I know we've all heard it or a derivative of it before.. "Atheists are immoral, because they have no moral guidelines to follow. Christians have the Bible and are therefore moral". But what is true Christian morality? Turns out, when you really look into it, that it's actually quite curiously inconsistent.

First off, there are literally hundreds of Christan sects. From Catholics to Protestants, Lutherans to Baptists and everything inbetween.. There are a whole lot of different unique interpretations and applications of what the Bible says.

The good

There are plenty of Christians who are very modern in their religious and moral outlook. If asked where in the Bible they derive their morals from, they will answer with a plethera of good and loving points such as the infamous John 3:16. They'll usually believe that Jesus was a beacon of peace and good will to man, who loved and respected everyone, even if it was not mutual, living and breating a turn-the-other-cheek lifestyle.

The bad

Yet some Christians don't completely want to let go of the less accepted Biblical ideas. They will tell you where the Bible talks about how gay people shouldn't have full rights, but.. surprisingly, it seems they missed the verses that say not to horde money, not to work on the sabbath, and not to worry about providing for themselves. Many fundamentalists accept the Biblical passages that place women lower than men. Fundamentalists are not totally evil, but definitely highly corrosive in the presence of those they disagree with.

The ugly

And then there's the last general group.. the extremists. The cross-burning, sign-bearing, heathen-hating Christians. There are many groups of these people, but they are without doubt a fringe element in today's society. These people are a dying breed, but they certainly are fervent in imposing their opinions on anyone and everyone they possible can. Some of them support the death penalty for homosexuality. They accept and admit that their God is a jealous and often cruel one. These people are considered "not Christian" by most Christians today. And of course, they consider normal Christians to be "not Christian".

These are just the main groups of morality popular today. You can get much more specific and find that even the most simple facts of morality in the Bible are often heavily debated by Christians. And why is this? If the Bible is such a sound moral guideline, why do so many people choose which verses to will fit into their picture of morality?

And the simple answer is that most people aren't deriving their morality from the Bible at all, they're choosing which parts of the Biblical advice their actual ethical sense tells them should apply, and using that. The Bible could literally say "Kill these types of people wherever you find them" and Christians would mostly absolutely not comply.

So yes, atheists can have morality. And many religious people have morality in a very non-theistic manner, masked in a theistic process.

Maybe this should have been a blog post. Well written, but not much to debate.

KBA quite frankly i feel morals are part of science, biology in particular not religion, ..the idea that reliigon is the sole purveyor of my profound ethical intuitive sense is absurd to me I haev a moral sense that is innate. as do many .....

our intuitive sense is a very sophisticated tool if one dosen't already posess a very elemetary sense or awareness that cruelty of any kind is unnatural its unlikely a bible is gonna help much...

biological truths are inherent, natural we see this in nature ... ( keeping in mind a truth is rreally a guage as to prove how well an idea functions how beneficial it is to the whole how ...

Beleifs are really just tools we use to make our way in the world they are no guage of reality as is often thought... for example a vaccum isn't a reality its simply a tool to accomplish certain tasks.....

KBA it is a great idea to explore morals as we have religous constructs that are alluding to a prowess they do not hold as morals are biological the realm of science....

Atheists are not immoral. Some of them have sounder moral principles than many Christians even.

I understand the whole arguments you are making about people picking and choosing which morals to follow. In some cases, I am sure you are correct. However, there is the all important 'C' word to take into consideration. Yes, I know all you skeptics are rolling your eyes right now, but I feel context is extremely important when deciding the relevance of a passage or law, and how the law relates to the modern world. The Fundamentalist/Literalist will look at a passage from Deuteronomy or Leviticus and say, "well, God said this then, so we must do this now". Unfortunately, this is not contextual study. This is taking a passage written thousands of years ago and automatically applying it to today's culture, without ever thinking of how the society worked back then compared to now, and more importantly, how the passage relates to Jesus Christ.

Many skeptics fall into the Literalist view of the Bible, when they read it. They also look at any passage and relate it directly to our lives today without looking at it through the Cross. This is where the major arguments arise, when someone quotes something from Leviticus, responded to by a Christian, whereby the skeptic then goes on to claim that the Bible is supposed to be the Word of God and should apply exactly the same way today and that the Christian is just rationalising their belief.

I'm not sure I'm actually headed anywhere with any kind of point to this post, but there are a few things to consider, which I hope you do

~ Regards, PA

While your observations about context may be valid PA, that only emphasizes the fact that many believrs still do it. And once you bring up "context" you begin to teeter on that slippery slope of WHY there are so many flavors of christianity. YOU disagree with the way Church 'A' interprets scripture, or the practices that they follow so you and a few like minded individuals split off from the parent organization. Later, when your particular barnd of christianity has grown, another decides that they like 95% of your teachings, and splits off again to teach the "true" faith.
lather. rinse. repeat, until you have the current situation.

And, even "in context", people will still misinterpret the writings. Or, deliberately try to make them fit something else. See the weird thread "New Name, Old Story" for an example of this.

Two great youtube videos
Visit My Website
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

I particularly like in that second video there "Christians make up 75% of the US population, Christians make up 75% of prison populations. Atheists make up 10% of the US population, Atheists make up .2% of the prison population." Yet we are the ones who "lack morals or ethics." Haha.

Yea that bible sure is a moral book

On slavery....
Lev (25:44-46) However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

On selling thy daughter as a sex slave....
Exo (21:7-11) When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

On beating your slaves.....
Exo (21:20-21) When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Jesus on slaves....
Eph (6:5) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

Tim (6:1-2) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

Luke (12:47-48) The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."


On evil non believers....
Deut (17:12) Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

On Gays!
Lev (20:13) If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

On murdering your children....
Exo (21:15) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.

On speaking out against your parents, no matter what they do to you....
Lev (20:9) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.

On burning your daughters....
Lev (21:9) A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

On killing towns with one nonbeliever....
Deu (13:13-19) Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."

On tolerance toward other religions.....
Deu (13:7-12) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.


Yep that bible is sure a moral book.....

For the record, for those that preach Jesus is not about Old testament wrath, he also never condemns it. Hence why the Inquisition felt they could do as they did

Outstanding post Clamx. Thank you!!!!!

Again with the Old Testament? This may come as a shock to some of you, but posts concerning the negative nature of the Old Testament have been made hundreds of times on this forum. I just don't see the point.

And even most of the New Testament passages you excerpted were allegorical in nature. Did you even read Luke? Jesus is using the master and slave comparison as a parable, just like the other parables he tells right in this section. If you read it literally, it makes no sense whatsoever. The word "parable" was even used to describe the previous paragraph!

Py, I think the point is the bilbe is not a l effective moral dictum or standard , as it encourages and teaches hatred and murder and violence as a means of conflict resolution....pararble or not many use the bible as a guide for living and many feel it is the word of god and follow it literally......so yes i know that the bible is no source of morals as this is the realm of biology(science) yet...i think the above post was for those that are not aware of this ...is all...

Most atheists I know are very immoral and will do anything to have a good time. All atheists are immoral.

I saw on the news that this Islamic terrorist blew up himself and several innocent people. I hate how all Arabs are terrorists.

There was this pagan guy on the news the other day that killed someone and drank their blood. Man, all pagans serve Satan.

Oh wait, you mean gross generalizations aren't fair? Isn't that what people do with Christians, though? How come I can't?

If you want to really know what the Bible says, you have to read it for yourself and not let people define it for you. And thank you Camlax for your wonderful demonstration of pulling things out of context. Do you even know anything about the Old and New Covenants?

And my counterpoint was, who on this forum wouldn't be aware that the OT contains lots of violence? It gets posted constantly!

We can't forget now, that people pick and choose with these laws to an amazing extent. The Bible says, even in the new testament, that women are not to teach or have power over men [1 Timothy 2:12]. Yet there are VERY few Christian women who will follow that rule. Of course, they all are trying their hardest to love their neighbor and most of them are voting against giving rights to gay people. However, they're also worrying about their earthly possessions at the same time, which they're not supposed to do. And of course, everyone's interpretation of what it's even saying you should do in the first place is different, and I don't think there can be anyone who doesn't have some sort of bias. It's quite a condundrum if you ask me.



I've done that already. I've never seen you around here before but, I've read almost all of the Bible on my own, and yes, from a Christian standpoint, when I was Christian.

"Context" is in most cases a copout. There are true times when context comes into play. But saying that, for example, it's now considered wrong to kill people who sin because Jesus came and "fulfilled" the law is ignorant. When the Bible says things like those, they supposedly come from the mouth of God. God would never be wrong or immoral, so therefore the real moral fiber of God allows purging evil people from your midst. It's not about cultural application. It's about the fact that the law was ever allowed to exist.

Jesus specifically says, concerning divorce, that it was Moses who made allowances for it--not God. This is from Matthew 19:8. Therefore your hypothesis is wrong. The message IS influenced by the conduit.

There is no "true Faith', as you suggest, JMPD. Yes, there are many denominations, but many of these differences of opinions hold no big ramifications for our eternal lives. For example:

Christian A believes that the Saturday Sabbath is a valid point and should be kept by other Christians if they want to really follow the commands of God

Christian B, on the other hand, believes that this Law has been fulfilled through Jesus, and points to passages such as Hebrews 4 as basis for this argument

OR how about this one:

Christian C believes that the Tithe (10% of income) should be given to the church as part of their Christian worship

Christian D believes that while giving to the church is a worthwhile cause, the Tithe is now a non-relevant teaching and giving should not be set at any particular number.

Both these points of view from both these examples will necessitate a different denomination. That's at lest four different denominations, based on these two doctrines alone (and say a church believes in the Saturday Sabbath, but not in tithes, for example - that's another denomination, and any combination you care to think of). But which is the Church that has "the truth"? Quite frankly, I think most Christians in both these situations would agree that it is not a vital doctrine to salvation, and all the churches may very well hold the truth. Just because there are many denominations does not then make denomination A wrong while denomination B is all the Jazz. Just because there are many denominations does not mean all except one is wrong. I do not think you will find any church that has 100% of everything right. If you find a church that claims such, then run away, because they are deceiving you. However, I think there are many churches that have most of the Truth, or even some of the Truth, the important Truths vital to salvation.

There is no "true Faith". And most Chrisitans would agree with that statement (in my experience, at least). There are of course some who believe that if you are not of their particular denomination then you are just as heretical as non-chrsitians, but these, again in my experience, make up a relatively small number. Otherwise, the Christians on these boards would constantly be arguing with each other as much as with non-Christians, and saying that the others are not real Christians. I am "Anglican", IamsSon is "non-denominational". Does that mean one of us is doomed to hell just because we attend a different denomination?

You'd be surprised, actually. But because I don't want to draw this argument into a women's rights debate, or a gay rights debate, I'll leave it there.

Ah, but many of those laws are cultural. The Law about killing a rebellious child, for example, is completely contextually based. In a nomadic society which survives by helping each other and working together, having a person who is a drain on the resources but not giving anything back is detrimental to the tribe as a whole. It's not like modern society where a lazy slouch can sit on his butt playing Xbox and receive government support for this. If the tribe was being pulled down, then for the good of the Tribe, sometimes the only option was to get rid of the cause. Of course, it should also be noted that the application of this Law rested entirely upon the shoulders of the parents. It wasn't a societal decision, so think of how much of a drain the rebellious child needs to be on the tribe before (or even if) the parents deem it necessary to get rid of him or her, for the good of the Tribe as a whole.

Now, I've boldened some of the quote that I wanted to discuss. And this is what I meant in my earlier post about Literalists and Fundamentalists - just because one part of the Bible says one thing doesn't automatically mean that it applies the same way today. Just because at a time when God himself interacted with his chosen people and passed judgement and rules for this society does not mean that - in a world where God no longer acts in the same manner - the Law is still kept the same.

This doesn't mean God "changed his mind", just that times have changed, and what was appropriate in one instance, is not appropriate in another setting. To use an example, if I were to document two events in my life - say, one at the pub, the other at work - and I wrote that in one of these events that I bought ten beers, does that automatically mean that I am allowed to buy and drink beer at the other place? The Literalist account would say "why not" - I'm allowed in the one instance, but not in the other. While the contextual reader might suggest, "Hey, the situations are completely different".

But if I was at work for a Christmas party, one might again suggest that having those beers is ok........ It's all about context.

In the post-Jesus era, when God no longer takes an active role in society, Jesus tells us not to judge others (condemn others, in other words). That is God's role, and we are not God. In the Old Testament, when God actively took part in the life of the Israelites, such laws existed for their various purposes. Today though, we are not to Judge.

As I said, context. Of course, the Literalist (which it appears you are), will just fall back and say that it says it in the Old Testament, so it must be right today also........

many Py and many still defend it regardless, or look right past it and carry on. call religion a wonderful moral guide....and infer that it is the athiest who is has no morals even though morals are biological, inhernet to the person we all have a guide inside of us that helps us to make choices that are beneficial, if you need a book to tell you cruelty is harmful it is already to late.......We have a religious construct that teaches folks they are inherently evil this is the leading constributing factor to the issue we have as a humanity this one teaching ....... there in lies the problem...so we use what you call circular logic, keep revisiting and revisting until it is noticed...this would lbe my counter, and the psoter above supports what i am saying with scripture......

There's really nothing ignorant about it.


"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?' 'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.' 'Why then,' they asked, 'did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?' Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.'" - Matthew 19:3-9 (NIV)


Jesus Himself said that the laws were never the original true ones. The OT laws were given to a hard-hearted people and had to be tailored to such. They lived in a world that had different ways than we do now. Jesus did come to fulfill the Old Covenant and establish a new one, regardless how you feel about it. Christ brought a kingdom, a spiritual awakening, with Him and this bestowed upon us wisdom and insight into how things really are and what things were suppose to be. I'm sorry that you, like most others, fail to see this.

Not surprising at all - the vast majority of all "christians" are utter hypocrites. They, themselves, know this. Any part of their religion's very foundation (the bibble) they don't agree with they simply ignore or reinterpret.

A true christian simply lives according to the bibble and is genuinely willing to sacrifice their own lifestyle to follow the words of the bibble. We call these people "fanatics" because they actually follow their religion.

The other 99%+ are simply hypocrites. They are probably good people but to watch them live their lives totally against the teachings of Jesus and then call themselves christian makes me sick. (of course none of the "christians" here fall into that category. In fact, if you are reading this and are christian then I am not angering you - instead you are praying for my eternal soul.... right?)

Note that this post is NOT against true Christianity! TRUE Christians are among the people I respect most in this world.
You could construe this as apost against HYPOCRITES. But this is a futile excercise because you can ask any xstian here and they will probably tell you they are not a hypocrite. Therefore I am not talking about them and they can not get angry about this post. Cool, huh?

So, what is your preference? Just so I understand?

Would you prefer that we take the bible literally and be fanatics? Or, would you prefer that we take the logical sensible approach and interpret the interpreted words of the Bible? (which is challenging)

I am a Christian, and no, you're not angering me... and I'm not praying for your soul either.... surprise, if you think you have a soul, and that's a concept you subscribe to, then it's your responsibility, no amount of prayer from me will save it.

Egads.

Why are so many NB's biblical literalists when very few Christians are? I so totally don't get this. Baffling really.

to me, the bible is very clear on its moral understandings. now, lets get one thing straight. the bible does judge certain lifestyles as inappropriate or even wrong. maybe those particular aspects are influenced by the times. take homosexuality. society was strongly against this when the biblical accounts were written, which may have worked its way into the bible. physically, homosexuality is obviously not natural. man is not meant to be with another man. but morally? the bible does say its wrong, but....

keep in mind that the bible STRESSES not to judge others. any judgement given should be given from the almighty himself. if you cant love your brother because hes gay, then your sinning yourself. is he wrong? who knows. but you, whether a christian or not, must love your brothers. respect the words of christ. love each other and leave the judgement to the creator.