Hasn't your cherry been picked?

[Tricky]

Eddammit, folks, I am so sick of hearing how so-and-so was "cherry-picking", usually referring to verses from the Bible, but could be anything else. I mean, how the hell can you not cherry pick without either choosing passages at random or quoting the whole damn book? Oh, but they're choosing only parts that support their position? Well duh. Don't you think it would be kind of stupid, while discussing a topic, to pick passages that either don't support your position or which have no relationship to the topic?

All you folks who have quotes in their sigs, you're all a bunch of stinking CHERRY PICKERS. Yeah, you too Tick man.

I think I have the right to comment on the works of Shakespeare, even though I haven't read Coriolanus. (It always sounded to me like something a proctologist would give you some salve for.)

[Ichneumonwasp]

My sister was once bitten by a cherry picker.

Or a llama, I forget.


To answer the tongue-in-cheek issue, as Hume reminds us -- negative evidence counts more than positive evidence, hence the charge of cherry-picking (of course, I'm probably cherry picking Hume here).

Now back to my sister.......

[Kaylee]

For me the point isn't that people cherry-pick the bible, but that it's written in such a way that they can.

[AgingYoung]

Another thing, when it comes to mates. People looking for a partner for life cherry pick also. Do guys go looking for the ugliest, most disgusting woman alive? Heck no! Do women start flipping rocks over when seeking a mate? Nope! Everyone cherry picks to some degree or another.

There is the thought that if you want to be happy for the rest of your life, marry an ugly girl. I don't think most take that advice seriously.

Now back to your sister...

Gene

[Mashuna]

Eddammit, folks, I am so sick of hearing how so-and-so was "cherry-picking", usually referring to verses from the Bible, but could be anything else. I mean, how the hell can you not cherry pick without either choosing passages at random or quoting the whole damn book? Oh, but they're choosing only parts that support their position? Well duh. Don't you think it would be kind of stupid, while discussing a topic, to pick passages that either don't support your position or which have no relationship to the topic?

All you folks who have quotes in their sigs, you're all a bunch of stinking CHERRY PICKERS. Yeah, you too Tick man.

I think I have the right to comment on the works of Shakespeare, even though I haven't read Coriolanus. (It always sounded to me like something a proctologist would give you some salve for.)

I thought the point of cherry picking was that you took passages that supported your position, that if read in context, or if set against the overall tone of the book/article would not.

So if a review for a film was 'It's amazing this film was ever made', the quote on the poster is 'Amazing!'

That's cherry picking.

[AgingYoung]

going from ...
It's amazing this film was ever made
to...
It's the most amazing this film was ever made
is some serious cherry picking.

I've never considered selective editing of an idea to be cherry picking. I've always looked at picking the points (in their entirety) that support your case to be cherry picking. Everyone does it; must be right.

Gene

[I less than three logic]

To me, cherry picking is a two part fallacy. First, one selects only points or data that support one's position. This in and of itself isn't fallacious, of course you'd want to present points that support what your saying. This second part is when cherry picking becomes a fallacy, and people quoting the Bible often make this mistake. That second part being implying or assuming that your selected points or data are an accurate, unbiased representation of the whole. Quoting certain passages from the Bible isn't cherry picking, but saying the Bible as a whole says X based on the few select passages is, especially when one can often find a direct contradiction somewhere else in the same book.

ETA - In regards to your sig line quote of Elvis Costello: what about poking a badger with a spoon? ;)

[Mashuna]

ETA - In regards to your sig line quote of Elvis Costello: what about poking a badger with a spoon? ;)

That's not a sin, the badgers love it :p

[Tricky]

This second part is when cherry picking becomes a fallacy, and people quoting the Bible often make this mistake. That second part being implying or assuming that your selected points or data are an accurate, unbiased representation of the whole. Quoting certain passages from the Bible isn't cherry picking, but saying the Bible as a whole says X based on the few select passages is, especially when one can often find a direct contradiction somewhere else in the same book.
I'm not seeing many Christians who would make such a statement, at least not in those words, but it is true that almost all Christians state, at least obliquely, that whatever their interpretation of what the bible means, as a whole, is the close to correct one. But that's kind of obvious because why would you believe something you doubt the correctness of? Besides, there are a lot of Christians, maybe even a majority, who agree that there are parts of the bible that are either unimportant (e.g. Songs of Soloman) or refer to different situations (e.g. the lawgiving in Leviticus) or in some other way don't really apply for today. Even a hard-core Christian like Huntster accepts the authority of the RCC over strict biblical interpretation.

ETA - In regards to your sig line quote of Elvis Costello: what about poking a badger with a spoon? ;)If poking a badger with a spoon is wrong, I don't want to be right.

[Foster Zygote]

If poking a badger with a spoon is wrong, I don't want to be right.

The woodchuck likes me
We smoke PCP
I want to be friends with the badger

[tkingdoll]

I see cherry picking as 'counting the hits and ignoring the misses'. For example, with Graham Hancock's pyramid nonsense, he points out the few intersecting lines, chambers, angles or what have you in a pyramid's construction which happen to line up with the position of Orion, but ignores the millions of intersecting lines, chambers and angles which do not. It's taking data which, in context, is not significant, and isolating it to make it appear significant and thereby bolstering your position.

Quotes in sig lines are not cherry picking, in the most part, because they are presented as opinion backing up opinion. Usually they are there to sum up a poster's personality, sense of humour, political or religious leanings, etc, in a single sentence. The closest they get to fallacy is perhaps appeal to authority, for example using an Einstein quote about religion to support one's own opinion about religion.

[Raphael]

You haven't read Coriolanus?!! And to think I once admired you.

Cherry Picking is irritating when repeatedly dredged from something riddled with contradiction. Hence the Bible quotes used to buttress all manner of opinion.

[NoZed Avenger]

This whole subject is dealt with at some length in Coriolanus.

[MickinEngland]

Do guys go looking for the ugliest, most disgusting woman alive? Heck no!

Just a minute Jack, I quite fancy Ugly Betty, but I wish she'd get her teeth fixed, they look like someting out of the X-Files..

[Dark Jaguar]

Well Tricky, the accusation is really meant to be used against those who ignore the negative evidence that is readily available. As in, "this is a bad cherry, here's a good one". It's fine if you are using positive evidence because that's all there is and you've done your research. It's bad when you've got loads of bad evidence and some poorly thought out or misquoted "good" evidence and you've just ignored everything else. That's the problem, the ignoring of contradictory evidence.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Penn Jillette, in the Bible episode of Bulls... hit, made what I think is the best point of religious cherry picking: If you believe your god is infallible, then you can't change the rules because you don't like them.

However, most people are too gutless to accept any alternative to their religion, so they're more than willing to second-guess their allegedly perfect, flawless superbeing so they can feel that they are good believers without stoning homosexuals, women who don't cry out while being raped in the city, disobedient sons, or people who work on the sabbath despite the fact that this is exactly what the infallible being they worship demands.

In short, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

[AgingYoung]

Dear Mark,

How are you? I am fine. How is the weather? I wish global warming would hurry up because it's colder than a skeptic’s heart here. You made no sense.

Sincerely,
Gene

[Tricky]

Well Tricky, the accusation is really meant to be used against those who ignore the negative evidence that is readily available. As in, "this is a bad cherry, here's a good one". It's fine if you are using positive evidence because that's all there is and you've done your research. It's bad when you've got loads of bad evidence and some poorly thought out or misquoted "good" evidence and you've just ignored everything else. That's the problem, the ignoring of contradictory evidence.
I agree that's a good definition. But since there is no real evidence of any kind in the Bible, picking something which philosophically supports your point isn't really picking against evidence.

However, this post makes me concede that I might want to rethink my position on what cherry-picking is. I'm not afraid to admit it when I'm wrong. Thanks, DJ.

[Dark Jaguar]

Yeah, that's true, but if they are arguing that the christian god is a generous and loving one, and they only quote the parts of the bible that support it, and don't bother with the parts where that god is demanding a child sacrifice or is ordering some leader to do one thing and then literally controlling that person's mind to force them to disobey that command and then angrily punish the entire country due to that forced disobedience, well I'd call that cherry picking, but only if their logic was "it's in the bible and the bible is authoritative".

[Tricky]

Yeah, that's true, but if they are arguing that the christian god is a generous and loving one, and they only quote the parts of the bible that support it, and don't bother with the parts where that god is demanding a child sacrifice or is ordering some leader to do one thing and then literally controlling that person's mind to force them to disobey that command and then angrily punish the entire country due to that forced disobedience, well I'd call that cherry picking, but only if their logic was "it's in the bible and the bible is authoritative".
Many Christians, like Huntster (sometimes), completely disregard the nature of God in the OT. They just regard it as "set up" for the important story. And it is certainly true that there are few if any examples of God demanding sacrifices or killing children in the NT. As most anyone who reads the Bible without foregone conclusions will tell you, there is little similarity between the God of the OT and the God of the NT. They are practically two different religions, and indeed, parts of the OT are included in Judaism, but not (I don't think) any of the NT.

So to toss out one whole separate book and say "this is not part of my argument" is hardly cherry-picking. Indeed, it would be more of a "cherry picking" to insist that the characteristics of OTGod be the same as NTGod. It would require selecting completely different contexts to compare.

[Meadmaker]

They are practically two different religions, and indeed, parts of the OT are included in Judaism, but not (I don't think) any of the NT.

All of the protestant OT, and none of the NT is included.

[Dark Jaguar]

Many Christians, like Huntster (sometimes), completely disregard the nature of God in the OT. They just regard it as "set up" for the important story. And it is certainly true that there are few if any examples of God demanding sacrifices or killing children in the NT. As most anyone who reads the Bible without foregone conclusions will tell you, there is little similarity between the God of the OT and the God of the NT. They are practically two different religions, and indeed, parts of the OT are included in Judaism, but not (I don't think) any of the NT.

So to toss out one whole separate book and say "this is not part of my argument" is hardly cherry-picking. Indeed, it would be more of a "cherry picking" to insist that the characteristics of OTGod be the same as NTGod. It would require selecting completely different contexts to compare.

In fact, I had been taught when I was religious that the old testament was god showing "the price of sin" and the new testament was god's "new deal" showing his forgiveness and the only way to fully pay for it. It's really the only way to reconcile it, at least if you only look at it overall. Hunster actively states that he only believes the parts of the Bible he WANTS to believe and doesn't regard any other part as true. However, I see that as a major cop-out. I'd see that as cherry picking of a different sort, basically leading to one major question, which is if you just decide not to believe most of it, why believe ANY of it?

[ImaginalDisc]

Dear Mark,

How are you? I am fine. How is the weather? I wish global warming would hurry up because it's colder than a skeptic’s heart here. You made no sense.

Sincerely,
Gene

I cannot speak for Mark, but he makes a good point. Religious people, even fundamentalists, insist on interpreting their way out of doing things that the Bible ( to use Christians as an example ) tells them to do. The Bible quite clearly instructs us to lay waste to neighboring villages that worship gods other than Jeovah, and it recommends that we murder disobedient children. Since these are clearly amoral acts, religious people reject those passages or claim to interpret a different meaning from them, and yet insist that the Bible and God are good and worth adhering too. If you're already using your brain to sift bad from good, and logical from illogical, why stop halfway?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Dear Mark,

How are you? I am fine. How is the weather? I wish global warming would hurry up because it's colder than a skeptic’s heart here. You made no sense.



What's the matter? Do I need to use smaller words that you can understand? That's it.


I'm sorry if I'm talking over your head. I guess I made the mistake of assuming that everyone here graduated from 4th grade.

How arrogant of me.

[Seismosaurus]

Oh wow, from the title I thought this thread was going to be about something really, REALLY different!

[AgingYoung]

Penn Jillette, in the Bible episode of Bulls... hit, made what I think is the best point of religious cherry picking: If you believe your god is infallible, then you can't change the rules because you don't like them.

However, most people are too gutless to accept any alternative to their religion, so they're more than willing to second-guess their allegedly perfect, flawless superbeing so they can feel that they are good believers without stoning homosexuals, women who don't cry out while being raped in the city, disobedient sons, or people who work on the sabbath despite the fact that this is exactly what the infallible being they worship demands.

In short, they want to have their cake and eat it too.


What religion promotes the stoning of homosexuals? In all you said you really didn't say a thing. Are you saying that since .... , Well what precisely are you saying?

Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

What religion promotes the stoning of homosexuals? In all you said you really didn't say a thing. Are you saying that since .... , Well what precisely are you saying?

Gene

Judaism and Christianity. The Bible clearly says that homosexual men are "abominations" and should be stoned (the bad kind of stoned.)

Also, Leviticus calls many other things "abominations" such as:

Mixed fabrics

Rabbits

and Lobsters

[AgingYoung]

I cannot speak for Mark, but he makes a good point. Religious people, even fundamentalists, insist on interpreting their way out of doing things that the Bible ( to use Christians as an example ) tells them to do. The Bible quite clearly instructs us to lay waste to neighboring villages that worship gods other than Jeovah, ....

Imaginal,

I'll just look at a part of what you've said. Where does Jesus explain to the christian they should 'lay waste neighboring villages that worship gods other than the LORD? If you're speaking of what God thru Moses instructed the jews to do that's another matter.

Most of my objection is the inaccurate use of terms like 'religious people'.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

ImaginalDisc,

It would seem to me that as far as you understand it a christian is obligated to follow levitical law. Why do you think this is true? From my perspective as a christian I believe I should follow what Jesus taught and a jew should follow levitical law. As a christian I'm curious why you think I should abandon the teachings of Jesus and follow jewish law.
Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

ImaginalDisc,

It would seem to me that as far as you understand it a christian is obligated to follow levitical law. Why do you think this is true? From my perspective as a christian I believe I should follow what Jesus taught and a jew should follow levitical law. As a christian I'm curious why you think I should abandon the teachings of Jesus and follow jewish law.
Gene

Because according to the New Testament, Jesus said several times that he was not going to abolish the Old Testament. Infact, early Christians were synchronistically practicing Judaism. The question of whether gentiles could be Christians was a subject of much debate in the early Christian movement. Since Paul, a gentile convert himself, was the most successful Christian promoter of his time, his ideas about that subject became the most widely accepted.

[Raphael]

ImaginalDisc,

It would seem to me that as far as you understand it a christian is obligated to follow levitical law. Why do you think this is true? From my perspective as a christian I believe I should follow what Jesus taught and a jew should follow levitical law. As a christian I'm curious why you think I should abandon the teachings of Jesus and follow jewish law.
Gene

So does this mean that all guidelines, moral or otherwise, defined before the birth of Jesus do not apply to Christians?..since there were obviously no Christians in the OT. Do you follow the Ten Commandments or are they only for Jews? How do you (cherry) pick what applies to you, as a Christian and what does not?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic...I just don't understand it.

[AgingYoung]

Imaginal,

I can believe the old testament and specifically levitical law is true and further that all hasn't been fulfilled to abolish it, without having an obligation to follow that same law. Levitical law was given to the jewish nation. Whether it's all been fulfilled or not, it was never a requirement for christians to follow.

You do raise a very interesting point about the fulfillment of all though. Has all been fulfilled? On Yom Kippur once a year the high priest (who is that today?) was to go into the holy of holies (where is that today?) to atone for the sins of the jewish nation. By what authority has this requirement been removed from the law? I think the 'all has been fulfilled' as spoken of by Jesus has passed.

Since Paul, a gentile convert himself, was the most successful Christian promoter of his time, his ideas about that subject became the most widely accepted. Most christians think of Paul as a jew; why do you think he was gentile?

Gene

eta: Tricky is as Tricky does

[Tricky]

Oh wow, from the title I thought this thread was going to be about something really, REALLY different!
Got to have a catchy title to lure them in. I can tell by your avatar you were looking for something else, though.:D

[Tricky]

In fact, I had been taught when I was religious that the old testament was god showing "the price of sin" and the new testament was god's "new deal" showing his forgiveness and the only way to fully pay for it. It's really the only way to reconcile it, at least if you only look at it overall. Hunster actively states that he only believes the parts of the Bible he WANTS to believe and doesn't regard any other part as true. However, I see that as a major cop-out. I'd see that as cherry picking of a different sort, basically leading to one major question, which is if you just decide not to believe most of it, why believe ANY of it?
Yes, I've addressed that very question to Huntster in another thread. His answer (if you can call it that) is to deny that he ignores parts of the Bible, but that he "believes" the New Testement (with the RCC doing most of the interpretation for him).

You're right, it is a major cop-out. It is an odd thing that so many Christians cannot bring themselves to say "Much of the Bible is incomprehensible, irrelevant, or pure BS," even if by word and act they indicate as much.

I don't think that Christians must believe all of the Bible in order to be "true Christians", but I think that if they want to be honest, they must admit that they don't believe it all. Quite a few do, and interestingly, those who do are most often the ones who have studied it in the greatest depth. Only dilettantes like Kathy try to vouch for the whole bag of goods without even knowing what's in it.

[Tricky]

All of the protestant OT, and none of the NT is included.
Thanks MM. I thought so, but I wasn't sure and didn't want to sound like an idiot.

[ImaginalDisc]

Most christians think of Paul as a jew; why do you think he was gentile?


Ahem:

PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

Claims that Paul was Jewish, as in, not a gentile convert, are very unlikely to be true.

[AgingYoung]

Imaginal,

Your source offers a good example of cherry picking. They accept the account in acts about Paul being present at Stephan's stoning...
While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen.
but discount the claim in Acts that he is jewish and also his claim in the epistle Philippians...

Phl 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

When I compare your cherry picking source with epistles that were circulated among churches as they were developing, I give more credence to the epistles. If Paul were fabricating the details it's most likely someone that actually knew him would verify his points. I suspect that if it were found that he really wasn't a jew from birth that would have seriously effected his ministry. I think the early christian church knew precisely who Paul was.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

Hello Raphael,
So does this mean that all guidelines, moral or otherwise, defined before the birth of Jesus do not apply to Christians?..since there were obviously no Christians in the OT. Do you follow the Ten Commandments or are they only for Jews? How do you (cherry) pick what applies to you, as a Christian and what does not?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic...I just don't understand it.

Levitical law was written for the jew. I think in some regards a christian can follow the example Jesus set. After they brought the woman caught in adultery and explained to him the law, they asked Jesus what they should do. I'm sure you know the response, 'he who is without sin, cast the first stone.'

In the law if you were caught in adultery you should be stoned; it was a capital offense. Jesus taught a stricter sense of the meaning of adultery though. He said that if you think in your mind (heart) adulterous thoughts you are guilty. On this one point of the law Jesus taught a much higher standard. There are numerous other points where Jesus taught a much harder, stricter sense of the law.

If I were looking for an easier out I'd choose levitical law. It's not my choice though. In some points a christian is held to a much higher standard.

Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

Imaginal,

Your source offers a good example of cherry picking. They accept the account in acts about Paul being present at Stephan's stoning...

but discount the claim in Acts that he is jewish and also his claim in the epistle Philippians...


When I compare your cherry picking source with epistles that were circulated among churches as they were developing, I give more credence to the epistles. If Paul were fabricating the details it's most likely someone that actually knew him would verify his points. I suspect that if it were found that he really wasn't a jew from birth that would have seriously effected his ministry. I think the early christian church knew precisely who Paul was.

Gene

That would be very convincing if you ignored why Acts is discounted; because it's impossible for him to have been educated by exinct people.

[AgingYoung]

Imaginal,

What reason do you have to think that all the descendants of the first king of Israel (Saul) were destroyed or as you put it 'extinct'? Or that others besides Saul, king of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin didn't have descendants that persisted to the 1st century, AD?

Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

Imaginal,

What reason do you have to think that all the descendants of the first king of Israel (Saul) were destroyed or as you put it 'extinct'? Or that others besides Saul, king of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin didn't have descendants that persisted to the 1st century, AD?

Gene

Try reading my posts.

According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus.

The Tribe of Benjamin was nearly wiped out in civil war according to Judges 19-20, which involves the rest of the Israelites nearly exterminating them, forbidding any women to marry Benjamites, and then the Israelites recanting somewhat by "giving" the Benjamintes 400 virgins kidnapped from another town they had wiped out, and let them raid a carvan of gentiles.

The surviving tribe later joined with the vastly more numerous Tribe of Judah who became synonymous with southern Iudea. By the first century C.E. the Benjamites were gone. Small in number to begin with, they had been assimiliated.

[AgingYoung]

Actually I have read your posts. This point you made ...
According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus.


nor does your elaboration of that point here...
The surviving tribe later joined with the vastly more numerous Tribe of Judah who became synonymous with southern Iudea. By the first century C.E. the Benjamites were gone. Small in number to begin with, they had been assimiliated.
answer my question.

My question was....

What reason do you have to think that all the descendants of the first king of Israel (Saul) were destroyed or as you put it 'extinct'?

Your elaboration of 'assimilated' doesn’t suggest 'destroyed'. Maybe my question would be clearer if I put it this way...

Why do you think someone in the first century (AD) couldn't be able to trace their ancestry back to the tribe of Benjamin? It is interesting to note that Saul had the same name as the first king of Israel and a Benjaminite. What sort of jewish momma would give her child a name like that? Maybe a proud descendant of Benjamin.


Gene

[AgingYoung]

I do think all of this is an aside from the original question of ...


Why should a christian be obligated to follow levitical law


Your point was Paul for the most part formed christian doctrine and also he most likely wasn't even born jewish; that he was most likely a convert. Whether he was a descendant from the tribe of Benjamin or not I'm sure he thought he was based what he was taught as a child. In either event that has no bearing on his claim to have been born jewish. Although you haven't presented any thing compelling to dissuade me from thinking that Paul was born a jew it still won't address the original question of why a christian should follow jewish levitcal law.

When it came to the law and its prescribed judgments, Jesus rejected them.

Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually I have read your posts. This point you made ...
According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus.


nor does your elaboration of that point here...
The surviving tribe later joined with the vastly more numerous Tribe of Judah who became synonymous with southern Iudea. By the first century C.E. the Benjamites were gone. Small in number to begin with, they had been assimiliated.
answer my question.

My question was....

What reason do you have to think that all the descendants of the first king of Israel (Saul) were destroyed or as you put it 'extinct'?

Your elaboration of 'assimilated' doesn’t suggest 'destroyed'. Maybe my question would be clearer if I put it this way...

Why do you think someone in the first century (AD) couldn't be able to trace their ancestry back to the tribe of Benjamin? It is interesting to note that Saul had the same name as the first king of Israel and a Benjaminite. What sort of jewish momma would give her child a name like that? Maybe a proud descendant of Benjamin.


Gene

That's reambling speculation. The historical records of the time do not show the existence of a Tribe of Benjamin. The people of the tribe were assimilated into the Tribe of Judah, but the Tribe of Benjamin was gone.

Do you understand the distinction? Analogy: If everyone from Cuba emigrated to the U.S.A., the nation of Cuba would cease to exist.

[AgingYoung]

Imaginal

You still aren't addressing the original question of why a christian should feel compelled to follow jewish levitical law. There is more reason to think that Paul was raised jewish (not a convert) and at the very least imagined that his ancestry was from the tribe of Benjamin than to not think that. Even so it has no bearing on the original question.

Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

Imaginal

You still aren't addressing the original question of why a christian should feel compelled to follow jewish levitical law. There is more reason to think that Paul was raised jewish (not a convert) and at the very least imagined that his ancestry was from the tribe of Benjamin than to not think that. Even so it has no bearing on the original question.

Gene

You clearly have never actually read the book you profess to believe in from cover to cover.

Mat-man 5:17-19

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law, until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Psst, that's Jesus talking.

Oh, and if Christians really aren't supposed to follow Jewish law, then why adhere to the Ten Commandments, which were laws given to the Jews and to no one else, found in Exodus 20? Or the completely different set in Exodus 34, or the still different set found in Duteronomy 5?

[AgingYoung]

I don't question what Jesus said. I question your judgment. You accept a record that deduces that Paul was most likely a convert to judaism based on the premise
He claims to be from an 'extinct' tribe of Israel
totally ignoring the possibilities that
It is possible he was mistaken about his ancestry
It's equally possible that he was speaking of his lineage directly to Benjamin

All the while making this point you totally ignore the fact that it's irrelevent to the question...
why a christian should obey jewish levitical law

If you're attempt was to persuade me to your bias you have done a poor job. I'm not persuaded. I might add that no jew can follow levitical law to the tee. There is no temple and there is no high priest. Also there is no authority given in the law that any one can amend it; there is no provision for amendment in the law.

Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't question what Jesus said. I question your judgment. You accept a record that deduces that Paul was most likely a convert to judaism based on the premise
He claims to be from an 'extinct' tribe of Israel
totally ignoring the possibilities that
It is possible he was mistaken about his ancestry
It's equally possible that he was speaking of his lineage directly to Benjamin

All the while making this point you totally ignore the fact that it's irrelevent to the question...
why a christian should obey jewish levitical law

If you're attempt was to persuade me to your bias you have done a poor job. I'm not persuaded. I might add that no jew can follow levitical law to the tee. There is no temple and there is no high priest. Also there is no authority given in the law that any one can amend it; there is no provision for amendment in the law.

Gene

You really aren't trying to read, are you? Paul said he was a Benaminite of a family that was not in existence in the city he claimed. It is not possible for his claim to be true, ergo, he lied.

I note that you've also causally waved off specific instructions from Jesus that you should obey all Jewish laws, including Leviticus.

[AgingYoung]

Now your point is clear. Let me rephrase it to see if I finally got it.

Based on the intelligence of your source you are certain there were no descendants of Benjamin in Tarsus during the 1st century, certainly none when Paul claimed to have been there. Ergo, Paul was a liar. In as much as he is a liar you can't know what he ever said that could be believed.

Since you seem reasonably certain that your source knew the where abouts of people in the ancient world I suppose there's no real reason to question it. What the heck; how could anyone in their right mind pretend to know who was where 2000 years ago? Did people have tracking chips then?

Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

Now your point is clear. Let me rephrase it to see if I finally got it.



Since you seem reasonably certain that your source knew the where abouts of people in the ancient world I suppose there's no real reason to question it. What the heck; how could anyone in their right mind pretend to know who was where 2000 years ago? Did people have tracking chips then?

Gene

Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that the Benjaminite Tribe persisted through to the 1st century C.E. What you are doing is speculating wildly.

Oh, and I notice that you haven't addressed the fact that Mat 5:17-19 contains clear instructions to Christians to follow Jewish law down to the smallest letter. Again, Christians are, according to the Bible, supposed to be Jews.

[AgingYoung]

Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that the Benjaminite Tribe persisted through to the 1st century C.E. What you are doing is speculating wildly.

Paul's claim is evidence. From the Old Testament...
And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: [and] to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's [inheritance] shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit.
It's no stretch of the imagination to think a jew in that time and place would know their lineage. Their inheritance of the land was based on which son of Israel was their ancestor. People aren't born with anchors on their arses. If a descendant of Benjamin wanted to live in Tarsus I can't imagine why that would be impossible.

Gene

[quixotecoyote]

As I understand for a decent period of time, Christianity was considered just another sect of Judaism. I find no theological reason for the position that Christianity is seperate from Judaiasm and thus exempt from it's laws. I see many political and cultural reasons, but just going from a religious perspective, Christianity should be called Reform Judaism (albeit a couple thousand years earlier).

[RandFan]

Oh, and I notice that you haven't addressed the fact that Mat 5:17-19 contains clear instructions to Christians to follow Jewish law down to the smallest letter. Again, Christians are, according to the Bible, supposed to be Jews. AgingYoung, could you adress this? I'm interested in your answer.

[Tricky]

As I understand for a decent period of time, Christianity was considered just another sect of Judaism. I find no theological reason for the position that Christianity is seperate from Judaiasm and thus exempt from it's laws. I see many political and cultural reasons, but just going from a religious perspective, Christianity should be called Reform Judaism (albeit a couple thousand years earlier).
It is pretty iffy when a sect of a religion becomes its own religion. Many Christians think Mormonism has crossed that line.

As I understand it from Christians though, the reason that Christianity is exempt from from Judaic law is because Jesus atones for all their sins, thus making adherance to some rules of the OT moot. Yes, I know that means the Ten Commandments would be moot too. I didn't say it made sense. However, I do agree that the position that the Messiah has already arrived is quite a distinction from Judaism. Are there any other Judaic cults which recognize a Messiah in the present or past tense?

[quixotecoyote]

It is pretty iffy when a sect of a religion becomes its own religion. Many Christians think Mormonism has crossed that line.

As I understand it from Christians though, the reason that Christianity is exempt from from Judaic law is because Jesus atones for all their sins, thus making adherance to some rules of the OT moot. Yes, I know that means the Ten Commandments would be moot too. I didn't say it made sense. However, I do agree that the position that the Messiah has already arrived is quite a distinction from Judaism. Are there any other Judaic cults which recognize a Messiah in the present or past tense?

I know of no other Judaic sects that recognize a messiah. But given that Christianity is just Judaism + Messiah, the general conception of a great gulf between the religions seems artificial.

The idea about Jesus atoning for sins meaning a reversal of Mosaic law is misinterpreted. The only part of the laws that are overturned are dietary restrictions and sacrifice requirements. You're still supposed to follow all the other laws, you just don't need to sacrifice anything. You pray for forgiveness instead. That's if you take your bible without a chaser of course. If you cherry pick (or more commonly, don't actually read the damn thing) you can come up with any set of rules you're supposed to follow.

[AgingYoung]

RandFan,

I will, but you'll have to give me some time.

Gene

[Tricky]

I know of no other Judaic sects that recognize a messiah. But given that Christianity is just Judaism + Messiah, the general conception of a great gulf between the religions seems artificial.
I dunno. True, some religions have completely different roots from others so are obviously different, but it is pretty clear that there is some mixing around the edges of many religions. I don't believe there is a hard and fast gap between "sect" and "religion", but rather a gradational boundary. But at some point, the "sects" are so distinct that they can accurately be called a different religion. Has that happened with mainstream Christianity and Mormonism yet? Depends on who you ask.

The idea about Jesus atoning for sins meaning a reversal of Mosaic law is misinterpreted. The only part of the laws that are overturned are dietary restrictions and sacrifice requirements. You're still supposed to follow all the other laws, you just don't need to sacrifice anything.
Really? I don't see even the most orthodox of Jews obeying much of Levitican law, especially as regards slavery.

You pray for forgiveness instead.
For some reason, I'm reminded of the Emo Phillips joke, "I prayed to God for a bicycle, but He didn't give me one, so I just stole one and asked for forgiveness.":D

That's if you take your bible without a chaser of course. If you cherry pick (or more commonly, don't actually read the damn thing) you can come up with any set of rules you're supposed to follow.
And back to my OP, I think everyone, even those who have read and hold sacred the damn thing and all the sacred writings of their religion, cherry-pick the parts that they believe, or at least emphasize. I think it is impossible to do otherwise.

[ImaginalDisc]

Paul's claim is evidence. From the Old Testament...

It's no stretch of the imagination to think a jew in that time and place would know their lineage. Their inheritance of the land was based on which son of Israel was their ancestor. People aren't born with anchors on their arses. If a descendant of Benjamin wanted to live in Tarsus I can't imagine why that would be impossible.

Gene

Paul's claim is just a claim. There is no evidence.

[quixotecoyote]

I dunno. True, some religions have completely different roots from others so are obviously different, but it is pretty clear that there is some mixing around the edges of many religions. I don't believe there is a hard and fast gap between "sect" and "religion", but rather a gradational boundary. But at some point, the "sects" are so distinct that they can accurately be called a different religion. Has that happened with mainstream Christianity and Mormonism yet? Depends on who you ask.

True nuff. I contend that Christianity and Judaism are not as distinct as their practicioners would believe.

Really? I don't see even the most orthodox of Jews obeying much of Levitican law, especially as regards slavery.

Yep, culture trumps fundamentalism quite often. That's also evident in the fact they don't do live sacrifices anymore, to the best of my knowledge. But you do still see them observing kosher, and the more orthodox ones observing the hygene standards.

And back to my OP, I think everyone, even those who have read and hold sacred the damn thing and all the sacred writings of their religion, cherry-pick the parts that they believe, or at least emphasize. I think it is impossible to do otherwise.

No argument. It's just fun to point out the implications of that to believers who hadn't thought about it.

[AgingYoung]

Hello RandFan,

Slow but sure.

AgingYoung, could you adress this? I'm interested in your answer.

The point you asked about...
Oh, and I notice that you haven't addressed the fact that Mat 5:17-19 contains clear instructions to Christians to follow Jewish law down to the smallest letter. Again, Christians are, according to the Bible, supposed to be Jews.

...should be put in perspective. What might seem clear to some has escaped the notice of Christendom from the very beginning. I often wonder why things seem clearer 1000's of years after the fact. To put the question in the proper perspective I think it should be


Why do I agree with the history of Christendom that although it has a Jewish heritage it isn't obligated to follow levitical law?

It is clear Christians don't obey the law with regard to circumcision. At the time of Jesus the Jews didn't obey the law by reason of the Roman occupation; they didn't have the authority to punish capital offenses in the law. Jesus also noted that by their traditions they made the law of God to none effect. Even though Jesus didn't come to destroy they law until all be fulfilled, the Jews weren't following it.

In the case of the adulterous woman Jesus agreed with the Roman authority. Jesus also instituted changes to the law. Once he mentioned, 'I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.' He also prefaced new commandments with, 'you have heard it from old, etc.' During his ministry Jesus changed the law of Moses. I'm of the opinion that when Jesus said on the cross, 'it is finished' he fulfilled the law or put another way: All was fulfilled.

Although thru the Roman occupation the jewish leadership didn't obey the law of Moses, when the temple was destroyed they lost the ability to offer sacrifice. So here we are today when it's impossible for anyone to obey the law. For the most part I'd say that most Christians don't obey the laws Jesus gave to the letter but obeying isn't impossible. It's impossible to obey the laws of Moses today. That's why I agree with Christendom as it began and as it is wrt Levitical law.

Gene

[ImaginalDisc]

Hello RandFan,

Slow but sure.



The point you asked about...
Oh, and I notice that you haven't addressed the fact that Mat 5:17-19 contains clear instructions to Christians to follow Jewish law down to the smallest letter. Again, Christians are, according to the Bible, supposed to be Jews.

...should be put in perspective. What might seem clear to some has escaped the notice of Christendom from the very beginning. I often wonder why things seem clearer 1000's of years after the fact. To put the question in the proper perspective I think it should be



Why do I agree with the history of Christendom that although it has a Jewish heritage it isn't obligated to follow levitical law?

It is clear Christians don't obey the law with regard to circumcision. At the time of Jesus the Jews didn't obey the law by reason of the Roman occupation; they didn't have the authority to punish capital offenses in the law. Jesus also noted that by their traditions they made the law of God to none effect. Even though Jesus didn't come to destroy they law until all be fulfilled, the Jews weren't following it.

In the case of the adulterous woman Jesus agreed with the Roman authority. Jesus also instituted changes to the law. Once he mentioned, 'I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.' He also prefaced new commandments with, 'you have heard it from old, etc.' During his ministry Jesus changed the law of Moses. I'm of the opinion that when Jesus said on the cross, 'it is finished' he fulfilled the law or put another way: All was fulfilled.

Although thru the Roman occupation the jewish leadership didn't obey the law of Moses, when the temple was destroyed they lost the ability to offer sacrifice. So here we are today when it's impossible for anyone to obey the law. For the most part I'd say that most Christians don't obey the laws Jesus gave to the letter but obeying isn't impossible. It's impossible to obey the laws of Moses today. That's why I agree with Christendom as it began and as it is wrt Levitical law.

Gene

You assert that early Christians did not follow every "letter" of the law because early Jews were under Roman occupation, and were unable to do so. Furthermore, you argue that somehow it has been impractical for Christians since that time to have their own laws, completely disregarding such notable Christian statesmen/theocrats as Emperor Constantine of Rome and all the Popes of the Dark and Middle Ages and every church anointed king and queen who ever lived. It is not impossible to "obey the laws of Moses," it’s just wrong to do so. The simple fact is that Christians choose what laws to obey, what laws to disregard, and what laws to force on their neighbors. It is amoral and barbaric to slaughter neighboring villages for worshipping different gods, to murder disobedient children, to keep slaves, and to forbid men who have had vasectomies for worshipping, all of which are specifically instructed in the laws Jesus demands that Christians obey. In Mat 5:17-19 Jesus clearly instructs Christians to obey every letter of laws that are transparently monstrous. It is not possible to reconcile a divine and good Jesus with instructions to obey laws that would embarrass a troop of baboons.

If you were to argue that this particular passage is subject to doubt regarding its authenticity and validity as moral instruction, or dubious interpretation that might alter its meaning entirely, I’d like to point out that the same could be said of the rest of that book.

[Beerina]

Eddammit, folks, I am so sick of hearing how so-and-so was "cherry-picking", usually referring to verses from the Bible, but could be anything else. I mean, how the hell can you not cherry pick without either choosing passages at random or quoting the whole damn book?

It's perfectly fine to select examples or anectdotes to illustrate your point. The problem lies in refusing to deal with counter-examples derived from the same source.

Oh, but they're choosing only parts that support their position? Well duh. Don't you think it would be kind of stupid, while discussing a topic, to pick passages that either don't support your position or which have no relationship to the topic?

To give an example of cherry picking, the same parts of the Bible that support (unambiguously, in my opinion) that God Hates F***.com, also says it's OK to eat crickets and grasshoppers but not cloven-hooved animals. If you obey one part, why not both?

This itself is a vital point.

All you folks who have quotes in their sigs, you're all a bunch of stinking CHERRY PICKERS. Yeah, you too Tick man.

My .sig shows two all-too common, non-cherry picked points to counter the argument that God is a kind, loving, and all-powerful being. Note that merely countering with examples of good things only argues that God is also "kinda good", not that he is perfect and good and all-powerful. Unless you invoke the doctrine (as you must) of "there are things Man was not meant to know/God works in mysterious ways", which is to say, "I don't know."

[Darth Rotor]

Paul's claim is just a claim. There is no evidence.
So you assume he was lying. That is because it fits your predisposition, perhaps, and is indeed the sort of cherry picking that Aging Young has called you on.

I have found this discussion very interesting.

My question, for which I don't have a ready answer, is how and why you posit that no succession of Jewish mothers and daughters (from the tribe of Benjamin who you point out were much reduced by a war) would have given birth to Saul of Tarsus, since the general rule is that Jewish blood is passed through the mother.

DR

[Beerina]

going from ...
It's amazing this film was ever made
to...
It's the most amazing this film was ever made
is some serious cherry picking.

This morning, one of the news channels was rhapsodizing about the imminent (actually, already started) influx of new sequels to very old movie series, specifically Rocky, Indiana Jones, Rambo, and Die Hard.

They pulled a 5 second barfing from some unknown talking head saying exactly what they want, which was something to the effect of "of course movie connoisseurs will want to see these!" I found it odd he chose a word like that, when it's like saying "of course gourmets will want to eat !" Time for an Ambrose Bierce-like definition:

Connoisseur: n A male in the vitally important 25-50 demographic range. The [b]connoisseur jumped at the chance to buy a wii on eBay for $2500.

[ImaginalDisc]

So you assume he was lying. That is because it fits your predisposition, perhaps, and is indeed the sort of cherry picking that Aging Young has called you on.

I have found this discussion very interesting.

My question, for which I don't have a ready answer, is how and why you posit that no succession of Jewish mothers and daughters (from the tribe of Benjamin who you point out were much reduced by a war) would have given birth to Saul of Tarsus, since the general rule is that Jewish blood is passed through the mother.

DR

I have never claimed not to loathe and despise Christianity. I am of course not perfectly impartial. However, the letters attributed to Paul and the account of Paul's early life in Acts are irreconcilable. The claim that Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin is false because no matter who his mother was, there was no Tribe of Benjamin left, and Paul would likely have belonged to the tribe of his father, as the OT is replete with examples of one tribe kidnapping and raping the women of other tribes including the account of the Civil war involving Benjaminites in Judges which concludes with their conquerors "giving" them 400 virgins and kidnapping gentiles from a caravan of gentiles to increase their numbers, a goal which would have failed if tribal identity were matrilineal.

[Darth Rotor]

I have never claimed not to loathe and despise Christianity. I am of course not perfectly impartial. However, the letters attributed to Paul and the account of Paul's early life in Acts are irreconcilable. The claim that Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin is false because no matter who his mother was, there was no Tribe of Benjamin left, and Paul would likely have belonged to the tribe of his father, as the OT is replete with examples of one tribe kidnapping and raping the women of other tribes including the account of the Civil war involving Benjaminites in Judges which concludes with their conquerors "giving" them 400 virgins and kidnapping gentiles from a caravan of gentiles to increase their numbers, a goal which would have failed if tribal identity were matrilineal.
Thanks for your answer, group identity is often a self assigned chacteristic, but I see where you are coming from in the tribal thing.

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks for your answer, group identity is often a self assigned chacteristic, but I see where you are coming from in the tribal thing.

DR

I really don't know the intricacies of the rules regarding heredity in ancient Jewish tribes, but in order for Paul to have been a Benjaminite some very strange things must have been going on, not the least of which is the persistence of the Benjaminites beyond the historical record.

I suppose if you can believe in talking asses, women turning into pillars of salt, and an all-powerful loving god who never the less condemns people to an eternity of suffering and anguish, the historical improbability of Paul is a small pill to swallow.

[ImaginalDisc]

I was really hoping that one of our resident Christian apologists would explain how it can be argued that Christians must obey some laws from the OT and not others.

[Mr Clingford]

The historical records of the time do not show the existence of a Tribe of Benjamin. The people of the tribe were assimilated into the Tribe of Judah, but the Tribe of Benjamin was gone.I have never come across the idea that Paul wasn't Jewish before - would you point me towards some sources?

[Darth Rotor]

I was really hoping that one of our resident Christian apologists would explain how it can be argued that Christians must obey some laws from the OT and not others.
Since you aren't a Christian, what's it to you? Do you also confront Muslims on their inconsistencies in doctrine and praxis?

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

I have never come across the idea that Paul wasn't Jewish before - would you point me towards some sources?

I wish I could help you. It's a conclusion I came to independantly after reading about the debates regarding the claims made about Paul, and the discrepancies between the attitudes and theology of the Paul in letters and the Paul in Acts. I can point you to sources on the later, but while I am sure there are people who have doubted Paul's claim to Judaism before, I've never read them. The debates I read seemed to focus on the details of his history, and I concluded that the simplest explainations are: he lied, he never existed, or he was a conflation of different people, which is the same attitude I have towards the existence of a historical Jesus.

ETA: Essentially, I read phrases like "some people doubt that Paul was Jewish" and I went to see if there was reason for doubt.

[Tricky]

Since you aren't a Christian, what's it to you? Do you also confront Muslims on their inconsistencies in doctrine and praxis?

We don't get a lot of Muslims in this forum, but I recall some time back we did have one, and yes, he was drilled about the inconsistancies between current events and his claim that "Islam is a religion of peace". Some of the passages that Jihaadists were citing were brought up. Sadly, he didn't stick around long.

[ImaginalDisc]

Since you aren't a Christian, what's it to you? Do you also confront Muslims on their inconsistencies in doctrine and praxis?

DR

I live in a world full of people who flagrantly disregard logic and reason in favor of terrible commandments giving to them by an infanticidal, jealous, cretin conjured from the imaginations of ignorant desert nomads who have been dead for thousands of years. Just as I would stop a friend from driving while under the influence of alcohol, so too would I stop a friend from persisting under the delusion of religion.

[Paulhoff]

The cherry picking is a problem when you point out the parts that they don’t like and they just wave them off as unimportant and or misunderstood by you and then go back to the only parts that they like.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Tricky]

Just as I would stop a friend from driving while under the influence of alcohol, so too would I stop a friend from persisting under the delusion of religion.
Not the best of analogies. Being drunk is a temporary condition (let's hope) so it doesn't really compare to having a lifetime religion.

If you want to make that kind of comparison, compare it to being alcoholic, which can be a long term, possibly detrimental condition.

Okay, now let's examine that comparison. First of all, if you are trying to stop a friend from being an alcoholic, you may not be wise to say, "You're a stinking drunk." Lecturing him on the evils of alcohol is also not likely to influence him to change, but more likely to make him stop listening to you. Perhaps some cathartic event will make him see the truth, but it is just as likely to make him a worse alcoholic. If you are trying to influence him, you must make it clear that you are still his friend, but you are worried about him. Gently point out a couple of occasions where he has said or done really stupid things.

And you must realize that if you even attempt this, there is a very good possibility that he won't change, and a reasonably good possibility that you will lose your friend. If your "friend" happens to be your spouse, the consequences can be even harsher.

Also consider that there are a wide variety of drunks. Some people are really destructive, both to themselves and others, when they drink, and some are reletively harmless, and even more fun when they've had a drink or two. Not everybody who drinks or even is an alcoholic is deserving of scorn. For some, the harm is so slight that it may even be said that it is worth it because it makes them happy.

So you have to decide before you undertake to "stop your friend from self-destructive behavior" if it is worth it to you. How important is it to you that they stop drinking. Or, to reverse the analogy, how important is it to you that they start thinking critically about religion. In the real world, this is a pretty important decision.

Here on the boards, it's much different. Everybody who posts here has essentially volunteered to be criticized. What you can say to folks, even your friends, is widely expanded. But as several incidents with Interesting Ian showed, even on the boards, people can become totally irrational when they are criticized either for their habits or their ideas. "Tufted Titmouse", I say to them. "If you don't like it, don't post."

(But even though I criticized your analogy, I want you to know I still consider you a friend. ;) )

[Paulhoff]

(But even though I criticized your analogy, I want you to know I still consider you a friend. ;) )
Time to kill and send you off to hell ;)

Paul

:) :) :)

so-called god talk to me and told me to say that, yes it did

[Tricky]

Time to kill and send you off to hell ;)
LOL. I shall allot an appropriate amount of time to worry about that. Oops. Time's up.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not the best of analogies. Being drunk is a temporary condition (let's hope) so it doesn't really compare to having a lifetime religion.

If you want to make that kind of comparison, compare it to being alcoholic, which can be a long term, possibly detrimental condition.

Okay, now let's examine that comparison. First of all, if you are trying to stop a friend from being an alcoholic, you may not be wise to say, "You're a stinking drunk." Lecturing him on the evils of alcohol is also not likely to influence him to change, but more likely to make him stop listening to you. Perhaps some cathartic event will make him see the truth, but it is just as likely to make him a worse alcoholic. If you are trying to influence him, you must make it clear that you are still his friend, but you are worried about him. Gently point out a couple of occasions where he has said or done really stupid things.

And you must realize that if you even attempt this, there is a very good possibility that he won't change, and a reasonably good possibility that you will lose your friend. If your "friend" happens to be your spouse, the consequences can be even harsher.

Also consider that there are a wide variety of drunks. Some people are really destructive, both to themselves and others, when they drink, and some are reletively harmless, and even more fun when they've had a drink or two. Not everybody who drinks or even is an alcoholic is deserving of scorn. For some, the harm is so slight that it may even be said that it is worth it because it makes them happy.

So you have to decide before you undertake to "stop your friend from self-destructive behavior" if it is worth it to you. How important is it to you that they stop drinking. Or, to reverse the analogy, how important is it to you that they start thinking critically about religion. In the real world, this is a pretty important decision.

Here on the boards, it's much different. Everybody who posts here has essentially volunteered to be criticized. What you can say to folks, even your friends, is widely expanded. But as several incidents with Interesting Ian showed, even on the boards, people can become totally irrational when they are criticized either for their habits or their ideas. "Tufted Titmouse", I say to them. "If you don't like it, don't post."

(But even though I criticized your analogy, I want you to know I still consider you a friend. ;) )

Wow. That is some mighty contructive criticism. I hearby revise my analogy to sound just like yours, because yours is better.

[RandFan]

Wow. That is some mighty contructive criticism. I hearby revise my analogy to sound just like yours, because yours is better.He has a way of doing that but it's best not to flatter him too much. He does live in Texas and he's a Democrat so I think that should be taken into account. We let him post here, that should be good enough.

[ImaginalDisc]

He does live in Texas and he's a Democrat. . .
Wait, what? That brought my brain to a full stop. Next you'll be telling me that there are gay Fundamenalist Christians.

[Tricky]

Wow. That is some mighty contructive criticism. I hearby revise my analogy to sound just like yours, because yours is better.
You're no fun anymore.;)

And I'm not a Democrat, RF, I'm an independant. I usually vote in the Republican primaries (though you can probably figure out why).

Wait, what? That brought my brain to a full stop. Next you'll be telling me that there are gay Fundamenalist Christians.Yes, but they're not TRUE Christians.

[Paulhoff]

And I'm not a Democrat, RF, I'm an independant. I usually vote in the Republican primaries (though you can probably figure out why).
Tell us it wasn't Bush ;)

Paul

:) :) :)

[RandFan]

And I'm not a Democrat, RF, I'm an independant.You are still from Texas. ;)

Damn that game sucked yesterday (Cowboys) :(

[Tricky]

You are still from Texas. ;)

Damn that game sucked yesterday (Cowboys) :(
Actually, I'm from Alabama, I just live in Texas, not that this improves my pedigree.

And I thought the game was hilarious. (Houstonians generally hold great antipithy toward the egotistic asshats that call themselves "America's Team".)

[RandFan]

Actually, I'm from Alabama, I just live in Texas, not that this improves my pedigree.

And I thought the game was hilarious. (Houstonians generally hold great antipithy toward the egotistic asshats that call themselves "America's Team".)Yeah, Houston's team is now the Titans. And they are in Tennessee. I understand. They never could hold a candle to Dallas. I get the antipathy (sour grapes).

[Tricky]

Yeah, Houston's team is now the Titans. And they are in Tennessee. I understand. They never could hold a candle to Dallas. I get the antipathy (sour grapes).
A lot of it is sour grapes. Houston has always had an inferiority complex about Dallas. Dallas got the big TV soap opera and stuff, and what does Houston get remembered for? "Houston, we have a problem". I can admit this stuff because I'm a transplant. And frankly Pro football in general is an apostasy. I'm looking forward to the real Super Bowl tomorrow. Kick their Yankee asses, Gators.