Pick and Choose Fundamentalism

A recent off-topic reply of mine at Message 155 has got me to thinking about how Biblical fundamentalists pick and choose what portions of the Bible that one should live by and what portions one is allowed to ignore.I have noticed that according to Biblical Christians (using jar's term) one book in particular, Genesis, is considered literally inerrant, yet other books, such as Deuteronomy or Leviticus can just be ignored depending upon the personal whim of the fundie.Why don't all fundamentalists of the literal and inerrant persuasion look like this guy? Online Bookstore: Books, NOOK ebooks, Music, Movies & Toys | Barnes & Noble®So what gives? What is the rationale for worshiping each word in Genesis and ignoring what one does not like in Leviticus or Deuteronomy?ABE - Looks like a Bible inerrancy topic to me Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Edited by anglagard, : move ABE to endEdited by anglagard, : Accurately quote jar as per message 3 and 18

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Sorry, my misquote. I believed I meant to use the term Biblical Christian to avoid the even more charged term Bibolator, either of which IMO would work.Will change in OP and let this post stand as the record of my mistake.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

GDR, just to let you know first, I have no quarrel with your beliefs since as best I can tell, as they do not apparently intend to interfere with the declaration or practice of mine. Oops, King was Civil Rights, Mandela was anti-apartheid. Except for a handful of Arab nations, slavery has been illegal for quite some time. I believe the last 'major' nation (at the time) to officially outlaw slavery was Brazil in 1888.The main original opponents of slavery were Quakers. From: Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In general, early Christians, such as Paul, St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas did not oppose slavery. Pope Nicholas V even encouraged enslaving non-Christian Africans in his Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex of 1454. Since then other popes stated that slavery was against Christian teachings, as is now generally held. Even earlier, in 1435, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands. A list of papal statements against slavery (and also claims that the popes nonetheless owned and bought slaves) is found in the discussion Christianity and Slavery.

​

Most Christian sects found some way to soothe the consciences of their slave-owning members. One notable exception was the Society of Friends (Quakers), who advocated the abolition of slavery from earliest times.

---

The problem with Christianity overall as being a force against slavery is made difficult by the rules concerning the treatment of slaves in Leviticus, along with other references.This line of inquiry is however going far afield of my original intent in this thread, which is to discuss why every word in Genesis must be accepted literally and without thought, examination, or the exercise of critical thinking as being from the direct dictation of God while other books, such as Deuteronomy, Leviticus, or even the entire content of the NT can be ignored however the supposed adherent chooses.Edited by anglagard, : clarityEdited by anglagard, : grammar

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Ringo knows my intent in proposing this thread, namely that fundamentalists are inconsistent and self-serving in their selective interpretation of the OT. Your side issue is proving to be a distraction, however unintentional it may be. Perhaps you should consider proposing your own PNT for further discussion concerning any Biblically supported slaughter of innocents.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

From the OP:

quote:

---

Why don't all fundamentalists of the literal and inerrant persuasion look like this guy? Online Bookstore: Books, NOOK ebooks, Music, Movies & Toys | Barnes & Noble®

​

So what gives? What is the rationale for worshiping each word in Genesis and ignoring what one does not like in Leviticus or Deuteronomy?

---

I have read Romans, along with the rest of the KJV. The question still stands. Can you provide an answer other than insinuating it's my fault for asking questions despite having read the KJV? Most is not all. Do you consider that Romans absolves you of literally following the Bible according to whenever you may not happen to feel like it? Does that mean the Bible is inerrant, except when it isn't?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

The premise of this thread is to ask why, if the Bible is to be treated as literal and inerrant as Christian Fundamentalists insist, then why is it only treated as literal and inerrant when applied to others and not to oneself. The contrast of Genesis with the 613 laws were the specific example I used as there does not seem to be a rash of stonings for working on the sabbath, child murders for disobedience, and so on.Now you answered by using Romans to mean that Jesus somehow replaced the laws in the OT. OK, a not uncommon answer. However, I hope you are not one of those who believe that since they are 'saved' (as if one knows), that they get to lie, cheat, steal, blasphemy, and even murder because they are no longer subject to any sanction, be it human or divine.Also, if the Bible is literal and inerrant, why did the OT require amending, as you and others claim occurred as a result of your interpretation of Romans?But of course, I'm only the person who wrote the PNT so how could I know what I meant better than someone who doesn't know the slightest thing about me. Well, since I don't exactly believe in Christianity, but rather Spinoza Pantheism, I don't need to defend any OT bloopers as you may feel compelled to do. Also, I only 'judge' others in relation to how I perceive them to be of threat or benefit to the things I believe, such as my religion, science, the Constitution of the United States, free access to knowledge, and the desire to achieve wisdom. Therefore, I only 'judge' Christian Fundamentalists as hypocritical, intolerant, ignorant, unpatriotic, and self-serving in regard to how much they seek to destroy the above. Unless they are like some of those who are 'saved,' then they appear to have no standards at all. Also, as I am not required to hate myself, as it seems to be in your interpretation of Christianity, I am not therefore compelled to hate others. Your god, not mine. Did we even read the same Bible? You could always stop doing it, are you not responsible for your own behavior?I will pass on the rest of your sermon, I've heard it before. Usually, at least from some of these false prophets of Christian Fundamentalism, it can be neatly summarized in one sentence. Bye. Remember, if you return you are guilty of bearing false witness, if that has any meaning.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

To repeat the OP: I just finished reading the book I was referring to in the OP, namely The Year of Living Biblically by A.J.Jacobs. In this book the author actually tries to live according to all the rules of the OT and NT for a year as they come up in his reading of the RSV.From page 4:

quote:

---

I am trying to obey the entire Bible, without picking and choosing.

---

The difficulties the author has in following such commands as not mixing fibers in his garments requires a fiber expert with a microscope just to fulfill. Of course commands to stone to death any witches, Sabbath violators, disobedient children, and those who engage in forbidden sexual practices can not be taken literally without a likely quick trip to prison, so such rules are obeyed symbolically, such as using pebbles. The book rather quickly shows the difficulty, if not outright impossibility, of obeying all the OT rules in the modern age.One thing that should be mentioned is he sure has a forgiving and supportive wife.However the best part of the book is where he summarizes his conclusions after meeting theologians from Orthodox Jews to Creation Museum shills to his guru-like uncle by marriage.From page 327-329:

quote:

---

There’s a phrase called “Cafeteria Christianity.” It’s a derisive term used by fundamentalist Christians to describe moderate Christians. The idea is that the moderates pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to follow. They take a nice helping of mercy and compassion. But the ban on homosexuality? They leave that on the countertop.

​

Fundamentalist Jews don’t use the phrase “Cafeteria Judaism,” but they have the same critique. You must follow all of the Torah, not just the parts that are palatable.

​

Their point is, the religious moderates are inconsistent. They’re just making the Bible conform to their own values.

​

The year showed me beyond a doubt that everyone practices cafeteria religion. It’s not just moderates. Fundamentalists do it too. They can’t heap everything on their plate. Otherwise they’d kick women out of the church for saying hello (“the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak . ” - 1 Corinthians 14:34) and boot out men for talking about the “Tennessee Titans” (“make no mention of the names of other gods . ” - Exodus 23:13).

​

But the more important lesson was this: there’s nothing wrong with choosing. Cafeterias aren’t bad per se. I’ve had some great meals at cafeterias. I’ve also had some turkey tetrazzini that gave me the dry heaves for sixteen hours. The key is in choosing the right dishes. You need to pick the nurturing ones (compassion), the healthy ones (love thy neighbor), not the bitter ones. Religious leaders don’t know everything about every food, but maybe the good ones can guide you to what is fresh. They can be like a helpful lunch lady who - OK, I’ve taken the metaphor too far.

​

Now, this does bring up the problem of authority. Once you acknowledge that we pick and choose from the Bible, doesn’t that destroy its credibility? Doesn’t that knock the legs out from under it? Why should we put stock in any of the Bible?

​

“That’s the big questions, “says one of my rabbis, Robbie Harris. I put the question to Robbie as well as every other member of my advisory board. There’s no simple or totally satisfying answer. But let me offer two interesting ideas from them:

​

The first is from the pastor out to pasture, Elton Richards. Here’s his metaphor: Try thinking of the Bible as a snapshot of something divine. It may not be a perfect picture. It may have flaws: a thumb on the lens, faded colors in the corners. But it still helps to visualize.

​

“I need something specific,” says Elton. “Beauty is a general thing. It’s abstract. I need to see a rose. When I see that Jesus embraced lepers, that’s a reason for me to embrace those with AIDS. If he embraced Samaritans, that’s a reason for me to fight racism.”

​

The second is from Robbie himself. He says we can’t insist that the Bible marks the end of our relationship with God. Who are we to say that Bible contained all the wisdom? “If you insist that God revealed himself only at one time, at one particular place, using these discrete words, and never any time other than that - that in itself is a kind of idolatry.” His point is: You can commit idolatry on the Bible itself. You can start to worship the words instead of the spirit. You need to “meet God halfway in the woods.”

---

This is the conclusion from someone who actually tried to practice what so many only preach.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

The Mosaic Law Code is not the issue. The issue is why do those who find a book infallible still manage to pick and choose what parts to follow and what parts to ignore.Your diversionary and simplistic comment fools few, if any, around here.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Ain't that the truth. A subject (or thread) in and of itself.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

The OP is specific. Why are some statements followed as if direct from the deity and other inconvenient statements simply ignored.Your probably deliberate misdirection and likely pretend misunderstanding is noted, just as your inability to admit it when wrong.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Yet you seem to state unequivocally that all of the Bible is inerrant and therefore not just a guide, but rather an infallible rulebook that all must follow to the letter regardless of time or place. It appears you say we can't judge some Bronze Age tribe by our standards, yet their primitive folk beliefs constitute a final judgment upon all for all time.Since you willfully refuse to understand what Purpledawn is saying, I see no hope you will realize the self-contradictory nature of your position in this matter.From what I understand, you insist we must abandon all geology, nearly all biology, and very central concepts of physics and chemistry as it contradicts your understanding of a creation account in Genesis.Then you turn around and state that Hebrew slavery is OK because they came from a different time and culture. Does that mean you are going to retract your statement that it requires a huge amount of energy to create water from hydrogen and oxygen, or is your false pride more important than the truth?There is a word for what I am talking about here, that word is integrity. Until you start showing a glimpse of what that word means, you will remain a joke among those who do know.Edited by anglagard, : add second sentence for clarity

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Some things are not worth fighting for because they are inherently wrong. Evidently Peg's ideals, which include a corruption of Christianity through pick and choose fundamentalism, a desperate hatred of all knowledge, especially science, and a contempt for the enlightenment and it's subsequent products, democracy and reason, are considered unworthy of personal sacrifice.If one does not have the guts to fight for and even die for their beliefs, then one has no real soul. Instead they are just a shill for some guru.I think it is important to point out that there are several active duty posters, as well as veterans. All put their life on the line either now or at some time in the past to support the ideals of democracy and rationality as opposed to militant and murderous nationalism (see WW2), bullshit communism that was actually feudalism, and psycho child murderers, known as suicide bombers of another example of perverting a religion.I hope that Peg can place her ego in perspective, be it her religion or just admitting to being a fallible human in general. So far she can't ever admit any error even when it is blatantly obvious, such as in the huge amount of energy falsehood it takes to turn hydrogen and oxygen to water. So much for being a witness or evangelizing, the self-proclaimed infallible ego is above the made up and lied about, made by false pride, false Christian god of the self-ignorant followers of Nietzsche instead of the humility induced by Bonhoeffer or Spinoza, or even the most importantly, kick ass NT Jesus.Some people just can't handle the truth for selfish reasons, or even understand the concept of a metaphor.Indeed, I rest my case as well.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

It does not appear so obvious if some forms of Christianity emphasize the OT over the NT, such as when those forms deny all science, democracy, and any questioning of 'authority' in general.It is unfortunate that so many so called "Christians" who have totally misinterpreted the OT still refuse to ask a Jew what the actual meaning of the text may be. However it is not surprising given that the self-proclaimed 'saved' believe the primary purpose of life is to be smug, condescending, or at worst 'beyond good and evil' as such that any immoral behavior is allowed due to viewing all others as less than human.Not that you would be guilty of any of these infractions, of course.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

It does not appear so obvious if some forms of Christianity emphasize the OT over the NT, such as when those forms deny all science, democracy, and any questioning of 'authority' in general.It is unfortunate that so many so called "Christians" who have totally misinterpreted the OT still refuse to ask a Jew what the actual meaning of the text may be. However it is not surprising given that the self-proclaimed 'saved' believe the primary purpose of life is to be smug, condescending, or at worst 'beyond good and evil' as such that any immoral behavior is allowed due to viewing all others as less than human.Not that you would be guilty of any of these infractions, of course.Edited by anglagard, : change ass to as, although it may be subliminal

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen