A Question for Christians: Bible Cherry Picking

[Skitty]

I would like the preface this by saying I am an atheist and I am quite confident in my choice or religion or lack thereof. That being said, I have no issues with anyone practicing any religion they choose to, so long as it does not encroach onto another's rights or well being (this includes their own). With that outa the way, here is my question:

When is it okay to cherry pick from the bible? Furthermore, if you are cherry picking, do you believe that other parts of the bible (e.g. gay marriage) should still be viewed as "laws"

I believe there are many positive points the bible makes, mainly about how to act in society and concerning morality. However, some points seem completely outlandish. For instance, Levitcus has laid out many things you cannot do. For instance eating pigs, lobster, shrimp, rabbits and other such animals. Another part of the bible forbids women from speaking in church. Can someone really choose not to follow these, but believe that they can suppress another's rights?

[Horatio Nelson]

I would like the preface this by saying I am an atheist and I am quite confident in my choice or religion or lack thereof. That being said, I have no issues with anyone practicing any religion they choose to, so long as it does not encroach onto another's rights or well being (this includes their own). With that outa the way, here is my question:

When is it okay to cherry pick from the bible? Furthermore, if you are cherry picking, do you believe that other parts of the bible (e.g. gay marriage) should still be viewed as "laws"

I believe there are many positive points the bible makes, mainly about how to act in society and concerning morality. However, some points seem completely outlandish. For instance, Levitcus has laid out many things you cannot do. For instance eating pigs, lobster, shrimp, rabbits and other such animals. Another part of the bible forbids women from speaking in church. Can someone really choose not to follow these, but believe that they can suppress another's rights?


I do not cherry pick the bible.


In the New Testament Jesus dying on the cross frees us from the law, blah blah, theology you don't care about.

God also later says to Paul the Apostle that he can eat any animal.

I can't recall the passage that talks about women not speaking in church, but I think you may mean women teaching. Which is an Old Testament law.

[Skitty]

I do not cherry pick the bible.


In the New Testament Jesus dying on the cross frees us from the law, blah blah, theology you don't care about.

God also later says to Paul the Apostle that he can eat any animal.

I can't recall the passage that talks about women not speaking in church, but I think you may mean women teaching. Which is an Old Testament law.

And what about mixed fabrics?

Also, it is also prohibited to touch the carcass of any of these animals.

[Horatio Nelson]

And what about mixed fabrics?

Also, it is also prohibited to touch the carcass of any of these animals.

Like I said, Old Testament laws which we were freed from when Jesus died on the cross.

[phuckphace]

I can't recall the passage that talks about women not speaking in church, but I think you may mean women teaching. Which is an Old Testament law.

1 Corinthians 14:34 sez:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

however, there's some controversy about whether this bit was actually written by the apostle Paul, as it seems to contradict the well-documented role of women in his proto-church. it is a bit silly that Paul would spill tons of ink about how strict adherence to the old Law was no longer necessary post-JC, and then make an appeal to the Law in the same letter.

[Horatio Nelson]

1 Corinthians 14:34 sez:



however, there's some controversy about whether this bit was actually written by the apostle Paul, as it seems to contradict the well-documented role of women in his proto-church. it is a bit silly that Paul would spill tons of ink about how strict adherence to the old Law was no longer necessary post-JC, and then make an appeal to the Law in the same letter.

Yeah, I have no answer as to why that is written, all I know is it is stupid and quite anti-Gospel. I will have to look into it. :)

[Gigablue]

Like I said, Old Testament laws which we were freed from when Jesus died on the cross.

Matthew 5:17-19 NIV

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17 NIV

17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

According to what is written in the bible, all the laws of the Old Testament were divinely inspired and remain valid.

That being said, I think it's great that people cherry pick the bible. If someone were to follow every law in the bible, they would be arrested for breaking almost every law on the books. The bible, as written, is a morally abhorrent book, but most Christians are thankfully far more moral than the bible.

[Horatio Nelson]

Matthew 5:17-19 NIV

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17 NIV

17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

According to what is written in the bible, all the laws of the Old Testament were divinely inspired and remain valid.

That being said, I think it's great that people cherry pick the bible. If someone were to follow every law in the bible, they would be arrested for breaking almost every law on the books. The bible, as written, is a morally abhorrent book, but most Christians are thankfully far more moral than the bible.


Hebrews 8:4-6 "For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5*who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6*But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises."

7-9 "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8*Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—9*not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord."

TL;DR...don't be a lazy ass, read it. :P

[Gigablue]

Hebrews 8:4-6 "For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5*who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6*But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises."

7-9 "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8*Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—9*not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord."

TL;DR...don't be a lazy ass, read it. :P

The bible kind of says whatever you want it to say. You can find a quote supporting almost any position. Some verses say to accept the Old Testament, while others say not to. However, I don't think you can make the point that the Old Testament is definitely obsolete, given the verses that I cited above. At best, you can say it's debatable.

That being said, I hope no one takes the Old Testament seriously, since it's generally quite horrible. While I don't find the New Testament particularly moral, the Old Testament is a million times worse.

TL;DR The bible says to trust the Old Testament, and also not to trust it.

[Verminicious Knid]

I think basing all your morals on a 1000 year old book is pretty dumb anyway, given how vastly different our societies and cultures are now. Christians would do much better to follow Situation Ethics (Doing the most loving thing) or their Conscience (Believed to be God's voice by some).

[Miserabilia]

I think cherry picking is used much too often as a technique to justify some parts of religion while dismissing others. I'd say, if you truly love your religion, also love it's dark sides.

[DeadEyes]

I think cherry picking is used much too often as a technique to justify some parts of religion while dismissing others.

My thoughts exactly.