(November 17, 2021 at 9:40 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote:

(November 17, 2021 at 4:50 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Most of us here have serious issues with conservative theists and fundies. I know I do.

But what about the more rational and/or liberal theists? What's your opinion of their beliefs? I'm personally thinking of Quakers, Biologos Christians, and (in particular) a Jewish pantheist I've been following on YouTube. Not familiar with liberal Muslims (unless you count Rumi) but I'm sure they're out there.

I personally don't mind liberal theists so much... though I may disagree on finer points. The evangelicals and fundies I tend to think are dangerous... willing (and sometimes able) to use their beliefs to enact evil. Liberal theists not so much.

I know liberal theist is a vague term. Sorry about that. But I'd still like to hear people's opinions on the subject.

Whatever they are, fundamentalist or not, YEC or OEC, I like talking to them to see how they understand the Bible, what their opinion is on some subjects, what their morals are, and so forth.

Yes, the liberal types tend to be more rational and tend to respect other cultures, other religions, LGBT and abortions, euthanasia, stem cell research.
That’s good. I can get along with them easily.

OEC seem to be rare. I remember speaking to one of them and I said to him “Fine, let’s say the Genesis story is an allegory or myth which basically means it did not happen. At what point in the Bible, does it change from fake story to real story. Which line?”
He did not answer.

I asked the same question here. I think his name was belacqua and his response was “In order to figure out which line switches from fake mode to real mode, you have to read the Bible.”

I think he did not understand my question or understood the question but decided to not answer it.

Example:
I went to the hardware store one day.
I asked “How can I paint my room?”

The employee answered:
“You paint your room by painting your room.”

^^^^^This is an example of someone who didn’t understand the question or chose not to answer it.

When quoting someone from the forum it is against rule 18 to quote them inaccurately. If you are paraphrasing, state that you are.

Consider this a friendly suggestion to not do this again.

(November 17, 2021 at 10:55 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: When quoting someone from the forum it is against rule 18 to quote them inaccurately.  If you are paraphrasing, state that you are.

Consider this a friendly suggestion to not do this again.

Roger.

Oh, I guess it depends how liberal.

But by "liberal" I guess that usually means that they are more open to science, although they are equally obnoxious.

For example, I once read parts of that physician-geneticist, Francis Collins, book about God, and he is using the same tired non-evidence for the existence of God. I stopped reading when he used the incident of his daughter's rape in a chapter where he wrote how God is not stopping evil because he wants to teach us a lesson.

It seems they are not very far from being fundies.

Although I must admit, that there are kinds of liberal Christianities that even I could see myself in them. Like the Christianity that Nick Offerman preaches:

Quote:Our coupling continued with an intense regularity for months and years. Mm. Ahem. If any of you are still young enough to get involved in this kind of heated tryst, I cannot recommend it highly enough. The secret ingredients are sinful anticipation and Christian guilt. Every night she would come over after teaching dance to six-year-olds, sweaty in her leotard, and we would kneel on the living room floor, directly beneath my soundly sleeping parents’ bedroom. Because, again, being a born-again couple is the perfect cover for getting away with any iniquities you care to indulge in. (“Mom, Dad, Lynette and I are going to Bible camp for three weeks in Wisconsin.” “Okay, sounds good. Gosh, Ric, we sure did something right with this guy. Bible camp!” We would then go to camp, where we would participate in camp activities, like the Jesus log-roll, the Jesus potato-sack race, the Jesus hammer throw, then we’d go sixty-nine in the woods for two hours. Get saved. It’s genius.)

Every night, kneeling there on my mother’s carpet, face-to-face, we would pray for the strength to abstain from the juicy copulation we so cravenly craved, all the while drinking deep of each other’s musk and withstanding the trembling of our lascivious flesh. Our prayers were so sincere and devout that they often elicited tears (not to mention a rather unyielding boner). We would cry. We would pray. And then we would fuck. We would scrump and munch upon each other with ravenous, animal abandon. We did every unholy thing we could possibly think of to each other, on every inch of every piece of furniture.

https://books.google.com/books?id=R_FvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88

(November 18, 2021 at 12:57 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Oh, I guess it depends how liberal.

But by "liberal" I guess that usually means that they are more open to science, although they are equally obnoxious.

For example, I once read parts of that physician-geneticist, Francis Collins, book about God, and he is using the same tired non-evidence for the existence of God. I stopped reading when he used the incident of his daughter's rape in a chapter where he wrote how God is not stopping evil because he wants to teach us a lesson.

It seems they are not very far from being fundies.

While it's certainly part of the picture, I don't think being more open to science is what defines a liberal theist. I think it's more of a willingness to question doctrine - in re science or otherwise - that are clearly repugnant or anaethema to human happiness. A liberal theist, for example, would embrace something like 'Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy', but have no problem rejecting the notion that remarriage after divorce is adultery.

Boru

If they're a theist, then they believe in God, the unproven imaginary thing. However else we're defining liberal doesn't really matter. As Fox said, their faith is irrational.

I always took 'liberal religion' to be on the other side of the spectrum from fundamentalist religion, and think it probaby ties closely to political liberalism.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...-leanings/

---

(November 17, 2021 at 8:48 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(November 17, 2021 at 7:48 pm)Helios Wrote: On one hand, I prefer them to fundamentalists on the other I think their consistent unwillingness to confront fundamentalism only strengthens it.

Liberal theists have a problem -- they can't confront fundamentalism, because they don't have a theological leg to stand on. 

Fundamentalism may be hypocritical as generally practiced, but there are people who literally believe the entire bible story.  At least they are being honest that they are swallowing the whole shit.  Liberals choose not to believe most of it, yet still somehow believe in God-sperm knocking up Mary, and the power of blood sacrifice to get them all into a heaven that was never mentioned in the Old Testament.

I think it's impossible to take everything in the Bible literally and also believe all of it literally. Cherry-picking is unavoidable and fundamentalists are fooling themselves when they say aren't while tying their logic into pretzels to justify the contradictions and not stoning anyone. Cherries are going to be picked, at lest the liberal religions are honest about doing it.

Liberals tend to distinguish themselves from fundamentalists by their willingness to “interpret” scripture, such as determining whether a passage should be read literally or metaphorically. But this is not entirely fair. Fundamentalists too acknowledge the occasional need for interpretation, but they handle it differently. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, are more likely to defer to the extensive writings of the Church Fathers, who took the messy puzzle pieces of scripture and attempted to systematically build from them a coherent, intellectually defensible faith. They worked to create a model in which internal inconsistencies were minimized, to the extent possible, without sacrificing the big picture. They also appreciated Ockham’s Razor, generally preferring the most parsimonious interpretation.

The approach of Christian liberals, by contrast, has been more pragmatic and idiosyncratic. Rather than building a comprehensive system from the ground up, moderates have selectively modified more traditional Christian theology reactively based upon an evolving scientific and moral landscape. They have rejected interpretations that conflict with generally accepted scientific knowledge and widely accepted moral principles. They have relaxed rules that would otherwise not allow for views according with modern sensibilities. They have ignored or written out anything in the scripture that would prove embarrassing or difficult to explain. In doing so, however, they have largely abandoned any attempt to maintain systematic integrity and coherence. The result is Gordian knot of internal contradictions.

Like an old friend of mine once said, "The bible can be interpreted in different ways." She seems to think that was a good thing, but I find it problematic if you take it as the Word of God.

(November 18, 2021 at 7:47 am)Ten Wrote: If they're a theist, then they believe in God, the unproven imaginary thing. However else we're defining liberal doesn't really matter. As Fox said, their faith is irrational.

Rationality exists on a spectrum. Certainly liberal theists are more rational than fundamentalists who take a literal interpretation of scripture.

Boru