Comment

Gov. Perry's True Believers

26
(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)8/13/2011 11:15:56 pm PDT

re: #21 CuriousLurker

I assumed that by acknowledging on at least two occasions that there are traditions which can “curdle one’s blood”, it would have been understood that things falling into that category don’t have positive traits, ergo they wouldn’t promote rationality and justice.

I’ve also stated that we can cherry-pick examples of the bad, but that those things don’t nullify the benefits of the good. That would imply that there are moral assessments and choices to be made by the individual.

Should I have pedantically pointed out the rationale behind every sentence I wrote lest readers think I promote blindly following all traditional authority? I ask because you’re responding as if I had asserted exactly that.

I responded the way I did because your page was circled around the following premise (my emphasis):

The evangelical interpretation is spontaneous, based on whatever God is “telling” the individual at the moment. You hear this from Bachmann all the time. What’s so bad about that you may ask? Plenty of traditional interpretations of other religious texts can curdle one’s blood, so what difference does it make? Well, let’s take a look.

You then proceed to show how direct communication with G’d makes for a lot of unpleasant experiences when interaction occurs with people who have not partaken in said communication or question its authenticity or veracity. My point was that that does not show a real difference to interpretations based on tradition because traditions can be just as irrational. This is not “cherry-picking” bad traditions, it is the normal experience for agnostics and atheists interacting with religious traditions.