Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="2PhiloVoid" data-source="post: 74826330" data-attributes="member: 167101"><p>Alright.</p><p></p><p> What do you mean "reasoned" morals? And as far as alternatives, you do realize that there are over a dozen individual, 'reasoned' ethical systems out there, all of which don't necessarily morally jive with one another, right?</p><p></p><p>Have you ever read the book, <em><strong>Ethics: An Introduction to Theories and Problems</strong>,</em> by William S. Sahakian. I suggest you do, because he very succinctly and concisely lays out the different rational ethical systems that have existed and their respective strengths and problems, all of which in one way or another affects our individual conception about morality as well as Human Rights.</p><p></p><p> I never said the Bible says that; in fact, I'd deny that the Bible says that. See, this is what I'm getting at. You're imputing concepts and language in anachronistic, and by so doing, imply that you're chosen moral language is established as a bona-fide universal consideration, but it isn't! And this, again, is part of what this thread is getting at.</p><p></p><p> You need to take into account the precursor in the whole narrative to what brought that whole situation about in order to help determine if it is morally 'ok'? So, in this endeavor, here's the thing: you don't just get to pick a little portion or chapter out of the Bible that is obviously linked to greater social and historical narratives and details, rip it out, and then begin to say you're applying proper hermeneutics to understanding whatever the content is, even morally questionable content. </p><p></p><p>Here's another way of saying the same thing: we have to evaluate AT THE SAME TIME all of the other inherent details that go into the texts of the narratives being scrutinized. If we don't, then we're being disingenuous and essentially approaching the Bible with a preconceived social agenda and using our personal, modern moral codes to falsely justify our 'push' against what is written about in the bible.</p><p></p><p> Yes, we should, which is why I harp so much on second order thinking, hermeneutics and philosophy of history and historiography. These latter things should be seen as part and parcel of the overall praxis in attempting to understand what it is we THINK we read in the Bible.</p><p></p><p>But no one seems to honestly want to do that these days. And I often wonder why?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="2PhiloVoid, post: 74826330, member: 167101"] Alright. What do you mean "reasoned" morals? And as far as alternatives, you do realize that there are over a dozen individual, 'reasoned' ethical systems out there, all of which don't necessarily morally jive with one another, right? Have you ever read the book, [I][B]Ethics: An Introduction to Theories and Problems[/B],[/I] by William S. Sahakian. I suggest you do, because he very succinctly and concisely lays out the different rational ethical systems that have existed and their respective strengths and problems, all of which in one way or another affects our individual conception about morality as well as Human Rights. I never said the Bible says that; in fact, I'd deny that the Bible says that. See, this is what I'm getting at. You're imputing concepts and language in anachronistic, and by so doing, imply that you're chosen moral language is established as a bona-fide universal consideration, but it isn't! And this, again, is part of what this thread is getting at. You need to take into account the precursor in the whole narrative to what brought that whole situation about in order to help determine if it is morally 'ok'? So, in this endeavor, here's the thing: you don't just get to pick a little portion or chapter out of the Bible that is obviously linked to greater social and historical narratives and details, rip it out, and then begin to say you're applying proper hermeneutics to understanding whatever the content is, even morally questionable content. Here's another way of saying the same thing: we have to evaluate AT THE SAME TIME all of the other inherent details that go into the texts of the narratives being scrutinized. If we don't, then we're being disingenuous and essentially approaching the Bible with a preconceived social agenda and using our personal, modern moral codes to falsely justify our 'push' against what is written about in the bible. Yes, we should, which is why I harp so much on second order thinking, hermeneutics and philosophy of history and historiography. These latter things should be seen as part and parcel of the overall praxis in attempting to understand what it is we THINK we read in the Bible. But no one seems to honestly want to do that these days. And I often wonder why? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...
Top
Bottom