[002]
RobinZimm
Current Version
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
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 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 \
to:
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 -- a situation where the liberal theologist is defining \\\"Good\\\" and \\\"Right\\\" as logically equal to \\\"Whatever I want to be good and right, 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]]\\\".
The net result of this is that many atheists find less of a gap between themselves and literalists than they do between themselves and liberal theologians. In the former case, the object-level disagreements (e.g. about the morality of homosexuality) seem to arise from, if not rational, at least comprehensible grounds: after all, were a holy book authoritative, it would be reasonable to defer to it. In the latter case, however, what object-level agreements exist seem to be asserted either based on incomprehensible reasoning or entirely independently from their supposed source. In the former case, how can one depend on it? In the latter case, why read the book?
The net result of this is that many atheists find less of a gap between themselves and literalists than they do between themselves and liberal theologians. In the former case, the object-level disagreements (e.g. about the morality of homosexuality) seem to arise from, if not rational, at least comprehensible grounds: after all, were a holy book authoritative, it would be reasonable to defer to it. In the latter case, however, what object-level agreements exist seem to be asserted either based on incomprehensible reasoning or entirely independently from their supposed source. In the former case, how can one depend on it? In the latter case, why read the book?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Liberal theologians of various religions often complain that atheists do not address their religion, that atheists instead mock a caricature thereof based on a shallow reading of the holy texts. Conversely, atheists complain that liberal theologians ignore the obvious meanings of the same texts, and will even be heard to offer compliments to fundamentalists for their willingness to stand by a literal reading. This is particularly aggravating to the liberal theists because they often agree with atheists on moral and political issues like the separation of church and state.
to:
Liberal theologians of various religions often complain that atheists do not address their religion, that atheists instead mock a caricature thereof based on a shallow reading of the holy texts. Conversely, atheists complain that liberal theologians ignore the obvious meanings of the same texts, and will even be heard to offer (left-handed) compliments to fundamentalists for their willingness to stand by a literal reading. This is particularly aggravating to the liberal theists because they often agree with atheists on moral and political issues like the separation of church and state.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
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 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 \
to:
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 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\\\" as logically equal to \\\"Whatever I want to be good and right, 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]]\\\".
The net result of this is that many atheists find less of a gap between themselves and literalists than they do between themselves and liberal theologians. In the former case, the object-level disagreements (e.g. about the morality of homosexuality) seem to arise from, if not rational, at least comprehensible grounds: after all, were a holy book authoritative, it would be reasonable to defer to it. In the latter case, however, what object-level agreements exist seem to be asserted either based on incomprehensible reasoning or entirely independently from their supposed source. In the former case, how can one depend on it? In the latter case, why read the book?
The net result of this is that many atheists find less of a gap between themselves and literalists than they do between themselves and liberal theologians. In the former case, the object-level disagreements (e.g. about the morality of homosexuality) seem to arise from, if not rational, at least comprehensible grounds: after all, were a holy book authoritative, it would be reasonable to defer to it. In the latter case, however, what object-level agreements exist seem to be asserted either based on incomprehensible reasoning or entirely independently from their supposed source. In the former case, how can one depend on it? In the latter case, why read the book?
