Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Religion
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-03-2012, 02:52 PM   #1
gerrardthor
Senior Member
 
gerrardthor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 242
Default In defense of Cherry Picking

Quote:
2 Corinthians 3:6 (The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life)
I am guilty of the offense of cherry picking. I stand guilty as charged.

I first came across the idea of cherry picking from Hakim Bey's work T.A.Z. I tried finding the original quote but have failed to locate it. I really wish I could find it and cherry pick right now.

The basic essence of it was comparing an intellectual search for truth as a pirate who is searching for treasure.

The quote led me to approach religion as a robber who sneaks in to a house and steals the valuables and leaves the useless crap and garbage behind.

The rebuttal to cherry picking is that we need to take a document as a whole and understand it's complete scope. It also has been said on this forum that you can't cherry pick from Hitler's Mein Kampf.

I think it's a imbalanced look at cherry picking to grab such an extreme as the work of Hitler.

If we were to compare Mein Kampf to one of the gospels I think that would be an unfair comparison.

The gospels are an attempt at capturing the life of man who possibly didn't even exist historically.

Mein Kampf is the direct words from the very pen of it's author. They are the direct ideas of Hitler.

We don't have the direct words of Jesus. We don't have exact word for word dialogue from Jesus.

To properly approach the gospels is to be wary that the words could have been altered slightly or completely.

We know Mein Kampf is Hitler's words. We know what Hitler caused.

We have no direct connection between the supposedly historical Jesus and what his followers did in the millenniums that followed.

To claim that Jesus supported the killing out and destroying of entire cultures is to claim Karl Marx supported Stalin.

If we have five premises. ( Premise A. Premise B. Premise C. Premise D. Premise E. ) and we through reason and what resonates with us conclude Premise A. B. and D. are true while Premise C. and E. are false - Premise A. B. & D. are not immediately canceled out by the false premises of C and E.

The dangers of cherry picking though is that someone may come along and state Premise A. B. & D. are false while Premise C. & E. are true.

The balance of cherry picking is a democratic reasoning towards finding agreement of interpretation of proposed premises.

We can reach morality through reasoning. "Killing is wrong" is a fully agreed upon premise.

A truth is a truth. If something resonates with you it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with everything that's been said.

One should never seek to find truths and have them be validated by themselves. Truth should be validated by what is reasonable, what people agree upon is true, and what ultimately resonates inside you.

I don't know if I am defending Christianity. I find truth in Christianity. I also find the problem of people's interpretations being held up as literal truths.

The spirit of Christianity I know is what I use to cherry pick the verses that appeal to me.

I was in a church setting where everybody expressed how they saw God inspired by an image they chose. The pastor/leader/guy who runs it then summarized what he felt people were overall saying. He felt that everyone seemed to shy away from painting God as judgmental - and painted God more as loving.

A view of God I feel religion is evolving towards and that which is the spirit of what we all discussed is that which we can properly interpret and decipher scripture.

I don't believe finding treasure means that you have to buy the field.

I don't believe that everything everybody said in our discussion I just highlighted was a capital T Truth.

The spirit of what we said was what was true.

What most people debunk Christianity with is a cherry picking of all the false premises found in Christianity.

I don't know if the truths of Christianity necessarily conclude Christianity is true.

I know though that I have found truth in the spirit of Christianity. The culture of Christianity to me is one of a relationship with God. I don't agree with everything your average Christian believes. In fact I'm fairly opposed to a lot of doctrines taught. The spirit though of having a relationship with God is the common ground I find with Christians.

Quote:
Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD
In the spirit of this relationship with God I believe we can look at the Bible as the beginning of conversation with God.

These words in this tarnished book are the words of men trying to understand God.

They got some right. They got some wrong.

I feel God calls us to reason with him. I feel God calls us to seek consensus on what we know to be truth.

Take the treasure. Throw out the garbage.
__________________
I used to pray like God was listening. // I used to make my parents proud. // I was the glue that kept my friends together // Now they don't talk and we don't go out.
Brand New - Millstone
gerrardthor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 03:18 PM   #2
cwl3
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,991
Default

I think reductionalism works sometimes (reductionalism is the word for what I believe you are referring to).

As I understand it, the whole passage from Isaiah that you are referring to is Jesus saying that atonement comes from from admitting your sins within, not from sacrifices not accompanied by faith. IE it comes with intent not just with for instance words.

I hope this helps.
cwl3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 03:36 PM   #3
hurt4ever1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,440
Default

From my experience you find what resonates with you at the time of reading. Although this might seem like cherry picking to some, this doesn't mean you throw the rest of the book away. lol

We actually do this without even understanding that we are doing it throughout everything in our lives. Take music as an example: You like SOME music, you do not like other music, are you 'cherry picking' or are you just listening to what resonates with you?
hurt4ever1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 03:48 PM   #4
gerrardthor
Senior Member
 
gerrardthor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 242
Default

From wiki
Quote:
Reductionism can mean either (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.[1] This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.
I don't think there's really a word for what I am proposing. What I am trying to flesh out is a dissecting of complex things so that we can throw out the unwanted refuse.

What I am proposing is building ideas from the ground up from spare body parts.

I read the passage in Isaiah.

What I grabbed is an example of cherry picking.

Reading the passage, I realize I don't really care if Yahweh is mad at Israel for some sort of rebellion. What I care about is there is a spark of sobriety in the darkness of the Old Testament. God is calling Israel to speak to God. God is calling Israel to reason with him.

Completely cut out from the passage and applying it to a collage of ideas we can say "Look here, God wants us to reason with him. God is calling us for our opinions, our arguments, our understanding."

Within context it seems the passage is more that God is beckoning them towards a lecture.

Quote:
I hope this helps.
It does. It calls me to really dissect what cherry picking means.

I find truth in the statement of God calling us to reason with him.

In context I find the same tired rhetoric of God saying people are bad and need to be cleansed.

Quote:
From my experience you find what resonates with you at the time of reading. Although this might seem like cherry picking to some, this doesn't mean you throw the rest of the book away. lol

We actually do this without even understanding that we are doing it throughout everything in our lives. Take music as an example: You like SOME music, you do not like other music, are you 'cherry picking' or are you just listening to what resonates with you?
Yeah basically we never totally like every part of a book or movie we may take in. It doesn't mean that we throw that movie or book out.

Music I guess sort of helps my case, except however we don't listen to music trying to ascertain truth. We listen to music to enjoy it.

Actually

Maybe that is the approach that should be taken.

We don't take things literally as truth - we take them as things to be enjoy.

I enjoy thinking God calls us to reason with him. The rest of the passage is the same boring rhetoric.

I don't know if I'm making a strong enough case for cherry picking.

I think everyone does it though.
__________________
I used to pray like God was listening. // I used to make my parents proud. // I was the glue that kept my friends together // Now they don't talk and we don't go out.
Brand New - Millstone
gerrardthor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 03:59 PM   #5
luciferhorus
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Glastonbury, UK
Posts: 4,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrardthor View Post
I am guilty of the offense of cherry picking. I stand guilty as charged.

I first came across the idea of cherry picking from Hakim Bey's work T.A.Z. I tried finding the original quote but have failed to locate it. I really wish I could find it and cherry pick right now.

The basic essence of it was comparing an intellectual search for truth as a pirate who is searching for treasure.

The quote led me to approach religion as a robber who sneaks in to a house and steals the valuables and leaves the useless crap and garbage behind.

The rebuttal to cherry picking is that we need to take a document as a whole and understand it's complete scope. It also has been said on this forum that you can't cherry pick from Hitler's Mein Kampf.

I think it's a imbalanced look at cherry picking to grab such an extreme as the work of Hitler.
No actually I was arguing that you "can" cherry pick and quote mine from Mein Kampf, and there are numerous perfectly innocent passages, and passages which would be considered perfectly acceptable to any modern person of the European Socialist Left, but that is not how we judge Hitler and the Nazis, we judge their ideology as a whole and we judge them harshly for their genocidal policies, imperialism, war-mongering, unjust laws, homophobia, dictatorial rule, their eradication or enslavement of political oppenents, their racism, their ethnic cleansing, their use of slave labor etc.

And all these things we can accuse the Nazis of we can can accuse the Christians of, for this is how they have behaved when they had control of Europe for many centuries, and if anyone should say that such policies were not to be found in the Bible, they are are either just ignorant of the Bible or they are liars.

The Nazis only ruled for over a decade; the genocidal and tyrannical biblical fanatics ruled in Europe from the 4th to the 16th centuries and even after that in certain parts of Europe, and even in Protestant states many of these Biblcial laws remained, even up until the 20th century, and indeed some were not repealed until my own lifetime.

A Left socialist could cherry pick the Nazis' manifestos for progressive socialist policies which they advocate anyway, but they would never call themselves a Nazi, for they would not be a Nazi, they would be an anti-Nazi and a Socialist.

Similarly even a humanist or an atheist or an ant-Christian could cherry pick the Bible for innocent passages which they agree with, but they would never call themselves a Christian.

When a person calls themselves a Christian, they are claiming to be a follower of the teachings of the Bible, and as far as I am concerned they are worse than Nazis, for there is a centuries' long historical record of the genocidal and tyrannical effects of implimenting such diabolical teachings and laws.


Quote:

To claim that Jesus supported the killing out and destroying of entire cultures is to claim Karl Marx supported Stalin.
Utter nonsense.

The fictional Jesus demanded that those who do not accept him be gathered up and thrown into the fires and be burned, and that is exaclty what the Christians did when they ruled for centuries in Europe.

And even worse is the fiction of the Book of Revelation, where on the return of this fictional genocidal maniac (Jesus) most of the world's population are predicted to die in a war in order to create the tyranny of world domination of the King of Kings.

Of course this fictional Jesus will never rise from the dead, but the dangers of the phenomenon of the militant "Messianic complex" and the self fulfilling prophecy ar every real. Almost half the US population according to polls believes that Jesus will return, and he is predicted to at the time of genocidal holy war against the enemies of Christ, and America is the most militarised and Christian nation on earth.

Woe to you who revere this Biblical deity; shame on you; you are an offence to your ancestors who were slaughtered at the hands of the proponents of this vile religion for century after century. If there is an eternity beyond death, I curse your for eternity. You are vile subhuman, morally worthless wretches. If there is a Hell, I suspect that shall be your only reward. If there is a God of gods and She is good, I suspect that She will curse you also.

Lux

________________


The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews. It is the theory and practice of Homo Holocaust".

Peter Tatchell

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/2000.htm

The Church of England marked the Millennium by celebrating 2,000 years of Christianity with a special National Millennium Service at St Paul's Cathedral in January. Attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Queen and the Prime Minister, this service was shamelessly triumphalist.

For lesbians and gay men, however, the Christian Millennium is not a moment for celebration. It is a time to mourn two millennia of religious intolerance, which has inflicted terrible pain on homosexual people.

Over the last 2,000 years, church-inspired homophobia has led to hundreds of millions of queers world wide being rejected by their families, driven to depression and suicide, discriminated against by anti-gay laws, and condemned to death for sodomy.

Christian leaders have never expressed any remorse for the church's persecution of lesbian and gay people. When Pope John Paul II apologised in 1999 for centuries of Vatican-backed injustice and oppression - such as anti-Semitism and colonialism - he made no mention of Catholic support for murderous anti-homosexual witch-hunts.

His heartless omission was compounded this year when he attacked the World Pride 2000 gay festivities in Rome as an "offence to Christian values" and launched another embittered attack on the gay community, condemning homosexuality as "objectively disordered" and "contrary to natural law".

Here in Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Millennium Sermon in January was an opportunity to atone for the genocide inflicted on us, but Dr Carey chose to ignore our suffering.

When asked by fellow Christians to express his remorse for the church's crimes against queer humanity, the Archbishop declined. Likewise, in response to OutRage!'s request for an apology to the lesbian and gay community, Dr Carey remained silent and indifferent.

How should we respond to such callousness? An eye for eye? But that would leave us all blind.

In an atmosphere of on-going religious bigotry, it is difficult to show forgiveness - especially when church leaders express no sorrow or regret for the homophobic victimisation they and their predecessors have caused.

The lesbian and gay community must, nevertheless, rise above the low morality of organised Christianity. Stooping to the church's lack of compassion would make us no better than them. Why not instead reverse the Christian fundamentalist mantra that is directed against queers? Loathe the sin of homophobia, but love the sinner and strive to deliver them from prejudice and discrimination.

However much we may deplore religious superstition and irrationality, it is surely better to win over to the struggle for homosexual emancipation as many Christians as possible. Better to have them as our friends and allies, rather than as our enemies and opponents.

Although redemption and forgiveness is the ethical response to church intolerance, it is a response that is understandably hard for many lesbians and gays to accept. More than any other institution in British society, Christianity has waged an almost ceaseless 2000-year-long war against homosexual people.

It is a war that still continues today. Last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury mobilised homophobes in the House of Lords to vote down an equal age of consent, thereby continuing the criminalisation of gay 16 and 17-year-olds.

Godly folk like Baroness Young and Cardinal Winning have scare-mongered and queer-baited non-stop all this year, in a desperate bid to save Section 28. They failed in Scotland, but succeeded in preventing repeal in England and Wales. The result? Discrimination rules. Homosexuality remains singled out for special legal restrictions that do not apply to apply to heterosexuality

Current religious homophobia has its roots in Biblical teaching. Leviticus 20:13 demands that homosexuals be put to death. And this is exactly what the Christian churches did for over 1,800 years. They followed literally and precisely the murderous incitements of Leviticus 20:13, sponsoring the mass murder of queers.

We were stoned to death in antiquity, burned alive during the medieval era and, in Britain, hung from gallows until the mid-nineteenth century. This slaughter of homosexuals took place with the official blessing of successive Popes and Archbishops of Canterbury.

The murder of queers in the name of "God" is comparable to the Nazi extermination of Jews. Both Christianity and Nazism demonised, scapegoated and murdered minorities. Nazi anti-Semitism parallels Christian homophobia. The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews. It is the theory and practice of Homo Holocaust.

While the church no longer advocates the death penalty for gay lovers, it still preaches a gospel of sexual apartheid, arguing that homosexuality should not be accorded the same moral or legal status as heterosexuality.

This claim for the moral superiority of heterosexuality is analogous to the way the leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church defended white superiority during the apartheid era in South Africa. It echoes their theological justification of racial discrimination against black people.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Winning preach a similar doctrine of supremacism - straight supremacism - which they use to justify the treatment of queers as second class citizens. They provide moral respectability and legitimacy for the homophobic hate campaign of the Daily Mail. Their opposition to gay equality gives comfort and succour to queer-bashers everywhere. It coincides with the prejudice that inspired the Soho nail-bomber, David Copeland.

While they may disclaim it as their intention, these men of "God" encourage the homophobic attitudes that fuel violence against our community. Church leaders have queer blood on their hands.

Cardinal Winning, Dr Carey, and the leaders of most other Christian denominations continue to support discrimination against gay people with regard to the age of consent, marriage, employment, Section 28 and the fostering and adoption of children.

They say that lesbians and gay men are not entitled to human rights because, according their interpretation of Christianity, there is no moral equivalence between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

If church leaders advocated similar discrimination against black or Jewish people, there would be a nation wide outcry and near-universal calls for their resignation. They would be shunned and disgraced.

Instead, these apostles of intolerance and unreason were invited to advise the government on the content of the school curriculum and on the wording of the recent Learning and Skills Bill covering sex education in schools. They were granted privileged access and influence that was not accorded to child welfare agencies, teacher's unions or education experts.

OutRage! and the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association have been often criticised by some people in the gay community for protesting against Church homophobia. Why bother? Christianity is an irrelevant minority sect, they argue. I wish!

The still unresolved battles over Section 28, the age of consent and sex education show that the Church continues to wield significant political influence to the detriment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Religious homophobia is still powerful. We ignore it at our peril.

Gay & Lesbian Humanist, Autumn 2000

This is an expanded version of a lecture at St Botolph's Church, London E1, on 21 March 2000. The lecture was part of the series, Ministry & Sexuality in the New Century, organised by Action for Gay and Lesbian Ordination (AGLO) and chaired by Dr Kenneth Leech.




Last edited by luciferhorus; 13-03-2012 at 04:04 PM.
luciferhorus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 04:11 PM   #6
hurt4ever1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrardthor View Post
From wiki

I don't think there's really a word for what I am proposing. What I am trying to flesh out is a dissecting of complex things so that we can throw out the unwanted refuse.

What I am proposing is building ideas from the ground up from spare body parts.

I read the passage in Isaiah.

What I grabbed is an example of cherry picking.

Reading the passage, I realize I don't really care if Yahweh is mad at Israel for some sort of rebellion. What I care about is there is a spark of sobriety in the darkness of the Old Testament. God is calling Israel to speak to God. God is calling Israel to reason with him.

Completely cut out from the passage and applying it to a collage of ideas we can say "Look here, God wants us to reason with him. God is calling us for our opinions, our arguments, our understanding."

Within context it seems the passage is more that God is beckoning them towards a lecture.



It does. It calls me to really dissect what cherry picking means.

I find truth in the statement of God calling us to reason with him.

In context I find the same tired rhetoric of God saying people are bad and need to be cleansed.



Yeah basically we never totally like every part of a book or movie we may take in. It doesn't mean that we throw that movie or book out.

Music I guess sort of helps my case, except however we don't listen to music trying to ascertain truth. We listen to music to enjoy it.

Actually

Maybe that is the approach that should be taken.

We don't take things literally as truth - we take them as things to be enjoy.

I enjoy thinking God calls us to reason with him. The rest of the passage is the same boring rhetoric.

I don't know if I'm making a strong enough case for cherry picking.

I think everyone does it though.
I too think that God (or Godhead/higher consciousness as I refer to it) calls us to reason. Every time we get into the car, it seems I have some type of epiphany, lol.

Sunday on an extremely long car trip, I was discussing manipulation with my husband and came to the realization that anything and everything can be manipulated, though not always purposefully. Children are master manipulators, sometimes they do it purposefully, but when they are smaller, they do it to get their needs met. There is nothing wrong with them doing this, because they rely on others to get their needs met, but as they mature, they have to be taught to meet their own needs.


So, the paradox would be that although things remain the same, how we INTERPRET them is what changes. Sometimes we manipulate the interpretations purposefully, sometimes we do it subconsciously.
So what resonates with you today, might totally not resonate with you tomorrow because you will have more experiences between today and tomorrow. Many times you will find yourself 'manipulating' things to fit within your description of how life SHOULD BE, but by doing this, you are the one interpreting your life, you are growing your own "moral standard" instead of living your life by morals handed to you by authority, so we reason (by means of cherry picking) with God (what ever anyone calls it) in order to gain our own moral standard.

Last edited by hurt4ever1; 13-03-2012 at 04:13 PM.
hurt4ever1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 04:13 PM   #7
ohme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luciferhorus View Post
No actually I was arguing that you "can" cherry pick and quote mine from Mein Kampf, and there are numerous perfectly innocent passages, and passages which would be considered perfectly acceptable to any modern person of the European Socialist Left, but that is not how we judge Hitler and the Nazis, we judge their ideology as a whole and we judge them harshly for their genocidal policies, imperialism, war-mongering, unjust laws, homophobia, dictatorial rule, their eradication or enslavement of political oppenents, their racism, their ethnic cleansing, their use of slave labor etc.

And all these things we can accuse the Nazis of we can can accuse the Christians of, for this is how they have behaved when they had control of Europe for many centuries, and if anyone should say that such policies were not to be found in the Bible, they are are either just ignorant of the Bible or they are liars.

The Nazis only ruled for over a decade; the genocidal and tyrannical biblical fanatics ruled in Europe from the 4th to the 16th centuries and even after that in certain parts of Europe, and even in Protestant states many of these Biblcial laws remained, even up until the 20th century, and indeed some were not repealed until my own lifetime.

A Left socialist could cherry pick the Nazis' manifestos for progressive socialist policies which they advocate anyway, but they would never call themselves a Nazi, for they would not be a Nazi, they would be an anti-Nazi and a Socialist.

Similarly even a humanist or an atheist or an ant-Christian could cherry pick the Bible for innocent passages which they agree with, but they would never call themselves a Christian.

When a person calls themselves a Christian, they are claiming to be a follower of the teachings of the Bible, and as far as I am concerned they are worse than Nazis, for there is a centuries' long historical record of the genocidal and tyrannical effects of implimenting such diabolical teachings and laws.




Utter nonsense.

The fictional Jesus demanded that those who do not accept him be gathered up and thrown into the fires and be burned, and that is exaclty what the Christians did when they ruled for centuries in Europe.

And even worse is the fiction of the Book of Revelation, where on the return of this fictional genocidal maniac (Jesus) most of the world's population are predicted to die in a war in order to create the tyranny of world domination of the King of Kings.

Of course this fictional Jesus will never rise from the dead, but the dangers of the phenomenon of the militant "Messianic complex" and the self fulfilling prophecy ar every real. Almost half the US population according to polls believes that Jesus will return, and he is predicted to at the time of genocidal holy war against the enemies of Christ, and America is the most militarised and Christian nation on earth.

Woe to you who revere this Biblical deity; shame on you; you are an offence to your ancestors who were slaughtered at the hands of the proponents of this vile religion for century after century. If there is an eternity beyond death, I curse your for eternity. You are vile subhuman, morally worthless wretches. If there is a Hell, I suspect that shall be your only reward. If there is a God of gods and She is good, I suspect that She will curse you also.

Lux
You're over the top mate. I find myself agreeing with some of your observations, but your judgment content and wish for revenge and retribution is far to "biblical" for me.

Are we gonna get the revolution that kicks out the corruption, only to bring its own corruption in that will have to create another revolution to get rid of it? This is the pattern of those that become what they hate. They are imprinted with the same energy that they react to.
ohme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 04:17 PM   #8
hurt4ever1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohme View Post
You're over the top mate. I find myself agreeing with some of your observations, but your judgment content and wish for revenge and retribution is far to "biblical" for me.

Are we gonna get the revolution that kicks out the corruption, only to bring its own corruption in that will have to create another revolution to get rid of it? This is the pattern of those that become what they hate. They are imprinted with the same energy that they react to.
I too agree with some of his observations and noticed the same thing. Personally, I do not care to get revenge, I only care to help the people get from where I WAS, to where I AM, not because my way is best, but because I can see the bigotry within the system that I was a part of.
hurt4ever1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 04:18 PM   #9
gerrardthor
Senior Member
 
gerrardthor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 242
Default

Thanks Luciferhorus for your reply.

I appreciate discussion and any kind of rebuttal.

Quote:
No actually I was arguing that you "can" cherry pick and quote mine from Mein Kampk and there are numerous perfectly innocent passages and passages which would be considered perfectly acceptible to any modern person of the European Socialist Left, but that is now how we judge Hitler and the Nazis, we judge their ideology as a whole and we judge them harshly for their genocidal policies, imperialism, war-mongering, unjust laws, homophobia, dictatorial rule, their eradication or enslavement of political oppenents, their racism, their ethnic cleansing, their use of slave labor etc.
I think this is an unfair comparison.

We don't have the direct words of Jesus as we do of Hitler.

Quote:
ideology as a whole
The sense of what I get from your antichristian posts is that you have a specific interpretation of the christian ideology as a whole.

What I'm trying to argue is that there is many different interpretations of the life of Jesus.

There are people who right from the beginning of Christianity tried to dissect Christianity away from how you interpret Christianity.

These people lost.

Quote:
When a person calls themselves a Christian, they are claiming to be a follower of the teachings of the Bible, and as far as I am concerned they are worse than Nazis, for their is a centuries' long historical record of the genocidal and tyrannical effects of implimenting such teachings and laws.
There was a time when there were Christians who didn't have a Bible. There were Christians who rejected the entire new testament and were vehement (but not vehement enough) in dissecting Christ away from Yahweh.

Quote:
The fictional Jesus demanded that those who do not accept him be gathered up and thrown into the fires and be burned, and that is exaclty what the Christians did when they ruled for centuries in Europe.
I can't really counter this.

Jesus was extreme with a lot of what he said. I honestly think if he truly existed and some of the words we have of his that trickled down to us were really his - he was simply wrong.

When a person experiences God they only know it in the cultural context and definitions of God they've known before. When a person experiences God the language they express this with is in accordance with the symbols and ideas with which they were raised.

I think Christ had this problem. He was raised under the religion of yahweh and therefore expressed his relationship with the divine through yahweh.

This doesn't mean yahweh is God. This doesn't mean that Jesus' experience of God is invalidated. It simply means that we are limited to experiencing the divine through the lens we were raised to look through.

Quote:
And even worse is the fiction of the Book of Revelation, where on the return of this fictional genocidal maniac (Jesus) most of the world's population are predicted to die in a war to create the tyranny of world domination of the King of Kings.
The book of revelations from my limited understanding is Christians reacting to being persecuted under roman rule. They had revenge fantasies.

This however does beckon me to really analyze what sort of spirit the early christians who were closer to the supposed event of Jesus - what they saw the spirit of Christ was.
__________________
I used to pray like God was listening. // I used to make my parents proud. // I was the glue that kept my friends together // Now they don't talk and we don't go out.
Brand New - Millstone
gerrardthor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 04:23 PM   #10
gerrardthor
Senior Member
 
gerrardthor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohme View Post
You're over the top mate. I find myself agreeing with some of your observations, but your judgment content and wish for revenge and retribution is far to "biblical" for me.

Are we gonna get the revolution that kicks out the corruption, only to bring its own corruption in that will have to create another revolution to get rid of it? This is the pattern of those that become what they hate. They are imprinted with the same energy that they react to.
Are we witnessing the act of cherry picking - where you agree with some of his sentiments but disagree with the overall spirit with which he is projecting his opinion?

You accept some of his premises but disagree about his conclusions?

Just speculating and trying to show that cherry picking and dissecting an opinion is what everybody does.
__________________
I used to pray like God was listening. // I used to make my parents proud. // I was the glue that kept my friends together // Now they don't talk and we don't go out.
Brand New - Millstone
gerrardthor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 04:24 PM   #11
hurt4ever1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrardthor View Post
Are we witnessing the act of cherry picking - where you agree with some of his sentiments but disagree with the overall spirit with which he is projecting his opinion?

You accept some of his premises but disagree about his conclusions?

Just speculating and trying to show that cherry picking and dissecting an opinion is what everybody does.
LOL we do this all the time. Consciously and subconsciously.

Another thing that I figured out is that speaking/writing words is an extremely poor way to communicate because we can either miss-communicate what we are thinking or we can misinterpret what we are reading.

Last edited by hurt4ever1; 13-03-2012 at 04:27 PM.
hurt4ever1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 04:30 PM   #12
gerrardthor
Senior Member
 
gerrardthor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hurt4ever1 View Post
LOL we do this all the time. Consciously and subconsciously.

Another thing that I figured out is that speaking/writing words is an extremely poor way to communicate because we can either miss-communicate what we are thinking or we can misinterpret what we are reading.
That's basically my argument in my poor defense of Christianity.

Language is a terrible medium for communications of metaphysical ideas.

What I pick out of Christianity isn't what can be interpreted as fascism - rather the example of someone experiencing God and expressing it within the limits of their language, ideas and common symbols.

The truth of Christianity I think is completely lost through the telephone game.

All we have left is an arguing over what is the correct interpretation of Christianity.

I personally feel there might have been a truth that was quickly squashed out but still has filtered through into modern Christianity.
__________________
I used to pray like God was listening. // I used to make my parents proud. // I was the glue that kept my friends together // Now they don't talk and we don't go out.
Brand New - Millstone
gerrardthor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 04:48 PM   #13
ohme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrardthor View Post
Are we witnessing the act of cherry picking - where you agree with some of his sentiments but disagree with the overall spirit with which he is projecting his opinion?

You accept some of his premises but disagree about his conclusions?

Just speculating and trying to show that cherry picking and dissecting an opinion is what everybody does.
from what i read of your OP we are pretty similar in approach. I raid the fields for the pearls too.
ohme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 09:02 PM   #14
believenothing
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 3,420
Default

Cherry pickers are technically agnostic theists.

There is nothing wrong with cherry picking. The danger is from those who don't cherry pick, read the bad stuff, and take it literally.
believenothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 09:10 PM   #15
cwl3
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrardthor View Post
From wiki

I don't think there's really a word for what I am proposing. What I am trying to flesh out is a dissecting of complex things so that we can throw out the unwanted refuse.

What I am proposing is building ideas from the ground up from spare body parts.

I read the passage in Isaiah.

What I grabbed is an example of cherry picking.

Reading the passage, I realize I don't really care if Yahweh is mad at Israel for some sort of rebellion. What I care about is there is a spark of sobriety in the darkness of the Old Testament. God is calling Israel to speak to God. God is calling Israel to reason with him.

Completely cut out from the passage and applying it to a collage of ideas we can say "Look here, God wants us to reason with him. God is calling us for our opinions, our arguments, our understanding."

Within context it seems the passage is more that God is beckoning them towards a lecture.



It does. It calls me to really dissect what cherry picking means.
I view it mostly as reductionalism and holism.

Holism basically means that the properties of something should be viewed in terms of wholes, not a collection of parts.

An everyday idea of holism would be, for instance, OK what that person did might not have been the best of things he could have done, but I know that overall he is a good person.

Reductionalism would be forgetting the entirety and trying to explain the whole picture by looking at little parts.

It's kinda like seeing the wood from the trees idea.

I think the overall message of Jesus was to be a good person. Of course a good person to me is something instinctive, but it ties in with the ethos of Jesus, others may try to change that by overanalysing
cwl3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 09:52 PM   #16
blackyblue
Senior Member
 
blackyblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Leith
Posts: 13,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwl3 View Post
I view it mostly as reductionalism and holism.

Holism basically means that the properties of something should be viewed in terms of wholes, not a collection of parts.

An everyday idea of holism would be, for instance, OK what that person did might not have been the best of things he could have done, but I know that overall he is a good person.

Reductionalism would be forgetting the entirety and trying to explain the whole picture by looking at little parts.

It's kinda like seeing the wood from the trees idea.

I think the overall message of Jesus was to be a good person. Of course a good person to me is something instinctive, but it ties in with the ethos of Jesus, others may try to change that by overanalysing
Yes, and for me someone that sits there with a fine comb over analysing everything just so they can find a few flaws in a charachter or something a little off, is the bad person...and they too will be judged
__________________
Is it my fault if i tell people to go jump off a bridge that some dumb asses actually go jump!? - John Strangis 28/12/13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZqXMQneVsg

There is no defence against an evil which only the victims and the perpetrators know exists.

Last edited by blackyblue; 13-03-2012 at 09:53 PM.
blackyblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 09:55 PM   #17
blackyblue
Senior Member
 
blackyblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Leith
Posts: 13,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by believenothing View Post
Cherry pickers are technically agnostic theists.

There is nothing wrong with cherry picking. The danger is from those who don't cherry pick, read the bad stuff, and take it literally.
Exactly.

I keep quoting this line from the OT without providing the source of who said it. I must find the source so i can put a verse and a name to it.

But it was talking about the current times and false prophets of the day.

It said 'Test everything, take what is good, and leave what is bad'...

It was meaning that there is good and bad in everything, cherry pick only what is good, and put down what is bad..



Nothing wrong with this at-all...!!
__________________
Is it my fault if i tell people to go jump off a bridge that some dumb asses actually go jump!? - John Strangis 28/12/13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZqXMQneVsg

There is no defence against an evil which only the victims and the perpetrators know exists.

Last edited by blackyblue; 13-03-2012 at 09:55 PM.
blackyblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 09:59 PM   #18
chrysalis55
Senior Member
 
chrysalis55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada, eh.
Posts: 896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohme View Post
You're over the top mate. I find myself agreeing with some of your observations, but your judgment content and wish for revenge and retribution is far to "biblical" for me.

Are we gonna get the revolution that kicks out the corruption, only to bring its own corruption in that will have to create another revolution to get rid of it? This is the pattern of those that become what they hate. They are imprinted with the same energy that they react to.
+1
chrysalis55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 10:00 PM   #19
blackyblue
Senior Member
 
blackyblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Leith
Posts: 13,818
Default

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
__________________
Is it my fault if i tell people to go jump off a bridge that some dumb asses actually go jump!? - John Strangis 28/12/13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZqXMQneVsg

There is no defence against an evil which only the victims and the perpetrators know exists.
blackyblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2012, 10:06 PM   #20
ohme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackyblue View Post
1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Here's one for you then. People say one should test the spirit according to the bible. But I say one should test the bible according to the spirit.

There are many who are disturbed by the idea that a good work is not pleasing to God unless one be a christian. And many of the disturbed ones are christians themselves. This is testing the bible according to the spirit.
ohme is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:36 PM.