Here is an example of what I mean. One of my professors…
““Here is an example of what I mean. One of my professors was far more enlightened than I in his consistent opposition to racial and gender discrimination, and yet this man was quite prepared to worship a God who, on the basis of little more than divine whim, divides all people into the elect and the non-elect; he was quite prepared, in other words, to worship the worst discriminator of all. His response to the obvious moral objections was simply to dismiss them as instances of fallible human reasoning. Again, this professor’s understanding of revelation was far more flexible and sophisticated than my own; he was quite capable, for example, of either setting aside or reinterpreting Bible texts that seem to place women in a subordinate position to men. But he rejected as unbiblical any suggestion that all men and women are equal objects of God’s redemptive love. At first I found such a combination of views utterly mystifying; but over time, I simply lost interest in them and became bored. If God himself discriminates against specific individuals (the non-elect) in the more important matter of salvation , why get excited about the lesser forms of discrimination, or even the racial bigotry, to which we human beings are prone?””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
The author critiques a professor who opposes human discrimination yet accepts divine election, highlighting a moral inconsistency.
In simple terms: Rejecting one bias while embracing another is contradictory.
Align moral standards across all beliefs.
Themes
Mood
Type
When to use this quote
- religious teaching
- social justice debates
- personal belief systems
Key Concepts
Questions to Reflect On
- Can moral consistency be achieved in faith?
- What other biases might we overlook?
Divine doctrines are often interpreted subjectively.