Is The Bible Still Relevant Today? - BBC1
#1
If you are masochist, you might enjoy this. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali was the most painful to listen, his whole argument is simply put "Morality came from the Bible" and all other culture and religion before were mostly immoral and unenlightened. Just another reason why I feel Christianity may be a tamed dragon, but it still has a bad attitude and bigoted view.
















Reply
#2
Yeah, bishop Michael Nazir-Ali was really annoying with his condescending attitude and snide remarks.

Overall, it was the same kind of arguments we have all heard a million times.

It has SOME historical validity, but you can't dismiss it simply because most of it is made up.
It is a source of SOME moral guidelines, but you can't equate it to literature that also has moral guidelines.
You can't use the old testament, but I will quote it when I want.
You can't use cherry pick the bad parts, but I can do so with the good ones.

Same old arguments.

And what's with the bishop's mullet! W00t
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#3
It seems that any clip by an apologist is a Nirmukta video (or a Thunderf00t video) video waiting to happen! The debate being discussed here seems to be no exception and seems reducible to a series of FAQs as always.

Q: Do New Atheists weaken their case when they fail to make an explicit distinction between the 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive' aspects of scripture? (Clip)

A: Consider the Old Testament episode of a heavenly applause for Abraham's willingness to perform a human sacrifice for his son. An apologist might say that this episode is only descriptive of the modes of worship prevalent during the historical period it is supposed to have occurred, but a critic does have a point in stressing that in practice, in the readings promoted in many congregations and in the minds of many of the faithful, this episode is prescriptive of unquestioning obedience and of an unaccountable parenting style both of which can be rejected outright on the normative grounds established by the moral standards underlying, say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also, many 'descriptions' in scripture have to do with the future and to many readers, the future is not just to be waited for, but to be occasioned and hastened actively, the most egregious expression of which is the call by certain preachers to hasten Armaggedon and Rapture. There is an obvious link between belief in phantasmic descriptions and willingness to carry out murderous prescriptions, for in the words of Voltaire, those who make you believe in absurdities can easily make you commit atrocities.

Q: Is there really 'no forgiveness without cost'? (Clip)

A: The advice that one must be prepared to have a heavy price exacted for reconciliation, which is gratuitously offered by several preachers who claim that this advice is based on some privileged understanding of human nature, can be exposed for the cynical, life-denying myth that it is, through a recent historical instance where the triumph of human forgiveness over retribution has been demonstrated. The Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa are a worthy precedent of a different more life-affirming conception of forgiveness, one that is offered without the exacting cost of dignity. By contrast, the forced reparations and last grabs in neighboring Zimbabwe are a simultaneous historical warning of how dangerous a worldview of 'no forgiveness without cost' is and how far on the wrong side of history it is.

Q: Are the first four commandments really a counsel for humility in our species? (Clip )

A: The disingenuous suggestion that the best way to enforce humility is by positing a universe centered around an anthropomorphic deity who is partisan to boot, ignores the obvious fact that far from treating humans as inconsequential to the Universe, this view of the world is actually the most anthropocentric one; and fetishizes authoritarianism and ethnocentrism besides the biocentrism inherent in this worldview.

Q: Are society's moral and cultural choices limited to a choice between indigenous faith and imported faith? (Clip )

A: The theist dialogue seems confined to a universe of discourse comprising only of faith claims. In the non-theist dialogue no empirical claim or normative premise is considered privileged by authority to be immune to criticism. This difference is lost on the most voluble preachers.

Q: Is the Decalogue the beginning and end of all morality? (Clip)

A: This is an FAQ which has been addressed several times over, notably here.
[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)