The lies cherry-pickers tell such as, "We believe in the Core Doctrines of the faith".

Christian cherry-pickers like to say that they embrace the CORE values and the CORE doctrines of Christianity.  Cherry pickers deny religion has doctrine and the only doctrine they want or care about is their own.

Now the core doctrine is that Christianity is to be taken seriously and if you pick and choose that proves you do not take it seriously at all.  It is a doctrine first and foremost.  Loyalty to the core teachings of Christianity is the criteria for considering somebody Christian. And that is a core teaching itself! The faith teaches that falls are fine as long as they are not prolonged.  No commitment ever runs smooth.  What is not acceptable is just giving up trying to be loyal and inventing the gospel according to you and calling it Christian.

People being civil is not core to religion. Religion is not about civility.  It is not needed at all for that.  Politics uses it as if it is just about civility which is why it gets tax exemption.  It is purely strategic on the part of politics. The treatment of religion as being about civility degrades it and ignores its actual religious aspects. 
 
Oddly, a lot of them do not consider Christian teaching on marriage as being between a man and woman and not between two men or two women as core doctrine! You would think that as the Church claims to be a society and that the family is its cell that this teaching is even more important than proclaiming Jesus to be God, itself a core doctrine! Death is the biggest enemy so the religion that says God has the right to inflict death is declaring it its core doctrine.  Yet believers worry about fashionable core doctrines and ignore the real ones.
 
Some by claiming that the Bible teaches that God is tolerant are indicating that this is a core doctrine and the command from God to kill is not. But how could you call the tolerance a core doctrine when the Bible both says it is right and that it is wrong? If you really treat it as a core principle, you will not consider any nasty bits of the Bible as God's word. That is not an honest approach. It means that people will be able to manipulate Bible teaching as they please and turn Christendom in a Babel of contradictions and confusion.

Cherry-pickers often extend their understanding of core principles to history too. Mormons for example read in their scriptures how Joseph Smith found the gold plates in a stone box on a hill. No box has ever been found. They will say that the core issue is that there were plates and the box story is not as important. It is not central. But it is important. No box means no plates - period. If proof turned up that Jesus was a devil-worshipper, Christians might say that the core principle is that his teaching was still good. Talk about core principles is just a smokescreen for rationalising.

Having core principles or doctrines does not mean that other doctrines and principles become optional. In fact it means that though they may be less important they are NOT optional. For example, if your core principle is that stealing is wrong that does not mean you can permit somebody to dodge minor taxes. You would be undermining the core principle.

The Catholic Church is clear that it is the only correct guide for conscience and that if your conscience cannot agree with it then you deny this core doctrine and are not really Catholic any more in your heart. If it is okay to join a religion or stay in it when you say some of its teaching is against your conscience, then that makes your faith in Catholicism just as good as somebody's faith in Mormonism who like you, ignores whatever contradicts the conscience. It should not really matter what religion then you join or stay in for one faith is just as convincing and error ridden as the next. You cannot use the excuse that you accept the core teachings and that makes you a Catholic or whatever.

Some Catholics say they some reject minor Catholic doctrines but have no problem with the core teachings. They think that acceptance of the core teachings entitles them to call themselves Catholic believers. Some say they only reject the doctrines that contradict their conscience - such as that Jesus was right to tell a pagan woman she was no better than a dog or they might reject the murderous laws given by God in the Old Testament. But the core doctrine of Catholicism is that it guides the conscience about what God wants people to believe and do. Also, if you can follow any religion you want as long as you refuse to obey the bits of it your conscience opposes, then why Catholicism? To be consistent you have to say that one religion is as good as another and you don't believe that for if you did you would go to a Mormon service one week and a Muslim one the next and a Methodist one the next and so on and on and on. And many of those who claim to believe the core doctrine are lying. For example, they may believe in same sex marriage. That is a core disagreement with Catholicism. And if it is about conscience, then you cannot use that excuse if you reject Catholic doctrines that are eccentric but harmless such as that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.
 
A religion that claims to be the correct religion is thereby claiming that its doctrines all make a whole. To deny one is to undermine the whole system. For example, it seems a small thing to imagine that your Tarot cards are a way to get messages from God. But this is stating that God can be treated like an oracle. It denies the big doctrines of his love and reasonableness and almighty power. The members of that religion who are picking and choosing from its doctrines are denying the doctrines are a whole. Truth itself is a whole. Something is either true or false. The Catholic Church stresses that as all truth comes from God and he teaches the truth through one Church only the truth makes up one whole. You cannot permit gay sex for example without ruining the whole system and introducing the rotten apple that corrupts the whole crate of apples. It follows then that Catholic cherry-pickers are despite themselves plugging the whole and their disagreement with doctrine therefore cannot be taken seriously. And why should we take their problems with the religion seriously when others have different problems? The cherry-pickers ruin their own credibility for nobody agrees on what to cherry-pick. It is dishonest how gay Catholics might say they know priests who say it is not a sin. That is dishonest of them for the priest is not an authorised doctrine maker. His job is to pass on the doctrines identified as Catholic by Church authority. And why do they seek out those priests and not the ones who think there is no God? Because they care about what they want and not about what God wants. If they care about what God wants in many things the fact remains they care because they want to and not because of what he wants.
 
The word Catholic means entire and whole. It does not refer to the size of the Church but that the Church is meant for all to make a complete relationship with God possible.

Many Church members are cherry pickers. They claim to believe in the word of God and then they drop anything that he said that they do not like. They cannot complain if some cherry picker drops the teachings against say violence or rape. They cannot say to them, "You broke the commands of God". It is hardly right to believe in punishing the wicked and supporting punitive state law on the basis of your faith when you are cherrypicking. There is something hideous about cherry-picking Catholics vehemently condemning abortion even to save the life of the mother on religious grounds. Cherrypicking only leads to more and more cherrypicking and makes a bad example for others and supports intellectual dishonesty and emotional dishonesty and leads to vindictiveness, pride and spite. If a religion is man-made then you shouldn't be in it. Period.

Opposition to abortion and treating it as a core matter leads to one-issue voting and we know how much harm Christian one issue voters have done in America by voting in Donald Trump who has promised to be a remarkably anti-abortion president.

The belief that abortion, euthanasia and suicide are moral or religious matters when they are health subjects does untold harm and rouses hate.  Abortion, suicide and euthanasia are not moral issues but health issues. They are the core matters. Nothing else matters as much. But as they are medical and social matters and nothing else it follows that we are deceived about how useful and honest our moral systems are! A religion or Messiah that has nothing morally to say to them is worthless and unimportant. They may speak but to fulminate morally against a health matter is foolish. Their voice does not count.
 
A hypocrite is only a cherrypicker.  And a cherrypicker is a hypocrite and a liar.  A cherrypicker only validates and gives an example for moral and religious relativism.  Relativism is intolerant for it refuses to respect those who are simply right on any issue it does not like.  The atheist and the Catholic both should despise red letter Christianity as it is called.  Red letter Christianity looks at some of the teachings and hates the others and then lies that it takes God as an authority!!

What use is a core value of compassion when there is a pile of other stuff that obscures the core? If religion has a core value of goodness that makes it bad not good for real badness is being able to be good but refusing to be. We still have to ask ourselves why violent books based on the word of a God who supposedly uses evil for his good plan such as the Bible, Quran and Book of Mormon not to mention the Vedas and the Gita are revered by most people in the world? Really good people would put them in the trash.

Suppose there is a massive religion claiming that God taught it and set it up and that religion does loads of good.  However one doctrine is that you must approve of its founder dying to end sins and have the nasty attitude, "I'd kill him myself."  As human life comes first it follows that you cannot say this doctrine is a side issue.  The doctrine is not only core no matter how minor its place seems to be.  It is hyper-core.  Any doctrines or teachings that risk harm or killing are core doctrines by default and are more core than any other doctrines such as the existence of God.  Get that for you will not respect morality or life until you do.  To say a death is not core is to admit that your religion is evil.

We conclude that you cannot take a religion, identify a property or doctrine it has got as its defining characteristic.  It is over-simplifying the complexity of religion as religion and the complexity of how religion relates to the world.  It is terrible in how it leads to a religion getting away with being violent.  The hypocrites cry, "We don't like this violence therefore it is not a part of the religion as it really is. It is irreligious."  If religion has good essentials then those good essentials are hardly good if the religion has no possibility of having bad essentials but refusing to.  To say a person only does good is to deny they are good for it is being said they have no bad side to battle with.  Essentialism, the claim that a religion's essentials must by default always be good, was the reason Christians voted for a dangerous dictator like Hitler and empowered him after he took office.