We can also say that he has not read the Bible properly. He has recited the difficult parts not the good parts.
The New Testament is full of the good choices he mentioned.
He paints all believers with the same brush while appearing to be reasonable and caring…
It makes me sad
The first thing I would do is acknowledge the parts of what He says is true.
Historically, religious ‘absolute morality’ has included the things that he indicates.
The bible does include these things, and people have practiced them in God’s Name in most religious traditions (including atheism).
We are guilty of “cherry picking”, though I would counter that he is just as guilty of it as the rest of us; its unavoidable, we all choose the bits and pieces that support us, and avoid or interpret away the parts that undermine our beliefs.
But he does not answer the original question.
He has to answer the question YES, we do need to make an intellectual leap to decide that something is right or wrong.
All we can say is that something is preferable to us, and hopefully to others.
We can only hope that our intellectual reasoning is the same as the next guys, and that his reason tells him that cannibalism is wrong too.
This is a good example; we cannot say that cannibalism is wrong, since it is inherent in the natural world that we have evolved from; we can only say it is not preferable.
We can also say that he has not read the Bible properly. He has recited the difficult parts not the good parts.
The New Testament is full of the good choices he mentioned.
He paints all believers with the same brush while appearing to be reasonable and caring…
It makes me sad
The first thing I would do is acknowledge the parts of what He says is true.
Historically, religious ‘absolute morality’ has included the things that he indicates.
The bible does include these things, and people have practiced them in God’s Name in most religious traditions (including atheism).
We are guilty of “cherry picking”, though I would counter that he is just as guilty of it as the rest of us; its unavoidable, we all choose the bits and pieces that support us, and avoid or interpret away the parts that undermine our beliefs.
But he does not answer the original question.
He has to answer the question YES, we do need to make an intellectual leap to decide that something is right or wrong.
All we can say is that something is preferable to us, and hopefully to others.
We can only hope that our intellectual reasoning is the same as the next guys, and that his reason tells him that cannibalism is wrong too.
This is a good example; we cannot say that cannibalism is wrong, since it is inherent in the natural world that we have evolved from; we can only say it is not preferable.
What else might we say…?
Anyone?