The problem is see with religious moderation is it thinks it deserves more respect and leniency because it's "other than extreme.” I see religious moderation as a form of hypocrisy since moderate beliefs require that someone claim a title such as "Christian" and yet refrain from following and believing in key ideas supported by Christian texts in the Bible.
The leniency and respect they think they deserve comes at a heavy price since those extremists they don't wish to be aligned with use them as "human shields." Every Christian, no matter how moderate, adds voting power to religious lobbies that support extreme ideals via legislation.
I will give religious fundamentalists this much... They are strong in their convictions and they stick to their guns. I find it far easier to debate fundies than with moderates. Not because they're easier to persuade, far from it. But fundies know their Bible far better than the Moderates. When someone is a fundie you almost certainly know what they believe about the Bible. When someone is a Moderate, you can argue the Bible (the core of Christian beliefs) but they just dance around the subject and adapt their beliefs to "not apply" to the passages and your arguments. They fight back with a bunch of "maybes" and "perhaps" and never make a solid statement about anything that can be tested. It’s easy to claim a higher understanding when you’re standing on the fence.
Posts
1 comment:
I agree. The moderates do more harm than the fundies because without the moderates, the fundies would be exposed as wierd deluded sects. But because the moderate religions do not want to be attacked, they do not attack their comrade Christians.
Catholics doctrine supports evolution for crying outloud! How anyone can believe in a personal god and evolution at the same time is beyond me.
Post a Comment