The Problem with Cherry Picking
Many of the theist I've know (mostly catholic/christian) often cherry pick their particular set of beliefs from their main dogma of denomination. The approach taken towards " their religion", as most of them put it, is that of a personal philosophy, based in and/or derived from the larger set of beliefs of the nominal religion. This (they continue) is often more productive and "morally good" than blindly taking all of the dogma as a whole, embracing both the good and the bad, the applicable and the ancient rules now useless and often unhumane by modern standarts, as equally comendable.
The problem with this, as it should be obvious, is the cherry picking itself. It is much like an abused wife that treasures the good moments she had with her husband, but forgets from where (and from whom) did all her cuts and bruises came from. The problem with cherry picking is the willing misrepresentation of a belief/person/etc. as something it is not, or at the very least, is not in it's entirety. And it is a misrepresentation because the pickers I have meet, both personally and on the net, almost never recognise to be pickers, but rather represent themselves as members of their nominal dogma, i.e. as catholics/christians, disregarding of course the obvious contradiction of being a christian but not following all the teachings of christianity; a Jewish Knight of Columbus makes just as much sense.
The repercutions of this is seen in this forums day in and day out: theists (for any denomination) that preach on about their holy dogmas being perfect, peaceful, the word of god, holding all the answers, but at the same time ignoring (or not realising) that their particular religion is not perfect, often preaches more violence and submision than peace, is contradictive and filled with the same sins it supossedly tries to prevent/absolve. Most people find peace and comfort in them, granted, but to do so they have to bury their heads in the sand not only from the outside world, but often (as if the latter wasn't enough) from at least half their dogmas as well. An image of Ana Freud's good and bad objects comes into mind, as well as the Defense Mechanisms of Denial and Distortion.
My questions are these: Why can't you at least be honest about your own religion? Yes, the Koran has the Sword Verses, yes the Old Testament has Leviticus, yes in the New Testament Jesus condemns Jews and, pretty much everyone that doesn't accept him, to hell (Matt 7:19; 10:14-15), yes the Book of Mormon is, well, bs, and yes, all these examples are just to name a little few. Why, if you believe in your religion, can't you accept it as a whole?
And if you're a cherry picker, meaning there's some part(s) of your chosen religion you don't agree with and won't accept to believe or practice, why still denominate yourself as Catholic/Xian/Muslim/Mormon/Jewish/etc?
P.S. This is NOT meant to encourage fundamentalism, but rather to point out the compartmentalization that takes place in the act of cherry picking.
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.