Godless ≠ Without Morals
I sometimes get emails. The latest one is from a Christian who shared his opinion (a tired old claim) that, without his god, there is no morality.
As if that weren’t enough to get the last hair on my head standing up, last night I watched Dinesh D’Souza make the audacious claim that all of the good morals in western society are Christian morals.
I’ve often heard it said that the 10 Commandments is the ‘ultimate moral code’ (Dinesh has said something to this effect on numerous occasions). Let’s focus on them to see if the claim is true.
Table via Wikipedia
As you can see, the first three or four commandments (3 vs 4 depending on what brand of Christian you are) are all about worshiping god (note that I am lumping ‘keep the Sabbath’ in this grouping). Are these first commandments really about morality? It seems to me they are not – that they are about brow-beating people into accepting an insecure god’s authority. I would challenge anyone to show me how those 3/4 commandments make us more moral.
On to the remaining commandments…
Honor your father and mother: Sounds reasonable on the surface, but is it as wise as it could be? Why not “respect others as you would like to be respected”? And, while we’re on the subject, do all parents deserve to be honored, or is it more accurate that some parents are worthy and others are not? What about parents who abuse their children? Are they to be honored at all times as the commandment commands?
You shall not murder: A pretty darn good rule. My questions about it are 1) Would we all be running around killing people without it, and 2) Does this rule not exist in other societies (religious and secular)? In other words, does Christianity think it’s the only world view to think not killing is a good thing?
You shall not steal: Again, this is a pretty good rule but I can imagine there to be nuances that it doesn’t consider. For instance, if your family is starving, and you live under a rich tyrant, would it not be acceptable to steal from him/her to keep your loved ones from perishing? This is similar to the ‘honor your father and mother’ commandment in that I don’t think it’s as wise as it could be (remember we are basing this discussion on the claim that the Ten Commandments are the ultimate moral code).
You shall not lie (bear false witness): I think we can all agree that, sometimes, lying is perfectly acceptable. Lying to avoid hurting a person’s feelings is ok. Lying to avoid being persecuted by an unjust ruler is ok. Again, couldn’t this take a wiser form?
You shall not commit adultery: This commandment really gets to personal feelings about what a marriage is and should be. The problem is that there are some variations in what people believe in this regard. What if two people no longer love one another, but have amicably agreed to remain married until their children have grown? What happens if, under these conditions, they want to have an ‘open’ marriage? Of course, a very religious person may view this choice as unacceptable in the eyes of their god, but a more secularly minded individual may think otherwise. Their viewpoint may be, “adultery is ok as long as each partner agrees and it doesn’t hurt the children”.
You shall not covet: There is a lot I could say here, but I will just say one thing – while it may not put a person’s mind at ease to be always wanting something he does not have, I cannot see it to be such a crime as to be worthy of eternal damnation. You could go your entire life wishing to have your neighbor’s wealth (or wife) but how does that mental wish make you hell bound?
Other Shortcomings of the Ten Commandments: I am sure there are others, but here are just a few off the top of my head:
- Child Molestation: This should be a no-brainer if you’re making commandments.
- Rape: Ditto
- Slavery: At one time, Christians justified slavery using verses in the Bible. Now we know better. Why wasn’t something about slavery included in the ultimate moral code?
- Equality: Women, blacks and now gays have all struggled for equality. Why didn’t something about basic human rights get included in the Christian moral code?
Ok, so we’re done looking at the Ten Commandments. To me anyway, it’s pretty clear that they are anything but an ‘ultimate moral code’. Some Christians will say that the Ten Commandments are not everything – that there is lots of other good stuff in the Bible. My answer is to agree that there is some good stuff in the Bible. However, there is also a lot of bad stuff. There are passages about stoning disobedient children, stoning women for not being virgins, carrying out genocide and much, much more.
To those charges, the liberal Christian pleads that much of the Bible should not be taken literally – that there are hidden meanings and positive messages to be found behind those passages. The passages don’t mean what they say. In other words, we need to better interpret them.
Ok fine but, at this point, I think it’s worth mentioning that interpreting and re-interpreting Bible passages has been going on for a long, long time. In fact, this sort of thing is what’s led to the multitude of Christian denominations we have today. Generally speaking, what happens is a person (or group of people) disagrees with the moral code being promoted by a given faith. In some circumstances, the dispute ends gracefully with a new moral interpretation. A good example of this is how most of Christianity eventually recognized that slavery was bad. In more extreme cases, new denominations & religions have splintered off to propagate their own moral preferences.
In both cases, their is one commonality – people engage their brains, review the Bible, strip away the bad stuff, and evolve their understanding of the Bible so that it can be made consistent with the morality of the day.
Did you pay attention to that last bit? It is people who have historically evolved their moral codes – not the Bible, and it is the re-interpretations that have allowed the Bible to stay morally relevant.
And even then, it seems to me that the Bible is grossly inadequate compared to other sources of morality. Which sources? How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a clearly secular document)? I’m sorry but, on issues of human rights, the Bible doesn’t even hold a candle.
That specific document aside, there are many places where you can begin satisfying your desire to learn about morality and to formulate your own code of ethics. Philosophy loves ethics and morality and has a nasty habit (according to some!) of failing to mention deities. Here are a few links to get you started:
- Wikipedia’s Ethics Page – a good jump-off point
- Index of Ethical Movements (another good jump-off point)
- Objectivism
- Humanism
- Secular Ethics
- Hedonism
- Utilitarianism
- Stoicism (A.C. Grayling says much of Christian thought was co-opted from Stoicism)
- Consequentialism
- Alternatives to the Ten Commandments
Or you might read up on what some of the world’s most famous philosophers have had to say. Great thinkers like:
My own morality leans heavily on humanism and the Ethic of Reciprocity (a virtually universal ethical standard – not found solely in the Christian version of the ‘Golden Rule’) but I enjoy reading about other schools, and view the subject as a lifetime pursuit. I think one of the most important things we can keep in mind when considering ethics and morality is that we aren’t obligated to buy into any one school of thought. It’s your brain – use it.
I’m curious if any of my readers subscribe to a particular school of ethical thought, and what resources they’ve used to arrive at their own views on the subject. Please share.
In the meantime, I hope it’s now clear that Godless ≠ Without Morals.
Tags: christianity • ethics • golden rule • human rights • morality • morals • religion • ten commandments
Comments
47 Responses to “Godless ≠ Without Morals”
Leave a Reply
-
Blogroll
- About Atheism & Agnosticism I’m not a big fan of about.com but the site’s atheism writer – August Cline – is excellent
- Atheist Revolution by vjack – an unbelievably prolific writer on the subject of atheism
- Attempts At Rational Behavior A godless liberal who firmly believes in the separation of church and state.
- Friendly Atheist warmth and wisdom from the guy who sold his soul on eBay
- Pharyngula by PZ Meyers
-
Communities & Social Bookmarking
- Advocacy & Activism
-
Video Favorites
- Atheist a simply made video with an incredibly inspiring message
- Pat Condell’s Youtube Channel is Atheism on the offensive (controversial, funny & brilliant)
- Potholer54’s Youtube Channel home of the amazing “Made Easy” series (evolution & natural selection, the scientific method, and history of the universe etc)
- Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? is an excellent 24 part Youtube video series by Thunderfoot
-
The Four Horsemen
- Christopher Hitchens is the author of “God is Not Great”
- Daniel Dennet is the author of “Breaking the Spell”
- Richard Dawkins is the author of “The God Delusion”, “The Blind Watchmaker” & more
- Sam Harris is the author of “The End of Faith” & “Letter to a Christian Nation”
-
Morals, Values, World Views
- Ethic of Reciprocity “The Golden Rule” is one of things that guides my life
- One Source of Morality might be from our feelings of empathy
- Secular Humanism check out the Council of Secular Humanism affirmations and declarations
- Secular Humanism on Wikipedia atheism is what I don’t believe & secular humanism is, more or less, what I do
-
My Purpose Here
I'm here to help doubting Christians let go of their fear and guilt, to provide an example of an atheist leading a happy, moral and fulfilling life, and to connect with like-minded non-believers. Welcome!
-
Subscribe & Bookmark
Recent Posts
Recent Comments:
- Ben: Good to have you back, Mark! Keep up the great work, I love your insights.
- Julie: Glad to hear it
- Alexis Mullino: I’m glad to see more folks on Goodreads. I sent you a friend request....
- Tegan: Just stumbled here….love the blog. Good to see a serious athiest blog (though...
- Samuel Kenyon: I wanted to get it last fall, but I had to wait until last month to get my...
On Youtube
Book Recommendations
- Letter to a Christian Nation - by Sam Harris
- Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible & Why - by Bart Ehrman
- The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins
“I hope it’s now clear that Godless ≠ Without Morals.”
Very few people would suggest that Godless does equal without morals. However:
. Without the existence of God objective morals, values and obligations do not exist.
. But we know from our interactions with others that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist.
. Atheists are only moral relativists until someone does something “wrong” to them. Then they know and they know absolutely that objective morals exist.
makarios: Assuming objective morality exists, on what basis do you make the leap that it comes from your god? By the example shown in the relativist morality demonstrated by Christianity throughout the ages? For example, why was slavery, the subjugation of women etc. moral then, but now now? How does Christianity’s changing morality factor into your claim?
There are probably circumstances where most people would agree on a morality. For example, we would all likely agree that 1st degree murder is always wrong. But to go from there to the claim that Christianity is the only source of this nugget of wisdom is absolutely ludicrous.
Good post, nicely written.
How Christianity can claim to have given morals to the world escapes me. The 10 commandments, as mentioned, start off with a kind of paranoid enforcement of belief, and go on to set out a bare minimum of common sense rules for a society to exist.
Looking at it another way, for Christians to need to have such rules carved for them in stone, they must surely have been pretty amoral and unruly in the first place. And to follow those rules now out of fear of divine retribution, rather than a sense of social ethics doesn’t give Christians a moral high ground in my opinion
Maybe someone should have explained to the other, earlier and greater civilisations of the world not based on the 10 commandments, the Chinese, Babylonians, Greeks, Aztecs, etc. that they had no morals or that their moral codes were meaningless, and that all morality comes from a ‘burning bush’ in some pretty insignificant scrub-land, as explained to the desperate chief of a desert nomad tribe trying to keep his unruly people in check while they search for a homeland.
Early peoples may have created gods in part to reinforce the rules of a society, but it seems apparent to me that the morals come from within as a way of living together in relative harmony. This is how moral codes evolve and change as societies evolve and change. Now our societies, moral codes and legal systems have developed to a point where we no longer need religion to supervise and guide our ethical behaviour. To the point that religious law is now seen as a bit backward or amoral in certain areas (sharia law, ban on birth control etc.).
Sorry if that was a bit rambling…
“Assuming objective morality exists, on what basis do you make the leap that it comes from your god?”
Anything less is arbitrary. We can assume His existence because we know that objective morals, values and obligations exist. Please don’t go into the nonsense of, “Well how do you know it isn’t Thor.” I don’t have time.
==========
“By the example shown in relativist morality demonstrated by Christianity throughout the ages (e.g. why was slavery, subjugation of women etc moral then, but now now)?”
Well, what constitutes subjugation of women in any given culture changes over time. However, it is a historical fact that Hebrew culture regarding women, as described in the OT was always better than surrounding cultures. It’s simply wrong to compare 21st century to 4th century BC culture. As to slavery, if you are thinking American style slavery you’re way off the mark. This link should help:
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/09/sal-and-slavery.html
==============
“But to go from there to the claim that Christianity is the only source of this nugget of wisdom is absolutely ludicrous.”
Yes it would be, but that’s not what is being said.
What’s being said is that if there are objective morals, values and duties, and we know from our interaction with others that objective morals do in fact exist, it’s because there is a final stopping point, a non arbitrary point or origin of objective morality.
Just as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realised in Jesus and Father God. As I stated above, our daily interactions with others shows we believe without doubt that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
. Objective moral Goodness and Obligation are based on God’s character.
Nice post!
I don’t believe in any objective morality. All morality is relative. Whether something bad happens to me or not will not change this belief.
It’s difficult for a Christian to understand because they are able to believe in things and be 100% sure of something.
I’m a skeptic & there is nothing I believe in 100%. Everything I know, feel, and believe could be wrong in some way. Changing my mind about anything would only require experimentation & data. There are no absolutes.
makarios, you haven’t said anything to back up your assertion that morals come from god. You just assert it by saying, “because we know morals exist, they come from god”. That isn’t evidence – it’s a circular argument.
Note the tone of authority you have – you KNOW this to be true. On what basis? I, on the other hand, have made no similar assertion. All I have said is that we can study morality, and that the evidence of Christianity’s shifting morality does not support your claim. If your god was the source of objective morality, you’d think he would have done a better job of communicating those morals to his people, rather than have those morals evolve over time!
As with much of what Christianity preaches, your assertion has no evidence behind it.
@Perry: Thanks. I’m not sure if *all* morality is relative. My sense is that it probably is, but I think we need to study the issue more before that can be determined. What I *am* certain about is that the unsubstantiated claim people like makarios make is full of hot air.
“you haven’t said anything to back up your assertion that morals come from god. You just assert it by saying, “because we know morals exist, they come from god”. That isn’t evidence – it’s a circular argument.”
Well, what I said, isn’t what you heard.
I DID NOT say “because we know morals exist, they come from god”
I said, because we know and we know absolutely that “OBJECTIVE morals, values and obligations exist” there must be a non arbitrary origin of those objective m/v/o.
Why? Because anything less would be relative to the situation or culture. Of course there ARE behaviours that are relatively right or wrong depending on the situation. But there are ALSO m/v/o that are right or wrong regardless of what people think. For example, it wouldn’t matter if the Nazi’s had won the war and ruled the world today. What they did was wrong and it was wrong regardless of who thinks they were right.
I don’t know where you’re from, but just a few days ago, a guy in the U.S. shot and killed four police officers as they were having breakfast in a restaurant. HE will have justified his actions as being right (relative morality). It doesn’t matter. What he did was objectively wrong.
When someone breaks into your home and steals your stuff, you don’t have to think even one second to know whether that was wrong or not. When you go to the movies and the line up is really long and you just go to the front and budge right in, the people at the end of the line who saw you do it wouldn’t have any trouble knowing what you did was wrong either. You may have justified that behaviour in your mind (relative or selective morality) but it was objectively wrong.
Jesus said that the two most important commandments were, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength and the second is like it, Love your neighbour as yourself. Keep only these two and you will be keeping all the rest.”
Ok, for the sake of simplicity I’m going to say that the only objective moral obligation that we have is “Love your neighbour as yourself.” That is a stable / objective obligation regardless of time, gender, race, culture etc. etc.
Perhaps it’s important to remember that this command, as an expectation, is only for “God’s people.” It applies to others such as yourself and Nick only to highlight where you have failed to keep God’s command. That’s why the Ten Commandments were written down both in stone and in our hearts. They do nothing but show us where we are failing. Keeping them does not save our souls. They only serve as a benchmark.
Ok, having said that, what “loving my neighbour as myself,” looks like will have a great deal to do with the culture and time in which I live. That’s why it isn’t fair to compare my culture in 21st century Canada with 3rd century BC Palestinian culture. I would be held accountable for “loving my neighbour as myself” in both cultures but what that looks like in each culture would be very different.
If God does not exist, then, Love your neighbour is relative to the situation (like the guy who shot the officers). When someone abuses us, harms us, steals from us etc. we know and we know absolutely that loving others is not a relative or selective obligation. Where did that obligation come from? Well, if you want your morals based on truth versus simple survival (where something migh be wrong but you believe it anyway because it helps you to survive > which leads to how would believing lies help anyone survive) then anything less than Creator God is arbitrary and subject to human error.
makarios, I will have to continue this later. I’ve got to get some work done.
makarios, although I was paraphrasing your words, I think I did a pretty good job capturing what you said. To recap, you said:
and
My paraphrasing was:
I’m curious how you could possibly think I have misconstrued your words.
That aside, let’s look again at your first quote above. How is it that you can ascribe physical laws to nature, yes say so authoritatively that morality is realised in God? “God did it” is an intellectually bankrupt statement that gives no thought to how morality may have evolved along with our physical bodies over the eons. Having read a bit of your blog, I know that’s where our discussion is likely to end since you also reject evolution as the explanation of origins.
“you also reject evolution as the explanation of origins.”
Evolution and abiogenesis are not remotely connected.
Wow. That’s your response? To shift the topic away from your indefensable position? I guess we’re done here makarios. Thanks for playing.
That aside, I’ll bite and will clarify that last statement. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It also happens to explain the origins of species – ours included. Abiogenesis may or may not be related to evolution – we simply don’t know since there isn’t evidence either way. It is its own area of study.
Makarios,
Since you mention the Holocaust and the Nazis, what would happen if you were given the choice knowing that by killing Hitler, you would save millions of lives? Would that”murder” be wrong?
Also I was born into a different religion where compassion (or universal love has been taught) for all beings (not just humans but all living sentient beings). That to me and to most people would be the ultimate in love and certainly not expressed in: I am a jealous God and I’ll smite your children to the third and fourth generation if you disobey me.
Oh and by the way, the religion I’m talking about is 6,000 years old and the world’s oldest living religion. So it was around well before Christianity and even before Judaism. Not that I’m saying they’re better – I’m just saying that these ideals were present before and not dependant on Christianity or the Christian God.
40yr old atheist…
do you know you are a deluded liar and that God will punish the blasphemers?
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=929635#929635
advocate:
let me show you the hard facts of life, you little fool
Well, it’s Dave Mabus again! Hey, Dave! What’s up? How’s that end of the world thing coming?
you should know the answer to that question…
Sorry, Dave. I simply can’t keep up with all the false predictions. I think I’ll just wait it out. Let me know when it’s here so I don’t miss it, ok?
A note to all you Christians ….
Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven….
“And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” Luke 6:35-37, 41-42
I subscribe to secular humanism as most of its principles seem to outline my own personal world view, which is really the Golden Rule in a nutshell.
Those fundamentalists who claim there are no morals without god, and that they would rape and murder if god did not exist are quite frightening. Fortunately in a civil society with free will these people are free to believe as they choose, but in an Orwellian dystopia they’d already be imprisoned for thought crime, because I believe these miscreants are only a breath away from enjoying the sins they claim god keeps them from committing. Why else would they keep bringing it up? They must be aching to rape and murder.
There are more moral values within Christianity and the bible than outline in the 10 Commandments so if you think those are the sole basis for Christian morality you’re mistaken.
Yiou said this:<i> My answer is to agree that there is some good stuff in the Bible. However, there is also a lot of bad stuff. There are passages about stoning disobedient children, stoning women for not being virgins, carrying out genocide and much, much more.</i>
There is a lot of stuff in a lot of literature but you noramlly read literature in context to get the full understanding of the story don’t you? Why is it that when it comes to the reading of the bible, the critic assumes that everything written in it is endorsed by God?
no matter how many times Christians demonstrate that recorded events aren’t endorsements of behavior, we then come across obscure passages and the critic levels hard assertions IN SPITE of what we see in the rest of scripture?
Dinesh is RIGHT. There is no value that we hold dear today that we cannot either trace back to the bible or that is out of biblical alignment.
As you didn’t do in the article, NAME ONE biblical vaule that is rejected by society and the civilized world as we know it today?
So far as the UDHR, you’ve got to be kidding? It adds NOTHING to human morality in the least.
Morality can be traced back to the bible?
Does this mean before the bible there was no morality? I am certain that is not the case. Saying morality comes from the bible is misguided. It was common of the time wisdom compiled in one place. That is why there was no foresight on the authors’ part. The whole slavery is good and stone your disobedient child stuff. The bible’s authors’ couldn’t predict those ideals would change over time. What does that say about the word of God?
There are many moralistic parables and teachings in the bible. But that wisdom already existed. The authors (or at least some of them) did a compilation of the existing common wisdom, let’s call it a moralistic mixed tape.
If there were no moral values before the bible, there would have been no way for any societies to form. Our common values and morals allow us to form communities, villages, tribes, cities. Was there crime, murder and hate, sure. But the bible and all it’s teachings hasn’t changed that in the last 2000 years.
It’s clear that I didn’t say that since your very next comment below this one recognized my statement that there is some good in the Bible.
Pastor, you are a fundamentalist Christian and I am a strong atheist. We will not ever agree. NOT EVER. I know this from past experience and find the exercise of arguing with people like you to be time consuming (unlike you, I do not make my living preaching a world view) and pointless. Frankly, I can use my time much more productively engaging the people I actually write for.
In case you interpret this to mean that I gave up and that you won here, I will just point out that I’ve made it clear in other posts why I blog:
So, there you have it. Although I have no intention to go round and round in circles with you, perhaps some of my atheist friends (other commentors) will.
How about Deuteronomy 21:18 to 21:21. Your teenager won’t listen, just kill him. Family values at it’s best.
or Deuteronomy 22:23-24. If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn’t cry out loud enough, then “the men of the city shall stone her to death.
Or Mathew 10:21. Great family values there too, and Mathew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
There’s more of course.
Question M: “Morality can be traced back to the bible?
Does this mean before the bible there was no morality? I am certain that is not the case. Saying morality comes from the bible is misguided.”
I think so too in a technical sense and my mistake. Morality comes for the moral law giver which I find to be God. That morality and it’s basis is revealed within the bible or the written text.
More specifically to your second post the references you make to scripture you’ll find that
1- Rape wasn’t condoned by God
2- The context of that portion of scripture dealt with immoral sexual activity with the claim of rape as a result.
3- Children were highly valued as a part of society and the family.
How do I know this? Look at the context and the society. You can’t interpret scripture or understand the message apart from context. It wasn’t a practice for a Jewish girl to go off alone with a man or men. Why? Because there was a possibility of inappropriate sexual contact. This stuff is common to us but not them. It’s upon the reader to know the context.
Secondly, God knew the damage that illicit sexual relationships bring to society in general. Let me ask you this…You don’t think anything is wrong with all these young kids having babies without fathers, marriage or family structures? You don’t think the fallout effects society in general?
Third thing, regarding the children that you and every critic in the world claims that God wants killed for talking bad to their parents…ONCE again the critic is mindless. This type of child would not only embarrass their parents, he would be worthless to society and borderline murderous of their parents…In essence this kid is a rational functionalist who doesn’t believe in human value beyond themselves…
Now as PROOF that these commands were prohibitive in nature which had nothing to do with moral values as you incorrectly intertwine them…where in Jewish history do we see mass murders or common murders of children and or women claiming rape? WE DON’T see it at all at anytime throughout Jewish history. There is no Jewish writing outlining these type of events. What we do see are individuals such as Gomer who should have been killed but were given mercy at the discretion of God…So the evidence that this scripture and others like it were ”moral values” of God, doesn’t exist.
Look at this: Do we have a death penalty in the United States? Are prisoner’s executed at times? Is that our moral value or or prescriptive punishment for certain crimes?
There is a BIG difference and you confuse the 2.
So what was GOd outling in those scriptures that IS the moral value?
1-Sexual purity and chastity
2-Healthy community and interpersonal relationships
3-Youth bringing honor to their families and value to society.
Are EITHER of these VALUES things that you don’t want in your community???
You see YOU (representing the critic) read the bible as a fundamentalist. YOU claim the message is ineffective based on YOUR insights, not what is actually communicated.
Debate it, but at least do it insightfully and in full context. I’ve asked many atheists and there is yet to be named ONE moral value of God that has been proven to be harmful to society.
Explain to me how it is right to punish a woman for being raped. She is victimized by a man then by her society at the behest of the scripture. The line of text says “not loud enough.” That clearly indicates she was not a willing participant in her rape, claiming immorality is just trying to shift blame to the victim.
I’ll get back to you on the rest later, I have to go cook supper.
I’m going to have to take your post a piece at a time, Pastor. (I thought I was long winded.;))
Children talking back to there parents jumps to borderline murderous? Really?
Today we know how to spot troubled youth and council them. Are all saved from a difficult life? No. But many are and we don’t kill the others. And we (as a society) are better for it. If only the bible had that kind of foresight.
So Preacher, what context should this be taken in? Your God will punish the kids and grandkids for something one of their ancestors did? That seems a little wrong and more human and Godlike.
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me,”
Deuteronomy 5:9, KJV
The biblical idea of purity and chastity is unnatural, unhealthy and unsustainable. But, that aside, good interpersonal relationships and family values are great. But not under punishment of death. I lean towards a more moderate approach with my child. If she misbehaves I talk to her or punish her by taking away play time or desert. I don’t keep a bag of rocks in my cupboard.
Revenge. Your god is often described as a vengeful god. While in theory vengeance is supposed to be his and his alone, in practice this isn’t the case. He leads by example and people follow that example.
Jealousy. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.(Exodus 20:3)” By the way, who was he talking about? What other Gods were there? “ I the LORD thy God am a jealous God (Exodus 20:5)”
These are some of God’s values.
While I am not blind to the fact that there are beautiful teachings in the bible. Great pearls of wisdom. There are also very dark and disturbing things as well. What is more important, how you act (what kind of person you are) or what you believe in?
qUESTION m AND mj,
I’ll get with you guys tomorrow if I can. I’m a little under the weather at present, but I will say this that I understand the punishment commensurate with the crime deal…but the part that all of us underestimate is the conflict of sin to the nature of God. He is sinless and can’t be defiled by it. That’s why I believe his resolution of sin was revealed in a shame-honor culture to try to adequately transmit the understanding.
No we don’t discipline our children like that because they don’t sin against us and neither are we sinless…All I’m saying is that there is an underappreciation of the real problem of sin.
OK, so write it off as nothing more than just human behavior and you’ll never come close to the point. What you think is a rash response is right on parr to someone who has a perfected nature and essence.
I’ll address the concerns specifically later and I appreciate the exchange, I feel that we’re having a conversation and that’s fruitful. So thanks for your kindness!
Get well soon, pastor.
Question M.,
Thanks for your patience. You asked this:
“Explain to me how it is right to punish a woman for being raped. She is victimized by a man then by her society at the behest of the scripture. The line of text says “not loud enough.””…
Then you say,
“ That clearly indicates she was not a willing participant in her rape, claiming immorality is just trying to shift blame to the victim.”
The complete passage describes certain situations of interaction between men and women sexually as you are aware. The section you reference deals with date rape in a close community. The phrase in v. 24 “because she cried not” indicated a “betrothed” woman in a situation with a man that’s not her fiancee…This has nothing to do with her being subdued…once again the cultural context is the ONLY way to understand this. The culture was such that young women didn’t do what many do today…Women didn’t go in public alone and certainly didn’t deal with men in private settings or situations. The women who did do these sort of things were more than likely women of ill repute…remember the women at the well in Samaria? (Jn. 4:5) That’s the context of this scripture and it cannot be understood without that type of acknowledgement.
Now, v. 25 and 26 can raise a fairly strong argument against what I’m saying because it describes the same actions done “in the field” or away from the city and the punishment falling only upon the man in that case.
I would counter that by looking at the purpose of the narrative. Since the whole narrative is to prevent actions and attitudes regarding sexual sin from running through the community like wildfire, this might suggest a greater punishment upon those who were so unashamed of the sin committed within the close community…
At either rate the only condemnation upon the woman was for her allowing a situation to get so close and out of control against the family values and instructions to the contrary in the seen community. Since consensual, adulterous type sin was a capital offense the prohibitive punishment was death. Somebody had to die.
What happens when that caught on that a woman could be engaged but yet be so close to other men that this type of thing could occur? What would be the message to other young women?
So I understand the complications of interpreting this in light of a 21st Century culture, but the message is clear…sexual sins, (or improprieties) are harmful to society and to the people involved in a number of ways. You say the punishment is so egregious, but some of those people, if they had to live in America or the Western world, would shriek at what we hold as being normal regarding interactions between men and women especially openly.
You may not agree with methodology…I don’t agree with many laws MODERN and CURRENT laws. Such as one brewing to force people to purchase healthcare that already don’t have the money to do so, but the aim or intent is the point, and the cultural reference can’t be underestimated.
Question M,
You said: Children talking back to there parents jumps to borderline murderous? Really? Today we know how to spot troubled youth and council them. Are all saved from a difficult life? No. But many are and we don’t kill the others. And we (as a society) are better for it. If only the bible had that kind of foresight.
I think I’ve communicated that we’re not talking about ordinary run of the mill rebellious children. The story of the prodigal son was understood by the community and was one that Jesus had no suggestion of murder or capital punishment for the son that disrespected his parent, isn’t that right? (Lk. 15)
What we’re talking about here is children so dishonoring that they would literally murder their parents and any other authority figure if given the opportunity. These are who the bible describes as “children and sone of belial”
The characteristics of these people was that they have no respect or honor for God, parents and or community. They serve their community with filth AGAINST counciling and instructions otherwise. So far as your suggestion that God was short-sighted, GOd ALREADY encouraged counciling for those with run of the mill problems. What did he say:
Isaiah 1:18~Come now, and let us REASON TOGETHER, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Those desribed by this command are those who neither you nor i would want to meet up with in a dark alley.
I’ll say this also. My friend as a pastor, I have seen some of these young people grow up and KILL their communities and at the same time cuss parents out, fight them and even send them to the grave. Some change but too many I know haven’t and didn’t. From my experience, some of these parents, grandparents and the community in general would have been better IF SOME of these had died long ago…That may sound cruel, but when parents are calling talking about how their CHILD has nearly choked the life out of them and they’ve already had counciling, chances and multiple opportunities to change, from experience I don’t have a problem in what the bible is trying to communicate in this instance.
Finally, so far as revenge is concerned, was that revenge ever to be exacted by lesser agents? The word said:
Romans 12:19 ~”Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I WILL REPAY, saith the Lord.”
In mostly every scripture God left vengeance up to himself and not agents of men. Now, I don’t think this is such a bad value. (if we call it a value) Why go to court when anyone has done you wrong? Do you think that killing one person for the multiple murder of others is an exacting vengeance or is somehow unwarranted? What about Hitler. After exterminating over 7 million you think his ONE life is a fair and equal punishment for the atrocity?
Facts are that everyone thinks God’s idea of vengeance is wrong UNTIL they’ve experienced some horrific crime upon their own person. Then we want the WEIGHT of the law exacted.
So far as the jealousy thing that’s a non-starter. You know that only pertained to the worship of idols and serving other gods…
This is just the other side to the story my friend. You ask some good and complicated questions and I don’t mean to oversimplify, but we have TOTALLY different perspectives on issues as you state.
BTW Question M,
You said: “The biblical idea of purity and chastity is unnatural, unhealthy and unsustainable”
Who said that and how do you get that? Does EVERYBODY born have to have sex? What is the great need and unsustainable urge to engage in extramarital and premarital sexual activity?
This is failure on stick! Once a child is told that they can’t sustain then it’s all the more easy not to. I look at it like this, the appetitite of a child is what you make it to be. If you want a child to eat a lot, go to buffets. If you want them to undertake homecooked meals, only cook at home.
With this type of teaching, if you want them to have sex then tell them they can’t keep from having it. I GUARANTEE it won’t be long before they do whether they want to or not. why? because you’ve told them it’s OK.
That type of relative rationalism is the problem in my opinion, not the bible who says that PURITY is a virtue. I don’t know any man, that finds his first love, wants to get married and DOESN’T want her to be a virgin. Vice-versa for the women also. Those values are good and sustainable.
Pastor,
Wow, I don’t know where to begin. From the top. The idea of sin is too black and white. We live in a grey world. Murder is wrong, but if it killing on person saves the life of many, is it a sin. The commandment is pretty clear on that. But the context of the situation is more important.
Certainly context is a big issue in that case and many others and that is one big problem. Since it was written the various followers of this text have been interpreting and misinterpreting, contextualizing and re-working it.
But this text should be above all that. The word of God should be perfect, as you say, in nature and essence. Beyond the need for interpretation by us flawed humans. The context should be universal and clear. The message should be, like God, infallible. While it is impossible for a human being to have that level of foresight and clarity. It should be a simple task for the creator of the universe.
Oops, Forgot to re-read before posting.
Deuteronomy 22
It doesn’t end there…
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
I interpret “and lay hold of her” to mean it wasn’t consensual. Fifty shekels to her father and she must spend the rest of her days with the man that raped her. Presumably because no one would want her after her defilement. She is raped and then treated as damaged goods by her community.
Wouldn’t the better message be; that she should be held up as a hero, facing brutality and surviving. Shouldn’t the teaching be; her life should be blessed to make up for her being wronged? Embrace the victim and shun the aggressor.
Don’t get me started on universal health care, Pastor. I’m Canadian, we love our health care here. I owe my life, my daughter and my wife’s health to our health care system. I’ve had medical treatments that would bankrupt most Americans and not had to pull out my wallet or write a cheque when leaving the hospital. Sorry, couldn’t keep that in.
Question M,
You said: “Murder is wrong, but if it killing on person saves the life of many, is it a sin. The commandment is pretty clear on that. But the context of the situation is more important.”
What you describe is utility. This is the age old question and debate between the both, utility vs. morality. Basically, it asks the question (hypothetically) is killing a few really so bad if thousands or even millions are saved as a result?
Now, war is certainly based on this thought. At times we are permitted to wage war biblically, but to implore this sort of strategy in everyday life is problematic.
The problem is the value statement. Who makes the decision of value vs valueless? Who makes the decision that a few lives are of less value than a few more? In fact how much is one life worth verses another?
Now, God made what was called “cities of refuge” for individuals who had killed incidentally or in defense of another or by accident. This was so that there wouldn’t be an exacting of punishment. The person was to dwell in that city for a certain period of time and then all retribution for the event would be forgiven and a person could reintegrate into society.
So God forethought these types of incidents. In addition the sacrificial system was in existence daily (supposedly) for the remission of all repentant sins.
So far as the Deut 22:28-29 passage, I believe that’s talking about a consensual sexual relationship. You correctly sight “lay hold on her” but in contrast it says “if they be found” Is this to say that if they weren’t found that it would be OK? Of course not. That’s inconsistent with the rest of the passages in the complete chapter.
In this case though, look who has control in the end. The woman does. The man is bound and can’t “put her away” she has all the authority.
I don’t agree that’s it’s rape and if it were she becomes a living nightmare for the perpetrator.
So far as healthcare…I agree with you and glad that the system has worked well for you guys. The idea I like…the application at least in the US is getting ready to be jacked up! These people are going to bankrupt the country and the people before they are finished with their political favors and all that they are doing…anyway…thanks and I’ll speak to you again soon.
Pastor, I plan on explaining what I said about “sexuality” in my earlier post soon, and read through you latest post as well. the time I have for my internet ravings is limited due to real world obligations (work and family). Be well.
Pastor,
Have you read a book titled Misquoting Jesus? It’s very interesting and I think there’s a discussion of the book on this blog. You might want to check it out – it’s a very interesting read and it’s done by someone within the faith.
Mj
I didn’t mean to imply that she is the nightmare, the nightmare is her life. Bound to a man that raped her (yes, I still interpret it as rape). She is as tied to him he is to her. But she never had a voice in any part of this situation.
We do, everyday. In how we make our decisions. Here is a link to an interesting article about wrestling with the “trolley problem” in a brain scanner.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580372,00.html
Hi, I am an atheist, I know beyond every possible doubt that there is neither God nor afterlife.
I completely agree with the author of this website that belief in God can not provide us with an objective morality, as shown clearly by these examples, which more generally illustrates the Euthyphro dilemma g : is something good just because God stipulated it is (in which case it is arbitrary, for God could state one ought to love ones foes as well as ordering the slaughter of the folks of Canaan. ) or did God ordered it because it is good (in which case there exists an objective standard of goodness independent of God) ?
However, I believe that the same challenge could be posed to any form of atheistic moral realism.
Over the past decades, numerous discoveries in neurology and evolutionary psychology have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that our moral intuitions ultimately stem from the shaping of our brain by evolution and that WITHOUT any such emotional intuition, no moral system can be built from reason alone.
This is well illustrated by the study of the brains of psychopaths: since they lack the moral emotions, they don’t consider as true most fundamental moral principles (like avoiding to create suffering, trying to promote the happiness of others) although they are quite able to reason well.
This shows the truth of David Hume’s famous principle that moral truths are the projection of our gut’s feelings on an indifferent and cruel reality : since one can not derive an “ought” from an “is”, moral truths are the expression of our emotions which we mistakenly consider as features of the objective reality.
No moral system can be created without the appeal to at least one kind of intuitions, the brute facts of nature never lead to moral duties and obligations.
Now, I want to state a version of the Euthyphro dilemma which shows the impossibility of defining an objective atheistic morality: is something good just because Evolution hardwired this conviction into us (in which case it is arbitrary, for Evolution could have lead us to believe that murder and torture are right ) or did Evolution produce our current beliefs because they are good (in which case there exists an objective standard of goodness independent of Evolution) ?
Let me now develop the first point: there is an extremely great number (perhaps even an infinity) of planets where intelligent beings like us could have evolved. Given the huge dimension of the sample, it is more than likely that many such intelligent beings have evolved conceptions of morality which would appear completely disgusting to us.
who were shaped by natural selection to value power, violence , selfishness in so far that it remains compatible with the interests of the group. When invading a city and killing or enslaving all its inhabitants, their brain generate a warm feeling of happiness, satisfaction.
Imagine for example a species of giant lizards ( or whatever else if you’ve more imagination than I
When however confronted with weakness among their own folk, they feel an overwhelming indignation, anger, rage which lead them to kill the individual guilty of failure , and after having done that, their brain awards them with an intense feeling of pleasure.
Now imagine such beings arrive at our earth and conclude based on their evolutionary intuitions that it would be moral and perfectly good to enslave all human beings capable of working and to kill all others.
What would an human atheist and moral realist say to these lizards? Do they ought to behave in a way coherent with the moral intuitions they have and slaughter or enslave all humans ?
My contention is that it would be completely impossible to show to these creatures that killing innocent beings is wrong: all moral systems developed by humans which would justify this conclusion can not be deduced from the mere consideration of natural facts , they all crucially depend on one or several moral intuitions , which are not shared by the intelligent lizards, so there would be no common ground upon which one could argue that something is right or wrong.
Now, a defender of godless moral realism could agree with me it is fallacious to rely on evolution to define an objective morality in the same way it would be fallacious to rely on the commandments of a deity. But he could then argue that there exists a moral standard independent of Evolution upon which moral realism would be based.
The problem of this argument is the following:
As I have said, no moral system can be grounded by mere logic or factual analysis alone, at some point moral intuitions (due to Evolution) are always going to come into play.
Take for example the possibility of torturing a baby just for fun: almost every human being would react with disgust and say it is wrong. Neuroscience has proven that such reaction does not stem from a rational consideration of all facts but rather from instinctive gut feelings.
Afterwards, people try to rationalize their belief by backing them up with arguments and mistakenly think they feel this disgust because of their reasoning although it is the other way around.
Based on rigorous experiments in the field of neuroscience, Jonathan Haidt shows that in the case of moral reasoning, people always begin by getting a strong emotional reaction, and only seek a posteriori to justify this reaction. He has named this phenomenon ‘the emotional dog and its rational tail’: http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf
And since one can not derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, there is no way to prove that ‘one ought to not torture a baby for the fun’ by a reasoning based on fact alone, at one moment or an other , one is forced to appeal to emotions.
For example, saying to a intelligent lizard they ought no to do that because the baby is cute, because he is innocent, because he has an entire life before him would completely beg the question for our intelligent alien, which would then ask: “why does the baby’s beauty, innocence, or the fact he has still many years to live implies one ought not to kill the baby ?”. After one or two hours of circular reasoning, the honest human would be coerced to recognize it is so because these things sounds intuitively bad for him.
Concerning the objectivity of morality, I am neither a moral relativist nor a moral subjectivist but a proponent of an error theory: moral statements and truths are in fact nothing more than the products of our emotional intuitions , but because of the hard-wiring of our brain, we erroneously believe they correspond to some external facts of the objective reality and try to derive them from pure natural facts, committing the is/ought fallacy.
For those interested in the line of thinking presented here, I highly recommend you to read Joshua Greene’s dissertation, where he clearly demonstrates the true nature of morality and develops a coherent error-theory.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-Dissertation.pdf
To conclude, although I am not a moral realist, I do think there is a place for ethic in each human life.
But instead of using moral absolutes such as “good”, “evil”, “right”, “wrong”, “ought”, “ought not”, referring to spooky concepts whose existence is as likely as the presence of an invisible yellow unicorn on the surface of Mars, I prefer to employ the language of desires, which correspond to indisputable facts:
We, as human being, love infant life and desire baby to growth and become happy, therefore if we want our desires to be fulfilled, then we ought not to torture babies for the fun. Contrarily to moral realism, the ‘ought’ I have used here is hypothetical and not categorical.
In the same way, I can not say the atrocities we find in the Old Testament are objectively wrong, because I don’t believe in the existence of such moral absolutes, but I can express my convictions in the following manner: if we want our intuitive feelings of love, justice and charity to be respected, then we ought to reject many books of the Old Testament as being pieces of barbaric non-senses.
The traditional moral discourse “The God of the Bible is morally wrong, we ought to fight Christianity, we are morally good whereas religious people are wicked and so on and so forth” seems to me to be completely flawed because it involves the existence of spooky moral absolutes which have no place in a scientific view of the world.
I really appreciate the critical thinking of my fellow atheists when applied to religion but I am really sad to remark they fail to apply it to their own cherished beliefs like the existence of an objective morality.
Thank you for having reading me until here !
Uh… I was going to say that.
I found my self without morals where it all began looking on the place where we all want to live,
I stopped to see forever, not wanting to see wrong.
I countinued i stopped not rightly to clear my head for a moment and traveled on three weeks.
At the third week i looked to my heart to see love and so i followed so many battles i fought
Pain in my left hand looking for peace in my right extended out, I have walked away from my heart and crossed the last day
I looked right into the valley of evil and found the beast to no my enemy, i have done wrong through to the land of the heartless
I can do wrong no more. I see the devil and he binds me but arent devils merely angels tearing away your guilt?
I stopped on the last day of the last month, of the last year, again i have found my heart my life must be righteous and a
place unkown so i can rest my soul where it all began.
He says: Hi, I am an atheist, I know beyond every possible doubt that there is neither God nor afterlife.
OK, Now let me get this straight…He says that he KNOWS beyond every possible doubt…OK
What do you really “know”? how much knowledge in the word do you possess? I mean tabulate up a percentage out of the knowledge of all possible knowledge within our existence…how much of a percentage of that does any ONE individual have and or possess?
If the answer is less than 100% then this guy can’t be taken seriously for ANYTHING that he further claims. If his knowledge for the known realm is short then how does he know anything about the unknown realm and IF he has a gap in knowledge about the known realm how do we know that knowledge about the unknown realm isn’t contained within the knowledge that he doesn’t have about the known realm or material existence?
I don’t care what he says…EVERYTHING that he offers after that statement is GARBAGE plain and simple.
Whereas I am a man of faith not claiming to know it all, but claiming that what I do know is sufficient to draw my conclusion and make the claim that God exists. Upon discover of him and study of his ways, it is obvious to see that whatever goodness and morality that we have we only have because of his existence…in fact without him, we have no way to even distinguish between ethical or moral good and bad.
Thanks
PB “Upon discover of him and study of his ways, it is obvious to see that whatever goodness and morality that we have we only have because of his existence…in fact without him, we have no way to even distinguish between ethical or moral good and bad. ”
So you are saying that if you believe in God then you believe that he gave us morals. I assume you are talking about the Judeo-Christian God here, so you say there was no goodness and no morals among all the other peoples of the world, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Babylonians, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, aborigine etc… Or did these people have their goodness and morals from your God but without realising it or believing in him etc.? It all leaves me very confused.
I’m sure that these peoples believed that their own gods brought them goodness and morals, without needing any Biblical instructions. It seems very arrogant to say that only Your God knows the truth and can provide a moral compass.
I am not a man of faith, I claim that what I know is sufficient to conclude that the gods of whatever faith were created by man to explain the unexplainable and to enforce order in society.
In that sense you could say that the gods gave us morals, but man gave morals to the gods first. Now our knowledge of the world is greater and our societies are better ordered and enforced by the rule of law and there is less need for spiritual powers.
I say that man created God to fulfil a need, and now that need is less present God should be left to die away, as the ancient gods of earlier civilisations and people has done.
Nick,
You stated: “So you are saying that if you believe in God then you believe that he gave us morals.”
I’m saying whether one believes in God or not all things that we recognize as absolute, moral values flow from his nature, presence and revelation in this world. On the other hand cultural moral values, though they are values, are subject to change, but we can identify certain values that do not change from culture to culture and do not arise for evolutionary progression. One such value is self-sacrifice. This is generally held in esteem within every culture and does not benefit the standards of survival of the fittest that materialists claim.
You said: “I assume you are talking about the Judeo-Christian God here, so you say there was no goodness and no morals among all the other peoples of the world, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Babylonians, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, aborigine etc… Or did these people have their goodness and morals from your God but without realising it or believing in him etc.? It all leaves me very confused.”
Absolute moral values are constant and are a part of what is communicated from God to mankind. The fact is not whether these cultures had morals or not, the argument is from where did they arrive. As a Christian I believe that there is strong evidence that 1- there are absolute moral values 2- Those values are beyond cultural definition and 3-materialism is dumbfounded as to the basis and reasons for those values as many of them do not help materialism in any way.
You said: I’m sure that these peoples believed that their own gods brought them goodness and morals, without needing any Biblical instructions.
I’m sure they did too because that’s the only information they had to work with.
You said: “It seems very arrogant to say that only Your God knows the truth and can provide a moral compass.”
If he is the only true and living God that wouldn’t seem arrogant at all. If we’re living among competing gods then I would hold your view. But in my view, one God exists and there is no competition. Now, is your statement an absolute value statement or a relative value statement? What is the basis for the statement?
You said: “I am not a man of faith, I claim that what I know is sufficient to conclude that the gods of whatever faith were created by man to explain the unexplainable and to enforce order in society.”
Sufficient for whom? You or society in general? See you complain that I raise what is sufficient for me and proclaim it, but you do the same don’t you? You believe that your value is greater than mine don’t you? You don’t believe in competing values only in superior values of your belief system. Then the claim is made that you are somehow superior to religion or religious values. I simply don’t buy it.
You said: “I say that man created God to fulfil a need, and now that need is less present God should be left to die away, as the ancient gods of earlier civilisations and people has done.”
That’s an opinion. I mean that’s an age old sentiment that hasn’t gained traction in the centuries since it was thought that science and enlightenment would be the end of religion in general. In fact the evidence is that mankind is more religious to day that even in history and atheism which has existed since before Jesus only has a negligible following and effect on society. Root for the underdog, because it’ll need a lot more than that to have any type of effect on truth and what really matters to the human heart and spirit.
I think this is a very interesting topic and ‘40 Year Old’ thanks for your indulgence of my arguments to your readers. I’ll not be an antagonist to you any longer, but I’ll check back for new and further interesting topics. You and the readers seem very reasonable people of non-belief-LOL and more interesting in subject matter than social and personal attacks and that’s good! So I commend all of you for that~Thanks!
I’m working on a new post but it’s not writing itself – lots going on in the real world right now…