Talk:Cafeteria Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Academic Challenger added this template, but didn't include anything on the talk page. Anyway, I've added a couple external links and wiki-linked some of the existing text, but I haven't touched the NPOV problem. KickAir8P~ 01:10, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
Regarding the link to Hang Six and the notion that Jesus endorsed only 6 of the Ten Commandments and rejected the other 4: It's out of context. Matthew 5.17-20 is fairly specific, specifically Jesus is recorded as saying that not one yodh (the smallest Hebrew letter of the Tanakh) or one iota (the smallest Greek letter of the Septuagint) is removed from the Law of God until *everything* (lion lies down with lamb, swords into plowshares, restoration of Jerusalem Temple and Davidic (Messianic) Kingdom ...) has come to pass. In fact, before pontificating on what would Jesus do, any Christian would do well to first read the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew 5-7, specifically the verses Matthew 7.13-28 . Of course if one is a Cafeteria Christian, one is free to remove the Sermon on the Mount from one's Bible if one so chooses. Who is fooled? You will know them by their works, history is replete with examples.
I did a complete rewrite to remove the POV problems. Whether or not Jesus actually did away with any of the law is irrelevant to whether Biblical law should be literally followed (as that would just change what the Bible said), and whether Biblical law should be literally followed is actually an issue for Fundamentalist Christianity and tangential to an article on this term. It's an article about a perjorative term, not an article about a philosophical position. Postdlf 20:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- Looks better to me. KickAir8P~ 22:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
[edit] Ad hominem claim
The article claims that the use of "Cafeteria Christianity" as evidence in an argument against literal interpretations of the Bible is an ad hominem attack by definition, thereby calling same argument a fallacy. I believe this is not so. The intent of the argument is not to insult the Christian, but to expose the fallaciousness of the "God says it must be, so it is" argument: if a Bible passage is used to justify an argument, but equal Biblical coverage is not sufficient to justify another argument, the use of the Bible as a cite is illogical. For example, there is equal support in Leviticus for arguments for sacrificing goats to repent for sin (4:27), against homosexuality (18.22), against "put[ting] on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material" (19:19), against touching a woman up to seven days after she begins menstruating (15:19), and against eating pork (11:7). Say hypothetically that Sam argues for a law against sex between men, based on the insistence in Leviticus that sex between men is wrong. If Dave asks him whether men who have sex with each other should sacrifice goats afterwards to repent, and Sam says no; or if Dave asks him whether it is wrong and should be illegal to wear cotton and wool at the same time, and Sam says no; or if Dave asks him if it's wrong to touch a menstruating woman or eat pork and Sam says no; then Biblical support is therefore rendered invalid as a basis on which to make an argument. --Disbomber 21:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the point of the argument is not to label someone a "hypocrite" but to point out a basic inconsistency in their appeal to authority. It is not an ad hominem attack, as the other party is not responding with "you, too!" attacking their right to criticize based on their own moral flaw, but calling into question the accusation itself. Simply, the critic in this case likely does NOT practice the laws of the Torah and wishes to know on what consistent basis a person would embrace some, but not other, parts of those religious laws.
The "shellfish" argument would be an example of reductio ad absurdum used in a non-fallacious way, the presumption being that most modern Christians would find the notion that eating shellfish is religiously prohibited, ridiculous.
- RJG, 14 August 2006
[edit] Impartiality of several sections
This whole article smacks of personal opinion and research, including some statements that seem just wrong. For example;
"When used by conservative or fundamentalist Christians, it is often an expression of their preference for what they perceive to be a literal and uniform approach to the teachings and beliefs of Christianity, rather than the carefree do-what-you-want theology preferred by Liberal Christians and most Catholics."
is pejorative and would be said to be inaccurate by, well, most Catholics. -Senori 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shortening the Article
I have shortened the article substantially and in the process I have removed the POV (which rose to the level of religious bigotry in some instances) and obscure sectarian material on Torah-Observant Christians as such groups are fairly marginal and are not entirely germane to the subject of this article. The article is about Christians who arguably selectively accept the Bible, not those who don't. (An article on the GOP wouldn't and shouldn't dedicate a third of its text to a discussion of the DNC either.) Eugeneacurry 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You've gutted the article and turned it into a stub which provides little actual information. At the minimum there certainly is no reason to bulk delete the entire External links section. Since you have taken it upon yourself to substantially shorten the article, I assume you will be adding to it, since it certainly is an article in need of expansion, not contraction. 69.104.122.199 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't see how what was removed significantly added to the article; if it provides very little actual information now, it provided even lses before. -Senori 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
