# Cherrypicked religion



## Queen Elizabeth II (May 10, 2020)

One thing I've never been able to grasp about religion, even as a believer is what my teachers would have called "Protestantism"; but because I'm not speaking purely about Christianity here I'll call it "Cherrypicked"

"Like, Jesus is totally my lord and saviour and stuff....But I love wearing my short shorts that show all this thigh"
"Divorce is a sin, but I've had a secret abotion 10 years ago"
"Bacon is verboten but I love my pork sandwiches"
"I'm unmarried but I still live with my boyfreind (Catholic)"

As much as I find their beliefs abhorrent, I can respect the faith of the likes of Shirley Phelps on the grounds that it is largely consistent. There is always going to be some theological bitching about more obscure aspects of doctrine or translation but on the stuff that is very clearly spelled out and unambiguous like "Gays are bad", "A woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man" etc there really isn't any room for debate or "interpretation".

Help me to understand this. If they're going to hell for using contraception, not making it your mission in life to convert the Jews by sword or book or any other aspect of doctrine specific to your faith (Unless they are Al-Baghdadi I can guarantee I can point at least one out that they don't follow) , why are they getting their knickers in a twist about gay marriage or lack of prayer in schools?  If they fully and truly actually believed in what they were saying, they wouldn't be living a western lifestyle at all and would be undertaking religious vows, a life of campaign against the heathen or something in line with what their faith teaches.

They're going to hell anyway for wearing short shorts, it's not like they're going to get double hell for not going to Church/Mosque/Synagogue/Whatever as well. It seems people don't actually believe what they're saying enough to fear the consequences of not following through, or that they admit their faith is wrong but only whenever convenient to do so. I'd even put this forum as a prime example. If you do have traditional religious beliefs, why are you here? Gossip is a sin in all three of the major Abrahamic religions unless you're truthfully accusing them of Heresy or Blasphemy talking shit about your neighbour is roast worthy too.


I could never grasp it has a hardcore trad in my younger years, I understand it even less now.


----------



## Wraith (May 10, 2020)

If I understand you right, I've heard it called 'cafeteria Christianity,' and you can expound on that for other religions. You get some slug who goes through the demands of their faith or religion and picks out only the things that they like. "Ooh, prosperity! I'll take that. Oh nice, salvation. Big heap of that." Etc. Then they get to the end of the line to pay for it all they have is Jell-O and pudding. 
Remember two things: 1. Jesus said MANY would come to Him and he would say, "Depart from me workers of iniquity, I NEVER KNEW YOU." So God isn't fooled by them. 2. God is not mocked. Your sin will find you out. There is a thing where you become saved and you bring in your temptations, trials and tests with you and you might legitimately have struggles and need forgiveness and help for. However thinking you can do whatever and God not take it up with you someday is a fool's errand. Paul's letters, I forget which ones but it's ones where there was a I and a II for it, openly rails on early Christians because they are putting up with the SJW open-minded bitch parade / LGBT psychopaths. They had a dude boning _his own mom_! He told them to get that crap together and what to do about it and such. Another place had Christians getting drunk at communion. The hell. 
These mopes are living in delusion that they can get away with crap and God won't have the last word on things. It's like the idiot saying they are going to live their life like hell and then right before they die accept Christ and get away with it all. Like somehow the God of the universe for those moments can't read your thoughts and hear you say such dumb ass stuff. 
Having temptation difficulties is one thing. Being a faggot about stuff is liberal. If you don't learn anything else today learn this, the only thing that matches the love of God is the wrath of God. God don't play, and neither should you.


----------



## DumbDude42 (May 10, 2020)

> Help me to understand this.


i dont think i fully understand what you want but i'll try

basically religious institutions have lost all their real power. they used to be in control of society to the point where being excommunicated by them was basically the same as being outlawed by the state itself - a death sentence. they used this position of power to enforce the rules of their faith. 
but nowadays they don't have any power anymore, so they can't enforce the rules of the faith anymore, and force was the main thing that kept people following the rules. that's why most people gradually stop caring about them.


----------



## Lonely Grave (May 10, 2020)

DumbDude42 said:


> i dont think i fully understand what you want but i'll try
> 
> basically religious institutions have lost all their real power. they used to be in control of society to the point where being excommunicated by them was basically the same as being outlawed by the state itself - a death sentence. they used this position of power to enforce the rules of their faith.
> but nowadays they don't have any power anymore, so they can't enforce the rules of the faith anymore, and force was the main thing that kept people following the rules. that's why most people gradually stop caring about them.


 Unless if you're the Buddhists (minus the Tibetans and Sri Lankans), in which case ceasing to care was the real goal all along.


----------



## FruitFever (May 10, 2020)

All religious tenents of all religions are cherrypicked. How often "progressive" priests call out conservatives for picking the parts of Bible they like and ignoring the rest, yet they ignore the parts about homosexuality and womens position in society?

It's just the way things are. Ideas are perfect, people aren't.


----------



## DumbDude42 (May 10, 2020)

Lonely Grave said:


> Unless if you're the Buddhists (minus the Tibetans and Sri Lankans), in which case ceasing to care was the real goal all along.


yeah my post only applies to western christianity (catholic, lutheran, reformed, arguably orthodox too)
other religions (particularly islam) never really lost their position of power in society in the first place so what i wrote doesn't apply to them in the same way


----------



## (((Oban Lazcano Kamz))) (May 10, 2020)

religion is hope for dumb people


----------



## Biden's Chosen (May 10, 2020)

enlightenment is despair for midwits


----------



## Pixy (May 10, 2020)

Lonely Grave said:


> Unless if you're the Buddhists (minus the Tibetans and Sri Lankans), in which case ceasing to care was the real goal all along.


There's three main different branches of Buddhism (excluding the cherrypicked western interpretations of it), and they're somewhat different from each other both in iconography and practise. I know that with Theravada, to cover it in a *very* large (and somewhat inaccurate and cherry-picked) blanket-statement, the 'end goal' is to leave the cycle of reincarnation; reaching spiritual non-existence. However, that's only if you don't consider the rest of the religion's teachings.

The Sri Lankans managed to politicise Buddhism, but that's to be expected from them, as being buddhist is part of the Sinhalese identity and is even incorporated into their flag. Some religious figures have become involved in politics, with one monk advising their president that, "‘if they call you a Hitler, then be a Hitler and build this country," during his birthday.

There is a growing number people there who falsely believe the Buddha came from Sri Lanka, against the established Theravada Buddhism canon. Across the strait, there are Indians who vocally believe Buddhism is part of Hinduism, and isn't a separate religion. It's interesting to watch from afar.


----------



## Boris Blank's glass eye (May 10, 2020)

Hardcore fundamentalism doesn't work in real life. First off, as @FruitFever put it,


FruitFever said:


> Ideas are perfect, people aren't.


Reaching or being any religion's or ideology's concept of a perfect human is impossible. For example, in capitalist economics, costumers are conscious, making informed choices every single time, which anyone with a working brain cell knows to be false.

There's always been loopholes, all over the place, in every religion. Alcohol is haram to muslims, and Allah, all-seeing and all-knowing, will always know when one of his (less) faithful drink. The solution to this is drinking under a roof, for that apparently obscures Allah's eyes, out of a non-transparent drinking vessel, with eyes shut.

Trump's Chosen People can abandon kosher food in time of need or calamity. What constitutes a time of need or calamity is up to the rabbi, at least as far as I know. Obviously, famines and wars were a lot more common in the past, but the opportunity is still there.

In the modern times, IIRC around 1990, they discovered microscopic shellfish living in the NYC water supply. Shellfish is treyf (non-kosher), so what can be done? The most respected and prestigious rabbis convened, and decided, that since those shellfish can't be seen by the naked eye, they can be treated as non-existent. On Shabbat, Orthodox Trump's Chosen People can take no more than ten thousand steps, strictly indoors. What if they run out of kosher wine, and there's no Shabbat goy at hand? Most cities with a significant population intalled wires on the borders of their districts and boroughs, just high enough not to interfere with telephone or electricity lines, and designated them as "indoors for all intents and purposes".

Lastly, there's the issue of punishment. In modern criminology, the strongest deterrent in considered to be the inevitability of punishment instead of its severity. In the simplest terms, "why be a law-abiding citizen when you can be executed just for looking at someone the wrong way?". Similarly, why bother observing the laws of your religion of you're going to be damned to Hell for the slightest of missteps?

Ostracism and excommunication always worked in the olden times, when people barely left even their villages and the Catholic Church held an enormous power - think about the Walk to Canossa, when Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV had to do penance by standing bare-headed and bare-foot in snow for three days. Nowadays, one can move to a different community or even a country with relative ease, and the Church is a shadow of its former "glory".

TL;DR this isn't a new phenomenon, it just got worse, as all things do, and there's no authority to stop it from getting even worse. 100% hard fundamentalism was never viable anyway.


----------



## Lonely Grave (May 10, 2020)

Sackity said:


> There's three main different branches of Buddhism (excluding the cherrypicked western interpretations of it), and they're somewhat different from each other both in iconography and practise. I know that with Theravada, to cover it in a *very* large (and somewhat inaccurate and cherry-picked) blanket-statement, the 'end goal' is to leave the cycle of reincarnation; reaching spiritual non-existence. However, that's only if you don't consider the rest of the religion's teachings.
> 
> The Sri Lankans managed to politicise Buddhism, but that's to be expected from them, as being buddhist is part of the Sinhalese identity and is even incorporated into their flag. Some religious figures have become involved in politics, with one monk advising their president that, "‘if they call you a Hitler, then be a Hitler and build this country," during his birthday.
> 
> There is a growing number people there who falsely believe the Buddha came from Sri Lanka, against the established Theravada Buddhism canon. Across the strait, there are Indians who vocally believe Buddhism is part of Hinduism, and isn't a separate religion. It's interesting to watch from afar.


You've got a strong start there, and yes, that feeling that you have about the Sri Lankans (Sinhalese as they are commonly referred to) being batshit crazy is mostly shared by the other Buddhist divisions. The Tibetans also get the exemption because somehow they took Buddhism and turned it into a feudalistic theocracy, despite the fact Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha before he was Buddha, renounced his royal titles to seek enlightenment. It's because of this hypocrisy that many Buddhists remain apathetic or even opposed to the Dalai Lama, and to the situation in Tibet.

Theravada doctrine is centred on self-enlightenment as the Buddha achieved it himself, which means retreats, meditation, and a rigid interpretation of the Tripitaka (i.e. three baskets; the central canon of Buddhism). This means Theravada clergy are largely passive and rely on the goodwill of their attached communities to survive. A Theravada monk _never _demands or asks anything of material value, he takes only what is offered and nothing more. Whether a monk gives sermon or instruction is entirely dependent on the type of monastery established - 'parish' monasteries will give perhaps one or two sermons a week to the local community, while 'shrine' monasteries might be totally devoted to meditation or give sermons privately to benefactors. Despite their conservative outlook on Buddhist canon, the Theravada clergy are among the most tolerant and accepting of technological and cultural change, mostly due to their single-minded goal of enlightenment.

Mahayana doctrine on the other hand is the complete opposite, favouring direct interaction with lay people and a kind of mysticism a Theravada would frown at. This is the doctrine you see most in East Asia with the Buddha sporting long ears and large paunch. They take the divine and supernatural aspect of the Buddha's life to be truth, ascribing the Buddha to celestial demi-god status. A Buddhist monastery dedicated to Mahayana tradition will be holding some kind of festival every other week, some blended in with local tradition. It is this malleability of doctrine that Mahayana takes root so quickly in many countries - not to mention the myriad sects and cults that pop up with it as a foundation. Those cherry-picked western interpretations? Most of those picked rules come from Mahayana interpretation.


----------



## Gramh (May 10, 2020)

People both crave and despise structure depending on if it is a net benefit or not. So naturally religion falls into this hole, and people try to extrapolate all the fun hope of meaning for life from the rules that they don't want to abide by and will do increasingly more dynamic mental acrobatics to adjust doctrine accordingly.


----------



## Irrelevant (May 10, 2020)

A big deal with the Reformation was that a lot of people couldn't take the crazy Catholic miracle magic seriously anymore. The hardcore Calvinists/Puritans wanted it all gone and for there to only be a pure autistic "scientific" Christianity but most people didn't like that either so the various branches of Protestantism ended up being designed to allow people to cherrypick to stop the fighting.


----------



## Syaoran Li (May 10, 2020)

Irrelevant said:


> A big deal with the Reformation was that a lot of people couldn't take the crazy Catholic miracle magic seriously anymore. The hardcore Calvinists/Puritans wanted it all gone and for there to only be a pure autistic "scientific" Christianity but most people didn't like that either so the various branches of Protestantism ended up being designed to allow people to cherrypick to stop the fighting.



Ironically, the Calvinists and Puritans probably did more to damage the staying power of Christianity in the long run than the Catholic Church ever could, even with all the corruption taken into account. They were so fixated on purifying the Christian faith to an extremely autistic degree, and it ultimately turned counterproductive.

Even now, the United States is still still dealing with the fallout of the Religious Right and the Evangelical Protestants, who were essentially the 20th Century Puritans and owed a lot to Calvinist and Reformed theology.

The rise and fall of the old Religious Right is one of the biggest reasons for the rise of the SJW zeitgeist of the 2010's alongside the Great Recession/Occupy Wall Street and the corruption of academia reaching its zenith.

One of the biggest reasons why so many who hate the modern Left but are otherwise liberal, centrist/moderate, or mildly conservative refuse to associate with the GOP or the wider conservative movement is largely due to the Bible-thumping traditionalists in the old Religious Right and how the GOP spent the better part of three decades pandering to them until the law of diminishing returns became too obvious for them to ignore. The close ties they had with the neocons in the 90's and 2000's didn't help their image either.

Even after being dead for more than a decade, a lot of people still don't like the fundies and don't want them to make any sort of comeback, and the SJW's and fedora-tipping atheists still invoke them as a boogeyman long after they lost any influence outside of a few geezer incumbents in the Bible Belt.

Edgy internet "traditionalists" going on inane tirades about "degeneracy" really aren't helping their case, and really come off as pathetic LARP'ers who just want to be the Catholic equivalent of the fundies from their childhood and teen years.

The only reason why society was ever "traditionalist" was because the Church was often coupled with political power and were able to use government to enforce their morals. In the Islamic world, this is still largely true, which is why Islamic fundies are a lot more hardcore than Christian fundies.


----------



## dirtydeanna96 (May 10, 2020)

I Think Muslims have the right idea.
i've got a couple Muslim friends, and they think I
(a protestant) am wrong for drinking beer, but don't see it as their job to correct me
i specifically mentioned Yonah Bex, a Jew living with two unmarried men, and who eats lobster for passover.
one Islamic friend has a brother who is homosexual,
same response. we all worship allah, allah will judge us all.
it's a lot more reasonable than people of my own faith who beat people over the head for this and that.


Matthew 7:3-5  ESV
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (May 10, 2020)

There is a difference between "context-independent commands" (religious tenets that apply universally, across all times and places) and "context-dependent applications" (religious tenets that only apply situationally, in specific times and/or places)

The big debates within any religion are which tenets are universal and which are only situational.


----------



## Watermelanin (May 10, 2020)

One common doctrine among many Christian denominations is that salvation comes from faith, not works. The commandments aren't "follow these rules or you will go to hell." They're seen more as a set of practices to lead you on the right path. ONLY Jesus can save you. And he has the power to save ANYONE so long as they accept that salvation. 
It's generally assumed that someone who truly accepts Jesus into their heart would gladly follow the commandments without fear of repercussion. But failure to do so doesn't necessarily put you on the naughty list. It's just a sign that you must seek to strengthen your bond with Him.


----------



## Terrorist (May 10, 2020)

"I'm spiritual but not religious" is code for "I only believe in whatever feels good to me at the time but don't have the balls to be a nihilist". A S-B-N-R person's "God" never demands he changes his life or holds a moral principle the person finds it hard to live up to.


----------



## Syaoran Li (May 11, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> "I'm spiritual but not religious" is code for "I only believe in whatever feels good to me at the time but don't have the balls to be a nihilist". A S-B-N-R person's "God" never demands he changes his life or holds a moral principle the person finds it hard to live up to.



True, but I can't blame those people. Traditionalists are miserable in their own right, but nobody wants to be seen as an atheist unless they're a clueless fedora man or a literal godless commie.

People were at least every bit as miserable under traditionalism as they are under hedonism, if not more miserable, just for slightly different reasons.

The idea that everyone was genuinely happier as fun-hating and self-flagellating puritans living in constant fear of eternal damnation is a revisionist myth based on a romanticized version of history that never really existed outside of Chick Tracts and Norman Rockwell paintings.

Really, life sucks no matter what and it's up to us as individuals to make it suck a little less. If you find self-fulfillment in Christian traditionalism, more power to you. But nobody in their right mind wants America to become the Christian version of Saudi Arabia.

You might find the old fundies to be milquetoast, but they were bad enough in the eyes of most Americans to effectively kill or at least severely cripple conservatism for decades, even if most of their power came from the neocons who backed them.

The only reason why society was more "trad" in previous years was through political backing of the churches, since both the church and the state could mutually benefit from it.

This dynamic never ended in the Middle East, which is why Islam is way more hardliner and less mellowed out compared to Christianity.

God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and He probably has a lot more pressing concerns than the behavior of insignificant mortals like you and me.

Let me put it this way, God caring about humanity is like us giving a shit about what deep sea bacteria does in its spare time. Why would He care about it? God is way above our processing power, just like humans are above the animals and plants when it comes to sapience.


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 11, 2020)

Well the books where all written centuries ago by people with completly differant fears and concearns so expecting 21st century people to ascribe perfectly to bronze age cultures values is pretty unrealistic. Nevermind that their are broad variety of sins not mentioned in the book simply because they hadnt been created yet,

The quest to return to ancient purity is self-defeating since we cannot even conceive of what that would look like. Personally I'd recommend dropping the whole thing and being a non-alligned  monotheist, but honestly you can ascribe to general principles and insights without worrying about the often disturbing minutae.


----------



## stuffandthings (May 11, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> Well the books where all written centuries ago by people with completly differant fears and concearns so expecting 21st century people to ascribe perfectly to bronze age cultures values is pretty unrealistic. Nevermind that their are broad variety of sins not mentioned in the book simply because they hadnt been created yet,
> 
> The quest to return to ancient purity is self-defeating since we cannot even conceive of what that would look like. Personally I'd recommend dropping the whole thing and being a non-alligned  monotheist, but honestly you can ascribe to general principles and insights without worrying about the often disturbing minutae.


This brings up an important distinction in this discussion, the difference between an individual 'cherry picking' from within their own religions and different sects or denominations within a religion 'cherry picking' tradition and scripture to fit a new credo. 
There are plenty of religions that don't demand adherents be completely 'kosher' to their rules, only stating that following the rules is a form of voluntary devotion. Which is why you'll see Hindus chowing down on meat when its considered a more religious thing to abstain. Most religions have a much narrower list of must-believes or must-dos than their 'rules' would seem to suggest. Even Catholics in the Middle Ages and Renaissance were constantly debating and arguing within the church, and as long as they didn't cross too far beyond some lines, a spectrum of beliefs were allowed. There's stuff that will be debated until the very end because there's scriptural evidence for both sides on some issues, like alcohol, women in ministry, or lending money at interest.

All the minutae were debated with deadly seriousness, and every denomination has a reason for what they chose on things like women in ministry, communion, baptism. It's not haphazard. 

And I'm tired of people thinking a religion can't be true because it seems complex, and then just making up their own. 
People want God to be simple, they want a religion to have every single loophole question answered, no debates, clear as day. But then you would _know _it was fake. Because nothing in the natural world is that easily explained. I don't know how my own microwave works, and scientists are constantly arguing about what makes the protons in the nucleus of an atom stick so close together, why should I get all pissy when God is hard to understand in the details.

Basically, I will take a religion that comes from outside myself, even if that religion is flawed and confusing and full of grey areas on the margins, because, for me, the center of Christianity is solid and simple: incarnate creator of the universe sacrificing himself to himself so that justice was served for all the hurt in the world. I've never received any kind of direct revelation from the spiritual realm, so I know that if I were to start going buffet style through the world's religions I would be making a big ol' feast of lies. 

There's a big difference in the Yahwist religions between doing something 'sinful', and believing something heretical. When I sin, like cruising around on the Farms milking cows, I don't pretend it's not a sin. That is different than people picking some sins and saying, despite what their religion teaches,  "Naw, totally good, Not sin." They're doubling down sin with heresy.


----------



## Emperor Julian (May 11, 2020)

stuffandthings said:


> And I'm tired of people thinking a religion can't be true because it seems complex, and then just making up their own.
> People want God to be simple, they want a religion to have every single loophole question answered, no debates, clear as day.




 Actually I don't think various arnt true because it seems really really unlikely, my thoughts on ancient laws vs modern application is just low key critique of how the relation between the initial worshippers and the eventual reality, if you're a Christian you don't have to worry about this since it only really applies if the religion only exists in the contexts of people It's only really relavent if you don't believe.


----------



## stuffandthings (May 11, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> Actually I don't think various arnt true because it seems really really unlikely, my thoughts on ancient laws vs modern application is just low key critique of how the relation between the initial worshippers and the eventual reality, if you're a Christian you don't have to worry about this since it only really applies if the religion only exists in the contexts of people It's only really relavent if you don't believe.


I wasn't criticizing that part of your post at all. Trying to apply the worldview of the middle east 2000+ years ago to the modern world because you hold to both biblical inerrancy leads to a lot of funny hoop jumping to watch through history. And studying what the worldview was back then is fascinating from even a secular perspective. You can't take the history or the context out of religion. Which a lot of hard core fundies get really wrong by reading the bible without that perspective. I told a doomsday fundie once that I thought most of the Book of Revelation had already happened because it was allegorically talking about the persecution of the church under Nero and I could see her brain breaking.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 11, 2020)

This is my main beef against Reform J.ews, they basically took removed everything meaningful in the religion and kept the label of J.ews (primarily for victimhood points). The end result is a godless community that will eventually reach extinction due to marrying outside religion and substituted politics for faith (and on that way betrays the very foundations of their religion for woke points, like the ones that support giving the temple mount to the palestinians). 

It's not even that I'm a hardcore J.ew, I don't keep any of the bizarre laws that J.udaism has, but at least I don't try to rewrite the religion into something that fits in with my western debauched life style.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (May 11, 2020)

I think the central reason religious people cherry-pick is the fact that there is increasingly a glaring disconnect between what people expect from religion, and what religion apparently expects from them. While there is no clear consensus on what constitutes a religion, it seems to me that all of them serve the same fundamental purpose: to provide people with comforting answers, a shared sense of community, and a set of teachings which make life less complicated.

The problem is that a great deal of these teachings are centuries out of date, and to apply them to the modern world is often nonsensical at best, or downright barbarous at worst. Considering that, cherry-picking is probably the most sensible option, at least for those who don't wish to live without religion.


----------



## Boris Blank's glass eye (May 11, 2020)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> This is my main beef against Reform J.ews, they basically took removed everything meaningful in the religion and kept the label of J.ews (primarily for victimhood points). The end result is a godless community that will eventually reach extinction due to marrying outside religion and substituted politics for faith (and on that way betrays the very foundations of their religion for woke points, like the ones that support giving the temple mount to the palestinians).
> 
> It's not even that I'm a hardcore J.ew, I don't keep any of the bizarre laws that J.udaism has, but at least I don't try to rewrite the religion into something that fits in with my western debauched life style.


Well, to be fair, there's a central question in Judaism: "What is a J.e.w?" Shit I got a great idea for a new kosher whiskey
And that question has at least a million answers, if not more. I don't think there's any other religion whose observants, ideology whose adherents, or ethnicity whose people ever asked that question earnestly, or rather, were forced to ask that question earnestly. There were a lot of purity wars, where the adherents of an ideology fought on the principles of their ideology, like the Bolshevik-Menshevik war in the Communist Party of Russia, or the multiple Schisms of the Catholic Church, but probably none of them doubted themselves being what they are.

I think the closest to this are people stuck between two identities - multi-racial people, and those born from a politically or religiously mixed marriage.

This obviously doesn't apply to desperate virtue-signallers asking themselves "Am I woke enough? _Am I even woke?_".


----------



## ScamL Likely (May 11, 2020)

Boris Blank's glass eye said:


> Well, to be fair, there's a central question in Judaism: "What is a J.e.w?"


A miserable little pile of Shekels.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 11, 2020)

Boris Blank's glass eye said:


> Well, to be fair, there's a central question in Judaism: "What is a J.e.w?" Shit I got a great idea for a new kosher whiskey
> And that question has at least a million answers, if not more. I don't think there's any other religion whose observants, ideology whose adherents, or ethnicity whose people ever asked that question earnestly, or rather, were forced to ask that question earnestly. There were a lot of purity wars, where the adherents of an ideology fought on the principles of their ideology, like the Bolshevik-Menshevik war in the Communist Party of Russia, or the multiple Schisms of the Catholic Church, but probably none of them doubted themselves being what they are.
> 
> I think the closest to this are people stuck between two identities - multi-racial people, and those born from a politically or religiously mixed marriage.
> ...


I could understand different sects of religion that are based on different ways to interpret the text. But Reformism is literally giving up on interpretation and chaining the religion for modern politics.


----------



## stuffandthings (May 11, 2020)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> I think the central reason religious people cherry-pick is the fact that there is increasingly a glaring disconnect between what people expect from religion, and what religion apparently expects from them. While there is no clear consensus on what constitutes a religion, it seems to me that all of them serve the same fundamental purpose: to provide people with comforting answers, a shared sense of community, and a set of teachings which make life less complicated.
> 
> The problem is that a great deal of these teachings are centuries out of date, and to apply them to the modern world is often nonsensical at best, or downright barbarous at worst. Considering that, cherry-picking is probably the most sensible option, at least for those who don't wish to live without religion.


This is true when the teachings are things like women should cover their heads in church or Christians should be living in moneyless communes. But fundamental teachings like the nature of God, the basic history of how God interacted with people, and the basics of what God expects from people don't go out of date for any theistic religion. Those are the core parts, and starting to cherry pick those means the religion is just the opium of the masses. There's no comfort in death or hurt if you know the comforting words are lies you cherry picked.

For the people that really believe in their God or Gods, religion isn't about comfort, it's about truth. If the supernatural exists, it exists like a law of physics. It's not something we can change for our own comfort. We can debate it, study it, and argue about the applications, but we can't say gravity isn't working for society any more, lets shut it off. 

On the very first day of my intro to religion class in college the professor had two quotes on the board. 
"Basically, I'm for _anything _that gets you through the night," Frank Sinatra.
"When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and _die_." Dietrich Bonhoffer.

Two very different ways of looking at belief. Sinatra wants lies for comfort, Bonhoffer believes in sacrifice for truth.


----------



## Boris Blank's glass eye (May 12, 2020)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> I could understand different sects of religion that are based on different ways to interpret the text. But Reformism is literally giving up on interpretation and chaining the religion for modern politics.


That's the Great Endgame for identity-based politics, to use a protected characteristic as a shield and a cudgel, to form lobby groups, and to get as rich and relevant as possible.


----------



## c-no (May 12, 2020)

Watermelanin said:


> One common doctrine among many Christian denominations is that salvation comes from faith, not works. The commandments aren't "follow these rules or you will go to hell." They're seen more as a set of practices to lead you on the right path. ONLY Jesus can save you. And he has the power to save ANYONE so long as they accept that salvation.
> It's generally assumed that someone who truly accepts Jesus into their heart would gladly follow the commandments without fear of repercussion. But failure to do so doesn't necessarily put you on the naughty list. It's just a sign that you must seek to strengthen your bond with Him.


As far as I remember with learning about the commandments in a Christian school, I remember being told the commandments of the Old Testament besides the Ten Commandments were pretty much just for the ancient Israelis. Granted one could say is this is just some sort of apologism or whatever but then again, what the hell is one gonna expect from a belief that more or less was born years after its messiah walked the earth and all the books were more or less compiled centuries later with all the linguistic differences and everyone coming in with their own interpretation of what a bunch of ancient Israelis recorded on tablets and scrolls.



Emperor Julian said:


> Well the books where all written centuries ago by people with completly differant fears and concearns so expecting 21st century people to ascribe perfectly to bronze age cultures values is pretty unrealistic. Nevermind that their are broad variety of sins not mentioned in the book simply because they hadnt been created yet,
> 
> The quest to return to ancient purity is self-defeating since we cannot even conceive of what that would look like. Personally I'd recommend dropping the whole thing and being a non-alligned  monotheist, but honestly you can ascribe to general principles and insights without worrying about the often disturbing minutae.


The whole thing really is self-defeating since not only does it all come from another age where morality is no doubt different, it's all also not gonna go well with people today that would think following what ancient Israelis did would make them closer to God. Then again, there's already some people thinking in something like speaking tongues is the true way to pray. Plus if one were to even think of back then, their reasons would also differ in that pork back then had parasites and no germ theory and also the likelihood that you had some rules established to separate the ancient Israelis from all the other cultures around them.



stuffandthings said:


> This is true when the teachings are things like women should cover their heads in church or Christians should be living in moneyless communes. But fundamental teachings like the nature of God, the basic history of how God interacted with people, and the basics of what God expects from people don't go out of date for any theistic religion. Those are the core parts, and starting to cherry pick those means the religion is just the opium of the masses. There's no comfort in death or hurt if you know the comforting words are lies you cherry picked.
> 
> For the people that really believe in their God or Gods, religion isn't about comfort, it's about truth. If the supernatural exists, it exists like a law of physics. It's not something we can change for our own comfort. We can debate it, study it, and argue about the applications, but we can't say gravity isn't working for society any more, lets shut it off.
> 
> ...


With the idea of things like the nature of God, how God interacted with people, and the expectations towards people, wouldn't it also be possible for some people to cherrypick one of the things within them? I can expect one cherrypicking when it comes to how God interacted with people, at least in ignoring God killing numbers of them (though the tard in me that sat in a Christian school would more likely rationalize than cherrypick in the reasons why) or even cherrypicking the nature or character of God? I'd imagine that with how God's portrayed, some people will cherrypick the idea of God being a kind diety that killed himself on Earth for everyone and others focusing solely on the kill count and just going on how it's not a loving god if you had a whole city burned for sexual deviancy of some sort.


----------



## stuffandthings (May 12, 2020)

c-no said:


> As far as I remember with learning about the commandments in a Christian school, I remember being told the commandments of the Old Testament besides the Ten Commandments were pretty much just for the ancient Israelis. Granted one could say is this is just some sort of apologism or whatever but then again, what the hell is one gonna expect from a belief that more or less was born years after its messiah walked the earth and all the books were more or less compiled centuries later with all the linguistic differences and everyone coming in with their own interpretation of what a bunch of ancient Israelis recorded on tablets and scrolls.



You're right about the 'rules' (Levitical Law) in the Old Testament not applying to Christians, but this is something directly taught in the New Testament. In the book of Acts the disciples and early church leaders got together to debate if Greeks and other pagans needed to become Jewish before becoming Christian. When using any holy text as a guidebook for life, it needs to be seen the as a whole, and to separate things all people are commanded to do for all time, and specific rules or laws for a specific time or place.  



c-no said:


> With the idea of things like the nature of God, how God interacted with people, and the expectations towards people, wouldn't it also be possible for some people to cherrypick one of the things within them? I can expect one cherrypicking when it comes to how God interacted with people, at least in ignoring God killing numbers of them (though the tard in me that sat in a Christian school would more likely rationalize than cherrypick in the reasons why) or even cherrypicking the nature or character of God? I'd imagine that with how God's portrayed, some people will cherrypick the idea of God being a kind diety that killed himself on Earth for everyone and others focusing solely on the kill count and just going on how it's not a loving god if you had a whole city burned for sexual deviancy of some sort.


If we're talking about Christanity or Judiasm, some things aren't made completely clear in the Bible or Torah and so get argued about. I mean, almost all of the Jewish religious writing is just Jews arguing about how to interpret or apply the laws. Churches differ on things like predestination. Some denominations are very clear where you're 'supposed' to be on any given issue, and others are more flexible in the grey areas. But there's a difference between different interpretations of Bible verses, and just pulling a Thomas Jefferson and taking a knife to the book, cutting out anything you don't like. 

If you're choosing to interpret and apply the text a certain way, you're still treating it as authoritative. So people who find ways to rationalize the Israelite ethnic cleansing of Joshua and Judges, or the Jews or Catholics finding a million loopholes in their canon law. 

Somethings are mushy and gray in a religion. Do we have free will or only seem to? Does God experience time linearly or does he exist outside of it? What does baptism do? What is the afterlife like? Depending on the religion, these can be wide open for a person to decide individually without becoming a heretical wishy washy 'build-a-bear' cuddle god maker. 

But some things are very explicit in a religion. And in every religion there are a few foundational beliefs that if you pull them away you don't really have the same religion anymore, just some kind of Unitarian gobbeldy gook that can't even pretend to be divinely inspired. Moses received the Law from God on Mt Sinai. Jesus is the incarnate Son of God who rose from the dead. Mohammad is God's Prophet. Karma is real and affects your rebirth. Reincarnation is real and we need to escape it. Joseph Smith looked into a hat full of rocks and read a book that was across the room and under a blanket. If you pull those foundation blocks out because you think they're not true, then you really have no point in calling yourself that particular religion anyway.


----------



## TheRatcatcher (May 12, 2020)

Considering how the bible has gone through multiple iterations before. I wouldn't be surprised if there were certain verses deliberately left out for the sake of political power.


----------



## Slap47 (May 12, 2020)

Identifying as an atheist is hard because most of them are spergs who actually call themselves philosophers.

The reality is that religion is NOT on the decline. More milquetoast protestant churches like Anglicanism and Methodism are on the decline while more evangelical/serious religions like Mormonism, Pentecostalism and Seventh-Day Adventism are exploding. Middle of the road Christianity has little to no appeal. It is the more hardline religions that appeal to people.



			https://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/
		



			https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal
		


Let's use Catholicism in Latin America to make the point. Catholics are leaving the Catholic church in droves and the Catholic Church has had to become like the Pentecostals to survive.



SomeCybranCommander said:


> Considering how the bible has gone through multiple iterations before. I wouldn't be surprised if there were certain verses deliberately left out for the sake of political power.



They got rid of circumcision because the Romans hated it. Christians directly referred to masturbation to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Jews. Protestants then brought it back in the USA to fight masturbation. It's maddening.



Wraith said:


> If I understand you right, I've heard it called 'cafeteria Christianity,' and you can expound on that for other religions.



Religion has traditionally been communal and the breakdown of the community had lead to the rise of personalizing religion.


----------



## Crichax (May 16, 2020)

I think this phenomenon can actually help create freer societies in religion-dominated countries. Sure, it will lead to a few bad apples and I'm not sure how much empirical evidence there is to back it up, but I just have a gut feeling that this might help to gradually loosen restrictions on what societal rules you have to follow, what religion you have to worship, and etc.


----------



## stuffandthings (May 16, 2020)

SomeCybranCommander said:


> Considering how the bible has gone through multiple iterations before. I wouldn't be surprised if there were certain verses deliberately left out for the sake of political power.


Cite your source please? 

I can give you some sources, but they don't fit your narrative of someone willfully editing books of the Bible for political gain. 

In every single bible of quality, the parts that are in disagreement between different early manuscripts are clearly marked. Two big examples would be the ending of the Book of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery. Those are in brackets, because some manuscripts don't have them. In other minor instances the differences are usually at the bottom of every column. 'Some manuscripts have X' or 'Meaning of Hebrew unclear.' No one is trying to hide anything from anyone. 

There are seven books included in the Catholic Bible that most Protestant churches don't use. But the reason they were cut is linguistic. The cut books were first written in Aramaic or Greek, not Hebrew. Meaning they were written much later than the rest of the Old Testament. You can still find them a read them if you want, but there's nothing much in there that would be a religion shattering revelation if it was considered scripture by all. 

Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Christ. Portions of nearly all the books of the Hebrew Torah are accounted for there, including some entire texts. There's nothing of significance different. Nothing that changes the meaning of anything. 

The early church didn't compile the BOOKS circulating in the early church into the New Testament until more than 300 years after Christ. But when they were deciding which books to keep, they had a narrow criteria, cutting out a lot of books of later church history not because they weren't true, but because they weren't about Jesus or one step removed from Jesus. Or cutting gnostic gospels because they were so out of line from the then universally accepted gospels that had been circulating for much longer. 

But more importantly to your statement, there was no debate about cutting out verses or chapters of any given book.  The book was either genuine or not. And by that time the manuscripts had traveled from the middle east to northern Africa to Rome, and beyond. We have hundreds of partial manuscripts from the first three centuries after Christ from all over the Roman Empire.  And when the thousands of manuscripts are brought together, there's nothing in the differences that amounts to a earth shattering change in theology. 

There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have fewer than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work. 

If you think the book is lies, fine. But it would be lies from the very inception. The person putting the scroll to the papyrus for the first time would be the liar with an agenda, not the believers who in good faith copied it. 

I know I've gone full sperg on this thread. I'll take my puzzle pieces. But I just want people to make the best argument for their side that they can.


----------



## TheRatcatcher (May 16, 2020)

stuffandthings said:


> Cite your source please?
> 
> I can give you some sources, but they don't fit your narrative of someone willfully editing books of the Bible for political gain.
> 
> ...








						A Brief History of Bible Translations | CARM.org
					

An overview of the history of biblical translation, with particular emphasis on how we got our English translations



					carm.org
				



Not to sound like a fedora tipper, it’s why I don’t trust the so called word of god.


----------



## stuffandthings (May 16, 2020)

SomeCybranCommander said:


> A Brief History of Bible Translations | CARM.org
> 
> 
> An overview of the history of biblical translation, with particular emphasis on how we got our English translations
> ...


It's an interesting article, but I don't see how it proves any point about how close any modern translation is to it's original source in the Bible. The article basically concludes:


> Coverdale argued that, far from obscuring or confusing the text, multiple translations help the reader better understand the text through careful comparison. They serve, in a sense, as commentaries on one another to help explain the meaning of passages that may be difficult in one. It seems that Coverdale's viewpoint has prevailed in our era. Most contemporary English-speaking Christians are not dogmatically committed to only one particular translation, but often read from several. Indeed, modern translations have not even utterly supplanted the classic KJV, which is still widely purchased, read, and quoted. Instead, they have come alongside it and added to the study tools of the modern Christian to aid in understanding. And understanding has always been the point of translation since the very beginning of Christianity.



There's nothing hidden. If you want to dig into every single manuscript copy of the Old and New Testament in the original Hebrew or Greek, or study an interlinear Bible with a direct word for word translation, it's all there. Most of it on the internet. The Bible isn't just a religious text, it's a artifact of historical significance. Look for the editions of the Bible that secular scholars use. People with no religious views at all have translated the book, and studied it. If you pick up a New American Standard Bible, (the most literal widely read translation) you are reading a modern word for word translation of fourth century manuscripts that still exist. It's not a trick.


----------



## Niggernerd (May 16, 2020)

Slay the heretic before turning the other cheek so you can face the next lost soul that needs to be guided by gods blade of justice.


----------



## Slap47 (May 17, 2020)

stuffandthings said:


> It's an interesting article, but I don't see how it proves any point about how close any modern translation is to it's original source in the Bible. The article basically concludes:



Modern religious thinking was basically kicked off by men like John Donne. They read the Bible in every possible language and couldn't reconcile the old testament with the God they had in their gut. They literally decided to just discard it all and use the King James because it felt right. It's not too convincing to people not already believing but it keeps believers beliving. 

The reality is that the Bible has been inconsistently translated and its origins are entirely political. A bunch of Roman aristocrats gathered at Nicaea, Chalcedon and Carthage and hammered out the original Christianity.  Eastern Orthodox was structured by Emperors and Czars. Catholism was structured by Emperors and Popes from corrupt Italian mob families. Protestantism by the needs of the German princes and later local interests.


----------



## stuffandthings (May 17, 2020)

Slap47 said:


> Modern religious thinking was basically kicked off by men like John Donne. They read the Bible in every possible language and couldn't reconcile the old testament with the God they had in their gut. They literally decided to just discard it all and use the King James because it felt right. It's not too convincing to people not already believing but it keeps believers beliving.
> 
> The reality is that the Bible has been inconsistently translated and its origins are entirely political. A bunch of Roman aristocrats gathered at Nicaea, Chalcedon and Carthage and hammered out the original Christianity.  Eastern Orthodox was structured by Emperors and Czars. Catholism was structured by Emperors and Popes from corrupt Italian mob families. Protestantism by the needs of the German princes and later local interests.


I definitely see where you're getting at. And theologians from way before John Donne had trouble reconcilling the OT God with the NT God. Marcion who died in 160 and several hippie dippie gnostics said they were two different Gods. And the Councils of Nicea and etc weren't a bunch of Roman aristocrats, but a bunch of Greeks speakers from all over the Roman Empire. 

I see where you are coming from that the INTERPRETATION of various verses in the Bible changes over time and have been very politically motivated. That is going to be an issue with any authoritative document, from the Torah to the Vedas to the Constitution. No argument there. 

But I take issue with the idea that the TRANSLATION ie words themselves have been 'changed' somehow significantly by people with political motivation. Like I said the number of manuscripts that we can compare to each other, and the age of those manuscripts, and the distance those manuscripts were apart means that even secular scholars are in agreement that what we have is almost exactly what was written down by the original author of whatever book. And the translations we use now are not translations of translations of translations. Any futzing done in the Dark Ages or the Middle Ages or Reformation doesn't effect a papyrus buried in 200 CE.

The political motivation, if you want to make that argument, comes when the book was written, and if that person lied. Did the Exodus not happen in any sense at all, and was it a tribal narrative written down after Israel already existed with no basis in factual events? Were the Books of Kings written as a hagiography of history by a tiny blip of a nation-state pretending to be big? Were the NT books of Peter written by a liar attempting to sway the church in his direction by faking letters from Peter? Those are questions lots of secular scholars answer in the affirmative.  Because it is the more logical, plausible, and evidenced conclusion for the non-religious to take. There are smarter and more informed ways to be atheist or agnostic.

People that want to pretend like the words of individual books that make up the Bible have been changed by political conspiracy are the ultimate cherry pickers, because obviously the things they like can stay 'true scripture' but the inconvenient or hard stuff can be 'political lies'. It's not Harry Potter, you can't just headcanon away Dumbledore being gay because it's stupid and you don't like it, but keep the rest of the series. Unless you're treating the entire religion as a pleasant fantasy land you get to control.


----------



## Slap47 (May 17, 2020)

stuffandthings said:


> INTERPRETATION



The interpretation is everything though. The whole point of religion is that it is supposed to be objective morality that guides society. Even then, it isn't just interpretation.  People  debated what books made up the Bible and the losing side always had their books destroyed. Heretics were murdered and their ideas eradicated by the powerful. 

Christianity didn't start with a bunch of people interpreting an agreed upon set of books. They decided on what books counted by killing people with state power.


----------



## stuffandthings (May 17, 2020)

Slap47 said:


> The interpretation is everything though. The whole point of religion is that it is supposed to be objective morality that guides society. Even then, it isn't just interpretation.  People  debated what books made up the Bible and the losing side always had their books destroyed. Heretics were murdered and their ideas eradicated by the powerful.
> 
> Christianity didn't start with a bunch of people interpreting an agreed upon set of books. They decided on what books counted by killing people with state power.



You're compressing hundreds of years of history in your 'past tense'. What you're talking about DID happen, but, it's not like 'orthodoxy' put on a unified decisive and totalitarian front from the beginning. It's not the Church of Scientology. 

Christianity didn't START with a bunch of people being murdered for heresy with state power. It wasn't until Christianity was used as a tool of the state after being adopted by the late Roman Empire that the government started murdering over heresies. And you can still find plenty of heretical texts that made it through. The ideas still exist. Go ahead and read the Gospels of Thomas, or the Infancy Gospels, or the Gospels of Judas. They're important historical documents and interesting to study. But there are logical reasons they weren't, and still aren't included in the Bible.  They were written hundreds of years after Jesus instead of merely decades. It was widely known then, and there's no academic debate about it now. Any book that was seriously considered for the canon still exists even if it didn't make the cut. Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Clement I and II. 

The government has a vested interest in keeping a monopoly on the hearts and minds of it's people. Any overarching philosophy that a majority of the population ascribes to will be used and abused by those in power for their own gain. It doesn't matter if it's a religion or the Communist Manifesto or Confucianism or Darwinism. You can find Militant Buddhists in history, in direct contravention of the five moral precepts of Buddhism, killing heretics. 

No wonder the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages was constantly stomping out various 'heretics' some of which we would now call Protestants. The New Testament is a profoundly pacifistic and subversive work. Just read it and compare it to how violent groups calling themselves 'The Church' have acted throughout history. But that's not a defect with the book itself, rather the book seeks to correct the natural tendency. There are verses that indicate that you shouldn't even prosecute someone if you're robbed. And the worst it calls for The Church to do to heretics is to shun them. God will punish them, the apostles could foresee curses from God on them, but they never laid a hand on a heretic. But even the Catholic Church didn't dare go in there with scissors and cut out verses when it would have been advantageous to do it, instead they tried to monopolize the interpretation. 

So like you said, interpretation is everything. But it's a far cry from cherry picking out major foundation blocks of a religion laid down and repeated numerous times in books thousands of years old. 

That being said, I would be plenty happy if all the Muslims decided to cherry pick out all that stuff about infidels and the caliphate and under what circumstances they can take slaves. That's a religious text I wouldn't mind Thomas Jefferson taking a box cutter to.


----------

