Christian morality: an atheist's point of view (Noah, church, bible)

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

One thing that has astounded me throughout this particular line of reasoning is how your opinion has never really entered into the discussion.

That's because my opinion doesn't determine morality. All it is...is an opinion.

I've said several times that morality is decided by consensus. Even the morality you currently practice came about through consensus and opinion; you've simply been acclimated to that particular morality. But our current morality has not always been practiced - and it certainly isn't universal.

And what if the consensus changes?

Some of the very harsh laws in America during the Colonial period come to mind. This is the era of the dreaded witch trials. More than that though, there was a time when some communities decreed it immoral to laugh on Sunday, church attendance was mandatory, playing cards was illegal (and immoral) as was the theater, and husbands could put a dog muzzle on their wife's face if he thought she was nagging him too much. There is even the quasi-famous case of a ship captain who, upon returning home from a long voyage, made the mistake of kissing his wife - on Sunday. That landed him three days in the stocks.

So were the people right in their opinions of morlaity?

I doubt even you would advocate for such unhealthy strictness - but in the Puritan colonies, that's precisely the morality many people believed in - and naturally, of course, their version of God believed in it too. No doubt they could cite chapter and verse.

No....God really didn't. They created laws that went above what God had commanded.

So why is it, then, that we no longer allow husbands to muzzle their wives or throw people in the stocks for kissing their wives on Sunday? Did God come down and announce a new moral code since the 1600's?

Or did consensus, the will of the people, make those moral changes in our society?

God never did make those laws. That's what happens when we let opinions and consensus rule.

Yeah, I know you might be tempted to argue that the Puritans were simply misinterpreting God's word. Perhaps, but that still doesn't change the fact that their morality came from consensus - the Puritans still chose to practice morality in the way they did. God did not come down and tell them to force people to attend church and criminalize laughter on the Sabbath.

And it was a misguided human opinion that resulted in an incorrect morality. I'm just wondering how you think you have grounds to say they were wrong?

In addition, arguing that they misinterpreted God's word only bolsters the often-used atheistic argument that says God almost unilaterally agrees with the believer - which is why there are no "reluctant" believers. I don't think I have EVER heard a believer say something like, "Well, I really don't like it and I personally think it's wrong, stupid, immoral (etc.), but I have to do it anyway because that's what God commands."

Thus it would stand to reason that a group of Christians who interpreted the Bible differently than you do would be wrong - because God always agrees with YOUR interpretation of his word. Why else would you even hold that particular interpretation if it were otherwise?

Most Christians I've ever known agree with some basic tenets of morality as outlined in the Bible. I'm sorry, but I really don't see that to be an issue.

But let's go back to your own opinion on morality.

Because the lack of your own personal "take" on morality speaks volumes - and they are not volumes anyone ought to ever read.

In one of my previous posts, I brought up the story of Abraham and Isaac with an emphasis on how Abraham never once questioned God, asked God "why" or even offered to give his own life to save his son. No, Abraham simply snapped-to and did as he was told. No one really knows how Abraham felt about making that sacrifice, but the Bible does not portray him as showing any remorse, reluctance, hesitation, or regret - all of which would be understandable, nay, NORMAL reactions to such a command.

You, Vizio, "laugh" (as you put it) when someone "like you" (mordant) questions God. Someone like mordant? What is that supposed to mean?

My point is that no one on this board has been able to give me an objective standard of morality...yet they claim to have grounds to condemn God and a group of people that lived 3000-4000 years ago. I find that amazing.

More to the point, however, what Christians like you utterly fail to grasp is that every single time you pray and ASK for something, even if it isn't for yourself, you are questioning God. That's right. You are essentially saying something like this:

"I know you have a divine plan, oh God, and that things are happening as they are because you, who is infinitely wiser than I, think this is the best course. But I would like for you to change your plan. I am asking you to alter your divine will on my behalf because what I want ... my OPINION ... is deserving of consideration even if it conflicts with yours. Oh, I know I'll phrase it in the form of a question and I'll give lip service to 'accepting your will' but in truth, I want what I want. If my prayers are answered, then I'll assume you were the cause which means questioning God really DOES have benefits and, therefore, no one should 'laugh' when someone does it. Thank you, oh God, for blabbity blabbity blah."

Yet not questioning God is apparently a strength, a sign of piety. You strike me as someone who would "snap-to" just like Abraham and do whatever God commands you to do even if you know in your heart of hearts how immoral that act is. Even if I were a believer, Vizio, I would not just snap-to. I WOULD question God and I'll tell you why. If I believed God got his kicks from constantly "testing" his followers, I would be of the mind that God is testing my moral resolve. Would I stay true to accepted, even Biblical morality? Or would I just do what I'm told regardless. Perhaps the test is in the criticism. I would want to know why I must commit acts that would otherwise be immoral. In fact, how would I know I'm not being tricked by the Prince of Lies? Therein lies one of the greatest dangers of blind obedience - you can't always know, and often you do not know, just who you're obeying.

Do you realize that God invites us to petition him? He wants us to pray and ask for things, in addition to worshiping him?

You should use that gray lump of neurons and synapses between your ears. God put it there for a reason. Perhaps one of those reasons is for humanity to work out morality on its own and not just look to God with little stars and sparklies in our eyes thinking, "Duuuh, derrrr, whaddo I do now, errr, God?"

My little lump of gray has been destroying any and every argument that you guys have brought on this thread regarding an objective sense of morality. Not one person has come up with a reason that we can judge anyone else, or any other culture. The best I've seen is "Duh....if it feels good, do it!". The problem, of course, is that it does not address what someone like Hitler did.

And finally, for my last trick, I want to reiterate what I said about ISIS - because the lack of your own opinion and your own morality, Vizio, is what I find so deeply disturbing. It suggests to me that you would behave just like Abraham if you were told by God to do something the rest of society would find morally depraved or even criminal.

The only time in recorded history that God has ever commanded someone to do that was Abraham. Why would I think for a second that he'd do it again? With Abraham he was foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ. Christ has come, gave his life, and has let. Why would he do it again?

When I think of the number of people even here on this very forum who have claimed to have had personal, one-on-one conversations with God, is there really any guarantee that one of these little divine gab sessions won't result in a command to go on a killing spree? Something like, "Gather ye up my True Believers and deliver upon the blasphemers, the fornicators, the adulterers, the witches, the doubters and the homosexuals my swift and implacable justice. Destroy all who would claim I am not the One True God for they poison the minds of my followers and pollute the world with their lies ..."

Do you think they really need religion to go killing people? Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, etc.....they all did just fine with no god.

Evil crazies are evil crazies with or without a god as a scapegoat.

Neither Joshua or any of the other Israelites who set upon the task of butchery and slaughter in the land of Canaan actually saw God or even heard God when the command was given to Moses. No. They all had to take Moses's word for it. What makes you think that Christians of today, who might normally be well-mannered if fanatical believers, wouldn't pick up weapons and kill if the right leader told them to? It's happened before, has it not? Do you not take the Bible as literal truth?

They had direct commands from the prophets. They watched God work in the desert. They saw the walls of Jericho fall. They saw miraculous things happen.

But if "Christians" of today were to follow a cult leader and do violence? They deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. As I said -- with or without God, there are nut jobs out there that can and will do violence.

If your morality is merely whatever God tells you it is, then it leaves you wide open to being hoodwinked by people even more fanatical than you are. And no ... you can NOT use the excuse of "God would never order such a thing" because he has. And you defend it.

And that is worse than doing anything because secular society tells you it's good? Do you realize how many babies a year die in abortions? Have you seen the devaluation of life? Of people actually calling for "post-birth abortions"? Or people suggesting euthanasia is appropriate?

In fact, you defend it to such a degree that you make excuses for why the people of Canaan had to be murdered right down to the babies. Because you MUST agree with God's actions at all times even when you know full well that you really don't agree. Instead, you talk yourself into agreement by using a number of fantastically weak rationalizations: "People die in times of war," "They were all wicked and had to die," and "God has the right to kill anyone he wants because he's the creator."

Do you think the Caananites would have treated the Israelites any differently? Do you think that worshiping false gods and sacrificing babies was a good thing?

You can't bring yourself to saying, outloud at least, "I don't agree with what God did." You could even be a bit more magnanimous and say, "I don't agree with what God did, but he is God and he obviously knew something I don't."

But what you'll never say is: "If I had been God, I would have used my omnipotence to formulate a different course of action."

Why would I? I'm not that arrogant. I have no idea why God did it the way he did it. I do know that by keeping the Israelite nation pure he kept the line of the Messiah alive and he brought the savior into the world, saving billions from hell. But to someone who only thinks in the here and now....that's not important to you.

Apparently you must think the only reason why God gave you a brain was so that you would have the capacity to sin, to "think for yourself" instead of doing as you're told. God doesn't want robots, after all, except ... he does. God just wants you to choose to be a robot. The end result, however, is the same.

Do you think you're any less of a robot? Do you not realize that you're a slave to your passions and desires much more so than any Christian? Do you not realize that you serve a different god...but a god nonetheless? That you require faith to live your life? But you place your faith in something other than God?

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

It really isn't. At least not if you actually take the time to read and study it.

That's my point, Vizio. One shouldn't have to spend a lot of time studying the Bible in order to understand what is moral and what isn't.

The more people have to study, the longer it takes to figure it out, the more complicated it must be - and like with any complicated gizmo or idea, the chance of something going amazingly wrong is directly proportional to its complexity.

And you and I both know that things have gone amazingly wrong with Christian morality almost on a continuous basis since its founding. That's one reason why we have more than 20,000 different denominations, factions, sects, and cults.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

That's my point, Vizio. One shouldn't have to spend a lot of time studying the Bible in order to understand what is moral and what isn't.

Why?

The more people have to study, the longer it takes to figure it out, the more complicated it must be - and like with any complicated gizmo or idea, the chance of something going amazingly wrong is directly proportional to its complexity.

And you and I both know that things have gone amazingly wrong with Christian morality almost on a continuous basis since its founding. That's one reason why we have more than 20,000 different denominations, factions, sects, and cults.

Actually, I would again point out that we all KNOW what is right and wrong. We KNOW that murder, rape, theft, etc is wrong. People may suppress the knowledge of such things being wrong...but we KNOW them to be wrong.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by Vizio

People may suppress the knowledge of such things being wrong...but we KNOW them to be wrong.

How do you know that? Please post proof your claims are true. Thanks.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Shirina

Well, this is the reason why I think taking morality from the Bible is such a bad idea.

Ever see a Family Circus comic?



Trying to discern what the Bible really means and what God thinks is truly moral is like following the dotted line. Following such a convoluted dotted line to morality only ensures that there will be lots of places for someone to become lost along the way.

Morality needs to be simplified and straightforward.

Hence this:

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

How do you know that? Please post proof your claims are true. Thanks.

You don't know murder to be wrong? You don't know that rape is wrong?

Wow.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by cupper3

[/b]

Hence this:

What grounds do you have to suggest that is the system to use? What makes that anything more than your opinion and any more valid than anyone else's system...such as Adolph Hitler?

[travric]

The difference between atheism and fundamentalist religion is that atheism
doesn't really leave any room for an "atheistic conquest by force of arms."

Well you know I leave it to the fundamentalists to argue that point. I'm not of the persuasion and don't know if they have say a 'program' for that (hope not!).

But I take your word on not having '...conquest by force of arms'. But I'd suggest that you cannot entirely get the probability stat down to say 0.00%. Now maybe it would be a nice question to take a look at in the study of absolute POWAH! to have some social scientists fill us in on that???

I've always thought we are on very slippery slopes when we take a look at human behavior and what the species will do and not do under certain circumstances. One thing that would impress me though is that if you had say one and only once chance (no seconds!) of knocking off any and all things related to the Chi Rho and destroying all its physical memory from the face of the earth, to remove it so it never existed, but yet some magnanimous feeling overcomes the decision of the a-theist 'high council' and the Chi Ro survives the disaster. Oh there would be perhaps gnashing of teeth on that Council! But it would manage to eke through.

Now I'd like to believe it really could be in the realm of possibility. Certainly that's all drama. But something makes it always more like a fairy-tale. I think humans do have a tendency to put themselves 'on' when it comes to the tricky problems. Saying certain outcomes are 'unlikely' does not preclude them from having the possibility of happening.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by Vizio

You don't know murder to be wrong? You don't know that rape is wrong?

Once again you failed to answer the question. Again: Questions aren't answers. (No matter how much you want them to be and even if that's what they taught you to do in pastor school.)

Post your proof for your claim. All you've proved is you're adept at deflection.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by cupper3

What about the NT portraying slavery as acceptable?

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

It doesn't. If you are going to take that position then you have to explain why 1 Timothy 1:80-10 lists enslavers as sinners along with liars and murderers:


Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,2 liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Timothy 1:8–10

Then why does the major protagonist of the gospels, Jesus, give instructions on how to beat slaves within an inch of their lives? Unless they believe in god, and then only beat them at bit.

Luke 12:47-48

Don't Jesus's words carry more weight than Paul's? Who ya gonna believe more?

Or the people who look at Leviticus for their inspiration to hate homosexuals, but ignore Ruth, where it clearly states that she love Naomi like Adam loved Eve.

And John certainly describes a rather, shall we say, cozy relationship Jesus had with the disciple that was cuddling against his chest.

Of course, Paul blows that all to, well, hell. He condemns and damns and demeans all sorts of abominations, including homosexuality, and women who want to talk in church.

That bible! A bunch of books written by committee. And then cobbled together by another committee. It's like trying to design a bactrian camel.

So it is impossible to have love and affection for someone in a non-sexual way?

Both Ruth and the cuddling is as sexual as it gets. Truly.

And Jesus said that marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman. If the Bible was so cobbled, hacked up, mistranslated and distorted by several commitees then the Dead Sea Scrolls would have been significantly different from our modern day Bible.

The committees were working cobbled well before the Dead Sea scrolls were produced. Of course, we also have the Hammurabi scrolls, but the committee from the 4th century disavowed those. Who ya gonna believe?