Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible

[mickthinks]

There is nothing moral in Christianity.

There is nothing moral in Christianity in your view, Forgy, but, as I think I have shown, your view of Christianity is rather blinkered by ignorance and distorted by hostile feelings.

These are the same people, however, who on an everyday basis claim to be morally superior due to their religion.

Some Christians, maybe. But Christianity is not defined by them and their self-righteousness.


I challenge any Christian to name a single moral principle from their religion
lol I'm not sure what you want here. Are you asking for a principle that Christianity considers to be a moral one (eg. "Love God")? Or that you agree to be a moral one? I am quite willing to believe that you will refuse to concede the moral perfection of any principle I might name, just in order to avoid losing this argument.

[John]

These are the same people, however, who on an everyday basis claim to be morally superior due to their religion.

I thought most people did that. You for example seem to think that you're morally superior because you have no religion. You're also starting to remind me of the quote from A Beautiful Mind: "I'm quite well-balanced. I have a chip on both shoulders."

Anyway, could you provide some examples of what you would consider valid moral principles because it seems that Mike has offered some reasonable replies that you've dismissed. Perhaps Judaism, as I understand you have some experience there, has some that you could share or do you believe all religions are equally immoral?

[ForgedinHell]

These are the same people, however, who on an everyday basis claim to be morally superior due to their religion.

I thought most people did that. You for example seem to think that you're morally superior because you have no religion. You're also starting to remind me of the quote from A Beautiful Mind: "I'm quite well-balanced. I have a chip on both shoulders."

Anyway, could you provide some examples of what you would consider valid moral principles because it seems that Mike has offered some reasonable replies that you've dismissed. Perhaps Judaism, as I understand you have some experience there, has some that you could share or do you believe all religions are equally immoral?

I am morally superior because I am an atheist. That provides me with a superior starting point. I, unlike the theist, automatically reject any supernatural claims for morality.

You can insult me, but how does that prove any point I made here is wrong?

I did mention a valid moral principle, in fact, quite a few. Freedom of speech. How is that? Freedom of speech contradicts the theistic notion of blasphemy. As far as Judaism, a moral principle would be do no harm to others.

And no, I don't believe all religions are equaly immoral. In my opinion, the most immoral, popular religion, is Islam, hands down.

[ForgedinHell]

There is nothing moral in Christianity.

There is nothing moral in Christianity in your view, Forgy, but, as I think I have shown, your view of Christianity is rather blinkered by ignorance and distorted by hostile feelings.

These are the same people, however, who on an everyday basis claim to be morally superior due to their religion.

Some Christians, maybe. But Christianity is not defined by them and their self-righteousness.


I challenge any Christian to name a single moral principle from their religion
lol I'm not sure what you want here. Are you asking for a principle that Christianity considers to be a moral one (eg. "Love God")? Or that you agree to be a moral one? I am quite willing to believe that you will refuse to concede the moral perfection of any principle I might name, just in order to avoid losing this argument.

"Love God" as a moral principle? How is loving something that is not real moral? Furthermore, the Christian god sends people to hell, for all eternity, for no reason. Loving that is immoral.

[John]

I am morally superior because I am an atheist.

I'll assume that's intended as a flippant claim because it can easily be shown to be false.

That provides me with a superior starting point.

Even if we accept your flippant claim about the moral superiority of atheists, and I don't, then the starting point doesn't define the end point so you're claiming too much here. There are 100m runners that get better starts than Usain Bolt but he still tends to finish the race before them so a superior starting point is only that.

I, unlike the theist, automatically reject any supernatural claims for morality.

The majority of theists do not claim that morality is derived from the supernatural. I.e. they do not claim that an action is good because God says it is so.

You can insult me, but how does that prove any point I made here is wrong?

If you mean the comment about having two chips on your shoulders it wasn't meant to disprove any of your points it was just an observation that you seem to feel as though Christians are looking down on you when you're doing the same to them.

I did mention a valid moral principle, in fact, quite a few. Freedom of speech. How is that? Freedom of speech contradicts the theistic notion of blasphemy.

Didn't you reject Mike's suggestion "that though shalt not kill" because it "sets forth an absolute duty not to kill" that does not hold true, in your opinion, in all circumstances? If so then do you disagree with the common belief that freedom of speech does not extend to such circumstances as shouting "FIRE!" in a crowed theatre? If it's sometimes right to kill in particular circumstances and also right to limit freedom of speech in particular circumstances then why are the different?

Maybe a little more interpretation is required? It's doesn't take much effort to apply the principle of charity and see that directions such as not killing, stealing or telling lies about people are generally reasonable ethical principle to strive towards even if the realities of life often mean that some people will interpret them in ways that allow for exceptions.

As far as Judaism, a moral principle would be do no harm to others.

It's interesting that the Biblical account of the Sermon on the Mount has Jesus saying that you should do unto others as you would wish them to do to you so it's more than the passive morality you offer which basically says don't do harm to others. Given your well documented libertarian stance I wonder if you just have a moral perspective that isn't receptive to such ideas. I would say that the message I've just mentioned from the Sermon on the Mount meets the criteria of a moral principle.

And no, I don't believe all religions are equaly immoral. In my opinion, the most immoral, popular religion, is Islam, hands down.

I should have asked whether you thought all religions were essentially immoral rather than equally immoral.

[ForgedinHell]

I am morally superior because I am an atheist.

I'll assume that's intended as a flippant claim because it can easily be shown to be false.

You know what they say about people making assumptions?

That provides me with a superior starting point.

Even if we accept your flippant claim about the moral superiority of atheists, and I don't, then the starting point doesn't define the end point so you're claiming too much here. There are 100m runners that get better starts than Usain Bolt but he still tends to finish the race before them so a superior starting point is only that.

I was not being flippant, and my point is valid. A theist who reads the Bible can easily conclude that burning witches is moral. In fact, they engaged in such burnings for a long time. I think the last "witch" burned at the stake was in Europe, a mother and her young son, I think he may have been 9. As an atheist, I clear the air of all such superstitious nonsense, and what is left? The use of my reason, which is superior than superstition as a guide. Atheism is a superior moral position.

I, unlike the theist, automatically reject any supernatural claims for morality.

The majority of theists do not claim that morality is derived from the supernatural. I.e. they do not claim that an action is good because God says it is so.

I strongly disagree with you there. Billions of religious people around the globe state, over and over again, "God says, God wants us..." etc. There is no additonal thought about how stupid many of the claims are. Putting one's life in the hands of a supernatural being, is really just placing one's life in the hands of primitive people who wrote irrational crap centuries ago.

You can insult me, but how does that prove any point I made here is wrong?

If you mean the comment about having two chips on your shoulders it wasn't meant to disprove any of your points it was just an observation that you seem to feel as though Christians are looking down on you when you're doing the same to them.

If I observe Christians behaving a certain way, and my observation is accurate, that does not give me a chip on either shoulder. Furthermore, me responding to Christian claims, through the use of reason, without even remotely suggesting that all Christians are evil, or that they should be persecuted, hardly means I have a chip on my shoulder. Besides, for all you know, I am a devout minister and I'm just testing people's faith here. The only thing that matters, therefore, is the argument itself. Yet, I notice a lot of people on here seem overly obsessed with me personally.

I did mention a valid moral principle, in fact, quite a few. Freedom of speech. How is that? Freedom of speech contradicts the theistic notion of blasphemy.

Didn't you reject Mike's suggestion "that though shalt not kill" because it "sets forth an absolute duty not to kill" that does not hold true, in your opinion, in all circumstances? If so then do you disagree with the common belief that freedom of speech does not extend to such circumstances as shouting "FIRE!" in a crowed theatre? If it's sometimes right to kill in particular circumstances and also right to limit freedom of speech in particular circumstances then why are the different?

The shouting FIRE in a crowded building is not a question of free speech, but of property rights. If I buy a ticket to watch a movie, and I yell FIRE, and there isn't one, then I am violating the terms of the agreement. I am ruining the agreement that other customers have with the owner to be able to enjoy the movie. If the owner were to shout FIRE, then the owner should refund my money, because that is not what I paid for. Another moral principle is the recognition of property rights. Freedom of speech means the content of what I say cannot be stopped, provided I am not harming another. Furthermore, when I stated freedom of speech, I was referring to the entire body of law that has been developed in this area over the years. So, threats are out, because that is an assault, etc. The First Amendment in the US is a moral principle, which has been refined through the years. That body of law is included in what I mean by freedom of speech.

Maybe a little more interpretation is required? It's doesn't take much effort to apply the principle of charity and see that directions such as not killing, stealing or telling lies about people are generally reasonable ethical principle to strive towards even if the realities of life often mean that some people will interpret them in ways that allow for exceptions.

But, if we teach people that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and that one should murder the gay person by stoneing them because a god says so, then aren't we lying? Christian beliefs are false. So, according to your ethical principle of not telling lies, Christianity is immoral. And you are right. The truth does matter, which is why I stated I am morally superior by being an atheist, because I discard a lot of lies as my starting point.

As far as Judaism, a moral principle would be do no harm to others.

It's interesting that the Biblical account of the Sermon on the Mount has Jesus saying that you should do unto others as you would wish them to do to you so it's more than the passive morality you offer which basically says don't do harm to others. Given your well documented libertarian stance I wonder if you just have a moral perspective that isn't receptive to such ideas. I would say that the message I've just mentioned from the Sermon on the Mount meets the criteria of a moral principle.

And that's why the Jewish principle is superior to the Christian one. The Crusaders slaughtered a lot of Jews, and intended to murder every Jew on the planet. They obeyed the Golden Rule in doing this. They thought, "If I were a heathen, I would want a Christian to kill me." There is a famous arthur, I can't recall if it is Steinbeck or not, that also made the observation of harming others by "doing unto others." The entire sermon on the mount was about as immoral as one can get. What a hack job for the ages.

And no, I don't believe all religions are equaly immoral. In my opinion, the most immoral, popular religion, is Islam, hands down.

I should have asked whether you thought all religions were essentially immoral rather than equally immoral.

Any religion that clings to the supernatural I consider immoral. Not all religions do so. What you refer to as religion, I call superstition.

[mickthinks]

The use of my reason, which is superior than superstition as a guide.
Yet you aren't using your reason as a guide here, Forgy, but merely following your prejudices.

Atheism is a superior moral position.
Atheism itself is not a moral position of any kind.

A theist who reads the Bible can easily conclude that burning witches is moral.
I'd say you underestimate how hard it is to find justifications for Christians to burn witches in the Bible. Can you cite one of the passages that you have in mind when you make this claim.

And when you have done that, can you cite any evidence or reasons to conclude that atheism discourages witch burning?

[ForgedinHell]

The use of my reason, which is superior than superstition as a guide.
Yet you aren't using your reason as a guide here, Forgy, but merely following your prejudices.

No, I am using my reason, which is exactly why no one refutes my arguments, but instead, they resort to insulting me, just like you did.

Atheism is a superior moral position.
Atheism itself is not a moral position of any kind.
That's actually not true. An atheist will not accept supernatural claims as a basis for morality. Since that is true, atheism is a moral position of a sort.

A theist who reads the Bible can easily conclude that burning witches is moral.
I'd say you underestimate how hard it is to find justifications for Christians to burn witches in the Bible. Can you cite one of the passages that you have in mind when you make this claim.
Exodus 22:18 "You shall not permit a sorceress to live." It wasn't hard at all.

And when you have done that, can you cite any evidence or reasons to conclude that atheism discourages witch burning?

As an atheist, I don't believe in witches, so how could i grab one to burn?

[John]

I think the number of embedded quotes may stretch things but here goes...

I am morally superior because I am an atheist.
[...]
I was not being flippant, and my point is valid. A theist who reads the Bible can easily conclude that burning witches is moral. In fact, they engaged in such burnings for a long time. I think the last "witch" burned at the stake was in Europe, a mother and her young son, I think he may have been 9. As an atheist, I clear the air of all such superstitious nonsense, and what is left? The use of my reason, which is superior than superstition as a guide. Atheism is a superior moral position.

Leaving aside the argument of whether atheism is a moral position or not, which I don't believe it is but that's picked up in mick's reply, I believe you are incorrect to say that you are morally superior because you are an atheist. Being an atheist you may have rejected religious teachings that you consider to be immoral but your atheism does not automatically mean that they are replaced by superior ones. It may be a "better" basis but it is quite possible for an atheist to arrive at entirely rational moral positions that would generally be regarded as immoral.

I strongly disagree with you there. Billions of religious people around the globe state, over and over again, "God says, God wants us..." etc. There is no additonal thought about how stupid many of the claims are. Putting one's life in the hands of a supernatural being, is really just placing one's life in the hands of primitive people who wrote irrational crap centuries ago.

Saying "God says, God wants us..." is not the same as saying something is good, or moral, because God says so. Such people generally assume that God only commands them to do good things because God is good, not because whatever God commands must be considered good. I agree that there's a problem here because the supposed word of God is always translated, often by the primitive people you refer to, and if it is unquestioned then manipulation is easy. However, if you're claiming that most Christian sects claims that morality is based on whatever God considers to be moral then you are factually wrong.

If you mean the comment about having two chips on your shoulders it wasn't meant to disprove any of your points it was just an observation that you seem to feel as though Christians are looking down on you when you're doing the same to them.

If I observe Christians behaving a certain way, and my observation is accurate, that does not give me a chip on either shoulder. Furthermore, me responding to Christian claims, through the use of reason, without even remotely suggesting that all Christians are evil, or that they should be persecuted, hardly means I have a chip on my shoulder. Besides, for all you know, I am a devout minister and I'm just testing people's faith here. The only thing that matters, therefore, is the argument itself. Yet, I notice a lot of people on here seem overly obsessed with me personally.

Ok, I take the point. I got the impression you had an axe to grind with Christianity but whether that's true or not we've had a few disagreements on here and we've managed to keep it amicable enough so I would prefer not to get bogged down in personal stuff if possible.

I did mention a valid moral principle, in fact, quite a few. Freedom of speech. How is that? Freedom of speech contradicts the theistic notion of blasphemy.

Didn't you reject Mike's suggestion "that though shalt not kill" because it "sets forth an absolute duty not to kill" that does not hold true, in your opinion, in all circumstances? If so then do you disagree with the common belief that freedom of speech does not extend to such circumstances as shouting "FIRE!" in a crowed theatre? If it's sometimes right to kill in particular circumstances and also right to limit freedom of speech in particular circumstances then why are the different?

The shouting FIRE in a crowded building is not a question of free speech, but of property rights. If I buy a ticket to watch a movie, and I yell FIRE, and there isn't one, then I am violating the terms of the agreement. I am ruining the agreement that other customers have with the owner to be able to enjoy the movie. If the owner were to shout FIRE, then the owner should refund my money, because that is not what I paid for. Another moral principle is the recognition of property rights. Freedom of speech means the content of what I say cannot be stopped, provided I am not harming another. Furthermore, when I stated freedom of speech, I was referring to the entire body of law that has been developed in this area over the years. So, threats are out, because that is an assault, etc. The First Amendment in the US is a moral principle, which has been refined through the years. That body of law is included in what I mean by freedom of speech.

Perhaps yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre should be considered allegorical as it still refers to a circumstance in which it is considered inappropriate to exercise a right that might otherwise be considered inviolable. You trump it with another right but still consider it moral so I see nothing inherintly immoral with trumping "thou shalt not kill" with the right to survive in the face of hostility.

Maybe a little more interpretation is required? It's doesn't take much effort to apply the principle of charity and see that directions such as not killing, stealing or telling lies about people are generally reasonable ethical principle to strive towards even if the realities of life often mean that some people will interpret them in ways that allow for exceptions.

But, if we teach people that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and that one should murder the gay person by stoneing them because a god says so, then aren't we lying? Christian beliefs are false. So, according to your ethical principle of not telling lies, Christianity is immoral. And you are right. The truth does matter, which is why I stated I am morally superior by being an atheist, because I discard a lot of lies as my starting point.

But the premise isn't based on what God says is right or wrong. The premise is that the act is wrong (and for the purposes of clarity I disagree that it's wrong to murder a gay person) on an objective basis. And as few Christians interpret the Bible this way I'm not sure what you're getting at.

As far as Judaism, a moral principle would be do no harm to others.

It's interesting that the Biblical account of the Sermon on the Mount has Jesus saying that you should do unto others as you would wish them to do to you so it's more than the passive morality you offer which basically says don't do harm to others. Given your well documented libertarian stance I wonder if you just have a moral perspective that isn't receptive to such ideas. I would say that the message I've just mentioned from the Sermon on the Mount meets the criteria of a moral principle.

And that's why the Jewish principle is superior to the Christian one. The Crusaders slaughtered a lot of Jews, and intended to murder every Jew on the planet. They obeyed the Golden Rule in doing this. They thought, "If I were a heathen, I would want a Christian to kill me." There is a famous arthur, I can't recall if it is Steinbeck or not, that also made the observation of harming others by "doing unto others." The entire sermon on the mount was about as immoral as one can get. What a hack job for the ages.

So if the Crusaders were wrong in their interpretation that means the basis of Jesus's moral view is also wrong? That would mean that any moral view could be invalidated by a single misinterpretation so it seems unlikely. Leaving the Crusaders aside What's you're interpretation of the idea that we should do unto others as we would wish them to do unto us? Personally I think the Christian version is superior because it encourages action rather than discouraging it. The Christian view implies that we should save a drowning person but the Jewish one seems to imply that we just shouldn't push them in the water.

Any religion that clings to the supernatural I consider immoral. Not all religions do so. What you refer to as religion, I call superstition.

Most religious people tend to agree that morality is objective so you may stumble upon "moral truths" even if you confuse their source but you seem to be rejecting moral positions based on their origins so what's the difference between you and those who belive morality is derived from God? If someone claims that God says freedom of speech is morally good will you reject it because it's based on the supernatural?

[Mike Strand]

To John: Thanks for favorable reading of my comments in this thread -- I hope they do no harm to your own arguments.

To FiH: I believe I've refuted a few of your arguments, at least in the opinion of some of the participants, including the statement of this thread, "Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible". I argued that it contains negative examples (things not to do) as well as positive ones, for any reader, not just Christian readers, nor just the subset of Christian readers who believe in taking every word of the Bible literally.

Have I insulted you? I hope not, since I've tried to focus on your written statements without jumping to any conclusions about your motives or personality.

[ForgedinHell]

I think the number of embedded quotes may stretch things but here goes...

I am morally superior because I am an atheist.
[...]
I was not being flippant, and my point is valid. A theist who reads the Bible can easily conclude that burning witches is moral. In fact, they engaged in such burnings for a long time. I think the last "witch" burned at the stake was in Europe, a mother and her young son, I think he may have been 9. As an atheist, I clear the air of all such superstitious nonsense, and what is left? The use of my reason, which is superior than superstition as a guide. Atheism is a superior moral position.

Leaving aside the argument of whether atheism is a moral position or not, which I don't believe it is but that's picked up in mick's reply, I believe you are incorrect to say that you are morally superior because you are an atheist. Being an atheist you may have rejected religious teachings that you consider to be immoral but your atheism does not automatically mean that they are replaced by superior ones. It may be a "better" basis but it is quite possible for an atheist to arrive at entirely rational moral positions that would generally be regarded as immoral.

I strongly disagree with you there. Billions of religious people around the globe state, over and over again, "God says, God wants us..." etc. There is no additonal thought about how stupid many of the claims are. Putting one's life in the hands of a supernatural being, is really just placing one's life in the hands of primitive people who wrote irrational crap centuries ago.

Saying "God says, God wants us..." is not the same as saying something is good, or moral, because God says so. Such people generally assume that God only commands them to do good things because God is good, not because whatever God commands must be considered good. I agree that there's a problem here because the supposed word of God is always translated, often by the primitive people you refer to, and if it is unquestioned then manipulation is easy. However, if you're claiming that most Christian sects claims that morality is based on whatever God considers to be moral then you are factually wrong.

If you mean the comment about having two chips on your shoulders it wasn't meant to disprove any of your points it was just an observation that you seem to feel as though Christians are looking down on you when you're doing the same to them.

If I observe Christians behaving a certain way, and my observation is accurate, that does not give me a chip on either shoulder. Furthermore, me responding to Christian claims, through the use of reason, without even remotely suggesting that all Christians are evil, or that they should be persecuted, hardly means I have a chip on my shoulder. Besides, for all you know, I am a devout minister and I'm just testing people's faith here. The only thing that matters, therefore, is the argument itself. Yet, I notice a lot of people on here seem overly obsessed with me personally.

Ok, I take the point. I got the impression you had an axe to grind with Christianity but whether that's true or not we've had a few disagreements on here and we've managed to keep it amicable enough so I would prefer not to get bogged down in personal stuff if possible.

I did mention a valid moral principle, in fact, quite a few. Freedom of speech. How is that? Freedom of speech contradicts the theistic notion of blasphemy.

Didn't you reject Mike's suggestion "that though shalt not kill" because it "sets forth an absolute duty not to kill" that does not hold true, in your opinion, in all circumstances? If so then do you disagree with the common belief that freedom of speech does not extend to such circumstances as shouting "FIRE!" in a crowed theatre? If it's sometimes right to kill in particular circumstances and also right to limit freedom of speech in particular circumstances then why are the different?

The shouting FIRE in a crowded building is not a question of free speech, but of property rights. If I buy a ticket to watch a movie, and I yell FIRE, and there isn't one, then I am violating the terms of the agreement. I am ruining the agreement that other customers have with the owner to be able to enjoy the movie. If the owner were to shout FIRE, then the owner should refund my money, because that is not what I paid for. Another moral principle is the recognition of property rights. Freedom of speech means the content of what I say cannot be stopped, provided I am not harming another. Furthermore, when I stated freedom of speech, I was referring to the entire body of law that has been developed in this area over the years. So, threats are out, because that is an assault, etc. The First Amendment in the US is a moral principle, which has been refined through the years. That body of law is included in what I mean by freedom of speech.

Perhaps yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre should be considered allegorical as it still refers to a circumstance in which it is considered inappropriate to exercise a right that might otherwise be considered inviolable. You trump it with another right but still consider it moral so I see nothing inherintly immoral with trumping "thou shalt not kill" with the right to survive in the face of hostility.

Maybe a little more interpretation is required? It's doesn't take much effort to apply the principle of charity and see that directions such as not killing, stealing or telling lies about people are generally reasonable ethical principle to strive towards even if the realities of life often mean that some people will interpret them in ways that allow for exceptions.

But, if we teach people that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and that one should murder the gay person by stoneing them because a god says so, then aren't we lying? Christian beliefs are false. So, according to your ethical principle of not telling lies, Christianity is immoral. And you are right. The truth does matter, which is why I stated I am morally superior by being an atheist, because I discard a lot of lies as my starting point.

But the premise isn't based on what God says is right or wrong. The premise is that the act is wrong (and for the purposes of clarity I disagree that it's wrong to murder a gay person) on an objective basis. And as few Christians interpret the Bible this way I'm not sure what you're getting at.

As far as Judaism, a moral principle would be do no harm to others.

It's interesting that the Biblical account of the Sermon on the Mount has Jesus saying that you should do unto others as you would wish them to do to you so it's more than the passive morality you offer which basically says don't do harm to others. Given your well documented libertarian stance I wonder if you just have a moral perspective that isn't receptive to such ideas. I would say that the message I've just mentioned from the Sermon on the Mount meets the criteria of a moral principle.

And that's why the Jewish principle is superior to the Christian one. The Crusaders slaughtered a lot of Jews, and intended to murder every Jew on the planet. They obeyed the Golden Rule in doing this. They thought, "If I were a heathen, I would want a Christian to kill me." There is a famous arthur, I can't recall if it is Steinbeck or not, that also made the observation of harming others by "doing unto others." The entire sermon on the mount was about as immoral as one can get. What a hack job for the ages.

So if the Crusaders were wrong in their interpretation that means the basis of Jesus's moral view is also wrong? That would mean that any moral view could be invalidated by a single misinterpretation so it seems unlikely. Leaving the Crusaders aside What's you're interpretation of the idea that we should do unto others as we would wish them to do unto us? Personally I think the Christian version is superior because it encourages action rather than discouraging it. The Christian view implies that we should save a drowning person but the Jewish one seems to imply that we just shouldn't push them in the water.

Who says the Crusaders were wrong in their interpretation? The rule was applied, just not in a manner that Christians are proud of. So? My position on the Golden Rule has already been stated. It is immoral, since murder-suicide is consistent with it. The problem with the Christian version is that great evil may be done to another under the guise that one is doing unto others as they would wish. The Inquisition is a great example. "I would rather be tortured and burned alive, if that would help me get to Heaven, and I would be thankful if some Christian did that for me if I were a heathen." The Golden Rule just isn't a good moral rule to follow. And as far as drowning, there is nothing stopping the Jewish person from saving the child. The Jewish person, however, would never drown the child to see if he were a witch, but the Christian might.

Any religion that clings to the supernatural I consider immoral. Not all religions do so. What you refer to as religion, I call superstition.

Most religious people tend to agree that morality is objective so you may stumble upon "moral truths" even if you confuse their source but you seem to be rejecting moral positions based on their origins so what's the difference between you and those who belive morality is derived from God? If someone claims that God says freedom of speech is morally good will you reject it because it's based on the supernatural?

The very act of believing a lie, and giving up one's ability to think on one's own, is immoral. It's not the "source" so much as the blind, stupidity it promotes in its followers, that makes superstition immoral. What "moral truth" has Christianity stumbled upon? I missed that part.

[ForgedinHell]

To John: Thanks for favorable reading of my comments in this thread -- I hope they do no harm to your own arguments.

To FiH: I believe I've refuted a few of your arguments, at least in the opinion of some of the participants, including the statement of this thread, "Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible". I argued that it contains negative examples (things not to do) as well as positive ones, for any reader, not just Christian readers, nor just the subset of Christian readers who believe in taking every word of the Bible literally.

Have I insulted you? I hope not, since I've tried to focus on your written statements without jumping to any conclusions about your motives or personality.

I don't think you have refuted any of my arguments. Does another person's opinion on here qualify as an objection verification of your success? I don't think so. If I were to debate the issue of god's existence before the 700 Club, I'm sure the audience would overwhelmingly vote that I failed to make any sound point against the existence of god. The same words said, in the same debate, before a Humanist Association, and I would be the hero of the day. As every trial lawyer knows, you get rid of the biased jurors, because I baised person is never open to your argument.

[John]

Who says the Crusaders were wrong in their interpretation? The rule was applied, just not in a manner that Christians are proud of. So? My position on the Golden Rule has already been stated. It is immoral, since murder-suicide is consistent with it. The problem with the Christian version is that great evil may be done to another under the guise that one is doing unto others as they would wish. The Inquisition is a great example. "I would rather be tortured and burned alive, if that would help me get to Heaven, and I would be thankful if some Christian did that for me if I were a heathen." The Golden Rule just isn't a good moral rule to follow.

So you're saying "don't assume to know what I think is best for me"? If so, I think you make a reasonable point. Something to ponder anyway.

And as far as drowning, there is nothing stopping the Jewish person from saving the child. The Jewish person, however, would never drown the child to see if he were a witch, but the Christian might.

I think the lack of an imperative still needs to be thought through but I'm not sure why you include the witchcraft example as I thought the line in Exodus that "A sorcerer shall not be allowed to live" applied to Jewish as well as Christian scripture but are you claiming otherwise?

Most religious people tend to agree that morality is objective so you may stumble upon "moral truths" even if you confuse their source but you seem to be rejecting moral positions based on their origins so what's the difference between you and those who belive morality is derived from God? If someone claims that God says freedom of speech is morally good will you reject it because it's based on the supernatural?

The very act of believing a lie, and giving up one's ability to think on one's own, is immoral. It's not the "source" so much as the blind, stupidity it promotes in its followers, that makes superstition immoral. What "moral truth" has Christianity stumbled upon? I missed that part.

You also avoided my question. However, I'm not defending Christianity here I'm challenging your assertion that "Any religion that clings to the supernatural I consider immoral". I'm not sure how you willingly believes a lie or gives up your ability to think. I'm also not sure why, as you seem to claim, stupidity makes you immoral.

[ForgedinHell]

Who says the Crusaders were wrong in their interpretation? The rule was applied, just not in a manner that Christians are proud of. So? My position on the Golden Rule has already been stated. It is immoral, since murder-suicide is consistent with it. The problem with the Christian version is that great evil may be done to another under the guise that one is doing unto others as they would wish. The Inquisition is a great example. "I would rather be tortured and burned alive, if that would help me get to Heaven, and I would be thankful if some Christian did that for me if I were a heathen." The Golden Rule just isn't a good moral rule to follow.

So you're saying "don't assume to know what I think is best for me"? If so, I think you make a reasonable point. Something to ponder anyway.

And as far as drowning, there is nothing stopping the Jewish person from saving the child. The Jewish person, however, would never drown the child to see if he were a witch, but the Christian might.

I think the lack of an imperative still needs to be thought through but I'm not sure why you include the witchcraft example as I thought the line in Exodus that "A sorcerer shall not be allowed to live" applied to Jewish as well as Christian scripture but are you claiming otherwise?

People always mistakenly think that. Just because someone wrote something down more than 2,000 years ago, that does not mean Jews follow the practice now, or that they have for thousands of years. Judaism changes, constantly. And many of the statements people commonly associate with Judaism were never followed. The Jews never took an "eye for an eye." The statement was enforced by trying to figure out what would be fair compensation, very similar to America's civil justice system today.

Most religious people tend to agree that morality is objective so you may stumble upon "moral truths" even if you confuse their source but you seem to be rejecting moral positions based on their origins so what's the difference between you and those who belive morality is derived from God? If someone claims that God says freedom of speech is morally good will you reject it because it's based on the supernatural?

The very act of believing a lie, and giving up one's ability to think on one's own, is immoral. It's not the "source" so much as the blind, stupidity it promotes in its followers, that makes superstition immoral. What "moral truth" has Christianity stumbled upon? I missed that part.

You also avoided my question. However, I'm not defending Christianity here I'm challenging your assertion that "Any religion that clings to the supernatural I consider immoral". I'm not sure how you willingly believes a lie or gives up your ability to think. I'm also not sure why, as you seem to claim, stupidity makes you immoral.

Tell me where in Christianity anyone is ever encouraged to use their brain to question the moral statements god gives them?

[Mike Strand]

FiH, you wrote:

Does another person's opinion on here qualify as an objection verification of your success? I don't think so.

I agree with you on this. My conclusion that I countered a few of your arguments successfully was mine based on my understanding of reason (no guarantee of objectivity), and I guess I was unduly flattered that others agreed with my conclusion.

Your conclusion that I did not refute any of your arguments is, I think, also based on your understanding of reason, also no guarantee of objectivity.

I can live with this disagreement, which may be based on hidden ideas or assumptions:

Writer 1: Horses can’t get food from a desert.
Writer 2: Yes, they can.

Writer 1 sees food for horses only as oats and a desert as pure, barren sand.
Writer 2 sees horse food as grass and some other plants that may be found in many deserts. Also, the horses on a desert may be fed by their nomad owners.

Which writer is reasoning correctly? Both are, based on their concepts and assumptions, which differ.