This post is in reply/response/reflection of the post titled "An Objective Basis for Secular Morality" by Deven Philbrick. His argument attracted my interest immediately after reading the title. While my personal input and analysis (analysis may be too strong a word, I am simply crediting your work and replying appropriately) may falter in comparison to your literary strength.
Beginning with a quote from the text I found particular interest in: "However, most Christians in my experience seem to sift through the Christian Bible and pick out only what they view as moral"
This statement is profoundly credible. This method is utilized by any individual or group attempting to solidify the relevancy of their beliefs. In all facets of humanity there are immoral and moral aspects and the Bible being a transcription of events, that may or may not have occurred, embodies this contrast. Pointing this particle out forces an examination of the methodology used by any enterprise we have encountered that has attempted persuasion. Furthermore, the credibility of any religious, scholar, or general argument is challenged. Is it appropriate to credit merit to their ideals then when the alternate aspects (either immoral or moral) are not accounted for?
I may return to elaborate further.
No comments:
Post a Comment