- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by FMFFrom the outside looking in, it does appear that both Trinitarians and JWs rely on cherry picking biblical passages to give credence to their beliefs. Logic says however that if these beliefs were correct such cherry picking and suspect interpretations would not be necessary as the bible would be rife with crystal clear supporting evidence.
Oh? Which verses?
Isolating particular passages, both Sonship and Robble make plausible arguments, but if the whole bible is the word of God then these isolated passages are not enough. Not by a long chalk.
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI have never heard a plausible argument based on anything in the bible supporting the forbidding of blood transfusions.
Isolating particular passages, both Sonship and Robble make plausible arguments, but if the whole bible is the word of God then these isolated passages are not enough. Not by a long chalk.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf there is any evidence that we have suppressed a single Biblical verse in forming our beliefs then i suggest that you produce it now. If not then the claim of 'cherry picking' is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and is nothing more than a mere opinion masquerading as some kind of grotesque fact. Furthermore it is demonstrably false because we look at Biblical verses in their immediate context and in the context of the Bible as a whole making the accusation of cherry picking nothing more than a kind of slimey pond soup.
From the outside looking in, it does appear that both Trinitarians and JWs rely on cherry picking biblical passages to give credence to their beliefs. Logic says however that if these beliefs were correct such cherry picking and suspect interpretations would not be necessary as the bible would be rife with crystal clear supporting evidence.
Isolat ...[text shortened]... whole bible is the word of God then these isolated passages are not enough. Not by a long chalk.
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGoD never mentioned the word 'suppressed', you're making it up again.
If there is any evidence that we have suppressed a single Biblical verse in forming our beliefs then i suggest that you produce it now. If not then the claim of 'cherry picking' is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and is nothing more than a mere opinion masquerading as some kind of grotesque fact. Furthermore it is demonstrably false because we look ...[text shortened]... as a whole making the accusation of cherry picking nothing more than a kind of slimey pond soup.
Originally posted by Proper KnobPlease take a look at the definition of cherry picking, then come back and start to drool. Instead I'll do it for you so that there can be no mistake, one cannot leave anything up to you amateurs.
GoD never mentioned the word 'suppressed', you're making it up again.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet us begin by adhering to the definition of 'cherry picking' as clearly intended; namely to 'select with great care.' (It is not a question of suppression, but your specific focus).
If there is any evidence that we have suppressed a single Biblical verse in forming our beliefs then i suggest that you produce it now. If not then the claim of 'cherry picking' is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and is nothing more than a mere opinion masquerading as some kind of grotesque fact. Furthermore it is demonstrably false because we look ...[text shortened]... as a whole making the accusation of cherry picking nothing more than a kind of slimey pond soup.
As we progress now to the example you requested, please maintain a specific focus (something your biblical cherry picking has well prepared you for).
The whole 'blood transfusion' thing is probably a good case in point. A JW will refer to a select few biblical passages regarding the consumption of blood; Genesis 9, 3–4, Leviticus 17, Deuteronomy 15, 23, Acts 15, 28–29. - These passages are then held up above other biblical passages. Such as Matthew 26:27-28
"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."
Or indeed Mark 16:17–18
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
If you consider the whole bible sir with an equal eye, why are you abstaining from blood but not walking around with a massive python around your neck?!
Slice of cake?
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo that is not what cherry picking means as i have demonstrated with reference. Perhaps you have your own definition of cherry picking that you simply made up? It would not surprise me.
Let us begin by adhering to the definition of 'cherry picking' as clearly intended; namely to 'select with great care.' (It is not a question of suppression, but your specific focus).
As we progress now to the example you requested, please maintain a specific focus (something your biblical cherry picking has well prepared you for).
The whole 'b ...[text shortened]... ing from blood but not walking around with a massive python around your neck?!
Slice of cake?
If there are more passages which we have neglected to consider, or suppressed or ignored then produce these now for as far as i can discern we have considered all available passages and attempted to discern the underlying principles. Your assertion of cherry picking selected passages so as to give a biased perspective simply cannot stand for we have considered them all, nor does it conflict with any of the passages that you have cited, nor are they held up above any others despite your ludicrous assertion.
In summation,
You have failed to demonstrate that your fabricated definition of cherry picking is even a valid definition, that we do not consider all relevant and available passages and failed to prove that we hold some principles above others, all in all a rather EPIC failure of Biblical proportions,
cake no thanks I am on a diet. I will have some cherries though 😀
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 Feb 16
3 edits
From the outside looking in, it does appear that both Trinitarians and JWs rely on cherry picking biblical passages to give credence to their beliefs. Logic says however that if these beliefs were correct such cherry picking and suspect interpretations would not be necessary as the bible would be rife with crystal clear supporting evidence.
It is kind of fun to sit above the dispute with objectivity and claim "cherry picking" verses is all that is going on. But sooner or latter one has to decide he wants to experience God and salvation or he does not.
This is a choice of the will. This is not only an intellectual exercise.
Thomas was quite a logical and scientific thinking person demanding that it he had no empirical evidence of the Jesus being raised from the dead, he would not believe.
Don't think of this quoting of mine as picking cherries. It is more like picking fruit from the tree of life.
" The other disciples therefore said to him, [Thomas], We have seen the Lord! But he said to them, Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails and put my finger into the mark of the nails and put my hand into His side, I WILL BY NO MEANS BELIEVE." [ excuse the caps ]
Now I want you to consider what happened next and what Jesus said to Thomas.
" And after eight days, His disciples were again within, ..."
Jesus is not like me. I would have shown him the proof immediately. The Son of God waited 8 days. God is like this. He recalls what you may say to Him. He is a tester of hearts. He may wait for awhile and show up latter bringing your words back to you.
He is a tester of hearts and a tester of your words.
"And after eight days, His disciples were again within, and Thomas was with them.
Jesus came, though the doors were shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be to you.
Then He said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving but believing."
This has always touched me. " ... and do not be unbelieving but believing" . This is a word for a man to surrender his will. Make the decision to believe. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.
The implication is that Thomas will not be forced to accept anything. The implication of Jesus is that presented with this logical proof of His having been raised, Thomas still must decide that his will will allow him to believe.
Thomas makes the decision and calls Jesus his Lord and his God. That is his Lord ... and his God - the man Jesus.
"Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! "
Do we see Jesus rebuke Thomas for referring to Him [Jesus] as the God of Thomas ?
Does Jesus adjust him or correct him ? No, rather He says Thomas is blessed and privileged to eyewitness something that not everyone will be able to see (according to God's sovereignty).
"Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."
Believed what ? That is believed that Jesus is Lord and Jesus is God. No, rather that Jesus is "My Lord and my God."
He is faithful to manifest reality to the one who comes forward to Him, willing to believe.
And the one coming will know. And he will know that he knows... Jesus / God.
For my part I will be returning to the topic of Jesus being God, and how expiation of our sins allows us to come forward to meet God.
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by sonshipDo you genuinely think that people can "decide" to believe something that they simply do not believe?
It is kind of fun to sit above the dispute with objectivity and claim "cherry picking" verses is all that is going on. But sooner or latter one has to decide he wants to experience God and salvation or he does not.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Sometimes it is hard. But I remember the man who cried out "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!" .
In myself, I do not have any more inherent faith than anyone else. I really don't.
I trusted. And I found Jesus trustworthy.
One side of the matter is faith. The other side is the FAITHFULNESS of God. It may be 8 days. But God is faithful.
God is faithful.
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by sonshipYou sidestepped my question: do you genuinely and sincerely contend that people can "decide" to believe something that they simply do not believe?
Sometimes it is hard. But I remember the man who cried out [b] "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!" .
In myself, I do not have any more inherent faith than anyone else. I really don't.
I trusted. And I found Jesus trustworthy.
One side of the matter is faith. The other side is the FAITHFULNESS of God. It may be 8 days. But God is faithful.
God is faithful.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
You sidestepped my question: do you genuinely and sincerely contend that people can "decide" to believe something that they simply do not believe?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No "sidestep" ... the best answer at the moment I have:
Sometimes it is hard. But I remember the man who cried out "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!" .
Yes, but it may be hard. And you can read the rest.
I spoke from my experience. I do not insist my experience had to be exactly the same as everyone's.
But if you wish to argue that no one can make himself believe in Jesus the Son of God, I don't feel to argue about that.
What would be the point of it ?