i don't think i could have said it better myself than this Evangelical did. really good article.
oh, except when he said that humans evolved from primates, apparantly forgetting that we ARE primates.
For a practicing christian to write about interpretation of the bible as though it was a misunderstanding of the message just makes me laugh. It is like dropping a bottle of gasoline in the middle of the kitchen and spreading it around with a mop; eventually the fumes reach a spark and explode. People who hear metaphors as facts and who act on those erroneous interpretations make serious errors in judgment that affect us all.
The root word for "reasonable" is (all together, class) REASON. Using reason means accepting explanations which hold up to scrutiny and not those pulled out of someone's nether orifice as it suits them. All this guy is doing is taking cherry-picking to the next level, selectively using reason while continuing to attempt to rely on a document so flawed it is laughable.
Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
maybe what i should have said is that is a step in the right direction. i think you would agree that if fundamentalism was removed altogether from religion we would let them go about their business with indifference.
I agree that this is positive. In the way of Voltaire's "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Evangies are not going to suddenly agree with atheists (the perfect). If we expect baby steps (the good) we might get something; e.g. Evangies gradually changing their take on the apple/adam/eve thing from a literal event to the apple being the story of when we went from primates to smarter primates. It could mark the beginning of their (albeit long) slide down the slippery slope to reality.
I Agree and he gives evidence of how manipulation and exploitation work.
My thinking is evolving about how I respond to evangelical fundamentalists. First, I thought they had their right to say whatever and I had no reason to stick my neck out and state my position. After all, look at all the fine work they do --- feed the hungry, treat the sick, house the poor.
Then I wondered why they were so eager to tend to the symptoms and not go after the underlying causes of poverty, hunger, disease, and growing numbers of homeless and then refugee populations.
Anger came next, I just wanted to tear into them with all the vindictive energy I could muster. Now, isn't that an intelligent position, getting in the gutter with them, being no better than those who show off their charitable giving?
I wish I had the memory of Christopher Hitchens; I have all kinds of information about numbers and populations and factors that contribute to suffering, but not in my head, and not when I am confronted by some hubristic, self-righteous, opinionated, arrogant, over-confident person with the voice and bearing of Moses. My cognitive processes turn to mud.
However, with a bit of discipline, some concentrated writing, a little rehearsal on patient family and friends, I can begin to deliver a pretty comprehensive statement of my understanding of how the world works and then just leave them to ponder. Arguing is pointless. When confronted with anger, I attempt to stay calm and reasonable. They might not be persuaded, but I feel more comfortable with myself. At least I can walk away with my dignity intact and my armpits aren't as smelly.