If morals come from the Bible, how is it possible to cherry-pick those same morals from that same Bible first?

Question

It's impossible not to cherry-pick from the biblical morals. If my father would be gay, I have to honor him, and also stone him to death at the same time, while murder is wrong. And this is just a simple silly example of many, many moral issues that need to be cherry-picked.

When everybody has to decide which part of the Bible applies to their own morals, how can they come from that same Bible? Doesn't cherry-picking morals from a book imply that person already had morals to begin with?

lol, Riegan :)

Answer 1

You are, of course, entirely correct, for two reasons: firstly, the bible has hundreds of errors, as well as dozens of internal contradictions, so you cannot get a consistent system out of it without cherry-picking --- and your picks will not necessarily agree with anyone else's. Secondly, the premise is wrong: morals do not come from the bible (all societies, irrespective of religion, have some sort of moral code) -- they come from evolution, which applies to societies as well as to species: a society which lives by a sound moral code will survive preferably to one that does not. (Obvious example: the late and unlamented Soviet Union.)

Answer 2

If you Google directions to another city, your directions will give you a sequence of turns. In all likelihood, they won't all be left turns. You'll have some left, some right. The important thing is to take the appropriate turn at the appropriate place.

Context.

You wouldn't just say, well there are 12 left turns and 8 right turns between here and there, and then make the correct number of turns but in the wrong sequence and then expect to arrive at your goal destination. That wouldn't make sense.

Many times morality is a specific location, not a general direction. The contradictions some people see in the Bible, I see as specifications. It's not cherry-picking, but doing the appropriate thing in the appropriate circumstance.

It's also important to remember that just because something is in the Bible, that doesn't mean that God approves of it. The entire book of Judges has a theme - everyone did what was right in their own eyes. Well, much of what happened in Judges was a mess.

The book of Hebrews is dedicated to addressing the difference between the OT and NT and what is binding and what isn't. Judaism was a civil law as well as a spiritual law. They had laws of that were symbolic of their purity - like not mixing fabrics and not eating "unclean" foods like lobster.

When I wear linen blends, I'm not violating Christianity, because I'm not Jewish. I'm not under that covenant.

Answer 3

Morals existed long before the first scriptures were written. The most primitive peoples had moral codes.

The Bible, which was written by men, and over many hundreds of years, reflect the morals of the authors. Like everything else, morals evolve and what was considered right and acceptable in one time period, slavery for example, is considered
morally reprehensible today.

Answer 4

you're incorrect on a number of counts. shall we take each and each question because it comes. one million) "If morals come from the Bible, how is it a threat to cherry-%. those self same morals from that exact same Bible first?" merely settle for what you like and overlook approximately what you do not believe. 2) "that is impossible to not cherry-%. from the biblical morals." fake. in case you study the finished bible, and persist with each and all of the commandments given interior the hot testomony, no cherry finding out on is needed. in case you're Jewish, then you quite want merely obey each and all of the commandments interior the previous testomony, and no cherry finding out on is needed. 3) "If my father could be gay, I ought to honor him, and likewise stone him to dying on a similar time, on a similar time as homicide is incorrect." that is misguided. Assuming so you might abide by making use of previous testomony commandments in this section: a) you're able to ought to honor him b) in case you got here across that he became gay, it could be your accountability to document him to the government c) If the government ordered his execution in accordance with the dictates of the previous testomony, then it could be your accountability to forged the 1st stone. So, in different words, no issue. And, in spite of the morals I had *previous* to analyzing the bible, the morals that I own now are *heavily* distinctive than they have been earlier I study the bible and began serving God. Jim

Answer 5

Nearly everybody - *nearly* everybody - has an innate "conscience," a sense of what is "right" and "wrong." Of course it's relative - murder is generally wrong, but if somebody's about to kill your child, you won't think twice about killing that somebody first. And all human morals are relative to human beings - nature is utterly indifferent to our notion of "justice."

But the Christian is so nervous about his own conscience that he believes he needs to be constantly reined in by a set of fixed conventions, backed up by a supernatural threat-and-reward system. Were it not for his book that says "Thou shalt not murder," he'd have massacred everybody who crossed his path just for kicks, apparently - and he's therefore certain that everybody else needs the same sort of moral crutch to stay in line.

And as for that Book, of course it's necessary to cherry-pick, because the Bible is self-contradictory throughout, and no sane person can hold two mutually exclusive concepts simultaneously. Not to say that most Christians are actually insane - they simply refuse to examine their own beliefs.

Answer 6

Show me in the NT where it says that if your father was gay, you'd have to stone him to death. You atheists have a one-track mind on a non-issue. Stop cherry-picking your own brand of self-induced misinterpretation in the attempt to solicit cheap agreement with your obvious ignorance.

Your "cherry-picked" assumptions reveal much about you.

Answer 7

It's not. If you're going to follow the bible, then follow all of it, or get real, and question it. If one already has morals, then tosses them aside and picks new morals from a book, they need to examine them first.

Answer 8

I think the Christians in here will tell you something about your reference being from the OT, which apparently they no longer have to follow.

Here is what baffles ME though, Christian sects where there are female pastors and leaders etc. Paul said this is NOT allowed and it a shame for women to speak in church." in 1Cor 14:34-35 and they are to learn in silence and let their husbands teach them at home.

But they ignore that and call it "his personal bias" or "culturally irrelevant for our time" yet still quote from him with regard to gay people.

It's like, you can pick and choose what scripture to suit your own personal prejudices. If you dislike gays more than assertive female teachers and preachers, then go ahead.

Answer 9

yes.

so i had a great time away!!!! saw everything there was to see. the highlight being the mona lisa and the venus de milo at the lourvre. i cruised on the seine and thames, went on the london eye, went to the eiffel tower, notre dame, buckingham palace saw the changing of the guards, westminster abby, trafalgar square and many many other things! i'm off to jamaica on monday so i'll miss you again! when i get back, i'll link to pics of all the places.

Answer 10

They're not really cherry picking morals, they're selecting the appropriate verses to support their point of view.