Cherry picking

[The Duke of Vandals]

Is it acceptable to pick and choose parts of Christianity to believe in? Is it acceptable to reject certain parts of Christianity. Why or why not?

Discuss.

[Vanguard]

Is it acceptable to pick and choose parts of Christianity to believe in? Is it acceptable to reject certain parts of Christianity. Why or why not?

Discuss.

It is acceptable to "pick and chose" if you argue the Bible in its entirety encompasses the whole of Christianity.

[justifyothers]

Is it acceptable to pick and choose parts of Christianity to believe in? Is it acceptable to reject certain parts of Christianity. Why or why not?

Discuss.

It is acceptable to "pick and chose" if you argue the Bible in its entirety encompasses the whole of Christianity.

to Vangard:
If you, as a christian, believe that the entire bible is the flawless word from God, through prophets chosen by Him, how can you uphold some parts of it, while dismissing or ignoring others?

How can you justify using some scripture, while other scripture refutes it? Do you think that different sects of christianity justify their particular sect and allow others to do the same and this is all acceptable as long as everyone stays under the umbrella of christianity ?

If this is the case, then none of these scriptures really matter at all, as long as one is fudamentally a christian.

To answer the OP, I don't think it's acceptable to do this, if you are a christian and firmly believe that it is the infallible word of God. Either it is, or it isn't. It shouldn't be up to individual christians to pick the parts they like and discard the rest for another christian to pick up.

If you do not believe that every written word in the bible is directly from God - then YES - I think it's OK to choose what seems logical, helpful, etc. and disregard that which hurts, causes confusion, arguments, even wars.

God, in the OT, warns about false prophets. Jesus in the NT, warns against the same. Yet, somehow we don't think this applies to this little group of selected writings we call the bible./????

[Vanguard]

Is it acceptable to pick and choose parts of Christianity to believe in? Is it acceptable to reject certain parts of Christianity. Why or why not?

Discuss.

It is acceptable to "pick and chose" if you argue the Bible in its entirety encompasses the whole of Christianity.

to Vangard:
If you, as a christian, believe that the entire bible is the flawless word from God, through prophets chosen by Him, how can you uphold some parts of it, while dismissing or ignoring others?

How can you justify using some scripture, while other scripture refutes it? Do you think that different sects of christianity justify their particular sect and allow others to do the same and this is all acceptable as long as everyone stays under the umbrella of christianity ?

If this is the case, then none of these scriptures really matter at all, as long as one is fudamentally a christian.

To answer the OP, I don't think it's acceptable to do this, if you are a christian and firmly believe that it is the infallible word of God. Either it is, or it isn't. It shouldn't be up to individual christians to pick the parts they like and discard the rest for another christian to pick up.

If you do not believe that every written word in the bible is directly from God - then YES - I think it's OK to choose what seems logical, helpful, etc. and disregard that which hurts, causes confusion, arguments, even wars.

God, in the OT, warns about false prophets. Jesus in the NT, warns against the same. Yet, somehow we don't think this applies to this little group of selected writings we call the bible./????

I may have been ambiguous in my answer. If the entire Bible is not recognized as the Word of God then "picking and chosing" would be necessary, no? Or are you saying this is not possible while claiming to be a Christian?

[justifyothers]

Is it acceptable to pick and choose parts of Christianity to believe in? Is it acceptable to reject certain parts of Christianity. Why or why not?

Discuss.

It is acceptable to "pick and chose" if you argue the Bible in its entirety encompasses the whole of Christianity.

to Vangard:
If you, as a christian, believe that the entire bible is the flawless word from God, through prophets chosen by Him, how can you uphold some parts of it, while dismissing or ignoring others?

How can you justify using some scripture, while other scripture refutes it? Do you think that different sects of christianity justify their particular sect and allow others to do the same and this is all acceptable as long as everyone stays under the umbrella of christianity ?

If this is the case, then none of these scriptures really matter at all, as long as one is fudamentally a christian.

To answer the OP, I don't think it's acceptable to do this, if you are a christian and firmly believe that it is the infallible word of God. Either it is, or it isn't. It shouldn't be up to individual christians to pick the parts they like and discard the rest for another christian to pick up.

If you do not believe that every written word in the bible is directly from God - then YES - I think it's OK to choose what seems logical, helpful, etc. and disregard that which hurts, causes confusion, arguments, even wars.

God, in the OT, warns about false prophets. Jesus in the NT, warns against the same. Yet, somehow we don't think this applies to this little group of selected writings we call the bible./????

I may have been ambiguous in my answer. If the entire Bible is not recognized as the Word of God then "picking and chosing" would be necessary, no? Or are you saying this is not possible while claiming to be a Christian?

I'm saying the entire bible should probably not be recognized as the 'word of God' and that picking out certain verses that are coherent and sensible is good.
BUT, that, as a christian, you cannot do this due to the creed of 'accepting the entire bible as the innerrant word of God'.

[Vanguard]

Is it acceptable to pick and choose parts of Christianity to believe in? Is it acceptable to reject certain parts of Christianity. Why or why not?

Discuss.

It is acceptable to "pick and chose" if you argue the Bible in its entirety encompasses the whole of Christianity.

to Vangard:
If you, as a christian, believe that the entire bible is the flawless word from God, through prophets chosen by Him, how can you uphold some parts of it, while dismissing or ignoring others?

How can you justify using some scripture, while other scripture refutes it? Do you think that different sects of christianity justify their particular sect and allow others to do the same and this is all acceptable as long as everyone stays under the umbrella of christianity ?

If this is the case, then none of these scriptures really matter at all, as long as one is fudamentally a christian.

To answer the OP, I don't think it's acceptable to do this, if you are a christian and firmly believe that it is the infallible word of God. Either it is, or it isn't. It shouldn't be up to individual christians to pick the parts they like and discard the rest for another christian to pick up.

If you do not believe that every written word in the bible is directly from God - then YES - I think it's OK to choose what seems logical, helpful, etc. and disregard that which hurts, causes confusion, arguments, even wars.

God, in the OT, warns about false prophets. Jesus in the NT, warns against the same. Yet, somehow we don't think this applies to this little group of selected writings we call the bible./????

I may have been ambiguous in my answer. If the entire Bible is not recognized as the Word of God then "picking and chosing" would be necessary, no? Or are you saying this is not possible while claiming to be a Christian?

I'm saying the entire bible should probably not be recognized as the 'word of God' and that picking out certain verses that are coherent and sensible is good.
BUT, that, as a christian, you cannot do this due to the creed of 'accepting the entire bible as the innerrant word of God'.

Could you clarify this "creed" for me? I was not aware that to be a Christian one has to accept the Bible in its entirety as the word of God.

[justifyothers]

Is it acceptable to pick and choose parts of Christianity to believe in? Is it acceptable to reject certain parts of Christianity. Why or why not?

Discuss.

It is acceptable to "pick and chose" if you argue the Bible in its entirety encompasses the whole of Christianity.

to Vangard:
If you, as a christian, believe that the entire bible is the flawless word from God, through prophets chosen by Him, how can you uphold some parts of it, while dismissing or ignoring others?

How can you justify using some scripture, while other scripture refutes it? Do you think that different sects of christianity justify their particular sect and allow others to do the same and this is all acceptable as long as everyone stays under the umbrella of christianity ?

If this is the case, then none of these scriptures really matter at all, as long as one is fudamentally a christian.

To answer the OP, I don't think it's acceptable to do this, if you are a christian and firmly believe that it is the infallible word of God. Either it is, or it isn't. It shouldn't be up to individual christians to pick the parts they like and discard the rest for another christian to pick up.

If you do not believe that every written word in the bible is directly from God - then YES - I think it's OK to choose what seems logical, helpful, etc. and disregard that which hurts, causes confusion, arguments, even wars.

God, in the OT, warns about false prophets. Jesus in the NT, warns against the same. Yet, somehow we don't think this applies to this little group of selected writings we call the bible./????

I may have been ambiguous in my answer. If the entire Bible is not recognized as the Word of God then "picking and chosing" would be necessary, no? Or are you saying this is not possible while claiming to be a Christian?

I'm saying the entire bible should probably not be recognized as the 'word of God' and that picking out certain verses that are coherent and sensible is good.
BUT, that, as a christian, you cannot do this due to the creed of 'accepting the entire bible as the innerrant word of God'.

Could you clarify this "creed" for me? I was not aware that to be a Christian one has to accept the Bible in its entirety as the word of God.

Are you being sarcastic? How long have you been a christian? Do you attend a church?
I ask these things because I used to be a 'christian'. I went to many different types of churches, set apart by various denominations, such as catholic, methodist, baptist, non-denominational, calvary chapel, etc. Every single one of these churches claimed the bible to be the official, innerrent, infallible word of God. Not to be questioned or doubted EVER!
I'm not surprised you don't believe it this way, it's just that I'm not sure you really qualify as a 'christian' by definition if you don't.
There is information on-line to back this up and most, if not all of the people on this and other forums, defining themsleves as 'christian' would also agree.

[Vanguard]

Is it acceptable to pick and choose parts of Christianity to believe in? Is it acceptable to reject certain parts of Christianity. Why or why not?

Discuss.

It is acceptable to "pick and chose" if you argue the Bible in its entirety encompasses the whole of Christianity.

to Vangard:
If you, as a christian, believe that the entire bible is the flawless word from God, through prophets chosen by Him, how can you uphold some parts of it, while dismissing or ignoring others?

How can you justify using some scripture, while other scripture refutes it? Do you think that different sects of christianity justify their particular sect and allow others to do the same and this is all acceptable as long as everyone stays under the umbrella of christianity ?

If this is the case, then none of these scriptures really matter at all, as long as one is fudamentally a christian.

To answer the OP, I don't think it's acceptable to do this, if you are a christian and firmly believe that it is the infallible word of God. Either it is, or it isn't. It shouldn't be up to individual christians to pick the parts they like and discard the rest for another christian to pick up.

If you do not believe that every written word in the bible is directly from God - then YES - I think it's OK to choose what seems logical, helpful, etc. and disregard that which hurts, causes confusion, arguments, even wars.

God, in the OT, warns about false prophets. Jesus in the NT, warns against the same. Yet, somehow we don't think this applies to this little group of selected writings we call the bible./????

I may have been ambiguous in my answer. If the entire Bible is not recognized as the Word of God then "picking and chosing" would be necessary, no? Or are you saying this is not possible while claiming to be a Christian?

I'm saying the entire bible should probably not be recognized as the 'word of God' and that picking out certain verses that are coherent and sensible is good.
BUT, that, as a christian, you cannot do this due to the creed of 'accepting the entire bible as the innerrant word of God'.

Could you clarify this "creed" for me? I was not aware that to be a Christian one has to accept the Bible in its entirety as the word of God.

Are you being sarcastic? How long have you been a christian? Do you attend a church?

I actually thought of including that I was not trying to sound facetious but ultimately decided against it. Yes, I am being quite sincere. I have been a practicing Christian all of my life though we seem to have some confusion about whether I can legitimately claim such?

I ask these things because I used to be a 'christian'. I went to many different types of churches, set apart by various denominations, such as catholic, methodist, baptist, non-denominational, calvary chapel, etc. Every single one of these churches claimed the bible to be the official, innerrent, infallible word of God. Not to be questioned or doubted EVER!

That you claim considerable history with Christianity does not impress me. I have yet to meet a "non-theist" who hasn't claimed this. I find that peculiar... Did you ever wonder where these churches claimed the authority to speak this way (i.e., that the Bible is the official, innerrrent, infallible word of God)?

I'm not surprised you don't believe it this way, it's just that I'm not sure you really qualify as a 'christian' by definition if you don't.

Again, from who's authority do you claim this? Please, it is a simple question. And yes, I am slowly trying to drive home a more important point.

There is information on-line to back this up and most, if not all of the people on this and other forums, defining themsleves as 'christian' would also agree.

If I made a claim that you found peculiar I doubt you would accept this as a suitable answer to your questions. Again, where is this "information"? Quotting other Christians only begs the question.

Hang with me, we might get somewhere.

[justifyothers]

I actually thought of including that I was not trying to sound facetious but ultimately decided against it. Yes, I am being quite sincere. I have been a practicing Christian all of my life though we seem to have some confusion about whether I can legitimately claim such?

I ask these things because I used to be a 'christian'. I went to many different types of churches, set apart by various denominations, such as catholic, methodist, baptist, non-denominational, calvary chapel, etc. Every single one of these churches claimed the bible to be the official, innerrent, infallible word of God. Not to be questioned or doubted EVER!

That you claim considerable history with Christianity does not impress me. I have yet to meet a "non-theist" who hasn't claimed this. I find that peculiar... Did you ever wonder where these churches claimed the authority to speak this way (i.e., that the Bible is the official, innerrrent, infallible word of God)?

It was never meant to impress you, or anybody. It certainly doesn't impress me about myself. I am not an "non-theist". I do believe in God and always have. And YES, I do wonder where these churches find this claim, which is ultimately why I left 'christianity'. It is the very idea that led me away from church and organized religion altogether.

I'm not surprised you don't believe it this way, it's just that I'm not sure you really qualify as a 'christian' by definition if you don't.

Again, from who's authority do you claim this? Please, it is a simple question. And yes, I am slowly trying to drive home a more important point.

It's not necessarily a comment of authoritive nature. It's just one of the things understood about christianity, from books I've read, sermons I've heard preached, christians claiming this for the world to see and hear, etc. It's not like I'm stating something completely insane here. It's part of the christian belief system. It goes along with the trinity (for many), eternal life or damnation, the sacrifice of Jesus, God as creator and sustainer of life, baptism, etc. I mean, do you want me to find christian 'authoritive' sources here? I'm sure I can find quotes from Billy Graham, Rick Warren, etc. to substantiate this if that's what you're looking for.

If I made a claim that you found peculiar I doubt you would accept this as a suitable answer to your questions. Again, where is this "information"? Quotting other Christians only begs the question.

"Since we believe the Bible is God’s Word, we already know the end of history" copied from rickwarren.com

"We believe that all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, and that they are the infallible rule of faith and practice." copied from calvary chapel's statement of faith.

Are these the types of authority you were looking for?

Hang with me, we might get somewhere.

I'm hangin......

[rusty]

I'm sorry! I just can't think of anything that is errant in the Bible. I can think of a lot of junk in churches that are errant!

If there is something unfathomable in the Bible, I would like to hear it. Perhaps it won't be that hard to explain it.
rusty