10/28/2011  [email protected]  writes:

Kevin :
Which "revealed religions" ?  They are, as you surely  know, not all the 
same.
Some are vastly different than each other.  Within each  faith tradition, 
moreover,
there can be considerable differences. Mennonites and the  Amish are 
Christian,
but so are the Greek Orthodox and  Anglicans. Among  Jews, the differences
between, say, the Haredim and synagogue-on-the-corner  Conservative Jews
is a difference of centuries and cultures.
 
Do you just mean Abrahamic religions ?  If so, what  about Zoroastrianism, 
which
is also based on revelation ?  As well, there are a  number of Japanese 
"new religions," 
as they are called,  which started with Revelations,  like Tenrikyo. 
 
Yes, there are problems with a good number of tenets of  revealed religions.
But that is really so over-generalized that it is uncertain  what you mean.
Tolstoy was a pacifist follower of Russian Orthodoxy. Jerry  Falwell also
followed a revealed religion but few people would lump him  together 
with Tolstoy. Same for other pairings, Bonhoeffer and  Torquemada,
St. Francis and Charles V, or Roger Williams and Mel  Gibson,
for example.
 
It would be nice to know what, specifically you are  referring to.
 
Billy
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
I'm with Prager and have been fighting this battle for years from behind  
the lines in a very liberal profession.  Leftist intellectuals  are modern 
day McCarthy's in my opinion.
 
But I think it is also time to challenge the specific tenets of revealed  
religion, some of which lead us to all or nothing solutions to complex  
problems.
 
Kevin

 
Real Clear Politics
 
October 25, 2011  
Are Evangelicals or University Professors More  Irrational?
By _Dennis  Prager_ 
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/?author=Dennis+Prager&id=15115) 

Last week, The New York Times published an opinion piece by Karl W.  
Giberson and Randall J. Stephens, a physics professor and history professor  at 
Eastern Nazarene College, respectively. The authors take evangelicals to  task 
for being anti-intellectual, anti-reason and anti-science. Their  evidence: 
-- Evangelicals doubt man-made global warming,

 
-- Evangelicals believe that gays can "pray away" their  homosexuality. 
-- Evangelicals believe Earth is only thousands of years old and that men  
lived alongside dinosaurs. 
-- Evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage. 
Given how often they are made, it's worth analyzing these charges. 
With regard to man-made global warming, the accusation that all skeptics  
are anti-science is despicable and, indeed, anti-science. The list of  
prominent scientists who dissent -- including the scientist widely  considered 
the 
dean of climate science in America, Richard Lindzen of the  Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology -- is so long that there are entire  websites that 
feature their names and credentials: There's a Wikipedia page  titled "List of 
Scientists opposing the mainstreat scientific assessment of  global 
warming" and a website called PetitionProject.org. 
The authors of the Times op-ed piece, like virtually all other left-wing  
intellectuals who comment on the subject, dismiss all skepticism regarding  
the Al Gore hypothesis that humanity is headed toward a worldwide apocalypse  
due to heat resulting from man-made carbon emissions. This is a reflection  
on these intellectuals' politics, not on their commitment to science. 
With regard to "praying away" homosexuality -- if it is indeed the  
normative evangelical position that all gays, with the right faith, can  cease 
being sexually attracted to the same sex -- that position is wrong.  But to the 
best of my knowledge, that is not the normative evangelical  position; 
evangelicals believe that no more than they believe that prayer  alone will end 
any undesired physical condition. 
At the same time, the opposite position -- the position of nearly all the  
liberal intellectual world -- that everyone's sexual orientation is fixed is 
 a position also driven by ideology rather than by science. Society has a  
huge influence on how people act out their sexuality, including the gender  
of person with whom they choose to be sexual. Human sexuality -- especially  
female -- is far more elastic than the intellectual community admits. And  
the widespread liberal belief that, all things being equal, it makes no  
difference whether a child is raised by a mother and father or by two  fathers 
or two mothers is hardly rational. On the issue of homosexuality,  the 
intellectual left is just as driven by ideology as evangelicals. 
With regard to those evangelicals -- and for that matter, those  
ultra-orthodox Jews -- who believe that Earth is less than 10,000 years old  
and that 
there either were no dinosaurs or that they lived alongside human  beings, 
my reaction has always been: So what? I believe that Earth is many  millions 
of years old, that "six days" is meant as six periods of time (the  sun 
wasn't even created until the third day, so how could there have been  any days 
before then?) and that dinosaurs preexisted man by millions of  years. 
But what real-life problem is caused by people who believe otherwise?  Does 
it affect any of their important behaviors in life? Do they not take  their 
children to doctors? Do they oppose medical research? Do they reject  
scientific discoveries that affect our lives? No. Not at all. Are there no  
evangelical or ultra-orthodox Jewish doctors? Of course there are, and  
apparently they are very comfortable learning and practicing science. 
Compared to the many irrational beliefs of secular, leftist intellectuals  
-- good and evil exist even though there is no God; male and female are  
interchangeable; international institutions are the hope of mankind --  
evangelical irrational beliefs are utterly benign. 
And in regards to same-sex marriage, why is the normative Christian and  
Jewish belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman anti-science  
and anti-intellectual? What we have here is the usual left-wing tactic of  
smearing opponents. If you disagree with race-based affirmative action, you  
are a racist. If you disagree with the ever-expanding welfare state, you  
lack compassion. If you disagree with redefining marriage in the most  radical 
way ever attempted in history, you are a hater. 
No wonder the left developed the foolish and destructive self-esteem  
movement -- no one has anywhere near the self-esteem leftists have. They are  
certain that they are better human beings in every way than those who have  the 
temerity to oppose them. 
This Jew will take the evangelicals' values and the evangelicals' America  
over those of left-wing intellectuals' any day of the year. If evangelicals  
come with some views I find irrational, that's a tiny price to pay compared 
 to the price humanity has paid for the left's consistently broken moral  
compass -- when it comes to America; Communism and Islamism; superiority of  
peace studies over waging war against evil; America's role in the world; 
_Israel_ 
(http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/israel/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink)
 



;  the welfare state; Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and all the other left-wing 
 dictators whom the left-wing has celebrated; the belief that men and women 
 are basically the same; the greater worth of any animal than of the unborn 
 human; and nearly every other major moral issue. 
If these professors typify the views of Eastern Nazarene, which is  
officially listed as a Christian university, it is reason for despair. Once  
left-wing values enter the evangelical bloodstream, there is almost no hope  
for 
America.  

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to