If you're trying to derive a consistent meaning from a text that is ambiguous and contradictory, cherry picking is unavoidable. Which cherries you choose to pick says a lot about the person doing the picking.
It isn't a [problem with I do it, because I am doing it consciously, from the point of view of someone who doesn't think the source is infallible. I can like the things that Jesus is supposed to have said that make sense to me and reject the rest; because I don't believe Jesus was connected to any supernatural being, had any supernatural powers, and I don't much care whether he was a real person or not. The words stand or fall on their own merit.
But if I presuppose it's all necessarily literally true (except for the metaphors), then I have to become a mental contortionist to get a consistent message out of it. If I reject the idea that the text itself is somehow holy, I can pick and choose as I see fit, honestly.
It isn't a [problem with I do it, because I am doing it consciously, from the point of view of someone who doesn't think the source is infallible. I can like the things that Jesus is supposed to have said that make sense to me and reject the rest; because I don't believe Jesus was connected to any supernatural being, had any supernatural powers, and I don't much care whether he was a real person or not. The words stand or fall on their own merit.
But if I presuppose it's all necessarily literally true (except for the metaphors), then I have to become a mental contortionist to get a consistent message out of it. If I reject the idea that the text itself is somehow holy, I can pick and choose as I see fit, honestly.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.