Talk:Cafeteria Christianity

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion of Examples of Commonly Ignored Bible Verses

I recently edited this article to include some examples of Bible verses commonly ignored by Cafeteria Christians, but my changes were reverted without explanation. Mr. Schlafly, if you read this could you please help me understand why this is? I am quite certain that for each example given, there is a significant number of Americans who either violate the law directly or who tacitly approve of such violation, often without even acknowledging their sins. Is there some nuance in the definition of "Cafeteria Christian" that I am not picking up on, or is the definition not made clear in the article? --Toadaron 13:06, 2 February 2011 (EST)

All or none

What about the Christians that don't believe it's o.k. to stone unruly teenagers to death? Or the ones that disagree with the part that says its alright to beat your slave, so long as he doesn't die? Or where it says not to eat shellfish or pork? These things aren't commonly accepted in modern Christianity, but wouldn't that still be cafeteria Christianity? Either the Bible is the word of God, and everything in it should be regarded as true, or it isn't the word of God and it shouldn't be treated as such. If the part condemning homosexuality cannot be disregarded, then these parts cannot either. --Jab512 19:56, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Those things were taken from the law of the Pentateuch (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, part of Exodus). Much of that law was repudiated in the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus himself. It's not that the entire Bible is the word of the Lord - Song of Songs, for example, is just the word of Solomon. The Lord makes no appearance. The same goes for Ecclesiastes, which is Solomon's word. The part about homosexuality, however, was repeated in the New Testament and still goes.--Abcqwe (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

Other Common Names

I've heard this approach to Christianity called 'Pick-and-Mix', 'Pick-and-choose' (sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not) and 'McDonalds Christanity' (which I believe is a reference to fast food buffets), would it be OK to add these to the article? JRegden 02:41, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

I don't see why not. DavidE 13:17, 26 April 2012 (EDT)


Hypocrisy! Both Scripture and Conservapedia condemn Cafeteria Christianity, yet Mr. Shlafly does this very thing with his Bible Project.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness." - Matthew 23:27 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quidestveritas (talk)

I absolutely love when somebody tries to use scripture against Christians. But it matters most when you use scripture against non-believers. I bet you would condemn the translation of the bible from Latin to English. Move along trouble maker.--Jpatt 22:39, 1 June 2012 (EDT)

I don't believe that addresses my point. This article condemns Mr. Shlafly's behavior! Mr. Shlafly wants to remove passages from the Bible because of their liberal nature. Yet, this page quotes Jesus as saying man must live by ALL of God's Word. Apparently, Mr. Shlafly doesn't want to do that. "The counterargument of many cafeteria Christians is that the word of the authors of certain parts of the Bible is not necessarily the word of God." Then, this page deems this argument circular! Isn't that Mr. Shlafly's argument? You're arguing with yourselves!

"If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand." - Mark 3:25

Perhaps I should take my complaints to the Bible Project page instead... - quidestveritas

Are you referring to how Mr. Schlafly (that has a "c" in it) hasn't translated the whole Bible? It's a work in progress, "whatistruth".--Abcqwe (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2017 (EDT)