When Christians pick and choose which verses to follow and ignore the rest, is it like a 5-Year Old not wanting to eat his vegetables?
Child: "No mommy, I don't want any of bad vegetables. I only want the sweet parts. You are evil. I hate you. My imaginary friend is going to hurt you."
Mom: "I know vegetables are something you don't like, but they are good for you. Read the label."
Child: "La La La, I'm not listening."
Christian: "No, I don't want any of bad verses. I only want the sweet parts. You are evil. I hate you. My God is going to hurt you."
Atheist: "I know logic is something you don't like, but it is good for you. Actually read the bible."
Christian: "La La La, I'm not listening."
It's not like that at all, actually. Adults are far better at rationalizing their stubborn neophobia, and I doubt that it's neophobia that makes them turn their nose up at certain passages in their holy books. Kids are mostly neophobic because they sort of need to be. You don't want to eat the bright yellow caterpillar because it may well be poisonous. When another of your species does and survives, however, then you *may* start reconsidering. That is, from what I understand, what drives a small child to "hate" a vegetable they never tried. Adults reading holy books... Have some morals derived from the same place as all the rest of us. That moral framework won't let them stray into some areas in spite of what the book says.
Personally, I've seen the comparison you use made quite often, but even the most objectively-childlike adults (with no defined mental disorders going for them, that is) are far more complicated creatures in terms of processing data than small children. That alone makes the analogy rather a faulty one.
I think the ignoring issue comes up because they are trying to interpret the bible correctly. What they see as correctly, is a loving god, the forgiving and open armed Jesus. So if they are going to interpret the bible correctly, they have to find ways to make the bible verses match that concept of god. That's why they often say that you have to take the whole thing in in context even when they are taking verses out of context. It's also why they are willing to ignore certain verses that make their god look like a dick. They already have the conclusion that their god is a loving a god and they search to find things that support that and obviously things that don't are wrong or interpreted incorrectly.
Yes, when it comes to interpreting verses, I tend to agree. However, this doesn't really offer an explanation for throwing some verses out on their ass entirely. At least, not directly. I think one might argue that the pre-supposition of god having a beard of certain length, so to speak, may be an important factor in selecting whatever the individual percieves to best fit that image, but I would still go with my moral-based explanation for why the perfect word of god is more perfect in some places than others.
I think it explains throwing verses completely out. Like they say that because of Jesus, they get to ignore the whole OT (except the parts that still sound good), because we all know that the OT is full of a childish god throwing toddler fits left and right. So they ignore all the verses that don't match their conception of god, because: Jesus. And in the NT, they ignore the "bad" verses because they don't know how to interpret it in a way that shows god in an all loving light.
I don't think that's a solid analogy for a number of reasons.
The is some level of cognitive dissonance within Biblical belief because much of the Bible contradicts itself. In order to believe, this needs to be worked around. Vegetables do not contradict dessert.
However, as I've said before, there are many non-literal interpretations of the Bible. Many study it thoroughly and ascribe various meanings through analogy to different passages. I've mentioned this before, but it seems to be entirely lost on the OP (if the OP is even reading responses) so I won't continue.
QuoteProverb
there are none so blind as those who will not see
Understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant.
Wiktionary (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/there_are_none_so_blind_as_those_who_will_not_see)
Also, from same source
QuoteProverb
you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink
You can show someone how to do something, but you can't make them do it.
Edit above to context:
"You can offer a fundie facts but you can't make them think."
The problem is, humans are basically retarded. Regardless of belief, it is a hell of a lot eaiser to regurgitate the senseless drivel that shaped your brain, then it is to actually think for yourself.
A christian is not supposed to read the bible. Their priests read the proper bible verses for them and giving them the right interpretation. Should a christian actually own a copy of a bible, it is mostly likely standing unread on a bookshelf, collecting dust.
Quote from: Davin on August 10, 2016, 03:23:45 PM
...they ignore the "bad" verses because they don't know how to interpret it in a way that shows god in an all loving light.
Hm... They
would paint them nice if they knew how, wouldn't they..? :-\
I don't mind Xtian cherry-picking -- as PC pointed out, the bible is contradictory on its own, not just between the OT and NT but sometimes within a single story. The bible cannot be used as a guide without being cherry-picked, so my only concern is which cherries are get picked. If it's the clobber everybody stuff, that's a problem; if it's the love and kindness stuff I think that should be encouraged and the clobber people steered toward it if possible.
Cherry picking is a common modus operandi but I wonder why anyone would actually give a rats ass what the bible says. That brings us to the question of which bible are you talking about. It turns out that there are more than one set of biblical scriptures. They are not quite the same " inerrant word of god" as each of the others. So we will need to select the one that best suits our purposes. Your choice of bibles to believe, go something like this.........
CEV, GNB, KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV, REB, RSV there are others but these are English language ones. They are respectively: Contemporary English Version, The Good News Bible, King James Version. New American Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Revised Standard Version, in order of their initials. ............And a few lesser known ones. Seems to me that there are a lot of them that have title words like, New, Version, and Revised. WTF? We have "New" ones, "Revised" ones... what does "revised" mean? Then there are "versions". Does the word version imply that there are other interpretations? King James appointed a committee of 54 men to write the KJV it was pretty much finished in the year 1611. One is to wonder whether the committee got it right, and if so, has the KJV been faithfully and correctly copied verbatim over these 400 intervening years.
Quote from: Icarus on August 11, 2016, 05:56:24 AM
Seems to me that there are a lot of them that have title words like, New, Version, and Revised. WTF? We have "New" ones, "Revised" ones... what does "revised" mean? Then there are "versions". Does the word version imply that there are other interpretations? King James appointed a committee of 54 men to write the KJV it was pretty much finished in the year 1611. One is to wonder whether the committee got it right, and if so, has the KJV been faithfully and correctly copied verbatim over these 400 intervening years.
I understand that this is one of the larger issues Muslims have with the concept of Bible as a perfect word of a perfect God... Not that their book is all that much better.