Yes, Christians pick & choose - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Yes, Christians pick & choose 🔗 **Source:** [Yes, Christians pick & choose](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6BDZrTFKyk) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical_hermeneutics, christian_apologetics, textual_criticism] > author: [MISSING] > source: YouTube > reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6BDZrTFKyk] > date created: 2024-12-19 10:45 > > # 🏷️ Title: Yes, Christians pick & choose >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research classical tripartite division origins — medieval period development #biblical_studies - [H2] Study Clawins's purity/impurity books — P stratum analysis #academic_research - [H3] Investigate Molech vs. sacrifice terminology — Septuagint translation issues #ancient_languages ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Jonathan Clawins Works on Purity](URL) - [Septuagint Translation Studies](URL) ## 📝 Summary - A biblical scholar critiques Christian apologetics claiming they don't "pick and choose" laws - Scholar demonstrates that tripartite law divisions are post-biblical constructs - Analysis shows selective application even within proposed categories - Bottom line: All biblical interpretation requires selective hermeneutics, honesty needed ## 📖 Main Content This video analyzes a common Christian apologetic argument that attempts to resolve the apparent contradiction of following some biblical laws while ignoring others. The Christian content creator claims there are three types of laws in Leviticus: moral, ceremonial, and Mosaic, and that proper biblical interpretation means understanding these distinctions rather than "picking and choosing." The responding scholar systematically dismantles this argument by demonstrating that these categorical divisions are not inherent to the biblical text but were created centuries after its completion. The actual historical development shows a bipartite division (ceremonial/moral) emerging closer to biblical times, followed by the tripartite division much later. Even accepting these divisions, the scholar shows that modern Christians still selectively apply laws within categories - moving items like prohibitions on sex during menstruation from the "moral" to "ceremonial" category when convenient. The analysis reveals fundamental inconsistencies in how these interpretive frameworks are applied. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=0) — [H1] Initial Christian claim about law categories - Key idea: Christian argues three law types exist - moral, ceremonial, Mosaic - Evidence: "We have to read things in context... three different types of laws" #### ⏱️ [00:30](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=30) — [H2] Scholar's fundamental objection - Key idea: Christians have no choice but to pick and choose laws - Evidence: "Christians have absolutely no option but to pick and choose" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=75) — [H2] Tripartite division origins debunked - Key idea: Three-part law division created centuries after biblical completion - Evidence: "Christians came up with centuries after the completion of the Hebrew Bible" #### ⏱️ [01:45](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=105) — [H2] Misrepresentation of classical division - Key idea: Creator confused the actual tripartite categories - Evidence: "It's supposed to be ceremonial, moral, and civic... not mosaic" #### ⏱️ [02:15](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=135) — [H2] Earlier bipartite division - Key idea: Two-part division (ceremonial/moral) came first, still post-biblical - Evidence: "Christians came up with a bipartite... still after the completion" #### ⏱️ [02:45](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=165) — [H2] Limited textual basis for division - Key idea: Ritual/moral division only exists in specific biblical strata - Evidence: "Only within the priestly stratum... particularly the book of Ezekiel" #### ⏱️ [03:30](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=210) — [H2] Selective prioritization problem - Key idea: Centering P stratum division is itself picking and choosing - Evidence: "To say this division is going to govern... is precisely to pick and to choose" #### ⏱️ [04:15](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=255) — [H1] Menstruation law example - Key idea: Christians move moral laws to ceremonial category when convenient - Evidence: "Sex with a menstruating woman... listed among them... We don't care about that anymore" #### ⏱️ [05:00](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=300) — [H1] Biblical inconsistency thesis - Key idea: Bible's lack of consistency forces selective interpretation - Evidence: "The Bible is not consistent. The Bible is not univocal" #### ⏱️ [05:30](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=330) — [H3] Hell concept anachronism - Key idea: Hell punishment not present in original legislation context - Evidence: "There was no concept of hell when this legislation was being written" #### ⏱️ [06:00](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=360) — [H2] Jesus reading as picking and choosing - Key idea: Reading Jesus into Levitical law is selective hermeneutics - Evidence: "To read Jesus into it is picking and choosing which parts... you're going to center" #### ⏱️ [06:45](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=405) — [H3] Molech deity misconception - Key idea: Molech was a sacrifice type, not a deity name - Evidence: "Nobody worshiped a deity named Molech... just a noun that referred to a specific type of sacrifice" #### ⏱️ [07:30](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=450) — [H3] Tattoo context correction - Key idea: Biblical tattoo prohibitions related to mourning rituals, not prayers - Evidence: "Had to do with mourning rituals... nothing to do with getting prayers answered" #### ⏱️ [08:15](https://youtu.be/E6BDZrTFKyk?t=495) — [H1] Universal picking and choosing - Key idea: All Christians must pick and choose, creating disagreement - Evidence: "Everybody has no possible option but to pick and choose" ## 📚 References - [Jonathan Clawins - Purity and Impurity Studies](URL) - [Septuagint Translation Analysis](URL) - [Priestly Stratum Biblical Scholarship](URL) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - All biblical interpretation requires selective application because the text contains inconsistent and contradictory commands across different historical layers - The common Christian apologetic of dividing laws into moral/ceremonial/civic categories is a post-biblical construct that doesn't resolve the selectivity problem - Even when using these artificial categories, Christians still move laws between categories based on contemporary preferences rather than textual consistency ## 📰 Newsletter **Biblical Hermeneutics Reality Check: Why "Picking and Choosing" is Unavoidable** Ever heard the argument that Christians don't "pick and choose" biblical laws because there are different types of laws? This scholarly breakdown reveals why that defense doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny. The key insight: Those neat categories (moral, ceremonial, civic) weren't part of the original biblical framework - they were created centuries later by interpreters trying to make sense of contradictory texts. Even worse, modern applications still selectively move laws between categories when convenient. **Why this matters for religious literacy:** Understanding that all interpretation involves selection helps create more honest conversations about religious authority and textual application. Resources: [Biblical Studies Online](https://biblicalstudiesonline.wordpress.org/), [Society of Biblical Literature](https://www.sbl-site.org/), [Academic Bible](https://academicbible.com/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Develop critical thinking workshops for religious text analysis - Community engagement: Foster respectful dialogue on interpretation methodologies - Developer experience: Create tools for comparative textual analysis #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Establish guidelines for academic discourse in public forums - Community Engagement: Support scholarly accessibility initiatives - Strategic Alignment: Align educational content with academic integrity standards #### Community - Maintainers: Support platforms for scholarly religious discourse - Contributors: Encourage fact-checking and source verification - Ecosystem: Bridge academic and popular religious education #### WordPress - Documentation: Improve guidelines for educational content accuracy - Community: Support respectful interfaith dialogue forums - Design: Create accessible formats for academic content ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Modern Christian apologetics often rely on post-biblical categorization systems to resolve textual contradictions - Selective law application occurs even within proposed categorical frameworks - Academic biblical scholarship reveals more textual complexity than popular apologetics acknowledge - Historical-critical methods expose anachronistic interpretive frameworks ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of apologetic claims vs. academic consensus - Historical tracing of interpretive framework development - Textual analysis of law categorizations within biblical strata ### ❓ Questions - How can religious communities maintain devotional practice while acknowledging textual complexity? - What role should academic biblical scholarship play in popular religious education? - Can honest interpretive selectivity coexist with claims of biblical authority? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comprehensive mapping of post-biblical interpretive framework development - Cross-religious comparison of selective application patterns - Public understanding surveys of biblical interpretation methods ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Religious educators need more sophisticated hermeneutical training - Policy: Academic institutions should bridge scholarly and popular religious discourse - Education: Critical thinking skills essential for religious literacy - Community: More honest conversations about interpretive authority needed ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 14-16 (Graduate level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: None identified in audio-only format - Improve: Timeline diagrams of interpretive framework development, textual stratum charts #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full audio presentation with clear verbal explanations - Improve: Chapter markers, transcript availability #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions, analogies, scholarly terminology - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, comparative examples #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: None identified - Improve: Interactive textual comparison tools, annotation exercises #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic argumentation, evidence-based reasoning - Improve: Formal logical structure diagrams, premise-conclusion maps #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Responsive format to other content - Improve: Discussion prompts, moderated debate formats #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Self-contained analysis suitable for individual study - Improve: Reflection questions, personal application prompts #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical development patterns - Improve: Evolutionary metaphors for interpretive development ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Audio format accessible to screen readers - Improve: Structured transcript with proper headings #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard YouTube controls - Improve: Chapter navigation, bookmark features #### Contrast and readability - Present: Audio-only format eliminates visual contrast issues - Improve: High-contrast transcript formatting #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Not applicable to audio format - Improve: Responsive transcript design #### Media and captions - Present: Audio content available - Improve: Professional captions, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Standard video platform interactions - Improve: Accessible comment moderation, discussion tools ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Western/Christian focus appropriate to content - Improve: Comparative examples from other religious traditions #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic tone, minimal exclusionary language - Improve: Define technical jargon, avoid assuming Christian background #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear linear argumentation - Improve: Content warnings for challenging religious concepts #### Representation - Present: Single scholarly perspective - Improve: Multiple academic viewpoints, diverse scholarly voices #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique of ideas rather than personal attacks - Improve: Trigger warnings for religious deconstruction content ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Strong logical progression from premises about interpretive history - Inductive strength: Good use of specific examples to support general claims - Causal reasoning: Clear causal chains linking interpretive frameworks to selective application - Analogical strength: Limited analogical reasoning present #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Minor instances of characterizing opponent as "lying" rather than mistaken - Strawman: Accurately represents opponent's position before critique #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic, assertive, occasionally condescending but justified by expertise level ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns detected - scholar acknowledges universality of selective interpretation - Attack: Critiques ideas and methods rather than personal character - Reverse victim/offender: Not applicable to this academic critique context - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Passionate but academically grounded, frustration with intellectual dishonesty evident ## 🎯 Conclusion The fundamental takeaway is that all biblical interpretation necessarily involves selective application due to textual inconsistencies across different historical layers. Rather than pretending otherwise, religious communities would benefit from more honest acknowledgment of interpretive choices and their implications. This requires better integration of academic biblical scholarship with popular religious education to foster more sophisticated and honest hermeneutical approaches. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### [H1] Tripartite law divisions are post-biblical constructs > [!quote] [Yes, Christians pick & choose](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6BDZrTFKyk) by an unnamed author via [[YouTube]]. Published [MISSING]. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "Christians came up with centuries after the completion of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament." Challenges common apologetic framework used to justify selective law application. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6BDZrTFKyk#H1) #biblical_hermeneutics #apologetics ID:rw_001 ### [H2] Christians selectively move laws between categories > [!quote] [Yes, Christians pick & choose](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6BDZrTFKyk) > "Sex with a menstruating woman is very clearly listed among them... We don't care about that anymore." Demonstrates inconsistent application even within proposed categorical systems. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6BDZrTFKyk#H2) #textual_criticism ID:rw_002 --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) #### [Z1] Biblical interpretation requires selective hermeneutics - Universal condition affecting all religious communities - Pointer to 5:00 timestamp discussion - Links: [[Biblical-Authority]] [[Hermeneutical-Method]] #### [Z2] Post-biblical frameworks shape modern interpretation - Medieval and later developments, --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] But scriptures also says that you can't [00:01] wear mixed clothes, you can't tattoo [00:02] yourself, you can't dye your hair, you [00:04] can't have vanity. [00:05] >> Well, when you pull the scriptures like [00:06] that, we're pulling we're talking about [00:07] the No, we're not picking and choosing. [00:09] We have to read things in context. [00:11] >> All right, let's see it. But the Bible [00:13] is written to Jews for believers, right? [00:15] I'm a white American male. That's not a [00:16] Jew. But in Leviticus, you have three [00:18] different types of laws. You have moral [00:20] law, like do not murder, do not steal. [00:21] You have ceremonial law. And you have [00:23] Mosaic law. So the claim here is that [00:27] Christians are not picking and choosing [00:29] which laws to follow and which laws to [00:32] get rid of. And that's a false claim. [00:35] The reality is that Christians have [00:36] absolutely no option but to pick and [00:39] choose. And the claim that there are [00:42] three different types of laws in [00:43] Leviticus is false. That is something [00:45] that Christians came up with centuries [00:47] after the completion of the Hebrew Bible [00:49] and the New Testament. And this content [00:52] creator has misrepresented the classical [00:54] tripart division of the laws. It's not [00:56] ceremonial, moral, and mosaic. They're [00:59] all mosaic. It's supposed to be [01:01] ceremonial, moral, and civic or having [01:04] to do with the running of the state. But [01:06] again, that is a tripartite division [01:09] that was created centuries after the [01:12] Bible had been completed. closer to the [01:15] completion of the Bible, but still after [01:17] the completion of the Bible, Christians [01:19] came up with a bipartite, a two-part [01:21] division of the law into ceremonial and [01:24] moral. But this is also not a division [01:27] that is inherent to the Hebrew Bible as [01:31] a whole. This is also picking and [01:33] choosing. But it gets even worse because [01:37] if we look in Leviticus, we can actually [01:40] find a kind of fuzzy division of the [01:44] laws into ritual and moral laws. And you [01:46] can look at Jonathan Clawins's two books [01:48] from 2009 on purity and impurity for an [01:52] academic case for this. The problem is [01:56] it's only in a specific literary layer. [01:58] it's only within the priestly stratum [02:02] and then the prophetic literature that [02:03] follows in the priestly uh tradition and [02:06] particularly the book of Ezekiel. And so [02:09] in P and specifically in H in Leviticus, [02:13] you can discern a bit of a division into [02:16] ritual and moral. Now there are problems [02:19] with saying okay well that's the [02:21] division we're going to highlight. One [02:23] of those problems is that that is only [02:25] in P and it does not have anything to do [02:28] with the legislation that occurs outside [02:31] of P. And so to say this division is [02:35] going to govern our interpretation of [02:36] all of the legislation in the Hebrew [02:38] Bible is precisely to pick and to [02:40] choose. It is to give priority to and [02:44] center this division as it occurs in P [02:47] and to say we're going to subordinate [02:49] everything else to the particular [02:52] stratum that we have picked and chosen [02:56] to be in charge. It is picking and [02:58] choosing quite literally. But there's an [03:00] even bigger problem because even if you [03:01] say fine I'll pick and choose and I'll [03:03] say this division in P is going to [03:05] govern everything. You're not doing [03:07] that. You're picking and choosing which [03:10] parts of that division in P you're going [03:12] to honor and which you are not. Because [03:15] even within P, even within H, within [03:18] these specific laws where they divide [03:20] moral from ceremonial or ritual [03:23] legislation, [03:24] you are moving things from the moral [03:27] designation over to the ceremonial [03:30] designation. So, for instance, in [03:31] Leviticus 18 and 20, when we're rattling [03:34] off all the abominations that are sexual [03:38] acts that are immoral, that violate the [03:40] moral law, sex with a menrating woman is [03:43] very clearly listed among them in both [03:46] Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. That is [03:49] an abomination that merits cutting off [03:52] just like all of the other sexual [03:53] indiscretions listed in Leviticus 18 and [03:56] Leviticus 20. So that is a moral law. We [04:01] don't care about that anymore. We have [04:03] picked and chosen and we have moved that [04:06] moral legislation over to the ceremonial [04:09] pot because we're picking and choosing. [04:13] Any way you slice this, you are picking [04:16] and choosing. That's just an [04:18] inevitability [04:20] because the Bible is not consistent. The [04:23] Bible is not univocal. any attempt to [04:26] try to reduce it down to any kind of [04:29] systematic juristprudence or legislative [04:33] uh sifting of the laws cannot be done [04:37] without picking and choosing. You are [04:39] picking and choosing. You need to just [04:42] find a way to deal with that and be [04:45] honest about that. Pretending you're not [04:47] picking and choosing is just you lying [04:50] to yourself and to everybody else. [04:54] You need to do better. [04:55] >> According to the ceremonial law, you had [04:57] things like no markings on your body, no [04:58] mixed clothing, no things like that. [05:00] Like right now, I'd be going to hell on [05:01] the 50% cotton, the 50% polyester. [05:04] >> No, because hell is not a thing in that [05:06] legislation. The punishment is being cut [05:11] off or the punishment is some kind of [05:14] temporal physical punishment. There was [05:18] no concept of hell when this legislation [05:20] was being written. Again, we're picking [05:23] and choosing and deciding which [05:25] interpretations [05:27] of which prioritized passages are going [05:30] to govern the rest of the Bible. The [05:34] context of the scripture here is [05:35] particularly in those things back in [05:36] that Levitical time period, Jesus was [05:38] warning the Israelites, [05:40] >> uh, Jesus has nothing to do with this, [05:41] but again, to read Jesus into it is [05:45] picking and choosing which parts of the [05:47] Bible you're going to center and give [05:50] priority to as interpretive lenses for [05:53] renegotiating how you understand other [05:56] parts of the Bible. That again is [05:58] picking and choosing. Hey, there's a lot [06:00] of surrounding lands around the promised [06:02] land that are worshiping Bal and Molech. [06:04] Nobody worshiped a deity named Molech in [06:06] ancient West Asia. Molech was just a [06:09] noun that referred to a specific type of [06:11] sacrifice. And then centuries down the [06:14] road with the ancient Greek translation [06:16] of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagent, and [06:18] then early Christianity, they [06:20] misunderstood that noun as a name and [06:23] created a deity that never existed in [06:26] anybody's mind in the ancient world [06:29] named Molech. There was no deity named [06:32] Molech anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. And [06:34] >> things like that, I need you to stay [06:35] away from that because they're marking [06:37] their skin to thinking that their [06:38] prayers are going to get answered [06:40] quicker when they're worshiping B. Don't [06:42] do that. It's a pagan ritual back in [06:43] that time period. [06:44] >> Uh it really had nothing to do with [06:46] answered prayers. The marking in the [06:48] skins and the tattoos that are being [06:50] referenced in that part of Leviticus [06:52] have to do with mourning rituals with [06:55] ways that they honored the dead. Uh it [06:58] had nothing to do with getting prayers [07:00] answered. [07:01] >> Obviously today I got all these tattoos [07:04] after I was a Christian. That can be [07:06] controversial in the Christian space and [07:07] there's a lot of Christians that don't [07:08] agree with me. [07:09] >> Now that's the end of this video. But [07:11] the reason that there are a lot of [07:12] Christians that don't agree is because [07:15] everybody has to pick and choose. And [07:17] some Christians pick and choose [07:18] differently than other Christians. [07:21] Everybody has no possible option but to [07:24] pick and choose. Pretending that you are [07:27] not picking and choosing is just lying [07:29] to yourself and to everyone else. And if [07:32] you're going to get on social media and [07:35] pretend to speak down to anybody or [07:37] correct anybody or lecture anybody about [07:40] what's going on in the Bible, you should [07:42] at least comprehend what's going on with [07:45] your own approach to the Bible. And this [07:47] content creator doesn't have the [07:49] foggiest idea how they are actually [07:52] approaching and negotiating with the [07:55] text because they're not thinking [07:56] critically. They're just trying to [07:59] validate their identity politics and [08:01] they need to do so much better. And the [08:03] fit for this video is The Man Without [08:05] Fear.