agree! But, are they any less Christian, these apologists?

They're cherry-picking Christians.
And that's their perogative, but I've more respect for orthodox theists than the cherry-picking variety.
If you're going to pick and choose, why not be honest with yourself and just drop the label/relgion all together.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#43  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 7:37 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

Hollywood?

Nope, the Old Testament.


Depends on which christian you ask ;)

Nope, both are expliticely named in the OT, although not in the exact way they're discussed in the NT.


Why do you insist on arguing the bible? I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that many many Christians will argue with you. Not me. I don't believe one way or the other or care.

But I am telling you for a fact... there are numerous people with compelling arguments arguing that satan and lucifer are not enemies of god. Rather, their mention in the bible refers to something entirely different (like ordinary men for example). Seriously, there are infinite ways to interpret the bible and all be equally compelling. That isn't to say that fevered dreams and wishful arguments can't be made, but I exclude them from the infinite number. I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can make any argument with certitude that any one interpretation is the only right one on any given point when the sole source of "evidence" is a collection of myths written by a myriad of men 4000 years ago. Any argument can be made, even the sanction of murder and rape, if your cherry-picker has a long enough reach.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#44  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 7:38 pm

Ay carumba. :picard:
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#45  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 7:38 pm

All christians "cherry pick."
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#46  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 7:43 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nope, the Old Testament.


Depends on which christian you ask ;)

Nope, both are expliticely named in the OT, although not in the exact way they're discussed in the NT.


Why do you insist on arguing the bible? I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that many many Christians will argue with you. Not me. I don't believe one way or the other or care.

Because as I pointed out before, those Christians would be cherry-pickers.
Your OP was about whether the OT is still valid. How can you discuss that without discussing the book of which the OT is a part: the bible?

PensivePenny wrote:
But I am telling you for a fact... there are numerous people with compelling arguments arguing that satan and lucifer are not enemies of god. Rather, their mention in the bible refers to something entirely different (like ordinary men for example). Seriously, there are infinite ways to interpret the bible and all be equally compelling. That isn't to say that fevered dreams and wishful arguments can't be made, but I exclude them from the infinite number. I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can make any argument with certitude that any one interpretation is the only right one on any given point when the sole source of "evidence" is a collection of myths written by a myriad of men 4000 years ago. Any argument can be made, even the sanction of murder and rape, if your cherry-picker has a long enough reach.

There's such a thing as Occam's Razor for example.
And why are you asking for biblical scholars if you've already decided that any and all interpetations are equally valid?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#47  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 7:44 pm

PensivePenny wrote:All christians "cherry pick."

All dogs swim.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#48  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 7:48 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
They're cherry-picking Christians.
And that's their perogative, but I've more respect for orthodox theists than the cherry-picking variety.
If you're going to pick and choose, why not be honest with yourself and just drop the label/relgion all together.


I'm interested in knowing the distinction. They all cherry pick. Even the ones you call "orthodox."

Do you think "orthodox" (whatever the hell that is) christians practice EXACTLY the same as early christians? I really hope you say, "no." It is "accepted norms," meaning just what I said earlier, the defacto christian... now, we have to define what is the christian "norms" because there are HUGE cultural differences that have evolved christianity in different directions. Chinese Christians "norms" are different from American, European, African etc... There is no "norm," only the one that you've chosen to accept as the gold standard. That to me is cherry picking... you're just picking from the tree in your own back yard. By virtue of your cultural and geographic location you have a clear definition of "norm" that differs from everyone else. Nothing is objective... most of all mythical religions (pardon the redundancy).
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#49  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 8:10 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

Depends on which christian you ask ;)

Nope, both are expliticely named in the OT, although not in the exact way they're discussed in the NT.


Why do you insist on arguing the bible? I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that many many Christians will argue with you. Not me. I don't believe one way or the other or care.

Because as I pointed out before, those Christians would be cherry-pickers.
Your OP was about whether the OT is still valid. How can you discuss that without discussing the book of which the OT is a part: the bible?

LOL, I'd never say that. IMO, nothing in the bible is "valid." What is asked is, "I was wondering if there is any requirement in the new testament that requires a belief in the old testament."

I wasn't looking for an argument. I was asking if people here might share their scriptural knowledge to answer the question. Reason? Because I was wondering why apologists haven't hit on this notion of divorcing the NT and OT as it would certainly strengthen their argument. I say it would strengthen their argument because every debate I've seen with Christians always devolves into them defending the OT... clearly it is a weakness and a favorite Achilles heal in debate. There've been a couple citations given, which I appreciate. I am merely imagining how they might argue against them, twist them, apologize their way through it to protect their weakest flank. I'm not invalidating the citations nor am I arguing that those provided are "wrong."

I was provided exactly what I asked for. Any "argument" provided was in the hopes of having an intellectual conversation about what might transpire in a debate if one was to divorce the OT and NT. All I get in answer to that is, "cherry picking christians aren't real christians," or some paraphrased version of it.


PensivePenny wrote:
But I am telling you for a fact... there are numerous people with compelling arguments arguing that satan and lucifer are not enemies of god. Rather, their mention in the bible refers to something entirely different (like ordinary men for example). Seriously, there are infinite ways to interpret the bible and all be equally compelling. That isn't to say that fevered dreams and wishful arguments can't be made, but I exclude them from the infinite number. I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can make any argument with certitude that any one interpretation is the only right one on any given point when the sole source of "evidence" is a collection of myths written by a myriad of men 4000 years ago. Any argument can be made, even the sanction of murder and rape, if your cherry-picker has a long enough reach.

There's such a thing as Occam's Razor for example.
And why are you asking for biblical scholars if you've already decided that any and all interpetations are equally valid?

Hopefully the "why" is clear from what I posted previously in this post. If not, "all interpretations are equally valid" is oversimplifying what I've said here. They are equally valid but in what way? Well, in determining what is and is not a follower of Christ, a "christian". How people choose to follow christ doesn't determine if their a christian (imo)... rather that they chose to follow him is qualifying enough. I place no particular qualitative value on their success in that endeavor. I'll extend the moniker to whoever claims it because in the end, no two of them can agree on what the fuck any one scripture means (slight over-exaggeration).
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#50  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2017 9:15 pm

Here's how one Catholic Bishop suggests Catholic's go about dealing with the Bible:

I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#51  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 9:58 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
They're cherry-picking Christians.
And that's their perogative, but I've more respect for orthodox theists than the cherry-picking variety.
If you're going to pick and choose, why not be honest with yourself and just drop the label/relgion all together.


I'm interested in knowing the distinction. They all cherry pick. Even the ones you call "orthodox."

How do you know this?

PensivePenny wrote:
Do you think "orthodox" (whatever the hell that is) christians practice EXACTLY the same as early christians?

I don't know, but I do know Christians who follow the whole bible and don't throw out the OT or parts of the NT that they don't like.

PensivePenny wrote: I really hope you say, "no." It is "accepted norms," meaning just what I said earlier, the defacto christian... now, we have to define what is the christian "norms" because there are HUGE cultural differences that have evolved christianity in different directions. <snip>

Norms are red herring that you invented. I've never mentioned or discussed norms.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#52  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 10:07 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nope, both are expliticely named in the OT, although not in the exact way they're discussed in the NT.


Why do you insist on arguing the bible? I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that many many Christians will argue with you. Not me. I don't believe one way or the other or care.

Because as I pointed out before, those Christians would be cherry-pickers.
Your OP was about whether the OT is still valid. How can you discuss that without discussing the book of which the OT is a part: the bible?

LOL, I'd never say that. IMO, nothing in the bible is "valid." What is asked is, "I was wondering if there is any requirement in the new testament that requires a belief in the old testament."

That's a distinction without difference. If the OT is still valid according to the NT, it needs to be believed/it's rules followed.

PensivePenny wrote:
I wasn't looking for an argument.

That's fine. But when people give you an explanation as to why it should, you keep providing excuses and arguments that don't adress and/or refute the points being raised.

PensivePenny wrote: I was asking if people here might share their scriptural knowledge to answer the question. Reason? Because I was wondering why apologists haven't hit on this notion of divorcing the NT and OT as it would certainly strengthen their argument.

But they have.
People like WLC and others love to trot out the "Jesus fulfilled the OT/created a new covenant so the old one isn't valid anymore" trope.

PensivePenny wrote: I say it would strengthen their argument because every debate I've seen with Christians always devolves into them defending the OT... clearly it is a weakness and a favorite Achilles heal in debate..

Then you have watched a limited number and/or apologists.
I've seen several debates, both taped and on fora, where an atheist will point out something from the OT, only for the apologist to claim the OT doesn't apply anymore.

The problem for the apologist arises when you point out that things like the 10 commandments aren't valid then either.
Another problems is that the apologists are often using humpty dumpty defitions and interpetations of NT texts to prop up their cherry-picking.

PensivePenny wrote: There've been a couple citations given, which I appreciate. I am merely imagining how they might argue against them, twist them, apologize their way through it to protect their weakest flank. I'm not invalidating the citations nor am I arguing that those provided are "wrong."

Sure, that's fine.

PensivePenny wrote:
I was provided exactly what I asked for. Any "argument" provided was in the hopes of having an intellectual conversation about what might transpire in a debate if one was to divorce the OT and NT. All I get in answer to that is, "cherry picking christians aren't real christians," or some paraphrased version of it.

This not the case Penny.
All people have done is point out that Christians who dismiss the OT are cherry-picking the bible. IE choosing which bits they want to follow.
And no, not all Christians do that, especially not with the OT as a whole.

PensivePenny wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:
But I am telling you for a fact... there are numerous people with compelling arguments arguing that satan and lucifer are not enemies of god. Rather, their mention in the bible refers to something entirely different (like ordinary men for example). Seriously, there are infinite ways to interpret the bible and all be equally compelling. That isn't to say that fevered dreams and wishful arguments can't be made, but I exclude them from the infinite number. I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can make any argument with certitude that any one interpretation is the only right one on any given point when the sole source of "evidence" is a collection of myths written by a myriad of men 4000 years ago. Any argument can be made, even the sanction of murder and rape, if your cherry-picker has a long enough reach.

There's such a thing as Occam's Razor for example.
And why are you asking for biblical scholars if you've already decided that any and all interpetations are equally valid?

Hopefully the "why" is clear from what I posted previously in this post. If not, "all interpretations are equally valid" is oversimplifying what I've said here. They are equally valid but in what way? Well, in determining what is and is not a follower of Christ, a "christian". How people choose to follow christ doesn't determine if their a christian (imo)... rather that they chose to follow him is qualifying enough. I place no particular qualitative value on their success in that endeavor. I'll extend the moniker to whoever claims it because in the end, no two of them can agree on what the fuck any one scripture means (slight over-exaggeration).

Again, the person who raised the whole No True Christian thing, is you, not me.
I never, at any point, suggested or claimed, cherry-picking Christians aren't (true) Christians.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#53  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 10:12 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Norms are red herring that you invented. I've never mentioned or discussed norms.


I didn't invent it. You used the word "orthodox" which if you knew the definition of the word, means "accepted beliefs." Since "accepted beliefs" depends on the cultural group accepting those beliefs, they are essentially "norms." The point is to say "accepted beliefs" is ambiguous... accepted by whom? At what time? What qualifies as "accepted." It is absolutely NOT objective like you're wanting to make it. It's as ever changing and evolving as language, gene pools or any other social norms.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#54  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 21, 2017 10:27 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
All people have done is point out that Christians who dismiss the OT are cherry-picking the bible. IE choosing which bits they want to follow.
And no, not all Christians do that, especially not with the OT as a whole.


Well, we can argue what constitutes "cherry picking" now. All Christians cherry pick. I understand what you're saying, what I'm trying to get YOU to see is that even if the "Nicene Creed" is the metric whereby you are defining "orthodox" or non-cherry picking christians, I'm trying to show you that not all christians believe and accept the Nicene creed. Not the metric you want to use? Fine. Choose one. They all exclude some "norm" or "orthodox" for another culturally accepted form of "Christianity." It is wholly relative to the culture and the accepted set of beliefs chosen to define it. Purely subjective. Study how the Nicene Creed came about. You'll see how each facet of it only exists at the exclusion of some other belief. They cherry picked that particular tenet. So yeah... they all DO cherry pick.

Again, the person who raised the whole No True Christian thing, is you, not me.
I never, at any point, suggested or claimed, cherry-picking Christians aren't (true) Christians.


Review the thread. You were the first person to write "No true Christian." I did write "no true scotsman" in reference to something said by theropod.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#55  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 10:43 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Norms are red herring that you invented. I've never mentioned or discussed norms.


I didn't invent it. You used the word "orthodox" which if you knew the definition of the word, means "accepted beliefs."


Actually, orthodox has multiple usages, rather than one meaning.
One of them being a juxtaposition of liberal theists who adapt their religious beliefs to changing times.


PensivePenny wrote: Since "accepted beliefs" depends on the cultural group accepting those beliefs, they are essentially "norms." The point is to say "accepted beliefs" is ambiguous... accepted by whom? At what time? What qualifies as "accepted." It is absolutely NOT objective like you're wanting to make it. It's as ever changing and evolving as language, gene pools or any other social norms.

Except I have not said or used the term 'accepted beliefs'.
I've been talking about theists who follow their entire collection of religious scriptures vs those who dismiss entire chapters, books or testaments in part or entirely.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#56  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 21, 2017 10:48 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
All people have done is point out that Christians who dismiss the OT are cherry-picking the bible. IE choosing which bits they want to follow.
And no, not all Christians do that, especially not with the OT as a whole.


Well, we can argue what constitutes "cherry picking" now. All Christians cherry pick.

All dogs swim.

PensivePenny wrote: I understand what you're saying, what I'm trying to get YOU to see is that even if the "Nicene Creed" is the metric whereby you are defining "orthodox" or non-cherry picking christians,

Why do you keep introducing things into the conversation I haven't even alluded to, much less specifically discussed?

PensivePenny wrote: I'm trying to show you that not all christians believe and accept the Nicene creed. Not the metric you want to use? Fine. Choose one. They all exclude some "norm" or "orthodox" for another culturally accepted form of "Christianity." It is wholly relative to the culture and the accepted set of beliefs chosen to define it. Purely subjective. Study how the Nicene Creed came about. You'll see how each facet of it only exists at the exclusion of some other belief. They cherry picked that particular tenet. So yeah... they all DO cherry pick.

You're conflating cherry-picking with (re)interpation.
And again, I'm talking about people who follow their entire religious scriptures (however interpeted) and those who dismiss parts or even entire books from it.
Not all theists, nor Christians, do the latter.

PensivePenny wrote:

Again, the person who raised the whole No True Christian thing, is you, not me.
I never, at any point, suggested or claimed, cherry-picking Christians aren't (true) Christians.


Review the thread. You were the first person to write "No true Christian." I did write "no true scotsman" in reference to something said by theropod.

Again a distinction without difference. You're the one who brought No True Scotsman into the discussion.
The first time I mentioned it was when I was talking about apologists who use that argument.
At no point did I imply or state that there is such a thing as the True Christian.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#57  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 22, 2017 8:53 am

All xtians cherry pick. They have to. Try living by the bible. Impossible. Is anyone going to take a misbehaved child to the city walls to be stoned? The Free Kirk in Scotland does try to follow Calvin but it cant because it would end up breaking the law.
Which is why the whole bible is a nonsense.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#58  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 22, 2017 9:01 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:All xtians cherry pick. They have to. Try living by the bible. Impossible. Is anyone going to take a misbehaved child to the city walls to be stoned? The Free Kirk in Scotland does try to follow Calvin but it cant because it would end up breaking the law.
Which is why the whole bible is a nonsense.

Like Penny, you're conlating interpetation with cherry-picking.
(Re)interpeting a piece of religious text to fit your own worldview, is different from ignoring/dismissing entire texts.
The goal might be the same, but the actions to arrive there aren't.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#59  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 22, 2017 9:13 am

Is that what cherry picking is called these days? Conlating? Sorry conflating?

Gun control organizations are known to exaggerate, confuse, conflate and misrepresent the facts.
Falsification
Most importantly, these theories conflate between different senses of "action" and between different senses of "reason".
Constantine Sandis: The Things We Do and Why We Do Them
It is both ignorant and dangerous to conflate immigration policy, the basis for these recent accusations, with racism and disables frank and open dialogue on this very important topic.


To cause confusion? Well the bible does that all the time.

(free dictionary)
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#60  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 22, 2017 9:16 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:Is that what cherry picking is called these days? Conlating? Sorry conflating?

Gun control organizations are known to exaggerate, confuse, conflate and misrepresent the facts.
Falsification
Most importantly, these theories conflate between different senses of "action" and between different senses of "reason".
Constantine Sandis: The Things We Do and Why We Do Them
It is both ignorant and dangerous to conflate immigration policy, the basis for these recent accusations, with racism and disables frank and open dialogue on this very important topic.


To cause confusion? Well the bible does that all the time.

(free dictionary)

Conflation means you're treating one thing as another thing that aren't the same.
IE in this case; cherry-picking means ignoring bits of a text.
What you and Penny are talking about is (re)interpeting texts and calling that cherry-picking, which it isn't.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest