Aravnah Ornan

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?

Selsaral

Just wanted to mention a thread is discussing essentially this same issue in the thread entitled 'Cherry Pickers' in this forum.

Aravnah Ornan

Mea culpa.

Pyrrho

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?

Starboy

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