Follow TV Tropes

Discussion History VideoGame / MUGEN

Go To

Changed line(s) 12 from:
In comparison, many atheists find many fundamentalists to be much more rigorous about attempting to follow and interpret their holy texts as written, as many take care to follow unusual, inconvenient, or seemingly outdated dictates within their holy text. This makes other actions they may seek to do which they show some justification within their texts seem much more rational and carefully considered, even if the viewpoint may seem alien to common society. As such, many atheists consider most liberal theologists to be in danger of slipping into {{Beyond Good and Evil}} with shades of {{A God Am I}}, while the fundamentalist merely possesses an easily researched form of {{Blue and Orange Morality}}.
to:
In comparison, many atheists find many fundamentalists to be much more rigorous about attempting to follow and interpret their holy texts as written, as many take care to follow unusual, inconvenient, or seemingly outdated dictates within their holy text. This makes other actions they may seek to do which they show some justification within their texts seem much more rational and carefully considered, even if the viewpoint may seem alien to common society. As such, many atheists consider many liberal theologists (those who put inconsistant but heavy stock in selections of their holy book) to be in danger of slipping into {{Beyond Good and Evil}} with shades of {{A God Am I}}, while the fundamentalist merely possesses an easily researched form of {{Blue and Orange Morality}}. Other liberal theologians who treat their entire holy book in a more advisory fashion are considered reasonable, with the caveat that their need for the holy book is unclear.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
Liberal theologians of various religions often complain that atheists do not address their religion, preferring to mock a caricature thereof based on a shallow reading of their holy texts. Conversely, atheists complain that liberal theologians ignore the obvious meaning of their holy texts, and will even be heard to offer compliments to fundamentalists for their willingness to stand by a literal reading of the text. This is particularly aggravating to the liberal theists, as atheists often agree with them on moral and political issues, such as the separation of church and state.
to:
Changed line(s) 4 from:
This is typically because atheists in general have no reason not to take the book literally. Many such holy books state explicitly that they purport to be the exact literal truth and must be accepted or rejected all of a piece, and for millenia of history, almost all believers did just that. Their interest is usually in three things: First, checking if the account is factually correct; second, judging the religion described in a given holy text; and finally, attempting to reconcile the actions and views of the religion as presented with the actions and views of the religion as dictated by their holy text. None of these motives provides a reason to interpret an account as myth, parable, or poem save where the text makes this explicit.
to:
Changed line(s) 6 from:
Atheists often claim that liberal theology calls upon sources outside their primary religious texts to form its attitudes, then imposes those attitudes on their books. These atheists find this tendency to be particularly highlighted by inconsistent treatment of different passages within the holy book; given two passages which dictate actions which many people would find cruel or bizarre, many liberal theologians will defend one of the two, or defend an unusual reading of the passage which justifies their views, then dismiss the other passage as irrelevant or only intended to apply to the time period in which the holy book was authored.
to:
Liberal theologians of various religions often complain that atheists do not address their religion, preferring to mock a caricature thereof based on a shallow reading of their holy texts. Conversely, atheists complain that liberal theologians ignore the obvious meaning of their holy texts, and will even be heard to offer compliments to fundamentalists for their willingness to stand by a literal reading of the text. This is particularly aggravating to the liberal theists, as atheists often agree with them on moral and political issues, such as the separation of church and state.
Changed line(s) 8 from:
This has two important implications: First, at this point, atheists will often feel that once the views of the liberal theologists have adjusted to outside influences to such a degree, the holy book in question\'s necessity and relevance is in question. Second, many atheists are [[NightmareFuel uncomfortable with the implication]] that the liberal theologists may be, in effect, creating their ethical frameworks from whole cloth, then simply asserting that their deity agrees with them, therefore creating a situation where the liberal theologist is defining “Good” and “Right” actions as logically equal to “Whatever I want to do, so long as I can [[FromACertainPointOfView twist some selected out of context sentences out of a very long and diverse holy text to justify it]]”.
to:
This is typically because atheists in general have no reason not to take the book literally. Many such holy books state explicitly that they purport to be the exact literal truth and must be accepted or rejected all of a piece, and for millenia of history, almost all believers did just that. Their interest is usually in three things: First, checking if the account is factually correct; second, judging the religion described in a given holy text; and finally, attempting to reconcile the actions and views of the religion as presented with the actions and views of the religion as dictated by their holy text. None of these motives provides a reason to interpret an account as myth, parable, or poem save where the text makes this explicit.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
to:
Atheists often claim that liberal theology calls upon sources outside their primary religious texts to form its attitudes, then imposes those attitudes on their books. These atheists find this tendency to be particularly highlighted by inconsistent treatment of different passages within the holy book; given two passages which dictate actions which many people would find cruel or bizarre, many liberal theologians will defend one of the two, or defend an unusual reading of the passage which justifies their views, then dismiss the other passage as irrelevant or only intended to apply to the time period in which the holy book was authored.

This has two important implications: First, at this point, atheists will often feel that once the views of the liberal theologists have adjusted to outside influences to such a degree, the holy book in question\\\'s necessity and relevance is in question. Second, many atheists are [[NightmareFuel uncomfortable with the implication]] that the liberal theologists may be, in effect, creating their ethical frameworks from whole cloth, then simply asserting that their deity agrees with them, therefore creating a situation where the liberal theologist is defining “Good” and “Right” actions as logically equal to “Whatever I want to do, so long as I can [[FromACertainPointOfView twist some selected out of context sentences out of a very long and diverse holy text to justify it]]”.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
to:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
to:
Changed line(s) 4 from:
to:
Changed line(s) 5 from:
to:
Changed line(s) 6 from:
to:
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report