"Cafeteria Jew?"

[Htom Sirveaux]

Last night during an interfaith event in Nashville two criticisms were raised that deserve wider attention.

The first came from a woman who asked if my Judaism was equivalent to what she called Cafeteria Christianity: picking passages from the Bible I liked and interpreting them in ways that I found meaningful. From her nervous tone of voice I suspect she thought I would disagree. I didn’t.

I happily and unabashedly pick and choose texts and teachings I find meaningful, and then weave them into the fabric of my personal philosophy. In fact, I believe this is what everyone does, which is why there are so many religions and denominations within religions.

She was pleased with my answer either because it proved what a fool I was, or because it proved how wise I was. Which of these is true depends on her own relationship to Cafeteria Christianity, about which she did not elaborate.

http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/cafeteria-jew/

I salute you, fellow cherry-picker!

[okasha]

1. Cherries are one of my favorite things about summer.

Everyone's a cherry-picker, including those who claim cherry-picking is dishonest.

[freshwest]

2. At one time I cherry picked, too. I only read the NT verses in red.

And I believe that not all one needs to know can come from one book, or a collection of them, or one group. The journey is a personal one, some things experimented and others not.

My family taught me the one thing that really mattered was the Golden Rule and said it was in most faiths or lack of faiths, as it may be.

I've found most people who are into Judaism in my personal life have been upfront with me on all things, even if they didn't agree with me.

I appreciate whatever caused them to act that way. Whether it was from teaching or from their own character, IDK.

[WovenGems]

7. And then...

God invented the bookshelf and the world ain't been the same since.

[freshwest]

9. Sorry, I don't give any god credit for bookshelves and anything else. YMMV.

I don't care where anyone is if they are still learning and acting from empathy. And I never trust anyone who claims to have found the truth. That's just me, though, as I don't believe in many things. I think about a lot of things, but don't necessarily believe any of them.

[cbayer]

3. Cherry picking is the right thing to do,

despite it being used as some kind of criticism.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. To a degree, all believers cherry pick

With contradictory and ambiguous passages, it's impossible to NOT cherry pick.

It's just that few believers will actually admit that they cherry pick.

[cbayer]

6. Of course they do.

People here not only admit that they cherry pick but defend it when they are "accused" of doing it.

It's just the literalists that claim that they don't, but they can't really make the case.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The problem isn't "cherry picking" the problem is the cherries being picked

and the claims being made, in particular that the holy books contain revealed truth.

If the claim is that morality comes from revealed truth in holy books, there is no basis for evaluating which sections picked are 'good' and which are 'bad', and those demanding that witches be burned because the bible tells them so are making a claim just as valid as those demanding social justice because the bible tells them so.

[trotsky]

10. Exactly.

By admitting to being a cherry-picker, a believer admits there is some moral standard OUTSIDE the bible that they are applying to it. Ergo, the bible is not a guide to morality - something else is.

[edhopper]

5. Well all of Talmudic scholarship

is about cherry picking and interpretation.

If you heard some of the reasoning of the Hasidic for their practices, your head would spin.

[Brettongarcia]

11. Cherry-picking is dishonest. You know you are selective; but then claim to present "Truth" or "God."

You privately acknowledge subjectivity. But then you put on the false mantle of objectivity, of the truth-sayer; in order to deceive.

When you say "God said" this or that, you imply a kind of certainty. One that you know, deep down, is not really there.

In this way you deceive others. And finally, yourself.

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. Thank you for your subjective opinion. nt

[edhopper]

13. He's drawing a logical conclusion not a subjective opinion.

you could show where the logic is flawed, but dismissal on false grounds is a weak response.

[Htom Sirveaux]

14. Logically, I was just trying to lie to others initially

but I've done it for so long now that I believe my own lies? Even though I publicly (not privately, as he stated) claim that I cherry-pick? And even though I have logical argument for the existence and nature of God, and I then proceed to interpret the Bible on that basis? He doesn't understand what I say well enough to judge me if he hasn't seen my logical arguments.

He calls me an incredible liar based on misstatements and selective understanding of what I say, and you find that initially credible enough to expect me to spell out exactly why it's a subjective opinion of his based on his own subjective narrative that "liberals are deceivers"?

What have I done or said to you or anyone on here that would make the judgment that I'm a stupendous liar seem prima facie credible as a logical conclusion to you?

[edhopper]

15. That's a much better response.

I really read the "you" as "all you believers" and not you personally, a rhetorical style, but I can't say that is what he meant, and you aren't right to take it the way you did.
So unless Bret chimes in, I see that as a valid reply.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. Cherry picking is fine, provided you don't cite the source as an authority.

"Here are some good ideas I found in the Bible, and worked out were good for myself" is a perfectly reasonable position.

"We know this is a good idea because it's in the Bible, but these other things in the Bible are not" is not.

"Everything in the Bible is a good idea" is an internally consistent philosophy, but leads to some strange and regrettable places.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. There are other approaches.

The text is obscured. It is the inerrant word of god, but the idiots who wrote those words down messed it up, and the idiots reading the messed up words don't understand them correctly. Wise men with secret decoder rings are required to provide guidance. Not those charlatans over there though, they are just making shit up.