Morality is objective, except when it isn't

[2PhiloVoid]

I dunno. Maybe if politics wasnt so hot, the theism/atheism debate would cool down too. But right now the image that sums it up for a lot of atheists is Trump standing with bible in hand flashing his clown tough guy look as tear gas wafts away in the distance.

Otoh, it is a perennial question: how do you guys tease a coherent morality out of the apparent contradictory morass that is this library of books assembled into the Bible?.... especially when overlaid with various theological claims about the nature of God.

I suppose that in the effort to "tease out" a coherent morality from the Bible, it comes down to how humorous we each think it is when Jesus finally shows up on the scene.

 

[Moral Orel]

They sure don't! I've always thought it odd that some people harp, harp, harp upon, and apparently take very seriously, some even at an excruciating level, all of the 'bad' parts of the Old Testament all the while somehow remaining completely aloof of and ignoring all of the 'miraculous' parts in which all of the 'bad' stuff supposedly happened.

I can believe people did bad stuff that the Bible recorded because I've seen people do bad stuff. I don't believe the miraculous stuff happened because I've never seen miraculous stuff (even after looking a lot).

Now, why is that? It seems to me that if people are really honestly concerned about the social implications of the Bible, and at the same time they don't really believe a word of it, they'd be up front and transparent about admitting that the main reason they even show up to say anything in critique of the Old Testament in the first place ................... is because they're bothered not actually by the Bible itself, but by the fact that some people have believed it and misused.

People do say that, all the time. Look at any one of the multitude of threads about "What are you dirty atheists even doing in a place called 'Christian Forums' in the first place?!" and you'll see atheists stating that they're motivated by the fact that Christians use their faith as a cudgel.

Although, this is the part where I have to pull a Philo and point out that things are slightly more complicated than you want them to be. There are aspects of the Bible that speak to its credibility, and there are aspects of the Bible that speak to it's authority on morality, and talking about one doesn't imply we're talking about the other.

Hence, implying here that it never really was a concern of skeptics about whether the Bibe is in fact true or not, but really only their political concern about what some claimed Christians might do with the 'bad' parts of the bible in the here and now.

Depends on the topic. I point out the bad stuff in the Bible because people think it's a good source for guiding their morality. I don't care if folks believe in a god or not. Other folks that argue about the historicity of the Gospels (for instance) are making a case for whether the Bible is true or not.

 

[Moral Orel]

I suppose that in the effort to "tease out" a coherent morality from the Bible, it comes down to how humorous we each think it is when Jesus finally shows up on the scene.

If Jesus showed up and was divine and was here to set things straight that the OT Jews had messed up, I could see that. Left in the hands of humans, even good things can go awry. But we should also consider that after Jesus left humans took back over and folks shouldn't be so sure that anyone after Jesus didn't screw things up either.

 

[coffee4u]

What about how God had commanded circumcision, outlawed certain foods, commanded the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, death for homosexual sex, permitted or commanded slavery (Deuteronomy 20:11), permitted polygamy (many main Jewish men in the Old Testament had multiple wives)...
It seems that God has changed....

The Old Testament laws were for a few reasons.
I believe every law or command that God gave or gives now is for:
His overall long term plan or an important spiritual reason.
The ultimate good of the society.
or for our own individual physical, spiritual or mental well being.
Just because we don't understand a law or command doesn't mean there isn't or wasn't a good reason for it. We don't have all the answers and can't expect to know all of them while we are bound here in the flesh. Even Paul said we understand dimly.
1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Man tends to be focused on the here and now, his immediate gratification and what feels good to him at the moment while God is focused on eternity. Obviously not 100% of the time but in general terms.

Circumcision
As handed down to Abraham, not as its done today-which is actually a man made perversion. Circumcision as given by God hasn't been practiced since 300 BCE. The foreskin was pulled forwards and only the very end cut. Not pleasant obviously, it was done as a blood sacrifice and to mark God's people as being different. It wasn't however most of the foreskin as has been practiced in the US. For one they didn't have the clamp which is required to stop bleeding out and two because the purpose wasn't to remove it. But when circumcision is mentioned today most people think of what is done in the US, which is completely due to John Harvey Kellogg and Victorian ideas of cleanliness. It was promoted as a way to stop masturbation because they believed it caused madness and epilepsy.

Certain foods
Some had symbolic spiritual significance and some was for health reasons. Under cooked pork for example can have Trichinosis.

Commanded the death penalty
Last I looked the US still has a death penalty, which means your country/society is okay with death as a penalty. So it can't be death that you are against but rather why they were given the death penalty. If mankind in your society can deem things worthy of death why be surprised if God does too? You simply disagree with God's decree of what was worthy of the death penalty. The nations surrounding the ancient Israelite's thought nothing of burning babies in fires as a sacrifice. Man made laws have been much harsher than God made laws with no reason to many of them except laws based on what felt good to them or fear of evil spirits. They sacrificed babies to appease demons. God commanded the Israelite's not to take up any of the despicable practices that surrounding people were doing.
Deuteronomy 18
9 “When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.
He gave those laws because he knew without them they would do the same. These were not cultured people.

Slavery
Biblical slavery is not the same as man made slavery. It was part of warfare. The warfare was based on nations committing evil practices not on skin colour. They were probably all brown skinned and basically of the same general race.
Then later a Hebrew could sell themselves into slavery to pay of debt rather than go to prison.
Now that isn't to say some people didn't try and make the Bible say what they wanted it to say to justify slavery, but that is a different thing. Many times the curse of Ham is quoted, but if you read the actual passage you can see it is a long stretch from what it says about ham-who is just one man- to the transatlantic slave trade. Not to mention that every race has at one time or another been enslaved. Slavery is not unique to black people.

Permitted polygamy
God did not want or approve of polygamy.
Just because the Bible records an event that occurred does not mean that God approves of the event. People do whatever they like whether it is agreement with God's word or not. It is God who instituted marriage and it was to be to one woman for life. That was marriage as was handed down by God to Adam, anything else outside of that was added onto by people.
Most times events were recorded for history, to show that not even the great people of the Bible were sinless-only Jesus was sinless and also to show why it was a bad idea. There were consequences recorded that followed many of the sins committed, not just polygamy. Some are not obvious on casual reading because sometimes the consequences occurred years later or were many smaller consequences such as affecting family happiness and unity.
For example Isaac was promised Rebecca as his wife after 7 years of work, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah instead. From there if you keep reading the action of Laban (father of the girls) caused a whole lot of family strife. God isn't encouraging anyone to go and copy them.

God's views have not changed but there was an Old Covenant and a New Covenant and there are changes between them. For one thing God says he put laws (general moral principles) onto the hearts of mankind.
Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
It wasn't always this way.
How the ancients thought is not how we think. Taking what we know and think and trying to place it on the ancients doesn't work, in some way they were fundamentally different. They followed God's laws (and failed at them) because this was what they were told to do by God. Many only followed due to fear, they didn't feel them as moral principles the way we do. Those who actually followed God out of love were special, and get mentioned in the Bible for their faith as being unique.

 

[coffee4u]

Why? Walk me through it.

If you are painting a picture you have the right to change it as you go and you would be quite put out if someone else came up and started changing it without your consent. You feel ownership of your work and may be quite protective of it and yet you didn't even create the materials that you are using to make that painting with.
The paint, canvas and easel were probably made in a factory or by another craftsman and you bought them, or if you want out and actually made paint from scratch even then you did not create the plants, clay or rock used- God did.
Why should he not have complete control and ownership over it?

Apart from that God has knowledge that we don't. He knows what will hurt us in physical, mental or spiritual ways that we can't even see or think of. We are like a small child reaching for the fire with no concept of all the ways it can hurt us.
For example bats were not to be eaten, if that prohibition was still in place maybe we wouldn't have this Covid pandemic.

 

[coffee4u]

If Jesus showed up and was divine and was here to set things straight that the OT Jews had messed up, I could see that. Left in the hands of humans, even good things can go awry. But we should also consider that after Jesus left humans took back over and folks shouldn't be so sure that anyone after Jesus didn't screw things up either.

Of course they did, it's human nature to mess things up and the longer we have and the more people involved the more mistakes or outright perversions will happen. Jesus warned us that wolves would come in.
Acts 20:29
For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

This is why God gave us the scriptures and the Holy Spirit and also wrote his moral law onto our hearts because without those things, things would be much worse. We may think things are bad but somehow I doubt they are bad at all compared to how it was before Noah's flood. At that point in time evil was as common as breathing. Noah was the only righteous man that God could find in the entire world.

 

[JohnClay]

The Old Testament laws were for a few reasons.
I believe every law or command that God gave or gives now is for:
His overall long term plan or an important spiritual reason.
The ultimate good of the society.
or for our own individual physical, spiritual or mental well being.

Thanks for your in depth reply.... I will respond to some of it.....

Circumcision
As handed down to Abraham, not as its done today-which is actually a man made perversion. Circumcision as given by God hasn't been practiced since 300 BCE.

Thanks I wasn't aware of that.... so were Jesus' and John the Baptist's circumcisions not done correctly?

Commanded the death penalty
Last I looked the US still has a death penalty, which means your country/society is okay with death as a penalty. So it can't be death that you are against but rather why they were given the death penalty.

My country is Australia which no longer has a death penalty. My examples were for working on the Sabbath (e.g. Numbers 15:32-36) and homosexual sex. Some Christians would say that God isn't against homosexual sex.

Biblical slavery is not the same as man made slavery. It was part of warfare.

Yes that is the passage I quoted. But what if a nation did that during modern warfare? Then there is the commanded genocide of 6 ethnic groups including their animals (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

God did not want or approve of polygamy.

Please provide evidence that the God of the Old Testament didn't approve of polygamy. Apparently Greeks and Romans were against polygamy and I think that is why it isn't present in the New Testament....

It is God who instituted marriage and it was to be to one woman for life.

But I think the law handed down to Moses allowed divorce.... and that is what Christians normally follow rather than the changes to this that Jesus suggested.
As far as Adam and Eve goes, Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs. He had many ribs so that implies he could have had many wives (especially if you consider all of the examples of Jewish polygamy)

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

"It is objectively wrong for X to kill a child."

Christians would normally agree until you point out that God killed hundreds of children in the Old Testament.

"But God knew they would grow up evil" or "But God knew they'd go straight to heaven" or "But God has a divine plan."

There are no "buts" when it comes to objective morality.

"It is objectively wrong for X to kill a child, unless X=God" is subjective morality because the morality of the statement is subject to what X is.

Christians understand that morality must be objective in their worldview because Jesus had to die. It was absolutely required with no exceptions. There was no other way for souls to be saved. This means that Jesus/God is/are subject to morality. But then that means that God committed evil acts by killing children.

The alternative is that morality is subject to God. God can do whatever he wants. That "solves" the child-killing problem, but raises a new problem. If God can do whatever he wants, then why did Jesus die on the cross? He could've just saved us all as an act of will.

Skipping to the end, there's no answer to this issue except to claim that I've presented a false dichotomy. These responses will be automatically ignored unless the third possibility is clearly and thoroughly defined and explained.

Possible third option, but your free to categorize it however you want...

Whatever God Wills brings about the most Good. In this way, you might say it very well is a matter of it being objectively immoral for US to do certain things, but this is because God transcends morality and he only gave us morality for our Good, not His.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Possible third option, but your free to categorize it however you want...

Whatever God Wills brings about the most Good. In this way, you might say it very well is a matter of it being objectively immoral for US to do certain things, but this is because God transcends morality and he only gave us morality for our Good, not His.

You're describing pragmatism. I'm talking about morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you are painting a picture you have the right to change it as you go and you would be quite put out if someone else came up and started changing it without your consent. You feel ownership of your work and may be quite protective of it and yet you didn't even create the materials that you are using to make that painting with.
The paint, canvas and easel were probably made in a factory or by another craftsman and you bought them, or if you want out and actually made paint from scratch even then you did not create the plants, clay or rock used- God did.

I would definitely feel the way you described. But since you're also saying I'm wrong to feel that way, I don't see how feeling something translates to facts.

Why should he not have complete control and ownership over it?

I don't know. I don't see how the two things are related, so I don't know how one could say He should or shouldn't.

Apart from that God has knowledge that we don't. He knows what will hurt us in physical, mental or spiritual ways that we can't even see or think of. We are like a small child reaching for the fire with no concept of all the ways it can hurt us.

Well that's a different explanation, isn't it? In this scenario we're saying that harm is bad and God knows how to prevent it better than we do. Is harm bad all on it's own without God declaring it so?

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course they did, it's human nature to mess things up and the longer we have and the more people involved the more mistakes or outright perversions will happen. Jesus warned us that wolves would come in.
Acts 20:29
For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

This is why God gave us the scriptures and the Holy Spirit and also wrote his moral law onto our hearts because without those things, things would be much worse. We may think things are bad but somehow I doubt they are bad at all compared to how it was before Noah's flood. At that point in time evil was as common as breathing. Noah was the only righteous man that God could find in the entire world.

I think the Bible makes it pretty clear that we mess stuff up almost immediately. I think Paul was a wolf.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So now you think the consequences of an action determine whether or not it is moral, even though just a second ago you were talking about commandments. Are you taking this conversation seriously? I'm ready to eject from this dialogue at the instant I determine you're a troll.

With regards to David's son apparently being sent to heaven, you didn't say that he was sent to heaven because he was struck dead by God. I infer - and do tell me if I'm making an inappropriate inference - that you believe that children who do not yet become aware of their sins, or reach the "age of accountability", are automatically sent to heaven upon death. Is this your belief? If so, are aborted babies sent to heaven or do they not have souls?

In answer to your first question yes the consequences of an action determine whether it is moral or immoral. When is it immoral to grant someone eternal life in paradise? Also those who burn in the lake of fire do so as a result of the choices they themselves have made.

As for David, God’s punishment was on David, not his son and having never sinned there would be no reason for his son not to be allowed to enter heaven because as I showed earlier the scriptures specifically state repeatedly that each person will be judged according to his deeds.

As for being a troll, I’m a Christian on a Christian website defending Christianity, your the one here attacking Christianity. Now if I went to an atheist website and began bashing atheists then I would be considered a troll.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In answer to your first question yes the consequences of an action determine whether it is moral or immoral. When is it immoral to grant someone eternal life in paradise? Also those who burn in the lake of fire do so as a result of the choices they themselves have made.

And the best part is, that person goes to Paradise -- or the Lake of Fire -- regardless of who ends their earthly life.

So.... if it's moral for God to kill because the consequence is that person going to heaven, then it must be moral for me to kill that same person, since the consequence is the same.

As for David, God’s punishment was on David, not his son and having never sinned there would be no reason for his son not to be allowed to enter heaven because as I showed earlier the scriptures specifically state repeatedly that each person will be judged according to his deeds.

Nice to know that one can work their way into Paradise....

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

You're describing pragmatism. I'm talking about morality.

How is that pragmatism?

 

[coffee4u]

I think the Bible makes it pretty clear that we mess stuff up almost immediately. I think Paul was a wolf.

If you want to be narky, better go talk to someone else.

 

[coffee4u]

I would definitely feel the way you described. But since you're also saying I'm wrong to feel that way, I don't see how feeling something translates to facts.

I wasn't saying you are wrong to feel that way, I was saying it is natural to feel that way. It was an example to say, if we feel that strongly over something we make with materials that we did not even create, how much more God, who created the materials owns this world and us. Why would he not be possessive over it?

I don't know. I don't see how the two things are related, so I don't know how one could say He should or shouldn't.

If you don't see how God after creating everything has the right to make all the decisions and the right to have ownership over his creation, then I don't know what else to say.

Well that's a different explanation, isn't it? In this scenario we're saying that harm is bad and God knows how to prevent it better than we do. Is harm bad all on it's own without God declaring it so?

Something is harmful if it is harmful. It doesn't became harmful because God declares it so. He is letting us know that x is harmful to us in some way, either physically, spiritually or mentally whether we understand how or not. We either trust that he knows best and wants what is best for us and heed his word or we ignore the message and decide that we know better.
It was a matter of faith and trust for the ancients to follow what must have seemed like a list of strange arbitrary laws. There was little explanation over why things were bad or to be done a certain way. The first quarantine was given by God to the ancients, it was not a man made concept. They were told to sit outside the camp for 7 days and to be checked by a priest. God did not explain germs and contagions to them, but this is why he gave them such laws.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In answer to your first question yes the consequences of an action determine whether it is moral or immoral. When is it immoral to grant someone eternal life in paradise? Also those who burn in the lake of fire do so as a result of the choices they themselves have made.

Right, so you've grasped one horn of the dilemma. Based on your response, the follow-up question is, "Why can't God just forgive us all as an act of will?" If you don't know the answer to this question, your religion is pointless as far as you know.

As for David, God’s punishment was on David, not his son and having never sinned there would be no reason for his son not to be allowed to enter heaven because as I showed earlier the scriptures specifically state repeatedly that each person will be judged according to his deeds.

Anachronistic interpretation. That's not what the characters of the time believed. Furthermore, that can be used to justify just about anything.

As for being a troll, I’m a Christian on a Christian website defending Christianity, your the one here attacking Christianity. Now if I went to an atheist website and began bashing atheists then I would be considered a troll.

Atheists welcome the attacks because our logic is well founded. You seem to be having a difficult time keeping up with the conversation, or else you're just toying with me on purpose.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How is that pragmatism?

Read it again.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you want to be narky, better go talk to someone else.

I wasn't being snarky. I'm dead serious. I haven't sat down and counted verses or anything, but I've noticed that when people quote Jesus about how to live your life it's almost always some positive good thing you can do for others. And then Paul came along and when people quote him on how to live your life it's almost always about sex stuff you're not supposed to do. Some of which Jesus never bothered to even mention. I think he had his own hangups that he put into the religion.

I wasn't saying you are wrong to feel that way, I was saying it is natural to feel that way. It was an example to say, if we feel that strongly over something we make with materials that we did not even create, how much more God, who created the materials owns this world and us. Why would he not be possessive over it?

Well, you're saying it's natural to feel that way, but I don't really have the right to claim it for myself even though I feel like I do. And I get it if God feels that way, but I don't see how to translate that feeling into fact.

If you don't see how God after creating everything has the right to make all the decisions and the right to have ownership over his creation, then I don't know what else to say.

Well I don't just accept things without reason to. I get that it seems obvious to you, but there should be an actual reason you can state that connects creating with owning.

Something is harmful if it is harmful. It doesn't became harmful because God declares it so. He is letting us know that x is harmful to us in some way, either physically, spiritually or mentally whether we understand how or not. We either trust that he knows best and wants what is best for us and heed his word or we ignore the message and decide that we know better.
It was a matter of faith and trust for the ancients to follow what must have seemed like a list of strange arbitrary laws. There was little explanation over why things were bad or to be done a certain way. The first quarantine was given by God to the ancients, it was not a man made concept. They were told to sit outside the camp for 7 days and to be checked by a priest. God did not explain germs and contagions to them, but this is why he gave them such laws.

But is harm bad? That's what I was asking. I mean, I don't like being harmed or seeing people I care about being harmed, but does that make it actually bad, or do I just feel that way?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Right, so you've grasped one horn of the dilemma. Based on your response, the follow-up question is, "Why can't God just forgive us all as an act of will?" If you don't know the answer to this question, your religion is pointless as far as you know.

Why would Christianity be pointless, just because you said so? I don’t need to know why God chose that Christ must die for our sins to be forgiven in order to escape eternal punishment in the lake of fire, I just need to know that He did choose for it to be this way. So no if my beliefs keep me from burning in the lake of fire it’s not pointless at all, it’s actually more important than anything else.