Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible

[ForgedinHell]

Christ did not exist, and even if the person did exist, Christ loved people so much that he will torture them for all eternity for not believing in him.

Yet Christians believe Christ's love for them is the model they should follow.

You don't believe that because you are not a Christian, Forgy. In your anxiety to pour scorn on some beliefs which you don't share, you seem to have lost your way in this discussion.

I challenge any Christian to name a single moral principle from their religion. I'm still waiting to hear of one. I have no anxiety, I am 100% certain no historical Jesus existed, and no Christian god exists.

[Mike Strand]

ForgediH, you wrote:

The Golden Rule is immoral. A person could commit murder-suicide by following the rule, to the letter. The ten commandments are also quite immoral, especially the part prohibiting freedom of religion. Yuck.

It appears that you believe that murder and suicide are immoral. If so, do you think that at least one of the ten commandments from the Bible is "moral" -- i.e. the one that says, "Thou shalt not kill"?

(Technically, according to the Bible, it would be a Jewish principle adopted by Christians.)

[ForgedinHell]

ForgediH, you wrote:

The Golden Rule is immoral. A person could commit murder-suicide by following the rule, to the letter. The ten commandments are also quite immoral, especially the part prohibiting freedom of religion. Yuck.

It appears that you believe that murder and suicide are immoral. If so, do you think that at least one of the ten commandments from the Bible is "moral" -- i.e. the one that says, "Thou shalt not kill"?

(Technically, according to the Bible, it would be a Jewish principle adopted by Christians.)

No, "thou shall not kill" is not a moral statement at all. It sets forth an absolute duty not to kill. Well, if I need to kill someone to defend myself, then it is moral to kill. If I may kill someone to put them out of needless suffering, then it is moral to kill. If I can save an innocent life by killing a terrorist, then it is moral to kill. If I were in a war fighting against an evil enemy, then killing would be moral.

Is that the best you can do? I'm telling you, there is not a single moral principle in Christianity. Not one.

[Mike Strand]

Thanks, FiH --

Would you say "morality" refers to a set of principles of human behavior that a particular person or group of persons agree upon to guide their actions and interactions? And so the Christians may use the Bible to define their brand of "morality", right? If this is the case, can't Christians, Hindus, or even the Mafia define "morality", not necessarily the same among them? Or is "morality" a meaningless concept?

You've suggested conditions under which killing of other people would be, for you, "moral". Do you think others would agree with you in these examples you give? Maybe even folks who call themselves Christians? Even folks who call themselves atheists?

I think "morality" depends on the culture, religion, or society, and that there is agreement across some, if not many, such groups. If there are sanctions or punishment for an individual in such a group for breaking their moral rules, then that individual may decide to act according to his group's "moral" rules, just to get along. Is this your view, or do you think there is a set of absolute moral laws people should follow, regardless of the group of which they are a part?

[ForgedinHell]

Thanks, FiH --

Would you say "morality" refers to a set of principles of human behavior that a particular person or group of persons agree upon to guide their actions and interactions? And so the Christians may use the Bible to define their brand of "morality", right? If this is the case, can't Christians, Hindus, or even the Mafia define "morality", not necessarily the same among them? Or is "morality" a meaningless concept?

You've suggested conditions under which killing of other people would be, for you, "moral". Do you think others would agree with you in these examples you give? Maybe even folks who call themselves Christians? Even folks who call themselves atheists?

I think "morality" depends on the culture, religion, or society, and that there is agreement across some, if not many, such groups. If there are sanctions or punishment for an individual in such a group for breaking their moral rules, then that individual may decide to act according to his group's "moral" rules, just to get along. Is this your view, or do you think there is a set of absolute moral laws people should follow, regardless of the group of which they are a part?

Christianity does not have a single moral principle in it. That's the claim I have made, and no one has ever been able to refute it yet. I have confronted Christians on this issue for years, and they go slinking off after they give it three or four tries.

I know for a fact the majority of people agree with me. For example, most people coming to see an attorney for estate planning will fill out living wills stating that they want to be killed rather than needlessly suffer in case of serious injury or illness. According to you, the Christian has to prolong their agony. That's not only not moral, it is cruel. But, there are many parts of Christianity that can be used to justify the most vile of acts, hence centuries of torture during the Inquisition.

Now, if you want to take the position that morality does not exist at all, then you are throwing in the towel quite early. If you claim that Christian morality is just made-up crap, which is what you are saying, then it certainly cannot claim divine status, in which case you, a Christian no less, have made my point.

On the other hand, even if we assume moral realism as the standard bearer, my position still stands: There is not a single moral principle in Christianity. I'll even go further, there are many immoral principles in Christianity, including the prohibition against freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equal treatment under the law. Christianity is immoral, start to finish. Luckily, most Christians don't take their religion seriously. Otherwise, we would still be burning witches.

[Lynn]

Perhaps the most famous statement in America's Declaration of Independence is, "All men are created equal." The concept of universal human rights and equality comes exclusively from the biblical ideas that all people are created in the image of God and from Jesus' sacrificial death for all. This concept was unkown in history outside of biblically based cultures.
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government

[ForgedinHell]

Perhaps the most famous statement in America's Declaration of Independence is, "All men are created equal." The concept of universal human rights and equality comes exclusively from the biblical ideas that all people are created in the image of God and from Jesus' sacrificial death for all. This concept was unkown in history outside of biblically based cultures.
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-th ... government

First, the Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is law, and makes no mention of god. Second, the statement "All men are created equal" is moronic. Equality is used as a comparison, like stating people are equally tall, for example. Presumably, the statement means political equality. However, if that were true, then why did the authors of the Declaration hold slaves? Deny women the right to vote? Deny poor men the right to vote? Allow slave owners greater voting rights than non-slave owners? Apparently, being created equally did not prohibit one being a slave.

The reality is that America's concept of justice changed dramatically over the years. Typically through armed struggle in the streets as well as debates and in the courts. The Christians were perfectly happy with slavery, non-voting women and poor people.

[Mike Strand]

Am I mistaken, FiH, or did you imply in your second paragraph from the bottom of your second-to-last post, that you think I'm a Christian? --

in which case you, a Christian no less, have made my point.

I wonder what made you think that? Especially in view my statement:

I think "morality" depends on the culture, religion, or society, and that there is agreement across some, if not many, such groups.

I may be mistaken, or I misunderstand you, but you appear to me to believe there is an absolute morality that should apply to everyone, and thus you are able to state such things as, "Christianity does not have a single moral principle in it".

Do you believe there is an absolute set of morals that should apply to everybody, including Christians?

[ForgedinHell]

Am I mistaken, FiH, or did you imply in your second paragraph from the bottom of your post, that you think I'm a Christian? --

in which case you, a Christian no less, have made my point.

I wonder what made you think that? Especially in view my statement:

I think "morality" depends on the culture, religion, or society, and that there is agreement across some, if not many, such groups.

I may be mistaken, or I misunderstand you, but you appear to me to believe there is an absolute morality that should apply to everyone, and thus you are able to state such things as, "Christianity does not have a single moral principle in it".

Do you believe there is an absolute set of morals that should apply to everybody, including Christians?

If you are not a Christian, then I apologize. I may have gotten you mixed up with someone else. Mike is a common name.

My point was that I win either way. If morality is purely subjective, then the Christian has no greater moral claim that the Manson family. On the other hand, if morality is objective, then Christianity still cannot defend itself. My own personal belief is that Christianity is immoral, although not all Christians are immoral, but that is mainly because they don't take their religion seriously. They may even think they do, but they don't. They ignore the nasty parts, just like atheists ignore the whole thing.

My beliefs on morality and whether it is objective is rather complicated, and would take a lot of time to explain. But for the purposes of this topic, we are in luck, because my personal opinion on that issue is irrelevant.

[Mike Strand]

Thanks for your reply, FiH, and it makes your position clearer.

To further clarify things, I believe, it might be good to have a definition of "morality". Here is one taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

"Code of Conduct" might be used as a short definition. Then to say that a group has no moral principles is to say they have no code of conduct. In my experience, a religion, like Christianity or Buddhism, typically has a code of conduct. They may not agree with each other, or with my code of conduct, but by this definition I can't say these other groups don't have moral principles.

A Christian can defend himself as "moral" if he follows the Christian code of conduct (assuming there is one, which I think there is). Whether their entire code agrees with mine is another matter.

Related to this, you said:

No, "thou shall not kill" is not a moral statement at all. It sets forth an absolute duty not to kill.

Is there an argument to say that "absolute duty" and "moral principle" and "code of conduct" have different meanings?

[ForgedinHell]

Thanks for your reply, FiH, and it makes your position clearer.

To further clarify things, I believe, it might be good to have a definition of "morality". Here is one taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

"Code of Conduct" might be used as a short definition. Then to say that a group has no moral principles is to say they have no code of conduct. In my experience, a religion, like Christianity or Buddhism, typically has a code of conduct. They may not agree with each other, or with my code of conduct, but by this definition I can't say these other groups don't have moral principles.

A Christian can defend himself as "moral" if he follows the Christian code of conduct (assuming there is one, which I think there is). Whether their entire code agrees with mine is another matter.

Your argument proves too much. If all morality is just a subjective farce, then a Christian has to concede that her religion is no more moral than the Manson Family Code. If that is the position you want to take, then I have proven my point. No one can justify Christianity based on any of its moral claims.

[Mike Strand]

Why is what I wrote evidence that morality is a subjective farce? Any group of people who have to or want to live together successfully have to set up rules for conduct. Doing so can be an "objective" effort to come up with rules (a code of conduct) that works to make the group viable, strong, successful at surviving in the world and even enjoying life.

[ForgedinHell]

Why is what I wrote evidence that morality is a subjective farce? Any group of people who have to or want to live together successfully have to set up rules for conduct. Doing so can be an "objective" effort to come up with rules (a code of conduct) that works to make the group viable, strong, successful at surviving in the world and even enjoying life.

If the rules may be just arbitrarily created by any group, and any rules will do, then that means no one may claim moral superiority on any issue. That would make Christianity's claim to be moral a complete fiction.

[Mike Strand]

Objective setting up of rules may show that not just any rules will do -- it turns out not to be completely arbitrary. That's why one sees a lot of commonality among various societies and religions in their moral codes -- many people have learned or can see that some rules work better than others.

Back to the title: "Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible".

I don't think anybody's morality or code of conduct should be based only on the Bible, or on a naive reading of it, anyway. As Mark Twain often suggested, there is much in the Bible that no child should read, when he joked about libraries who banned "Huckleberry Finn" but still made the Bible available to readers. At the very least, one could say the Bible contains examples of behavior that rational and well-meaning people should avoid, not fit for a code of conduct. At best, there are examples of behavior in the Bible that may be a useful guide for one's own code of behavior.

[ForgedinHell]

Objective setting up of rules may show that not just any rules will do -- it turns out not to be completely arbitrary. That's why one sees a lot of commonality among various societies and religions in their moral codes -- many people have learned or can see that some rules work better than others.

Back to the title: "Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible".

Arguably, nobody's morality or code of conduct should be based only on the Bible. As Mark Twain often suggested, there is much in the Bible that no child should read, when he joked about libraries who banned "Huckleberry Finn" but still made the Bible available to readers. At the very least, one could say the Bible contains examples of behavior that rational and well-meaning people should avoid, not fit for a code of conduct. At best, there are examples of behavior in the Bible that may be a useful guide for one's own code of behavior.

It would still be arbitrary. It would be arbitrary using a "standard that works" however, one would want to define it.

There is nothing moral in Christianity. Notice how no Christian even dares to answer the question? These are the same people, however, who on an everyday basis claim to be morally superior due to their religion. They are mistaken.