An interesting take on the Unbelievable broadcast with myself and Christina Rees. Morality is so much easier when we just 'do what is moral'.
Link here.
Sadly, my debate with Richard Norman on the question whether we can be 'good without God' is no longer available, but some questions about atheism and morality are posed on this blog here.
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.
The title made me think that this article might have actually struck on something interesting. Unfortunately the author fails to understand that though multiple interpretations of a text might be "valid," that the same can be said about various ethical precepts. I agree, as does with the author, with the principles of freedom and dignity of all people. But this also requires acknowledging the complexity of ethical situations. Since the author is rather rigid here, I'll assume he's male. If the author believes that his own ethical interpretations are "infallible" - as he accuses Christina Rees regarding her interpretation of Scripture - he fails to see how "interpretation" is something not only applicable to the reading of texts, but also to ethical discernment. And this is one of the foundations of what we call bigotry.
ReplyDeleteI had hoped that this article would be about the current tendency of "metamorphizing" everything, including Christ, as is now being taught in TEC.
The article is rather sad really. It states that "an old book is ambiguous" on a subject merely becase this humanist commentator, not because there is anything ambiguous in what Paul actually writes there - and because the author doesn't accept God.
ReplyDeleteHmmm.
Trying again, getting all the words in...
ReplyDeleteThe article is rather sad really. It states that "an old book is ambiguous" on a subject merely becase this is the opinion of the humanist commentator, not because there is anything ambiguous in what Paul actually writes there - and because the commentator doesn't accept God.
Hmmm.