Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I personally have no problem with liberal theists.
I am agnostic and realize that all religions are nonsense, but what is important to me in other people is good critical and moral reasoning, not lack of belief.
The liberal theists moral reasoning is basically that of a rational humanist. They keep the "good" parts of their religion that conform to modern rational morality and discard the more archaic portions. Is this hypocritical? Not necessarily.
Perhaps they view divine inspiration as an imperfect occurance, during which Gods word gets mixed in with the authors own biases and beliefs of his time. And that it is proper for modern rational theists to distinguish btw the two.
In any case it doesn't matter to me. They are typically pro science, believe in evolution, believe church & state should be seperate, and are tolerant of those of other faiths and those of no faith.
In stark contrast to the fundamentalist crazies who tend to be anti science creationists who attack church state separation, are bigoted towards those of other faiths, and generally have very poor reasoning skills.
Yes, that hits the nail on the head.
If religions as laid down in the Holy Books is (1) true, then adhering to them strictly is obviously right and fundamentalism rather than liberal watering - down of the tenets, commands and directives is correct.
However, the fact is that this approach has increasingly looked - as you say - as tending to be intolerant of anything and anybody that doesn't fit with their hard -theist view and, even if they do have good reasoning skills, information and arguments are accepted on the basis of faith -based dogma rather than reason or evidence.
Thus religious views have tended to change, modify and liberalize, against a more or less powerful resistance to such liberalizations.
To the believer, this can look like a watering - down or betrayal of the truth of religions. To us goddless bastards, it is just people slowly having to realize what a crock those supposed 'truths' really are, and so of course, we approve.
And to those in the middle they go about with a version of their indoctrinated or chosen religion as adapted by themselves to suit their own needs. We and the fundies see this as cozy self delusion and so I can see how the Fundies have a sort of claim for sticking up for the truth as it is, rather than how they would like it to be.
Our only beef with them is that they are wrong.
(1) which one of them actually Is true is another matter.
Well, I would suggest that if you are going to make a claim of my naivete one should at the very least show cause for the accusation. Whether you "respect" liberal protestants (why the exclusion of liberal Catholics) is quite besides the point because the issue here is authority in which they base their liberalism and the philosophical damage that liberal theist commit against a rational basis for a humanistic philosophy which encourages the idea that a humanistic philosophy still requires the belief in ancient superstition and mythology i.e., the existence of god and the divinity of Christ.
Now if that is philosophically naive then please by all means point out its naivety.
Well, I would suggest that if you are going to make a claim of my naivete one should at the very least show cause for the accusation. Whether you "respect" liberal protestants (why the exclusion of liberal Catholics) is quite besides the point because the issue here is authority in which they base their liberalism and the philosophical damage that liberal theist commit against a rational basis for a humanistic philosophy which encourages the idea that a humanistic philosophy still requires the belief in ancient superstition and mythology i.e., the existence of god and the divinity of Christ.
Liberal theists generally have nothing against a person choosing to not believe and nobody ever implied that humanism requires theism. The liberal theist just believes their religious faith is compatible with modernity, and that religion can answer certain needs in human life, thus making it worth preserving for those that choose to do so.
A typical "liberal theist" that is Christian has a very subtle view of the divinity of Christ, so I don't think you are qualified to critique it unless you first understand the subtlety of theism in general and what belief in God "is not". I myself don't find the divity of Christ to be a huge issue; the Christian insists that God is known primarily through Christ, this is taken axiomaticly on faith. Just like the Buddhist insists that the Buddha has a transcendent aspect, the Christian insists that Christ has a transcendent aspect as well. Its how each religion sees their figure connected to ultimate truth. The christian sees Jesus embodying something that was previously abstract and subject to human conjecture and mythmaking, making it very real and tangible, and then the Christian sees that person (Christ) embodied in their community. Look up the writings of Marcus Borg some time, if you would like to understand this more.
Liberal theists generally have nothing against a person choosing to not believe
While I would take issue to what the meaning of "nothing against" means, the point is irrelevant to the complaint. And I fully understand that the belief that "religious faith is compatible with modernity" fact I was raised by a liberal theologian who held such beliefs. But that too is also irrelevant.
Quote:
I don't think you are qualified to critique it unless you first understand the subtlety of theism in general and what belief in God "is not". A typical "liberal theist" that is Christian has a very subtle view of the divinity of Christ,
Well I don't know what qualifications should be required or needed to be presented, but the fact is that I was raised within a "liberal theist" church, whose father was a "liberal theologian" ordained in one the country's largest "liberal" denominations and who also was educated by an ultra liberal order of Catholic teachers. I think that I have a firm grasp on the subtleties and it is the subtleties that lay at the heart of the matter.
In the attempt to comport Christian theology to "modernity" liberal theist have, in my opinion, so diluted the concept of divinity as to not only make it unsupportable from a modern rational standpoint, but totally superfluous for justifying any modern ethos.
Quote:
The christian sees Jesus embodying something that was previously abstract and subject to human conjecture and mythmaking, making it very real and tangible, and then the Christian sees that person (Christ) embodied in their community. Look up the writings of Marcus Borg some time, if you would like to understand this more.
Look, I understand the decades of philosophical contortions and mental gymnastics that brilliant theologians and philosophers have spent trying shoehorn Christianity into a philosophy congruent with a modern society, but I consider all of that study, and philosophy to have been an obscene waste of mental energy, which is another component of my overall complaint. It seems to be a greater sin for intelligent men to continue to pursue an unintelligent mythology than it is for the ignorant to continue to mire themselves in superstition.
I personally have no problem with liberal theists.
I am agnostic and realize that all religions are nonsense, but what is important to me in other people is good critical and moral reasoning, not lack of belief.
The liberal theists moral reasoning is basically that of a rational humanist. They keep the "good" parts of their religion that conform to modern rational morality and discard the more archaic portions. Is this hypocritical? Not necessarily.
Perhaps they view divine inspiration as an imperfect occurance, during which Gods word gets mixed in with the authors own biases and beliefs of his time. And that it is proper for modern rational theists to distinguish btw the two.
In any case it doesnt matter to me. They are typically pro science, believe in evolution, believe church & state should be seperate, and are tolerant of those of other faiths and those of no faith.
In stark contrast to the fundamentalist crazies who tend to be anti science creationists who attack church state seperation, are bigoted towards those of other faiths, and generally have very poor reasoning skills.
An objective and fair post . . . Moderator cut: edit
So that you don't have to assume let me state without equivocation that you've gotten that one right.
Quote:
the divinity of Christ is about ideals like compassion and love embodied in a human life. It has nothing to do with Jesus floating around on a cloud in a pre-existence in a heaven.
That is a pretty secular point of view and one that I am more than happy to accept although "divinity" has no place in the sentence.
Quote:
Far from watered-down,
If your definition of undiluted includes the jettisoning Exodus 3:14, 3:24; John 8:59, Isaiah 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12; and Revelation 1:7-8, 2:8, 12-13...
Quote:
provided one has a heart disposed to such things.
Yes, yes... one must be "predisposed" believe to receive the word of god... yeah that's a new argument.
Quote:
Christ not only saves humanity but also touches the creation with divinity, so that "God shall be all in all". It is not just about individual salvation.
Jesus doesn't "float[ing] around on a cloud in a pre-existence in a heaven." Nooo...he just died on a cross, rose to heaven after three days and confundo the sins of man are expunged from the record.
In saying that God dwells within a human form, it is making a powerful theological statement (since it is no contradiction to orthodox theology to say Jesus is also human.) Look up incarnational theology some time.
And swans when he wants to get laid. Look up Greek mythology sometime (and they didn't need a committee to come up with that one.)
Quote:
I can think of much worse ways to orient ones life than following what Jesus of Nazareth has to say about what constitutes a good life, both in his words and deeds.
Unless of course you were a 8th century Muslim, a 15th century Incans, a 17th-20th Century Africa or hell a 15th 16th century european. Did I mention the Jews, if I didn't it is because it took too much time to type in the dates.
Quote:
And it contains ideas echoed by other sages throughout history, like Lao Tzu, the Buddha, Confucius. The difference is that Jesus speaks to a western audience and for some, his life is uniquely appealing.
Then it would be a waste of my time because I am fully aware of the universal themes that run through Torah, the New Testament, the Koran, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Theravada, The Five Classics, the Bhagavad Gita and a little bit of the Odù Ifá.
The concept of divinity you refer to seems oddly circumscribed by the limited thinking of fundamentalist Christians who had elaborate REQUIREMENTS (Omni's, etc.) that God had to meet to qualify as God. A truly objective person would NOT presume to so circumscribe God with preconceptions in seeking a rational position. After my experience . . . I began my 40+ year odyssey to explain it to my intellect without ANY preconceptions about what God MUST be. You seem incapable of doing the same.
I am not the one "circumscribing" the meaning of divinity, nor am I circumscribing that definition to those ascribed by "fundamentalist" Christians, in fact the scriptural text that I referred to came from a liberal progressive source.
Now when it comes to your 40 year odyssey, which I am too well familiar with or DT113876s expansive conceptions... well, there are outliers in any sample but this thread isn't about outliers. So can we do without the egocentric defensiveness?
what is more irritating is that religious are jumping on the "I am not religious i am spiritual", bandwagon they are just as dogmatic and failed to see that religious and spirituality are synonyms
what is more irritating is that religious are jumping on the "I am not religious i am spiritual", bandwagon they are just as dogmatic and failed to see that religious and spirituality are synonyms
Well as one of my worthy opponents has pointed out, it is about "comporting to modernity." So if f I can put it into economic terms, it is an attempt to keep to keep religion marketable in a the ever changing market place of ideas.
The Bible is not the Word of God, and it never claims to be. In fact, it specifically states Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Is Jesus a book of paper and ink?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I don't know if it that is true or not nor do I care. But I do know that the authors/publishers of these books often do make these claims and I am not going to argue with them about the product of their intellectual endeavors.
ovcatto, read this short passage & determine for yourself.
2 Timothy 3
14 But you should continue following the teaching you learned. You know it is true, because you know you can trust those who taught you. 15 You have known the Holy Scriptures since you were a child. These Scriptures are able to make you wise. And that wisdom leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. 17 Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
