FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-13-2003, 10:10 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, Faith-Based States of Jesusland
Posts: 1,794
Default Religious liberalism and scripture

One definition of religious liberalism that I've read is "the belief that religious knowledge should be compatible with the rationality of the modern world." In the context of religions with millennia-old holy books, religious liberalism generally involves extensive reinterpretation of those holy books to conform to the modern world's outlook.

Religious conservatives complain that religious liberals often "reinterpret" all meaning out of the scriptures and evince a pick-and-choose attitude toward something that should be all-or-nothing. Under religious conservatism, once you question any part of the holy book, you inevitably end up questioning the whole thing, and if the scriptures cannot be reconciled with modern understanding, it is the latter that must change.

I once asked a religiously liberal Methodist which parts of the Bible he considered to be inspired. He answered, "The essence," but he didn't elaborate on what that is.

What's your take on this? Does the liberal approach to scriptural interpretation make sense, or is it based on wishful thinking? Are religious conservatives right when they say that belief in their holy book is an all-or-nothing matter? Bonus question for apostates: Did you accept the all-or-nothing approach and then reject all of scripture because you could not accept all of it?
Aravnah Ornan is offline  
Old 05-13-2003, 11:14 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 3,095
Default

Just wanted to mention a thread is discussing essentially this same issue in the thread entitled 'Cherry Pickers' in this forum.
Selsaral is offline  
Old 05-13-2003, 03:48 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, Faith-Based States of Jesusland
Posts: 1,794
Default

Mea culpa.
Aravnah Ornan is offline  
Old 05-13-2003, 04:15 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 7,351
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Aravnah Ornan
Mea culpa.
For what it is worth, I like the way you asked the questions. And, you are not interested in the harvesting of fruit, so why would you look at that other thread?
Pyrrho is offline  
Old 05-13-2003, 04:45 PM   #5
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
Default Re: Religious liberalism and scripture

Quote:
Originally posted by Aravnah Ornan
What's your take on this? Does the liberal approach to scriptural interpretation make sense, or is it based on wishful thinking? Are religious conservatives right when they say that belief in their holy book is an all-or-nothing matter? Bonus question for apostates: Did you accept the all-or-nothing approach and then reject all of scripture because you could not accept all of it?
As stated on the fruity thread you referred to, I don’t see much difference between the liberal and conservative Christians. Sure you can point to all the things that they disagree on, but it is not their disagreements that separates the theist from the non-theist, it is on what both liberal and conservative Christians assert – that two thousand years ago an event occurred that was interpreted to be supernatural. Jesus was not just a prophet but divinity. This single historical event and its interpretation is the foundation of Christendom. If they abandon this there is no point in calling themselves Christians. The Christians can dance around the bible all they like but their faith does make claims of the existence of things that are just not considered to be real in this day and age. From my point of view the two types of Christianity exemplify two strategies of dealing with this conundrum. The first might be called the ‘ignore that man standing behind the curtain’ argument and is exemplified by Rational BAC. He will admit the supernatural parts but essentially claim they do not matter and dismiss them equivocally. This would be the liberal camp. The second could be called the ‘don’t confuse me with facts, I know my religion’ branch. A type we have all encountered before, and would be called the conservative branch. Both strategies will fail. There is just no getting over the fact that Christianity is a religion not based on love or some great philosophy, but on a historically alleged supernatural event. Take that away and they have nothing the Buddhists or secular humanists don't have.

Starboy
Starboy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:52 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.