Cherry Picking and Holy Books

[brendand]

Luke's account is supported by independent multple attestation, it is contemporary and supported by contemporary accounts, he is correct in his internal material about places, and customs of the time, etc. The unanimous testimony of those who referenced his account show that he did write it. If we can be sure of the authorship, the date, and his story is corroborated by his contemporaries, and he himself lived in the time of which he speaks, he actually says he interviewed the eyewitnesses; how do other accounts compare to his? Do they have the same kind of evidence? In fact, can you name one and let's compare reliability?

Sure! The Gospel according to Mark.

[reneldo]

Sure! The Gospel according to Mark.

Well, they both agree on the essentials, so, Luke has good evidence of authenticity. Though, Mark was not an eyewitness but a contemporary.

[grandpa]

Well, they both agree on the essentials, so, Luke has
good evidence of authenticity.
Though, Mark was not an eyewitness but a contemporary.

I can't assign the Bible much authenticity. Christians are no more believable than any other religion.

Grandpa h.

[Peter]

And where does the Bible say a slave owner could do that? Does it say he could do so without reason?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

A reason? Seriously? You think it's OK as long as the master thinks he has a good reason?

Also, if the golden rule and all this anti-slavery high morals of yours is IINATE in us because of our evolutionary nature, why didn't thousands upon thousands of white slave owners realize this and for probably 400 years? I know of no species in the animal kingdom that can rebel against its nature! If morals are naturally part of us because of our DNA, genes, or whatever, then all people should have these moral standards! Clearly the slave owners of the middle passage didn't!

The golden rule doesn't preclude greedy ignorant people. I should also point out that religion justified much of the slave trade since the godless heathens were considered subhuman.

Golden rule you say? I don't see lions treating zebras as they would want to be treated. No evolutionary or natural selection reason can reasonably explain the origin of this moral stance.

Oh dear, you really don't understand evolution at all do you. Behavioral traits like cooperation and the golden rule evolve within a species. Lions and zebra are different species. Did you notice how the lions worked together to take down the zebra? This is because working together benefits the lions.

Fact is, many Israelites sold themselves into slavey to escape povety, a testimony to how well slaves were treated. And others who were forced into slavery, deserved it! Case closed!

Yeah I suppose those poor bastards deserved to be slaves just like all those poor bastards killed by a loving god in the bible deserved to be killed. As you say, case closed.

[Peter]

The Bible is not a book of myths. Ever read Luke 1:1-4?

The bible is not a book of myths because it says so right there in the bible.
That fails in so many ways...

[reneldo]

I can't assign the Bible much authenticity. Christians are no more believable than any other religion.

Grandpa h.

Yeah, the guilt by association argument. That reasoining would make the history books in all the libraries very small. Can't trust the gospels cause they are made by Christians? Well, that's guilt by association. Can't go disbelieving what a persons claims they saw just because they are religious. Josephus was he Jew, he had vested interest in things suporting his religion being true, yet, most of what we know about Jewish history in the 1st century ocmes from him. I'm suggesting, treat the gospels as you would any other historical document. Root out the errors by careful research, and keep the core historical facts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James as well as Tacitus and Josephus agree that Jesus existed, he was no legend. They may not agree on everything he did, but they agree he founded the Christian religion.

[reneldo]

The bible is not a book of myths because it says so right there in the bible.
That fails in so many ways...

I never said "because it says so right there in the Bible," I never offered a reason. Don't put words in my mouth. What is a myth anyway? Define it please.

[reneldo]

The bible is not a book of myths because it says so right there in the bible.
That fails in so many ways...

Better yet, what evidence would you accept as reasonable proof that an event or person did exist in history? Let's say this person performed miracles; what kind of evidence would you accept as enough credible proof that it did happen? I'm not discussing if it was God who aided them, or if it was a freak of nature, or if that person was simply a very good fraud. I'm simply asking, what evidence would convince you that such a thing happended in history?

Second, what rules establish history from myths?

[loser]

I am going to go out on a limb here and make a bold statement. Literally noone actually believes the literal truth of the entirety of their holy books.
All religious people are guilty of cherry picking to some degree.
From a purely practical point of view I can understand why this is done. Whether its a case that it has become socially unacceptable, like most of the Paul's teachings from the bible about women, or contradictions like the Korans mixture of tolerance and intolerance of other beliefs, choices clearly have to be made.

I specifically want to hear from the religious on this. How do you justify the cherry picking of parts from your holy books? Why do you believe that your gods would let you get away with it?

I cannot speak for any other 'holy book' other than the Christian bible. I have no faith in the veracity of other books because I don't believe they were inspired by God but were written by men for whatever other misguided reasons. However, I very much believe ALL of what the Bible says, although all of it is not meant to be taken literally. The Bible uses literary devices more than any writing EVER written by men; sometimes to vividly reveal a hidden meaning and sometimes to conceal an otherwise obvious truth. The Bible is as complex as its author, God Himself.

As far as cherry picking goes, it isn't done to glorify God but, rather, it is man's attempt to justify his shortcomings, his way to serve God on his own terms and not those of God. Instead of confronting evil, he attempts to appease the wicked by abrogating God's laws in favor of his own traditions. The problem is not in God or His laws; it's in man's inability to keep them. The problem is not in what the Bible says; it's in what man wants it to say.

God's way has never been popular with man. Serve God? The very word 'serve' (or slave) leaves a bad taste in most men's mouth. Funny how they don't mind being the master, though.

No, naive and doubtful man is in store for a frightful awakening...most of those 'unbelievable' things of the Bible will prove to be believable after all.

[loser]

So let's get this straight, you believe and follow absolutely everything it says in the Qu'ran, without exception? See, we can easily find things that you simply cannot and do not follow, so choose your answer carefully. It's like the Christian who says they follow the Bible, yet do not kill witches and wear mixed fabrics. They have to invent work-arounds for why they don't actually do what the book tells them to do.

What you are doing is worse than cherry picking; you are quote mining or taking text out of context. The Bible has NEVER instructed Christians to kill witches or to refrain from wearing mixed fabrics. How do you think that you will ever be able to have an intelligent conversation with intelligent people when you stoop to such disreputable tactics? If you want truth, why don't you learn to speak truthfully?

[brendand]

The problem is not in God or His laws; it's in man's inability to keep them.

Maybe this is a naive question, but why did the perfect God create imperfect beings and give them laws they are unable to follow?

Sounds a bit sadistic to me.

[Peter]

I never said "because it says so right there in the Bible," I never offered a reason. Don't put words in my mouth. What is a myth anyway? Define it please.

Isn't Luke a part of the bible?

Myth - A traditional story especially one concerning the early history of a people and typically involving supernatural beings or events.