Buffet Christianity

[Zzyzx]

.
Buffet Christianity / Pick and Choose / Cherry Pick

Focus on parts of the Bible and ignore others. Claim that it is 'The word of God' also claim that parts have been superseded (God changed his mind about things?).

Paul/Saul and gospel writers disagree with many teachings of Judaism – but claim that their icon was the Jewish messiah (denied by Jews).

The NT does not list the Ten Commandments. Those come from Judaism (but are revered in Christendom). However, 600+ other rules from Judaism are cast aside as though they don't apply to Christians. Why some and not others? Did God decide which rules no longer apply – or which rules apply to which people? Or did humans decide?

Some Bible stories have come to be accepted as folklore or myth or parables (or simply ignored) – while others are fiercely defended as true accounts. Did Samson push down a large building by brute strength? Did Jonah live for three days inside a fish? Did the sea part on command? Well, maybe not literally, only figuratively.

Did Jesus come back to life? “Now wait a minute. That is a true story.”

Pick and choose.

Which stories, if any, are true and accurate accounts of events that actually happened in the real world – AND how can that be determined?

[tonjun]

Yes, bingo.

This is well put.

Why does it seem like this buffet style of preaching God's word is valid?

Does it have to do with a pastor / church members bottom line? No tithes means no money to eat off?

Got to say what's popular and what people want to hear right?

Otherwise to preach every part of Bible as true, would that person then become unpopular? As it seems to be the case for radical Christians? Should we all go back to slaughtering animals and offering them on altars like the OT? How about Passover being observed among Christians? Burning witches to the stake?

But we can't do that right? There would go the bottom line, right?

All of this buffet serving to just to preserve money just seems so likely.

Why else fight so hard to sustain nonsense while trying to live?

Money, money, money!

Am I right or am I right?

[Icey]

.
Buffet Christianity / Pick and Choose / Cherry Pick

Focus on parts of the Bible and ignore others. Claim that it is 'The word of God' also claim that parts have been superseded (God changed his mind about things?).

Paul/Saul and gospel writers disagree with many teachings of Judaism – but claim that their icon was the Jewish messiah (denied by Jews).

The NT does not list the Ten Commandments. Those come from Judaism (but are revered in Christendom). However, 600+ other rules from Judaism are cast aside as though they don't apply to Christians. Why some and not others? Did God decide which rules no longer apply – or which rules apply to which people? Or did humans decide?

Some Bible stories have come to be accepted as folklore or myth or parables (or simply ignored) – while others are fiercely defended as true accounts. Did Samson push down a large building by brute strength? Did Jonah live for three days inside a fish? Did the sea part on command? Well, maybe not literally, only figuratively.

Did Jesus come back to life? “Now wait a minute. That is a true story.”

Pick and choose.

Which stories, if any, are true and accurate accounts of events that actually happened in the real world – AND how can that be determined?

Using the bible for factual reference, science, or anything other the myths and a means to live one's life is not correct. But people are free to be incorrect all they want so long as they don't force it on to others. Unfortunately, with something so intangible, force is often the 'go-to'.

[Mithrae]

Buffet Christianity / Pick and Choose / Cherry Pick

Focus on parts of the Bible and ignore others. Claim that it is 'The word of God' also claim that parts have been superseded (God changed his mind about things?).

Literally every person on the planet adopts a 'buffet' approach to the perspectives, values and beliefs that they hold, to a greater or lesser extent. We see this for example by looking at one of the commonly-cited epistemic perspective promoted on this forum, the request for 'sufficient evidence' or 'verifiable evidence': Not only is it often unclear if not somewhat arbitrary what such evidence would look like - for example mystical/spiritual information is often claimed to be open to verification by other interested parties who are willing to dedicate themselves to that investigation, much like scientific information often requires exhaustive efforts to personally verify - but that framework of requiring some particular level of evidence before accepting a proposition is itself simply one among several possible approaches, such as
- accepting only what is proven with certainty
- accepting only that for which we have 'sufficient evidence' or justification
- accepting the most reasonable theory/s of any given question/s or data
- accepting what we start out/currently believe, unless there's reason to change those beliefs
- accepting whatever seems most beneficial to ourselves or our community

Specific beliefs may be chosen under the consistent framework of an epistemic perspective like one of these above (though I'd suggest that many/most people are not all that consistent even then), but in general it would seem that both our core values and our broad perspectives could be described as a 'buffet' approach.

So is the concern with evangelical Christianity in this case that believers are always/often inconsistent in their selection of specific beliefs, even given their broad epistemic and hermeneutic perspectives? Or merely that there is something uniquely problematic with that broad perspective of viewing the bible as the 'word of God' to begin with?

[Zzyzx]

.

So is the concern with evangelical Christianity in this case that believers are always/often inconsistent in their selection of specific beliefs, even given their broad epistemic and hermeneutic perspectives? Or merely that there is something uniquely problematic with that broad perspective of viewing the bible as the 'word of God' to begin with?

The specific concern in this case is the disconnect between proclaiming that the the Bible is "The word of God" while ignoring parts that do not fit one's position or argument.

If the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God, every part of it should be true and accurate.

[Mithrae]

The specific concern in this case is the disconnect between proclaiming that the the Bible is "The word of God" while ignoring parts that do not fit one's position or argument.

Yes, I've seen people of all religious views or lack thereof ignoring texts, arguments and evidence which don't fit their existing views. It's always a concern, and Christians are obviously no exception.

If the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God, every part of it should be true and accurate.

How did you reach that conclusion? From what I gather that perspective ("verbal plenary inspiration") is relatively new even among Christians - a reactionary answer to the challenges to traditional views which were raised by theological liberalism and textual criticism in the 18th-19th centuries.

[Zzyzx]

.

If the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God, every part of it should be true and accurate.

How did you reach that conclusion? From what I gather that perspective ("verbal plenary inspiration") is relatively new even among Christians - a reactionary answer to the challenges to traditional views which were raised by theological liberalism and textual criticism in the 18th-19th centuries.

The alternative seems to be "The Bible is the word of God -- except when it isn't -- part is and part isn't."

I have no objection provided that the whole work isn't falsely advertised as the Word of God -- and a means is known by which anyone interested can distinguish which parts are 'the word' and which are not -- unambiguously.

[tonjun]

If the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God, every part of it should be true and accurate.

How did you reach that conclusion? From what I gather that perspective ("verbal plenary inspiration") is relatively new even among Christians - a reactionary answer to the challenges to traditional views which were raised by theological liberalism and textual criticism in the 18th-19th centuries.

I think that perspective goes further back beyond 18th century. More like 2000 BC.

We have Scripture saying Moses had tablets which had words written from God Himself; no different from the form of Biblical text.

I don't see how you came up with the word of God being relatively new throughout 18th century.

But I think you're right about your perspective of the buffet approach in general regarding all people.

It just becomes a matter of degree where someone leans into when using the buffet approach.

Just as you have - 100 degrees to + 100 degrees in temperature. They all have differences and all have an effect to some degree. It's just which side of the scale do you chose?

[Mithrae]

If the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God, every part of it should be true and accurate.

How did you reach that conclusion? From what I gather that perspective ("verbal plenary inspiration") is relatively new even among Christians - a reactionary answer to the challenges to traditional views which were raised by theological liberalism and textual criticism in the 18th-19th centuries.

I think that perspective goes further back beyond 18th century. More like 2000 BC.

We have Scripture saying Moses had tablets which had words written from God Himself; no different from the form of Biblical text.

I don't see how you came up with the word of God being relatively new throughout 18th century.

I can't imagine that anyone considered books like Joshua, Chronicles or Lamentations to be the "word of God" when they were written; they're just legends, history, poetry and so on. But even after the tradition that all 'scripture' is inspired by God was developed, that has never been taken to imply that every part of it is literally true and universally applicable.

The closest to that which we see is modern fundamentalism of the "verbal plenary inspiration" kind, which suggests essentially that every word was dictated by God. I suppose there probably were people who held that view earlier in history, but as far as I can find it's only really become a common view in the past couple of centuries as I suggested, and the catalysts for that reactionary change are not hard to identify. A few centuries earlier than that is another interesting turning point, in the Protestant Reformation. Historically (and down to the present day) the Roman Catholic Church had upheld both scripture and tradition as the sources of guidance and authority; obviously the Reformers making a major break with recent centuries' tradition couldn't accept that, so it was during the Reformation that the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura was formed and helped pave the way for modern fundamentalism. And yet:

• According to Frederic Farrar, Martin Luther did not understand inspiration to mean that the scriptures were dictated in a purely mechanical manner. Instead, Luther "held that they were not dictated by the Holy Spirit, but that His illumination produced in the minds of their writers the knowledge of salvation, so that divine truth had been expressed in human form, and the knowledge of God had become a personal possession of man. The actual writing was a human not a supernatural act."[16] John Calvin also rejected the verbal dictation theory.[17]
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... tion#Views

There's a story about the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder (died c. 10CE). A gentile approached the two rivals Hillel and Shammai and asked them to explain the Torah while standing on one foot. Shammai dismissed the man, but Hillel replied "That which you hate do not do to your fellow, this is the whole of the Law. The rest is explanation; go and learn." We see something similar throughout the gospels' portrayal of Jesus, most notably/obviously in Matthew 5: The author directly contradicts Moses in many of those specific "you have heard it said... but I say to you..." points, but the pattern is one of trying to identify the key concepts expressed in the earlier scripture and emphasize that central point, rather than getting hung up on the exact words used.

[tonjun]

If the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God, every part of it should be true and accurate.

How did you reach that conclusion? From what I gather that perspective ("verbal plenary inspiration") is relatively new even among Christians - a reactionary answer to the challenges to traditional views which were raised by theological liberalism and textual criticism in the 18th-19th centuries.

I think that perspective goes further back beyond 18th century. More like 2000 BC.

We have Scripture saying Moses had tablets which had words written from God Himself; no different from the form of Biblical text.

I don't see how you came up with the word of God being relatively new throughout 18th century.

I can't imagine that anyone considered books like Joshua, Chronicles or Lamentations to be the "word of God" when they were written; they're just legends, history, poetry and so on. But even after the tradition that all 'scripture' is inspired by God was developed, that has never been taken to imply that every part of it is literally true and universally applicable.

You can assume that those words on the tablet were just poetry and myth. But that doesn't negate the fact that people believed that God's word existed on a form of writing. Whether it was engraved in stone or on parchment paper, it's not an 18th century thing that God's Word was first written down.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that is a myth. Why not call the whole Bible a myth too then? The OT is part of the Bible.

Are you using the buffet approach here now?