Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as you are willing to admit that not all cherry picking is equal. When it is used to defeat part of the scripture by one side or the other rather than be integrated as a whole, then it is misleading to those who are looking for answers. Does that mean someone is sinning or failing to admit their imperfection--not necessarily--but if they are doing it in a deliberate fashion, then yes that is a sin.
I see people on these threads who are obtuse, but I haven't a clue as to how to grasp when they are deliberately misleading.
In other words, as long as a person agrees with you about how the bible should be cherry picked, what criteria should be used for determining what is a cherry and what isn't, and what conclusion will be reached through their cherry picking, you won't judge their motives as being borne out of a desire to continue being sinful.
In other words, as long as a person agrees with you about how the bible should be cherry picked, what criteria should be used for determining what is a cherry and what isn't, and what conclusion will be reached through their cherry picking, you won't judge their motives as being borne out of a desire to continue being sinful.
Oh boy.
Are YOU attempting to make your own judgment? You believe it is a perfectly legitimate idea to use scripture in one place to defeat scripture in another with no synthesis. Then climb on the wagon with the fundamentalists.
Ah, and Nateswift, thesis/antithesis/synthesis may not always be possible, but it's no reason to quit trying.
Are YOU attempting to make your own judgment? You believe it is a perfectly legitimate idea to use scripture in one place to defeat scripture in another with no synthesis. Then climb on the wagon with the fundamentalists.
Ah, and Nateswift, thesis/antithesis/synthesis may not always be possible, but it's no reason to quit trying.
And if two ideas are fundamentally nutually exclusive, there is no reason to keep trying, You choose the one that comports with what you can understand and incorporate abd discard thge one thatdoes not fit. From where I stand "God hates sinners"(nowhere recorded as such) does not meet with "God loves sinners" (Matt 5 last few verses).
I see people on these threads who are obtuse, but I haven't a clue as to how to grasp when they are deliberately misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
right, thesis/antithesis/synthesis is not always possible.
Amen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Ah, and Nateswift, thesis/antithesis/synthesis may not always be possible, but it's no reason to quit trying.
Sorry Warden . . . it is those who keep trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear who ARE deliberately misleading. They refuse to test the Spirit against agape love which is the ONLY standard that matters, God IS agape love.
Are YOU attempting to make your own judgment? You believe it is a perfectly legitimate idea to use scripture in one place to defeat scripture in another with no synthesis. Then climb on the wagon with the fundamentalists.
Ah, and Nateswift, thesis/antithesis/synthesis may not always be possible, but it's no reason to quit trying.
See how you did that there? You took the word "judging" from my post which was referring to how you judge the intent of those who don't agree with you on this subject as sinful, and you use it to say I'm "judging" so it makes what you do okay, I guess.
Yes Warden, I use my judgment about what in the bible to accept into my heart and mind. Its called CHERRY PICKING which is the thing we all do.
Just thought I'd point out that little tactic for you since you use it often to divert from the actual point being made, but perhaps you weren't aware that you do that.
Warden, if I believed that the bible was a cohesive dictation from God, then you would have a point about me using part of it to defeat another part. But you see, I believe the bible is a collection of individual writings OF MEN, not God, full of wisdom and foolishness. It would be wrong on my part to treat their writings as a missive from God when I don't believe it to be. So, I'm not looking to defeat anything other than what I believe is the foolishness, and what is sometimes immoral foolishness, of men found in the pages of the bible.
See how you did that there? You took the word "judging" from my post which was referring to how you judge the intent of those who don't agree with you on this subject as sinful, and you use it to say I'm "judging" so it makes what you do okay, I guess.
Yes Warden, I use my judgment about what in the bible to accept into my heart and mind. Its called CHERRY PICKING which is the thing we all do.
Just thought I'd point out that little tactic for you since you use it often to divert from the actual point being made, but perhaps you weren't aware that you do that.
Warden, if I believed that the bible was a cohesive dictation from God, then you would have a point about me using part of it to defeat another part. But you see, I believe the bible is a collection of individual writings OF MEN, not God, full of wisdom and foolishness. It would be wrong on my part to treat their writings as a missive from God when I don't believe it to be. So, I'm not looking to defeat anything other than what I believe is the foolishness, and what is sometimes immoral foolishness, of men found in the pages of the bible.
I too believe it is the writings of INSPIRED men, not perfect men. Men who wanted to convey their faith to others. My "cherry-picking," if you will, is about the repeating threads of truth that run through it. They are multiple. You, however, have appeared to throw the baby out with the bath water and distill it down to ONCE CONCEPT.
The problem I have is in even imagining a god so shallow as to be completely one-dimensional. Our ancient ancestors had a similar problem so they created dozens of gods to worship--each reflecting different concerns or characteristics. It's called paganism.
The God of the Jews was both the first monastic God, the first unseen God (I think), AND the first God with a book recorded in history. Statues of all the others abounded.
Our biggest problem is attempting to understand scripture in light of our current education AND moralistic standards. We need to understand them in light of how and why they were written--hence textual criticism--not just so we can know what the words are, but know what the words meant in that time frame.
So written scripture must be tested, but not condensed--but neither should it be expanded beyond the confines of its covers--both of which are problems for liberals and conservatives alike. I take on the challenge of both groups to assert there is another, less certain, less dogmatic path that is willing to admit we don't always know.
So I find some very hard passages in the Bible to digest. None of you do because you've chosen what I consider to be an easy path--either every single word is holy beyond or imaginations, or that it is by and large hogwash and we will pick and choose and condense what we say. You've chosen your path. Good for you. My path will never be completed and I will always be wading through that wilderness with no paths and not very many guideposts to direct me. You accuse me of certainty. The only thing I'm certain of is that all the rest of you are certain. I've been a Christian for 52 years, and my thoughts and beliefs continue to evolve as a search scripture, read the writings of others (right now I'm most interested in JEWISH writings about scripture), and have my own prayer time. You only have to wake up and say, "Thank God you are love." Congratulations!! You won't be wandering in the wilderness learning as the Hebrews did---the hard way. I guess I've chosen the hard way.
I'm through. Blessings to you all in that comfortable position.
P.S. To illustrate how you take words out of context, read your last post with my quote. Did I SAY you were judging, or did I ASK if you were judging. Context means everything.
I too believe it is the writings of INSPIRED men, not perfect men. Men who wanted to convey their faith to others. My "cherry-picking," if you will, is about the repeating threads of truth that run through it. They are multiple. You, however, have appeared to throw the baby out with the bath water and distill it down to ONCE CONCEPT.
The problem I have is in even imagining a god so shallow as to be completely one-dimensional. Our ancient ancestors had a similar problem so they created dozens of gods to worship--each reflecting different concerns or characteristics. It's called paganism.
It is unfortunate that you can't understand that love is not one-dimensional nor shallow.
Quote:
The God of the Jews was both the first monastic God, the first unseen God (I think), AND the first God with a book recorded in history. Statues of all the others abounded.
Our biggest problem is attempting to understand scripture in light of our current education AND moralistic standards. We need to understand them in light of how and why they were written--hence textual criticism--not just so we can know what the words are, but know what the words meant in that time frame.
So written scripture must be tested, but not condensed--but neither should it be expanded beyond the confines of its covers--both of which are problems for liberals and conservatives alike. I take on the challenge of both groups to assert there is another, less certain, less dogmatic path that is willing to admit we don't always know.
So I find some very hard passages in the Bible to digest. None of you do because you've chosen what I consider to be an easy path--either every single word is holy beyond or imaginations, or that it is by and large hogwash and we will pick and choose and condense what we say. You've chosen your path. Good for you. My path will never be completed and I will always be wading through that wilderness with no paths and not very many guideposts to direct me. You accuse me of certainty. The only thing I'm certain of is that all the rest of you are certain. I've been a Christian for 52 years, and my thoughts and beliefs continue to evolve as a search scripture, read the writings of others (right now I'm most interested in JEWISH writings about scripture), and have my own prayer time. You only have to wake up and say, "Thank God you are love." Congratulations!! You won't be wandering in the wilderness learning as the Hebrews did---the hard way. I guess I've chosen the hard way.
I'm through. Blessings to you all in that comfortable position.
Okay, congratulations to you for being better and more noble than everyone else?
Quote:
P.S. To illustrate how you take words out of context, read your last post with my quote. Did I SAY you were judging, or did I ASK if you were judging. Context means everything.
Because no one ever makes a statement in the form of a question in these discussions? And, p.s., you missed the point.
It is unfortunate that you can't understand that love is not one-dimensional nor shallow.
He clearly missed the point when Jesus said that the two love commands encompassed everything. A one-dimensional concept could not do that. In fact, if you try to live your life in perfect agape love . . . you will find yourself highly constrained and in some truly difficult and frequently enigmatic and insoluble situations. It is THAT all-encompassing.
He clearly missed the point when Jesus said that the two love commands encompassed everything. A one-dimensional concept could not do that. In fact, if you try to live your life in perfect agape love . . . you will find yourself highly constrained and in some truly difficult and frequently enigmatic and insoluble situations. It is THAT all-encompassing.
It's hard for me to take Warden seriously when his litmus test for whether or not someone is choosing an easy path is whether or not they're willing to try to make every word of the bible fit together in a cohesive whole. That's the most important thing we should be concerning ourselves with? And here I thought the most important thing was learning how to love. NOPE, that's TOO EASY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And, p.s., you missed the point.
