Overall, this essay failed to explain in detail the controversial issues of greatest concern to investigators and members.
When people approach a religious text or any large book from which they intend to derive ethical teachings, nearly without exception the person will pick up the book and pay very particular attention to all the morals they already agree with.
The philosopher George Smith says that " Christian theologians have a strong tendency to read their own moral convictions into the ethics of Jesus.
Jesus is made to say what theologians think he should have said" 5.
A homophobe will pick up the Christian Bible and realise that homosexuality is an evil sin. A misogynist will pick up the Bible or Qur'an and realise that after all this time he's right: Women are inferior, and he can quote the Bible or Qur'an to prove it.
A fluffy liberal will read it and find all the hippy love-thy-neighbour bits and therefore will be able to prove that all those homophobes and misogynists have it wrong. In arguing against extremism, Neil J. Kressel 6 points out that "everyone picks and chooses, at least a little.
Long texts that dance with moral issues suffer from the problem that some morals in one place step on the toes of other morals in other parts. The debates over which verses have precedence over others is a major symptom of this issue.
In addition because of the volume of text and its frequent obscurity and complexity, there is plenty of scope for the imagination, and for personal bias, to find a way to interpret lines in a way that beat to the drum of the reader.
Because of the kaleidoscope of different plotlines and levels of possible interpretation, one's subconscious and imagination is given accidental freedom to invent all kinds of morals. There is not a single moral "absolute" in the Bible that I cannot find a contradiction for in the very same book.
For example, it is said by Bible believers that "do not steal" is an absolute moral found in the Bible, yet in the Bible we also find text where, under direct orders from God, people have stolen.
There are serious and multifaceted contradictions between the OT and NT - some choose to get around this simply by ignoring Old Testament morals because they say they were overriden by the New Testament - but continue to use the bits that they like 8.
Prof Dawkins does a good job of explaining why such disparaties can exist all within one book:: This may explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible. But unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.
Most stories in holy books are about personalities - tales about what people are said to have done what. Most of them also involve war and cultural struggles between different peoples, and are often written from within one particular geographical area. It is possible to read these stories and take out of them a wide range of morals, and therefore, to think that these indirect lessons have divine mandate.
The same occurs with all long texts. Take Tolkien's Lord of the Rings - it is very much like the Bible in styleand it is clear to see that you could spend your entire life analyzing it for morals.
Many people who undertook such a task would come to different conclusions, just as with Holy Books. The simple fact remains that the parts of the text that say "Here follows a moral rule, to be obeyed by all people for all time" are very infrequent indeed.
The Qur'an is much more frank than the Bible, but is still mostly about the retelling of events. The people in the book all have their own aims, which are relevant to the topic of the book and the life circumstances of that person.
Most people's actions are simply not centered around any wish to provide universal instruction on behaviour - it's all about their problems at that time.
Using characters from within this book we would find many seemingly contradictory morals. For example, for the side of Good, there is much killing to be done, yet part of the morals is that the bad guys kill people.
People interpret the "real meanings" behind various stories in hugely varying ways, and volumes of books have been written on such interpretations based on political and moral undertones.
The answer is that this describes all large books written by Humans. Attempts to read them as places for moral instruction is itself the problem, and the cause of schism, violent disagreements and fundamentalism.
As time passes, the original cultural assumptions and cultural understanding of phrases and words will all change, making it impossible for many things to be understood by future audiences in the same way that the original authors meant them. The longer ago something was written, the less the context is clear to us today, and this opens the way for much culturally subjective opinion.
A land of barbarians may feel quite free to brutalize others just as they brutalize themselves 10whereas band of s hippies spread love in a much more physical way.
Over time, morals are simply read into texts differently, hence why religious prohibitions change over time too. We read text literally, chronologically and philosophically, but both The Koran and much of The Bible was written in prose, in poetry, using many symbolic aspects and word games.
Shifts in time and place mean that there are unknown cultural references that we cannot possibly understand now, even if text that we think we are reading correctly.
As a society changes its moral views, its interpretation of Biblical texts changes with it. This much is common sense. The force of that change is often within society itself. The reading of morals from the Bible changes alongside society, but generally speaking lags by a generation or two.Mar 10, · Along with his translations, Digges added commentary and new ideas, making it clear that the Copernican model was more than philosophy, it was a physically real model of the solar system.
Table of contents for Philosophy for AS / Michael Lacewing. THE ORIGINS OF ¿GOD¿ The idea of God is innate II Objection Going further: positive and negative concepts Explaining the idea of ¿God¿ as a human construction and projection II God of the gaps Freud: a psychological explanation Discussion Social explanations Discussion Going.
Modern pop culture declares that atheism is a "scientific" worldview. But most of the key contributors to modern science were theists and often Christian. This thread will attempt to document and discuss various evidences that the 'Chrest..' associated with Mithraism and such as the Flavian emperors was later converted to the 'Christ..' that we are much more familiar with today.
The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and popular culture.. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or initiativeblog.com philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the.
The origins of ‘God’: experience and explanation In what follows, I’ll refer to the idea of God and the concept of God interchangeably. I mean the same thing by idea and concept here. So we need to consider other, psychological or social explanations of the origin of GOD as well.
Documents Similar To Explanations. Skip carousel.