What's your opinion on Liberal Religion?

[vulcanlogician]

Famously, the Bible contains very little metaphysics. John 1:1, and a few vague sentences by Paul. "In him we live and move and have our being," has certainly been used by immanentists, for example, but I'm not completely sure Paul meant it metaphysically. Nearly all of what the prophets and the NT urge has to do with how we behave towards one another.

What about the part about having urges towards a married woman being just as bad as committing adultery? That's emphasis on internal desires and urges... and not just emphasis... equating it with actually behaving in a given way. That verse has always bothered me. Like, you can't control spontaneous urges. Nor should one be faulted for them.

Also, maybe @Neo-Scholastic can fill me in on this query, since he's the de facto resident scholar on the topic: doesn't the Bible seemingly endorse hylomorphism? I'm largely ignorant of where and how it does this, but some philosophers think it does. And I even remember some televangelist saying things about the resurrection being a "bodily resurrection." Is this actually in the Bible or is this more theology from Augustine or something?

This is why I say that even if most of the science-incompatible claims become untenable, I have no doubt that Christianity would continue. Whether this deserves the label "liberal" or not I'm not sure. Again, much of what we dislike about Christianity has to do with its adoption of bizarre radical politics in the US, and it might thrive without all of that baggage. 

Or perhaps we have a Wittgenstein situation, in which "religion" is not a thing with an essence but is defined only by family resemblance. Whereas one religion, or one person's religion, is a question of metaphysical beliefs, another is simply practice.

I really regret using the term liberal, as it is a somewhat relative and somewhat loaded term. Anti-literalist may have been more precise, but that may even be too clinical given my meaning. I was thinking mostly of the Quakers. The Quakers impress me immensely. Not only because of the bold strain of pacifism that runs through Quaker praxis, but of their attempt to incorporate atheists, gay, transgendered, criminals, and other disenfranchised people into their community. But they don't do this to be politically savvy. There really is some radical adherence to the Sermon on the Mount that inspires this. But they're also quick to say, "Maybe the Sermon on the Mount is wrong... it's worth investigation." Anyway... yeah. I'm seriously impressed by the Quakers.

Also (to the broader subtopic that has emerged in this thread) I wonder if "Anti-literalist" (or liberal) religion isn't a way for some folks to contemplate the deeper realities of life. I mean, personally, I like the logical rigor of philosophy. But that's not everyone's cup of tea. There are large numbers of people who may prefer to examine things like human suffering or justice through a religious lens. Again, I only think the literalists are dangerous when they do this. Symbols like "Christ," "Samsara" or even "Satan" allow us a vantagepoint to contemplate the deeper things.

I'm also kind of curious about your Zen Buddhist experience, as another poster was. It's cool if you'd rather not share, but I am awfully curious...

---

I think theism is a rational position. I am swayed by John Hick, who in an essay lays out a rational basis for theism. That basis? Direct experience. If I have direct experience that William Johnson exists (I see him every day at work, for example), then I don't need to pay any heed to skeptics about William Johnson.

The thing about that is, it only applies to mystics. If someone hasn't had direct experience of God, they have no rational basis.

I have never been to Russia but I trust the testimony of those who have been there.

But you don't have to trust their testimony, Neo. You can say: "Russia exists? Prove it!" 

There is a process that will lead you to being satisfied that Russia exists. You don't HAVE to trust the testimony. You don't have to trust a book's say-so. If a rational investigator looks into things, they can be promised to discover convincing evidence that Russia exists.