[003]
Indalecio
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Anyone have suggestions on reconciling the two?
to:
Anyone have suggestions on reconciling the two?
The other one is here.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/DragonballZ
The other one is here.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/DragonballZ
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
\'\'Edit 1: Adding italics to first sentence as per @/{{Ronfar}}; \
to:
\\\'\\\'Edit 1: Adding italics to first sentence as per @/{{Ronfar}}; \\\"a selection of passages \\\'\\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\'\\\' contradict\\\"; \\\"many sects of these religions \\\'\\\'\\\'have endorsed\\\'\\\'\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'
----
Liberal theologians often complain that atheists don\\\'t talk about \\\'\\\'their\\\'\\\' religion - that atheists instead mock a caricature based on a shallow understanding of their 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 because the two sides are often political allies, for example in defending the separation of church and state.
However, atheists usually have no reason not to take holy books literally. First, many sects of these religions have endorsed this same approach, both at present and historically. Second, much of the material is written in the same language as historical accounts -- written \\\'\\\'as if\\\'\\\' it were meant to be taken literally. Third, the atheists involved in this debate generally read these books for three reasons: to check if the account is factually correct; to judge the religion described in a given holy text; and to compare the beliefs and behavior of adherents with the pronouncements and prescriptions of their holy texts. None of these motives provides a reason to interpret an account as purely myth, parable, or poem save where the text makes this explicit.
Having read the book this way, atheists often conclude that liberal theology takes attitudes from sources outside the canon of its religion and imposes them on its texts. These atheists will cite as evidence of this inconsistent treatment of different passages within the holy book: given a selection of passages that contradict current knowledge or moral sensibilities, many liberal theologians will defend some as they stand, defend others via unusual readings which justifies their views, and dismiss the rest as irrelevant or only intended to apply to the time period in which the holy book was authored. An atheist might be forgiven for drawing the implication that liberal theologists first create their ethical frameworks from whole cloth, then simply assert that their deity agrees with them -- in essence, defining \\\"Good\\\" and \\\"Right\\\" as \\\"Whatever I decide is 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 worship the book?
----
Liberal theologians often complain that atheists don\\\'t talk about \\\'\\\'their\\\'\\\' religion - that atheists instead mock a caricature based on a shallow understanding of their 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 because the two sides are often political allies, for example in defending the separation of church and state.
However, atheists usually have no reason not to take holy books literally. First, many sects of these religions have endorsed this same approach, both at present and historically. Second, much of the material is written in the same language as historical accounts -- written \\\'\\\'as if\\\'\\\' it were meant to be taken literally. Third, the atheists involved in this debate generally read these books for three reasons: to check if the account is factually correct; to judge the religion described in a given holy text; and to compare the beliefs and behavior of adherents with the pronouncements and prescriptions of their holy texts. None of these motives provides a reason to interpret an account as purely myth, parable, or poem save where the text makes this explicit.
Having read the book this way, atheists often conclude that liberal theology takes attitudes from sources outside the canon of its religion and imposes them on its texts. These atheists will cite as evidence of this inconsistent treatment of different passages within the holy book: given a selection of passages that contradict current knowledge or moral sensibilities, many liberal theologians will defend some as they stand, defend others via unusual readings which justifies their views, and dismiss the rest as irrelevant or only intended to apply to the time period in which the holy book was authored. An atheist might be forgiven for drawing the implication that liberal theologists first create their ethical frameworks from whole cloth, then simply assert that their deity agrees with them -- in essence, defining \\\"Good\\\" and \\\"Right\\\" as \\\"Whatever I decide is 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 worship the book?
Changed line(s) 4 from:
to:
\\\'\\\'Edit 1: Adding italics to first sentence as per @/{{Ronfar}}; \\\"a selection of passages \\\'\\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\'\\\' contradict\\\".\\\'\\\'
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Liberal theologians often complain that atheists don\'t talk about their religion - that atheists instead mock a caricature based on a shallow understanding of their 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 because the two sides are often political allies, for example in defending the separation of church and state.
to:
Liberal theologians often complain that atheists don\\\'t talk about \\\'\\\'their\\\'\\\' religion - that atheists instead mock a caricature based on a shallow understanding of their 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 because the two sides are often political allies, for example in defending the separation of church and state.
