Posted: Apr 22, 2017 12:27 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.


I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

I'm sure that appeals to emotion like this are not conducive to a rational discussion.

PensivePenny wrote:Oh, and stop saying I'm "conflating" cherry-picking and "interpretation."

As soon as you stop doing so.


PensivePenny wrote: ALL cherry pickers, from THEIR perspective, are "interpreting." That is just a fanciful word meaning that they have successfully soothed their delicate sensibilities by justifying their cherry picking. :roll:

You're still missing the point.
Cherry-picking is a very specific form of interpetation. When you cherry-pick you ignore and dismiss out of hand parts of your (religious) text.
IE cherry-picking is a form of interpetation, interpetation =/= cherry-picking.


PensivePenny wrote: You call it "interpreting to fit their world view" well yeah DUH! That means they have a conscious destination in mind... (They see the cherry they want)

That's not what cherry-picking refers to Penny.
It refers to choosing cherries from the three, rather than eating them all.
I.o.w. choosing which bits of the bible you follow, rather than following all of it.

PensivePenny wrote: Now, with a little creative "interpretation," they justify picking that cherry. Know what that's called? Confirmation Bias. [u]How [/u]they dismiss entire texts means absolutely FUCKALL! They dismissed some part of the so-called "Word of god." That is cherry picking. Call it fernumberfluven if you want. A rose by any other name...

Except that you keep calling (re)interpation, rather than dismissing, a part of the text cherry-picking, which it isn't.


PensivePenny wrote:
Bottom line, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can't be interpreted from the bible. There is no rational interpretation of religion or the bible (my opinion). Using one bogus made up scripture to validate or invalidate another and calling it "interpretation" to achieve a desired conclusion is what theologians DO. It is their primary function. Professional cherry-pickers.

Again, there's such a thing as Occam's razor.
Again, you started this thread with the question of whether the NT mandates believe in the OT.
You have been given examples of text where the prophet, apostle, etc. literally says that all the laws of the OT are still in place.