frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Cherry picking religious texts

Debate Information

A lot of Christians put emphasis on certain passages of the Bible as justification to do or not do certain actions that they deem immoral. Then they hypocritically ignore other passages that they are either ignorant of or choose to interpret loosely so they do not have to follow them.

To name just a few examples of things the Bible condemns but most Christians do anyways:

eating pork or bacon, using pig parts, Leviticus 11:4,
eating seafood, Leviticus 10–11
playing football, Leviticus 11:7–8
wearing jewelry, 1 Timothy 2:9
talking to psychics, Leviticus 19:31
tattoos, Leviticus 19:28
marrying after a divorce, Mark 10:11–12
Women talking in churches, 1 Corinthians 14:34
pulling out, Genesis 38:9
working on Sundays, (unless you are Jesus) Exodus 31:14–15
Trimming your beard, Leviticus 19:27
Eating hamburgers. Leviticus 3:17

My argument is that because there are some things from the Bible that are not strictly adhered to, it is acceptable to follow none of it, that is to interpret all of it to be metaphysical truth and literally fiction, or alternatively to follow it in it's entirety as it is written and take a literal interpretation.

This is because if some passages are chosen to be followed and others ignored then you undermine the premise of objective morality, because one could justify contradictory moral positions as being God's word. However if everything is considered metaphysical truth, this isn't a problem anymore because everything can be considered to a foundation for finding your own way.

Is there any other way that Christians can have their cake and eat it too?
PlaffelvohfenAlofRIsmoothieZombieguy1987
At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life 
developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

All of that so we can argue about nothing.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    Is this not what all of us do in life? As we interact with new people and groups of people, directly (via conversations) or indirectly (via reading their blog posts or books, watching their talks, etc.), we take from those interactions what we think makes sense and will benefit our lives, and discard the rest. For example, when reading any self-help book, chances are you will accept the author's suggestions selectively, and often you will plain disagree with the author and decide, "No, this is not going to work for me".

    I do not think that the fact that not everything you read in a certain book is reasonable from your perspective means that you should just discard the whole book. Granted, it is a valid choice if you decide to do so, but you are likely going to be missing on a lot of good ideas. Even in the most controversial books, such as Mein Kampf, Das Kapital or The Prince, you can find some snippets of wisdom applicable to real life; just do not take the writings at a face value, as they were done by pretty evil men with the exact purpose to spread their cult around, and can easily hijack your mind.
    The Bible and the Quran are the same type of books: their purpose is to spread the religions and recruit new followers, and they are written in a respective propagandist way, so reading them must be done with caution - but there are things to take away from them that can benefit one's life tremendously.

    Of course, there are some people who do not consider all this; they just read some book, believing everything described there to be unquestionable truth. To such people, your argument, indeed, applies; however, I would argue that such people are already intellectually lost, and whether they follow the rules described in the book absolutely or selectively, they are too far gone to hope to reason with them without some prior psychological work.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar If you consider the bible to be metaphysically true, this is fine.

    However, I don't think this argument would hold up in court should you try to argue the laws that you broke are not to be literally interpreted.

    You will not find self-help advice in the U.S. constitution or in the legal system of any nation, however you could take self-help advice to be your own personal rules for life if you are into that sort of thing.

    You can treat the bible as law or you can treat it as self-help, but if you try to mingle the two, then anything goes, which is an over simplified way of saying that morality is subjective. The fact that Christians do this is ironically, strong evidence against their claims for objective morality.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Happy_Killbot

    Well, this comes down to the individual interpretation of the Bible. Some may read it as a general guide and not take it literally; this is Jordan Peterson's interpretation, for example. Others may read it selectively and treat it as a set of laws some of which are relevant and others outdated/wrong. Others still may just be hypocrites and purposefully ignore some parts of the Bible, while taking others as the literal word of god.

    I used to live with a roommate, a deep Catholic believer, who believed that the Bible was written by humans who tried, in their imperfect and biased way, to confer the god's message - and hence, while the god's message itself contains an absolute set of laws humans must abide, the Bible does not necessarily contain them and should be read critically.

    We should clarify what kind of Bible readers we are talking about, before we can use sweeping generalisations to characterise them. Even Christians who believe in objective morality still do not necessarily have to abide by the word of the Bible, depending on what they believe the Bible fundamentally to be.
    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I agree, but the problem doesn't exist on just an individual level. Many Christian voters can effect the laws and regulations of a state or country if they base their assumptions on the bible.

    However, if they are being picky about what things they do and don't want to make acceptable, they are being hypocritical and living a lie.

    What is to stop someone from claiming that pork ought to be banned but being homosexual is acceptable?

    Or worse, that rape, theft and murder (when committed against a heretic or non-believer ) is allowed because the bible says so? 

    Obviously this is about authority, the religious leaders who want to maintain their power get to decide what is and isn't okay, which is why your friend can justify his partial following of the bible. The authoritarian undertones can be brought out in this way.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    ****** but there are things to take away from them that can benefit one's life tremendously.

    Like what for example? Most the more palatable parts of the Bible as in the wise words of Jesus on certain matters are basic common sense and were old news before his time. 




    Happy_Killbot
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot ; It is an atheistic lack of knowledge that suggests Christians "cherry pick" the Bible to make it say what it does not say. All but one of the Scriptures you vomited into your comment pertains to the Covenant of Grace or Christianity. Every other Scripture pertains SOLELY to the children of Israel and those who sojourned with them while under the Covenant of Law.

    If one studies, they will find the answer and reason to why our Creator set-apart the Hebrew people and why they received the 613-Levitical Laws and the 10-Commandments. I am a Christian under Grace; I am not a Jew under Law...why not learn the difference?





    AmericanFurryBoyZombieguy1987
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD So in other words, none of the bible applies and should be taken metaphysically?

    I did not expect that coming from you, very progressive indeed.
    ZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • So because people do bad things it's ok for people to do bad things?

    The entire argument is fallacy.

    First it is righteousness by Faith, in Jesus and then the spirit of Yahweh lives within the new creature, and causes the person to uphold the commandments.

    Without Jesus you can't even fulfill his commandments, that's the point.

    Conversion is spiritual , not a decision to adhere to Jesus Christs moral law.

    The law was given to prove peoples sinfulness and that the laws are not given by man but by Jesus who is moral to show  man is not.

    The laws outline the source of the law which is not man because all have sinned but to say if one person sins it's a good idea to make Jesus angry is just asking to die.

    Obey Jesus, Convert, Romans 10:9 and turn from sin. Or like everyone else your going to perish, this isn't a word game but that Jesus makes the decisions.
    Happy_Killbot
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    Well, a collective is, in essence, an ensemble of individuals. Different individuals interpret the Bible differently, and more common interpretations are going to influence the laws and regulations in the country more, than more marginal/obscure ones. And the resulting laws and regulations do not have to be consistent, even if the individual views generally are.

    Ideologies often influence individual views in a way that leads to a cognitive dissonance. A Christian may be okay with eating pork, but other Christians mostly may be against it - and then this Christian, assuming he/she values the mainstream interpretation of the ideology high enough, may hold a dual view in his/her head, oscillating between the two stances and focusing on the one most convenient in a given situation.

    Regarding religious leaders, again, they only have a strong influence on a particular subgroup of religious followers. Some religious followers prefer to directly follow the primary religious text, interpreting it in their own way and dismissing the leaders' opinions - Sunni Islam, at least, in theory works this way, albeit in practice people usually still follow religious authorities.


    @Dee

    I am not the right person to ask, as I have only read a few selective chapters from the Bible - and they did not impress me.

    That said, what is "common sense" for one individual may not be such for another. "Common sense" is a dangerous concept that is prone to inhibit people's critical thinking. Some might say that "An eye for an eye" is common sense, while we in the modern Western societies generally regard it as an abhorrent principle to live by.
    To me, for example, it is not immediately obvious that "Treat others the way you want to be treated" is a reasonable rule. From my life experiences, I know that this rule works well, and it plays on the natural human empathy - but even so, this rule needs some logical justification. The Bible tries to provide one, even if it fails at it.
    As for "An eye for an eye", while I cannot see myself living by this principle, I find it interesting to try to understand what reasoning this rule comes from. Some societies to this day have the concept of "blood revenge" ingrained in their culture; what is it about revenge that humans around the globe find appealing? From reading texts such as the Bible that try to justify this concept, one can understand the psychology behind it - and learn to evade it.

    In addition, reiteration of basic principles is not to be underestimated. There is a lot of ideas that we find to be common sense, yet routinely forget. To some people, it may be useful to have those ideas systematised, so they can come back to them regularly and get back on track.
    I have a sheet on my table at all times which contains a few snippets of wisdom I have learned over the years. These are very basic affirmations which anyone would find obvious, such as, "Do not be your own enemy". However, seeing them every day has ingrained them deeply in my brain, and they have become an integral part of my persona. I would not be even 20% as mature psychologically nowadays as I am now without going out of my way to make the basics stick.

    I do not think the Biblical Commandments are the best set of rules to abide by, but to some people, who otherwise would be completely lost, they may provide a good alternative and give them a sense of purpose and direction. As one chess grandmaster said, "It is better to have the wrong direction and follow it, than to have no direction and be stuck", and while this is a debatable statement, there is a grain of truth to it.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    So do a lot of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. It is unfair and bigoted to paint an entire group with a broad brush. If you don't want Jesus, that is on you, but I have every right to love Him.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @JesusisGod777888 Most of these laws were enacted before Jesus existed, they are mostly old testament.

    If Jesus is god as you claim, why would he enact these laws just to change them latter, especially if morality is to be considered objective.

    This also is in conflict with what @RickeyD has said, because he clearly states that Jesus frees people from the Law, so all you have accomplished is to expose another contradiction in the Jesus belief.

    It seems you may be your own worst enemy.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaRedeemed The Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and every other religion aren't off the hook either.

    I use Christianity as an example because I know it best on account of I was raised in a Christian family.

    I would have to do the research, but I am sure I could find specifics to those religions, at which point the same logic would apply.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    So because people do bad things it's ok for people to do bad things?

    The entire argument is fallacy.

    First it is righteousness by Faith, in Jesus and then the spirit of Yahweh lives within the new creature, and causes the person to uphold the commandments.

    Without Jesus you can't even fulfill his commandments, that's the point.

    Conversion is spiritual , not a decision to adhere to Jesus Christs moral law.

    The law was given to prove peoples sinfulness and that the laws are not given by man but by Jesus who is moral to show  man is not.

    The laws outline the source of the law which is not man because all have sinned but to say if one person sins it's a good idea to make Jesus angry is just asking to die.

    Obey Jesus, Convert, Romans 10:9 and turn from sin. Or like everyone else your going to perish, this isn't a word game but that Jesus makes the decisions.
    You would know a lot about fallacies, wouldn't you, bigot?
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    I’m interested in what you stated .....**** , it is a valid choice if you decide to do so, but you are likely going to be missing on a lot of good ideas


    What do you think are the good ideas that make it worth reading?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Depends on the book and the person. From the Bible I personally have not learned anything that I did not already now, but someone else might have a different background than me and might learn something of value.

    Many people read Atlas Shrugged and find it to be extremely bland. I found it very illuminating, however, as a lot of the ideas that were in my head, but were disorganised and somewhat mutually contradictory, were finally put into a system that made sense as a whole. You cannot really judge the quality of the book based on whether it was helpful to you personally or not; for different people, different books work.

    On the other hand, many people swear by the book "Power of Now", as it goes deep into the eastern spiritual practice of "being present". Me, I found it to be a completely useless new age fad. I do not really see how you can become happy by silencing your thoughts, and attempts to do so made me feel awful. I prefer to direct my thoughts in a way that makes me feel good instead. But, again, some people say that "Power of Now" changed their lives. Different people, different preferences.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar


    **** Depends on the book and the person. From the Bible I personally have not learned anything that I did not already now, but someone else might have a different background than me and might learn something of value.

    I also did not learn anything I didn’t know , you’re right someone else might 


    ****Many people read Atlas Shrugged and find it to be extremely bland. I found it very illuminating, however, as a lot of the ideas that were in my head,

    I never got round to read any of Rands work except various articles regarding her thinking on objectivism which were indeed interesting , she is one of those authors I keep meaning to read but still have not got around to 

    *****but were disorganised and somewhat mutually contradictory, were finally put into a system that made sense as a whole. You cannot really judge the quality of the book based on whether it was helpful to you personally or not; for different people, different books work.

    Yes agreed , I thought you may have got something from it and was curious to learn what that may have been 

    *****On the other hand, many people swear by the book "Power of Now", as it goes deep into the eastern spiritual practice of "being present". Me, I found it to be a completely useless new age fad

    I’m not into any of these type of positive thinking books as it all seems false , forced and faddish.

    I came across the Power of now by mistake , some guest  left it in a hotel library and with nothing else to read I gave it a go 

    Eckhart Tolle is an interesting character I don’t know what to make of him really.

    ****I do not really see how you can become happy by silencing your thoughts, and attempts to do so made me feel awful

    I used to be Buddhist and spent years meditating , the practice  was not so much to silence thoughts as to be a witness to your thoughts as in you let them pass by like clouds in the sky no matter how troubling they are , I don’t meditate anymore as I’m happy in my own skin and accept the good with the bad as they come , it’s all swings and roundabouts 

    .***** I prefer to direct my thoughts in a way that makes me feel good instead. But, again, some people say that "Power of Now" changed their lives. Different people, different preferences.

    One thing Tolle said in the power of now totally changed me and I know others also , after my mother died I went through dreadful panic attacks and insomnia this happened two years after she passed away and I saw no way out at the time as the feelings were so powerful ......Tolle made a statement regards situations like this when he stated “ the pain you experience comes from your struggle with these states by arguing and fighting with them thus throwing fuel on the fire as such thoughts need your energy to keep them going ........The advice was , instead of identifying with the thoughts merely observe and fell their energy within in you don’t label them , resist or argue just feel them and their energy within you  and in time they die as you’re depriving them of fuel.  This worked like a charm for me , it took time but almost  immediately I started to feel the effects as slowly I began to feel better and almost like a new person.

    So yes it is amazing how different books and ideas effect us each differently , I guess in a way we are all searchers and take what’s meaningful to us from them.

    What are your views on Rands philosophy?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Good point about letting the energy flow freely, without labelling and releasing it. I suppose I did not pick it up from the "Power of Now", because I had learned the concept from somewhere else by the time I read the book. One of the extra benefits of this technique, one that is rarely mentioned in self-helf books, is that it also enriches one's life by making it more emotional. All emotions we experience are essential in our lives, and experiencing them all makes our lives so much more interesting and diverse, than trying to suppress half of them.
    I made it a point a few years ago to never suppress tears; I get very emotional when watching movies and can easily cry over sad scenes. I find that crying over those scenes not only makes me experience stronger immersion in the story, but also makes me feel significantly better afterwards. As if my life just gained one more dimension.
    People are missing on a lot when they suppress their emotions, even those that seem painful at first.

    Regarding Rand's philosophy, I mostly have a positive view on it, albeit I disagree with the premise. She called her philosophy "Objectivism", believing that it is grounded in some objective categories - yet at the closer inspection it is a subjective philosophy, just like any other one. I agree with her that individual happiness should be the ultimate goal of any individual and, hence, any reasonable philosophy, but I do not see how this alone leads to all the moral and policy conclusions she championed.
    I personally derive my voluntarist philosophy from a few different presumptions, the core one being that the more freedom the individual has to act, the more opportunities they have to build the life of their dreams. This seems objective enough to me, but this is obviously only one part of the equation. Individual freedom does not exactly equal happiness, and some other logical steps are needed to link it to all the other benefits it allegedly brings - and many of those steps are subjective.

    I think Rand should have been more honest. At some point, it seems, arrogance got the best out of her, and she started taking her ideology for something it was not meant to be. There were many splits in the Objectivist movement afterwards, and those whose philosophical paths diverged from Rand's often said that she had become too dogmatic and authoritarian to have any meaningful discussions with her.
    Unfortunately, she seems to have been one of those philosophers (other ones being such people as Marx or Hoppe) who intellectually devoured themselves through excessive arrogance and prolonged stay in their echo-chambers.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    You’re correct regarding suppression of emotions , its  so much easier to let them flow but human beings are taught  suppression from an early age and think it natural , resistance is what causes the pain.

    Thats a very good point about Rand, Marx and Hoppe intellectually devouring themselves.


    The life and times of Marx makes amusing reading as he  could have said what he had to say without having  to resort  to writing volumes about it and I think he used his writings as a cover to avoid actual paid work as Engels continued to support him and cover his costs.
    Marx I’ve read was very fond of fine wines , cigars and high living and went through a fortune his wife was left on the stock market , also his maid claimed he never paid her one penny in wages and he got her pregnant also 


    Thank you for your thoughts on Rand most interesting indeed 
  • @Happy_Killbot\
    Hello, 

    First of all, I agree with what you are saying. They're a lot of cherry pickers out there. The evidence for this is clear just talk to any random person about it. Now there are many Christians and non Christians that do this just to get their point across. For example,The New Age Movement likes to use Genesis, "Man was created in his image." Only to interpret it the way they want to that humans are Gods. This is the problem with infinite interpretations. 
    My argument is that The Bible should not be read as literal truth but metaphorical truth. Also, the Book should be read as a whole; from the beginning to the end. The Old Testament is connected to the New Testament, and it corrects it. It started with Adam and Eve and the rest of the book is to put it all back together like it was in the Garden of Eden. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch