Sometimes cherry picking isn't what we think it is. Sometimes cherries are sour.
I recently posted the meme below on a social media site with focus on debates about religion. One of the comments I received was this: "He also preached marriage was between a man and a woman."
(Above is an actor pretending to be Jesus and Philomena Cunk pretending to be herself)
Now I'm not sure how his comment relates to what I posted, which was essentially about killing in the name of religion, but based on what I suspected was the commenter's knee jerk reaction to it, I immediately responded with the following meme . . .
His response to the meme directly above was this: "I don’t hate anyone brother", to which I say . . . "BRAVO!"
(note here that there are no more memes or photos in this Blog post)
But he went further by saying "But let’s not cherry pick either. Christ preached many things. We can’t just focus on what floats our boat." He also asked me for an adult and mature response.
Ok then.
This was my response . . . Note that we are engaged in this dialogue with the presupposition that there actually is a God, a notion that I clearly don't subscribe to. But, with focus on cherry picking, I think this is a practice that religion is quite familiar with.
When the Christian religion realized they needed a newer version of their scriptures, partly to demonstrate that their God wasn't just a hard-ass, it was largely because the Old Testament focused primarily on how the world began and how sin entered into it. The New Testament however would focus more how the world would be saved through what Jesus did for his people.
SIDE NOTE: As stated more than once in previous social media posts and comments (as well as on this Blog), I have never denied the possibility or even the probability that the man known as Jesus existed. And with truth be known, that if he did exist, I hope he was as Jim Palmer of Inner Anarchy describe him. This is what Jim had to say:
"Jesus was not some sweet, neatly-shaven white guy who carried a baby lamb in his arms, picking daisies, patting children on the head and spouting off sappy stories about being nice."
"That halo around his head in the picture" we often see of him "doesn't work either. It's laughable because Jesus was no saint."
"Jesus raised hell against the religious establishment, and his life was a middle-finger to the ways religion oppressed, exploited, and divided people. He once drove a bunch of hypocrites out of the temple, wielding a whip. Jesus was not fond of entrenched power structures - political or religious. Whether in the name of God or Caesar, Jesus would have none of it."
"There was a Jesus before Christianity. That Jesus was fierce, courageous, and unyielding. He stood for the inherent worth of every human being. He denounced the religious lie that humankind was separated from God and told people to find heaven within themselves. Jesus proclaimed another world was possible. He chastised people for sitting around waiting for God to save the world, and challenged them to wake up and save it themselves."
"Jesus rebuked those who tried to make a religion out of him, and insisted that everyone is Jesus. He proclaimed that the hope of the world is not floating up in the sky, but present in our own hearts. The real Jesus of history was a lightning rod. The religious establishment hurriedly condemned him to death for blasphemy, while the political regime executed him for sedition."
"The church is fond of asking the WWJD question." (that means What Would Jesus Do)
"P L E A S E! Let's be honest here. Very few people truly sign up to live as Jesus did. It's much easier to make Jesus into a religion and sing about him on Sundays, and get all dressed up for Christmas and Easter."
(Jim Palmer ~ Inner Anarchy)
And who could argue against saving the human race from itself? It sounds like a good overall move for all the faithful of the world.
Now back to cherry picking.
Consider the following from David Cross:
After "the Bible was written, it was edited, then rewritten, then rewritten (again), then re-edited, then translated from dead languages, then re-translated, then edited, then rewritten, then given to kings for them to take their favorite parts, then rewritten, then re-rewritten, then translated again, then given to the pope for him to approve, then rewritten, then edited again, the re-re-re-re-rewritten again ..." and it was all originally "based on stories that were told orally 30 to 90 years AFTER they happened, to people who didn't know how to write .”
I'm just guessing but have to suggest that there was likely a lot of cherry picking going on here.
For the first 100 to 200 years, copies of the Bible were made by hand. This led to many errors, omissions, and, most importantly, changes.
Cherry picking? And by who?
According to Brittanica, "over 30,000 changes were made, of which more than 5,000 represent differences between the Greek text used for the Revised Version and that used as the basis of the King James Version. Most of the other changes were made in the interest of consistency or modernization."
This includes changes made by the Romans. It is also historically proven that many or all of the books in the Bible were edited (revised, rewritten, added to and subtracted from) by the Romans at later dates.
Cherry picking?
By ignoring the true word of their God, aka cherry picking, would this not render the faithful ones hypocrites? And what is their punishment?
As evidenced in Matthew 15:9 NIV, it appears that even Jesus was aware of hypocrisy, for he's reported to have said, "They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.”
Throughout its modernization it was still seen fit to include in the bible, Exodus 21:7-11: “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." Gloria Steinem and Meryl Streep might have something to say about that. So would Anne Lister if she were still alive. (Anne is one of my heroes.)
Here is Leviticus 20:13, part of what scholars call the Holiness Code of Leviticus 17-26: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Severe, isn't it? If a faithful adheres to the true word of their God, It sounds quite dangerous for any member of the LGBTQ community having one as a neighbor.
Exodus 35:2 reads that "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be holy to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."
This obviously does not include preachers who are paid a wage by a church to spread the word of their God. But, woe are all the police officers and paramedics out there working weekends, especiallt if they are working overtime and getting paid even more for violating the word of God.
Deuteronomy 22: "If a householder has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Thereupon his town’s council shall stone him to death."
Why rehabilitate at the taxpayers’ expense when you can simply stone the offender to death and get it over with?
Now consider this . . .
Bearing in mind all that's above, if the Christian bible were to be further modernized, it begs the question, "Who has the power to edit and/or alter the word of God, and what social biases will they hold when they enter God's holy orchard for their own cherry picking?"
To further the topic of cherry picking, my issue has never been, is not, and will never be with altruists and humanitarians. It is that believers who do good things and believers who do evil things are getting what they need to support their personal narratives from exactly the same place. For believers, 'all' believers, religious texts are like candy stores for good and evil, and those in both camps know how to cherry pick.
Do good? You can find all the of support and encouragement you want in the religious texts of pretty much any religion. Do evil? You can find that too in exactly the same place. Cherry picking?
And if you do evil and want to repent and ask for forgiveness for the consequences of your own cherry picking, the church is the place to go.
Forgiveness is one of organized religions biggest and best-selling products. After all, the Catholic church managed to forgive their own pedophiles, and ultimately themselves in the process.
I'll apologize now if this seems less adult and/or mature than what you'd wanted or hoped for, but admittedly I 'do' suffer from VOTH Syndrome. VOTH is an acronym for 'Vehemently Opposed To Hypocrisy'.
That's it.