Thoughts on Religion on an Ash Wednesday Morn

[alixtii]

Adapted from this LibraryThing thread.

I happen to think the moral strictures, at least, of the Bible are on the whole pretty darn clear, as opposed to being, you know, valent, whether multi, poly, bi (not that there’s anything wrong with it), tri, or any other variation on same: Do not murder, do not have sex with someone else’s spouse, lay off

Comments

[peasant_]

It seems to me possible that a certain reading could be clear and at the same time God could be using it to say or do something completely different than the "clear" reading suggests.I think an exemplar can be drawn from the creation/evolution debate. Because regardless of where you stand on the biblical evidence, the evidence available in the earth itself means that the bible reading cannot be taken as simple and clear. Either, God used evolution to create the world in which case the bible must be read as more complicated than the superficially clear story, or God did not use evolution but for some reason chose to make the world in such a fashion that it appeared that He did, in which case the bible must be read as more complicated than the superficially clear story. The important point being not whether evolution is or is not true but that the bible story is not and cannot be taken as a simple explanation of everything that is going on. Even if you are a hard-line creationist the undeniable fact of dinosaur bones means that on some

[alixtii]

Yeah, we see eye to eye on this. Which, as you point out, might not be indicative of all that much.

My quoted interlocutor was a fairly mainstream Christian who was to the right of me only by virtue of my being so radically theologically liberal. The context was a debate I and others were having with an atheist on whether evolving revelation rendered religion incoherent.

When I pointed out ways that religion could understand evolving revelation, they argued out that those understandings were based on undemonstrated claims they had no reason to accept. My response was a confused, "Well, yeah, that's why you're an atheist." Did they really think I was going to be sucked into an argument over whether Christianity was true? God forbid.

So what you have hear is the ensuing nitpicky hair-splitting between me and another, slightly more conservative Christian as to how exactly Christianity does/should make sense of evolving revelation

[peasant_]

Which, as you point out, might not be indicative of all that much.

I suspect it is because we are coming at it from the same religious tradition, so the only difference is faith, which isn't relevant to the discussion.

a debate I and others were having with an atheist on whether evolving revelation rendered religion incoherent.

Let me guess - the atheist expected his 'revelation' of incoherence would come as a huge shock to you all. The trouble with a lot of atheists, especially while they are still at the evangelical stage, is that they stopped learning about religion at the moment they stopped believing, so they are genuinely unaware that Christianity has had a long time to think about these problems and actually has some very impressive responses. If I didn't happen to spend a fair bit of time in Christian services I would be unaware of this myself. (Because I sing in various choirs, including singing services, if you were wondering.)

And you and I have discussed that element, the interdependence of ethics and theology, at

[alixtii]

If radical feminism revolves around the notion that there are those in positions of power (loosely, men) and those who are disempowered (loosely, the rest) then to what extent does the radical system perceive the necessity for establishing methods of negotiating with the powerful on behalf of the the disempowered, or does it try to avoid such negotiation as 'playing into' the existing power structures?This cuts straight to the quick as to my critique of radical politics. While I for the most part agree with their modes of analysis, it's hard to see the traditional 1970s radical feminists as arguing anything other than the latter claim--that negotiating on behalf of the disempowered with the powerful is playing into the existing power structures, which need to be torn down in toto, don't ask me how