Back to the subject of Cherry picking from the buybull.
It struck me that the cherry picking is generally done in support of oppressing or discriminating against whatever group that the cherry pickers don’t like and feel that they are capable of getting away with not liking publicly.
In America, the buybull was used to justify
- second place status of women in not being allowed to vote, own land, etc.
- third place status of black men and women – after all, the buybull supports slavery and genocide
- holding back everything that stemmed from these changes to equal under the law – it was decades before women could drive, wear pants without criminal charges for cross dressing or later being sent home from school to change into skirts and decades before the law switched from instigating the beatings and lynchings to actually investigating and prosecuting them and that last frontier: interracial marriage.
Today, the buybull is used to justify discrimination and oppression of gays and lesbians.
From banning gay marriage or grudgingly allowing for the lesser civil union/domestic partnership, to blocking gay adoption – gays and lesbians individually and as family units are under attack by groups of people who claim to be an elite group (separate from all the other elite god-groups) who worship a loving and forgiving god (the same god as everyone else, but worshiped differently because ours is the secret real one and we’re paying lip service to the others) – yet they cherry pick the passages from the buybull that are opressive, discriminatory, violent and pure hate.
Truthfully, this isn’t much of a selective high intensity search to cherry pick, as most of the buybull is violent and hate driven – it seriously should bear a warning label and be rated X. This is something that children should be protected from – not only the sex and violence, but the bad messages of bowing blindly to authorities who are willing to torture and kill you if you don’t – and then torture you some more.
Aside 1: Funny how the buybull is basically worship authority and then the church groups use this as their platform to disobey the American laws that don’t suit them.
What I wonder though is how people who cherry pick passages to justify their hatred of other people can simultaneously maintain that theirs is a loving and forgiving religion.
It’s way beyond even Sado-Masochism Discipline Bondage Love. which at least comes with a safe word.
It is not loving to impose a set of behaviour on people and deny them full participation in society and equal citizenship.
It is not forgiving to gloat about eternal damnation for anyone not accepting their yoke.
If there is an afterlife, it would be part of the natural world and not at all dependent on our individual conduct in life – but rather on the basis of this is what happens after things die – and it wouldn’t be limited to humans, either. Life is Life.
But, let’s say for the moment that the afterlife is a humans only club – modern humans or does that include some of our ancestor humans – which apparently does include Neanderthals after all. Small world: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2010/05/06/13850161.html.
Aside 2 - it seems that so far, no one in Africa has any neanderthal genes – which means that Africans are actually the pure modern humans and the rest of us are a blended human and another species of sapiens.
And let’s say that the quality of the afterlife you get is dependent on how you lived.
Can the believers really believe that a person who has raped and murdered children for decades and has a death bed conversion gets to go to heaven, but an atheist lesbian who has never raped or murdered anyone, who maintains employment, pays taxes gladly, who has undertaken thousands of hours of volunteer work in several non-profit fields – but I go to a bad afterlife because I don’t get on my knees for Jesus or any man?
Where’s the love and forgiveness? Where’s the compassion and logic? Where’s the sense and fairness in that?
It seems to me that the heaven that these particular kinds of believers would have is full of repentant evil doers and people who couldn’t understand morality on their own, and so simply obeyed orders to gain reward and avoid punishment.
Aside 3: And we know what happens when people are just obeying orders.
While hell will be filled with people who lived good lives and could work out for themselves what was moral – and that morality is culturally and situationally dependent.
It makes sense, when you think about it – the line in Milton’s poem – Tis better to reign in hell than serve in Heaven.
After all, according to the buybull, Satan and the angels who rebelled were in heaven with gawd – and yet they rebelled.
Wouldn’t the angels, with their direct experience in heaven and their direct knowledge of gawd, be the best ones to know then that being anywhere else is better than this “heaven”?
Think about it – according to their own materials – right up front – the story is angels in heaven rebel and get kicked out forever.
You don’t rebel if your leader is kind and loving without a secret agenda. You don’t get yourself kicked out a place if it’s a great place to be.
It seems to me that if a place is crappy, you do PR to make it seem exclusive – sort of like when Eric the Red was exiled from Iceland (partly called because the Vikings didn’t want a bunch of other people coming over and getting mud in the hot springs).
Eric sailed off and discovered Greenland – only it wasn’t green – it was a frozen rock – and he named it Greenland to attract people to settle there so he could be the boss.
Just saying, there’s a very clear reason to explain that angel story.