Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible

[ForgedinHell]

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.

Fair enough.

[John]

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.

You can't argue that morality can't come from the Bible because of it's contents and then dismiss the relevance of the same contents when they appear in Jewish scriptures. If the Jews can interpret the same content differently and arrive at a moral position then so can Christians. If, in your opinion, Christians fail to do so then then it can't be because it's impossible so the argument that morality cannot come from the Bible is false.

I think you're also being selective when you excuse the Jewish principle of an "eye for an eye" but you show no latitude towards "do unto others...." by claiming that it justifies killing which would be in conflict with the commandment "thou shalt not kill" so clearly not a valid interpretation when moral principles are derived from the body of the work rather than single sentences taken in isolation.

[ForgedinHell]

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.

You can't argue that morality can't come from the Bible because of it's contents and then dismiss the relevance of the same contents when they appear in Jewish scriptures. If the Jews can interpret the same content differently and arrive at a moral position then so can Christians. If, in your opinion, Christians fail to do so then then it can't be because it's impossible so the argument that morality cannot come from the Bible is false.

I think you're also being selective when you excuse the Jewish principle of an "eye for an eye" but you show no latitude towards "do unto others...." by claiming that it justifies killing which would be in conflict with the commandment "thou shalt not kill" so clearly not a valid interpretation when moral principles are derived from the body of the work rather than single sentences taken in isolation.

I merely explained that the earlier writings have been misinterpreted, so how does that in any way state that I am saying morality comes from the Bible? It doesn't. And, let's go ahead and combine the golden rule with thou shall not kill, it still is immoral. If I see someone suffering like crazy, they are terminal, and I could cease their agony by killing them, which I may even want to do under the Golden Rule, I can't because I cannot kill. So, I needlessly let them suffer, while they are begging me for mercy. One of the major problems with the bible is that it never mentions how to reconcile these conflicts in any given situation, does it? Looking to the Bible for answers won't get anyone very far. Furthermore, you have never explained how a person knows that any statement in the Bible is moral or not. The point is, and this is consistent with the incompleteness theorems, no system can ever be complete, but must always depend on something external to the system. The Bible is no different. Therefore, morality has to come from another place, the Bible cannot be a self-contained moral system, any more than the system of arithmetic can be complete.

The underlying structure of reality is mathematical.

[mickthinks]

... the Bible cannot be a self-contained moral system, ...

Yes, of course, and Christian doctrine allows for that, Forgy. But it seems you cannot accept that you might be wrong about Christian doctrine.

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?

But one doesn't need to believe in witchcraft to burn one of the many people who claim to be witches! So now you need evidence or reasons to conclude that atheism discourages burning liars.

[ForgedinHell]

... the Bible cannot be a self-contained moral system, ...

Yes, of course, and Christian doctrine allows for that, Forgy. But it seems you cannot accept that you might be wrong about Christian doctrine.

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?

But one doesn't need to believe in witchcraft to burn one of the many people who claim to be witches! So now you need evidence or reasons to conclude that atheism discourages burning liars.

Actually, one does. The belief was that they were actually acting in concert with the devil, which I do not believe. No such person exists, there is no devil, and every person burned as a witch was 100% innocent. It's true that there are Wiccans, but they harmlessly chant and dance and pray to gods that don't exist. If that is what the Christians thought, that the witches had no supernatural power, they would not have burned them.

[mickthinks]

If that is what the Christians thought, that the witches had no supernatural power, they would not have burned them.

But the question I put to you (which that doesn't answer) is, what evidence or reasons can you cite to conclude that atheism discourages burning people such as witches who make false claims about their abilities?

[ForgedinHell]

If that is what the Christians thought, that the witches had no supernatural power, they would not have burned them.

But the question I put to you (which that doesn't answer) is, what evidence or reasons can you cite to conclude that atheism discourages burning people such as witches who make false claims about their abilities?

You kidding me? First, as an atheist, I do not believe in any supernatural mandate to murder witches. Secomd, as an atheist I do not delude myself into thinking that women who are assertive and independent are sluts of the devil out to curse humanity and enslave us all, unless we burn them. In other words, I do not judge people on supernatural speculation as the theist often does. This still occurs in modern 21st century western civilizations where religious people think that occultists are in league with the devil to enslave us all under the New World Order. In essence, as an atheist, I ignore all superstitious nonsense, and certainly would not consider murdering someone based on superstitious teachings. How many atheists have burned witches throughout history? Name one.

[mickthinks]

In essence, as an atheist, I ignore all superstitious nonsense, and certainly would not consider murdering someone based on superstitious teachings.

Okay, that rules out one of the possible motives for killing other people. Are you proposing to establish the moral superiority of atheism by working through all the other possible motives and ruling them all out individually like this, one by one? There are too many of them for that to be a practical approach, Forgy.

For instance, why would an atheist not consider murdering people with other beliefs based on eugenic teachings?

[Notvacka]

I won't argue about the Bible. But I'm rather curious about your reasoning behind this statement:

The Golden Rule is immoral.

The need for morality, and morality itself, emerges from the simple fact that other people exist; when we realise and accept that to other people we are other people too. This is something we all share, that we are other people to each other. Morality is all about how we treat each other. And the morality that emerges is basically the Golden Rule. Or do you have some other notion of morality?

[John]

One of the major problems with the bible is that it never mentions how to reconcile these conflicts in any given situation, does it? Looking to the Bible for answers won't get anyone very far. Furthermore, you have never explained how a person knows that any statement in the Bible is moral or not. The point is, and this is consistent with the incompleteness theorems, no system can ever be complete, but must always depend on something external to the system. The Bible is no different. Therefore, morality has to come from another place, the Bible cannot be a self-contained moral system, any more than the system of arithmetic can be complete.

At the start of this thread you asked Christians "to name a single moral principle from their religion" not whether the Bible was a complete moral and entirely consistent moral system so you're moving the goalpost just a bit. There are some horrendous things in the Bible but they're mostly, but not all, in the part inherited from Judaism.

[ForgedinHell]

One of the major problems with the bible is that it never mentions how to reconcile these conflicts in any given situation, does it? Looking to the Bible for answers won't get anyone very far. Furthermore, you have never explained how a person knows that any statement in the Bible is moral or not. The point is, and this is consistent with the incompleteness theorems, no system can ever be complete, but must always depend on something external to the system. The Bible is no different. Therefore, morality has to come from another place, the Bible cannot be a self-contained moral system, any more than the system of arithmetic can be complete.

At the start of this thread you asked Christians "to name a single moral principle from their religion" not whether the Bible was a complete moral and entirely consistent moral system so you're moving the goalpost just a bit. There are some horrendous things in the Bible but they're mostly, but not all, in the part inherited from Judaism.

Actually, the most horrid parts of the bible come from the so-called New Testament, not the old. Did the so-called old testament ever claim that god would torture someone for all eternity unless they accepted a human sacrifice? Now, that is sick.

[ForgedinHell]

I won't argue about the Bible. But I'm rather curious about your reasoning behind this statement:

The Golden Rule is immoral.

The need for morality, and morality itself, emerges from the simple fact that other people exist; when we realise and accept that to other people we are other people too. This is something we all share, that we are other people to each other. Morality is all about how we treat each other. And the morality that emerges is basically the Golden Rule. Or do you have some other notion of morality?

The morality that emerges is the golden rule? Does it? There is no logical reason why if I value my life I have to value anyone elses. Is there? Do you have some sort of logical proof for this statement? Morality comes from our human evolution, it is built into us, that's why anyone who talks about morality without focusing on people's feelings is completely off the mark.

[Lynn]

I won't argue about the Bible. But I'm rather curious about your reasoning behind this statement:

The Golden Rule is immoral.

The need for morality, and morality itself, emerges from the simple fact that other people exist; when we realise and accept that to other people we are other people too. This is something we all share, that we are other people to each other. Morality is all about how we treat each other. And the morality that emerges is basically the Golden Rule. Or do you have some other notion of morality?

The concept of universal human rights and equality.

[Notvacka]

The morality that emerges is the golden rule? Does it? There is no logical reason why if I value my life I have to value anyone elses. Is there?

Yes there is. If you value your life, you would like others to value your life too, right? And the other way around, they would like you to value their life. The only logical solution is everybody valuing the life of everybody, which is a win-win situation.

Do you have some sort of logical proof for this statement? Morality comes from our human evolution, it is built into us, that's why anyone who talks about morality without focusing on people's feelings is completely off the mark.

But this is how we feel, when we are among others whom we trust. It's a positive feedback loop, since it helps us to build trust too. Evolution is often mistakenly understood as mere competition, when it's actually more about cooperation. The most important step in evolution was probably when single cells stopped competing and started cooperating, as this allowed much more complex organisms to form. And it's our sense of morality that has allowed human society to form incredible successful (though still flawed) systems of cooperation based upon mutual trust. As a species we have long since passed the point where individual selection, or even biological selection, is the most important factor in our evolution.

[John]

Actually, the most horrid parts of the bible come from the so-called New Testament, not the old. Did the so-called old testament ever claim that god would torture someone for all eternity unless they accepted a human sacrifice? Now, that is sick.

I bet Isaac thought the idea of human sacrifice was a barrel of laughs.