I'm Finding "Liberal/Progressive" Theist To Be Far More Dishonest/ Irritating Than Fundamentalist. (prophets, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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'm Finding "Liberal/Progressive" Theist To Be Far More Dishonest/ Irritating Than Fundamentalist.
As maddeningly irritating as I find fundamentalist, creationist etc, I find that the theist that I find most irritating are theist on the left, who although they accept evolution, the idea that the bible isn't the inherent word of god or that it is a historical text, pick and choose which part of their holy text to believe and which to ignore as long as it matches their particular political perspective (even though that perspective is one that I agree with). I came to this realization while watching a studio participation discussion "Is The Bible Still Relevant Today?" The panel, Dawkins (of course) Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner Bible scholar Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou, and the Right Reverend Michael Nazir Ali.
All of the panelist acknowledged that the Bible was not inherent, all proclaimed the primacy of Christianity as a religion of charity and social justice, when Dawkins raised the question about the Old Testament, or aspects of the Bible that speak against social justice, each of the Theist performed mental gymnastics that would win a gold in London. Here is where I am in agreement with the fundamentalist, either the Bible is the word of god or it isn't. Like fundamentalist, I don't believe that you can pick and choose what part of "god's" word is valid at any particular time, so which is it going to be, it can't be both.
I don't like posting videos but this was the show that I was watching if you are interested.
Hey, at least us fundies are consistent and predictable. What I wonder with the progressive theists, is who gave them the right to shoot the arrow and then paint the bulls eye around it?
As maddeningly irritating as I find fundamentalist, creationist etc, I find that the theist that I find most irritating are theist on the left, who although they accept evolution, the idea that the bible isn't the inherent word of god or that it is a historical text, pick and choose which part of their holy text to believe and which to ignore as long as it matches their particular political perspective (even though that perspective is one that I agree with). I came to this realization while watching a studio participation discussion "Is The Bible Still Relevant Today?" The panel, Dawkins (of course) Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner Bible scholar Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou, and the Right Reverend Michael Nazir Ali.
All of the panelist acknowledged that the Bible was not inherent, all proclaimed the primacy of Christianity as a religion of charity and social justice, when Dawkins raised the question about the Old Testament, or aspects of the Bible that speak against social justice, each of the Theist performed mental gymnastics that would win a gold in London. Here is where I am in agreement with the fundamentalist, either the Bible is the word of god or it isn't. Like fundamentalist, I don't believe that you can pick and choose what part of "god's" word is valid at any particular time, so which is it going to be, it can't be both.
Just where do you find empirical support for the "all or nothing" approach to anything involving human beings, ovcatto??? Inspiration is NOT dictation and involves human interpretation using extant knowledge, predispositions, superstitions, traditions, primitive beliefs, etc. Your fundy approach is surprising, ovcatto.
Since I am an Atheist, I don't have a dog in this fight, but here is what I think.
If you believe in a god, then it would be reasonable to believe that your god would try to communicate with humans from time to time. Your god might communicate with only a few people and then let them spread his teachings.
However, these people might misinterpret what your god said, and they might also add in a few of their ideas. Therefore, the "holy book" they produce might contain the teachings from your god plus a lot of useless stuff.
When you read your holy book, you have to decide which parts truly reflect what your god said and which parts were put in by the authors.
So how do you decide what parts are worth taking seriously? Well, you believe that your god gave you a brain. Use it.
As maddeningly irritating as I find fundamentalist, creationist etc, I find that the theist that I find most irritating are theist on the left, who although they accept evolution, the idea that the bible isn't the inherent word of god or that it is a historical text, pick and choose which part of their holy text to believe and which to ignore as long as it matches their particular political perspective (even though that perspective is one that I agree with). I came to this realization while watching a studio participation discussion "Is The Bible Still Relevant Today?" The panel, Dawkins (of course) Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner Bible scholar Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou, and the Right Reverend Michael Nazir Ali.
All of the panelist acknowledged that the Bible was not inherent, all proclaimed the primacy of Christianity as a religion of charity and social justice, when Dawkins raised the question about the Old Testament, or aspects of the Bible that speak against social justice, each of the Theist performed mental gymnastics that would win a gold in London. Here is where I am in agreement with the fundamentalist, either the Bible is the word of god or it isn't. Like fundamentalist, I don't believe that you can pick and choose what part of "god's" word is valid at any particular time, so which is it going to be, it can't be both.
Just out of curiosity, is there any kind of theist who doesn't annoy you?
Just where do you find empirical support for the "all or nothing" approach to anything involving human beings, ovcatto???
This is a philosophical question based upon a logical premise that isn't subject to empirical analysis. Of course if you can come up with an empirical model to test the premise, by all means let's read about it.
Quote:
Inspiration is NOT dictation and involves human interpretation using extant knowledge, predispositions, superstitions, traditions, primitive beliefs, etc. Your fundy approach is surprising, ovcatto.
Here is my point, either the Bible is the Word of God or it ain't. If it isn't, then as Dawkins and Stavrakopoulou point out, its import is no less nor greater than any of the other great works of literature that have explored and expounded on the human experience. If it is the Word of God then, like our fundamentalist theist brethren contend, then it is inerrant and not open for selective adherence. And that being the case, progressive and liberal theist who contend that those portions of the bible, such as the support for slavery, subjugation of women, etc, that are offensive and antithetical to enlightened beliefs can and should be disregarded in favor of a "greater" more "beneficent" message more fitting with 21st century concepts of justice and human rights then I contend that they are even more deluded than their fundamentalist theist brethren.
Granted that I prefer the diluted theology of liberal and progressive theist for socio-economic and moral reasons, from a rational point of view, their theological reasoning is without a rational basis. Either an inerrant god handed down certain laws or he/she/it didn't. To say otherwise is like saying the Supreme Court handed down a decision and we then proceed to pick out the parts of the decision that we like and discard the parts that we don't like and pretended that only our preferred version is the law of the land. Now of course we can amend laws to overrule those decisions by the Court, but it seems irrational (well as rational as any discussion about the existence of god can be in the first place) that man can amend the laws of their god, being that god is this supreme being and creator of all things.
I watched this program when it first came out, and there were some extremely inane things being bandied about by some of the participants (many, typical apologetics), and of course the host goes with whoever he thinks will get the most rise out of each other. I do recall that the entire proceeding was very heated and childish, and the only person who seemed to retain their cool was Stavrakopoulou - who remained professional throughout, as she didn't have a vested interest in pushing religious belief in Sacred Scripture of the field she studies, while Dawkins was his usual adamant, not very persuasive self. I would disagree with your statement that "All of the panelist acknowledged that the Bible was not inherent [inerrant?], all proclaimed the primacy of Christianity as a religion of charity and social justice" - there were only a few panelists (4), and they were definitely not all saying this. There were other participants sitting in the circle below who might have voiced these opinions, but not all of the main panelists were doing this - perhaps the two in the middle.
It's funny, since myself and another were discussing this same concept today (all or nothing) and other concepts - spurred by my current book I'm reading and a passage on the prophets, and my long-term interest in religious people who water down their religion and use their source material as a buffet where they can gorge themselves on the things they like, and refuse to swallow the things they dislike. The trigger for our discussion was a passage from the Biblical Scholar Gregory Mobley's book The Return of the Chaos Monsters - And Other Backstories of the Bible, in which he echoes much of my thoughts on the subject (and the OP's, it appears). In a section on the anger of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible and how readers have reacted to it, he writes (this quote is long, but I think it's well worth your time):
Let me say this clearly: "divine anger" transparantly is a projection of emotional qualities onto the blank screen of Ultimate Reality. The reality of divine anger was and remains a largely unquestioned assumption of traditional piety. Divine anger is an odious or absurd concept for everyone else, whether they be religious liberals, the cultured despisers of religion, or simply that great unwashed congregation of those who don't give a damn. The idea of a God who throws tantrums and bears grudges seems infantilizing and trivializing. Ancient freethinkers knew this as well as we do. How could the Creator of the universe be diminished or disappointed in any significant way by the feckless thrashing about of the creatures? Consider the complaint voiced by God by the author of the book of Job who here, as in so many other instances, was millenia ahead of his time: "If I sin, what do I do to you?" (Job 7:20). But you cannot have divine love - the projection of positive human feeling onto Ultimate Reality - without the rest of the emotional spectrum. And many of us have become quite attached to the concept of divine love. This is the great failing of liberal religion, its naivete and sentimentalism, its infalted rhetoric about the sweetness and light of divine love, its wishful thinking about cosmic beauty without consideration of cosmic horror. But there is a good reason why progressives have bid adios to this Senor, the stern patriarch. It is because the specter of divine anger has been so abused by authority figures happy to control behavior with implicit and explicit threats to send miscreants to the Principal's office. Divine anger is an idea many of us left behind in theological kindergartern.
(Eerdman's, 2012, pp. 72-73)
I could not have said it better myself. You take the bad with the good, otherwise you are engaging in wishful thinking and making your own religion of convenience. If that is the case - fine - but be careful what you claim you are doing, and don't mislead others into thinking that your new politically-correct ideas about this-or-that were also shared by the Biblical authors or God himself. They probably were not.
With all that said, the book mentioned above - while short - is extremely fascinating, entertaining and illuminating.
I would disagree with your statement that "All of the panelist acknowledged that the Bible was not inherent [inerrant?], all proclaimed the primacy of Christianity as a religion of charity and social justice" - there were only a few panelists (4), and they were definitely not all saying this.
It was late and my reporting was sloppy (see inherent where I should have written inerrant).
My hero for the evening was Dr. Lez Henry (I'm working on getting the dreds).
The persons who irritated me the most was the the Right Reverend Michael Nazir Ali because he epitomizes the liberal Christian double speak and Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner who had nothing of merit to say at all.
As maddeningly irritating as I find fundamentalist, creationist etc, I find that the theist that I find most irritating are theist on the left, who although they accept evolution, the idea that the bible isn't the inherent word of god or that it is a historical text, pick and choose which part of their holy text to believe and which to ignore as long as it matches their particular political perspective (even though that perspective is one that I agree with). I came to this realization while watching a studio participation discussion "Is The Bible Still Relevant Today?" The panel, Dawkins (of course) Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner Bible scholar Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou, and the Right Reverend Michael Nazir Ali.
All of the panelist acknowledged that the Bible was not inherent, all proclaimed the primacy of Christianity as a religion of charity and social justice, when Dawkins raised the question about the Old Testament, or aspects of the Bible that speak against social justice, each of the Theist performed mental gymnastics that would win a gold in London. Here is where I am in agreement with the fundamentalist, either the Bible is the word of god or it isn't. Like fundamentalist, I don't believe that you can pick and choose what part of "god's" word is valid at any particular time, so which is it going to be, it can't be both.
I don't like posting videos but this was the show that I was watching if you are interested.
Agreed. You either believe it or you don't. Today's liberal "mainline Protestants" who pick and choose which parts to believe do nothing but simply create confusion. I sometimes wonder what the point of even having a religion in which you choose what part of your holy book to follow based on whats currently popular in the political realm. True religion should be the basis for a person's life and should supersede what is currently politically correct for that person. Atheists and fundamentalists know what they believe, but "mainline Protestants" are many times unsure because their beliefs shift with the wind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
