Where do Christians (and other religious folk) get their morals from?

[Satya]

Well, to begin with basic Christian ones, thou shalt not kill, steal, bear false witness, commit adultery, covet, etc. etc.
Many Christian beliefs also center around forgiveness, loving thine neighbor, etc.
And while there are many ways to interpret the Christian bible, there are many passages in the Bible that say EXACTLY that, so it's kind of hard to say they're not there. Those teachings are physically present.

Have you ever heard the moral proposition, "Treat others as you would like to be treated". It predates Christianity by centuries. It's known in the Golden rule and it even appears in the Bible as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Basically every "moral" you just cited could be reduced to that premise. The Bible didn''t teach man any morals that we didn't come up with ourselves before it existed. In fact, the Bible seems to do a pretty good job of distorting the basic premise so as to support constructs like sexism, homophobia, ect.

I'm inclined to disagree. There are people who are good that are nonreligious; there are people that are bad that are nonreligious. I've known many atheist assholes that feel perfectly inclined to wrinkle their noses at homosexuals as much as they are Christianity, and I know many Christians that are very good friends with said homosexuals.

Atheism is a religion in itself in that argues that there is no God without proof that there is no God. I asked if you knew any agnostics who held to those conceptions. Do you? Could you cite some famous ones? I can cite dozens and dozens of Christians who do so you should be able to come up with at least one or two agnostics who do. Please share them and show me how unfounded my arguments are.

Documented homophobia has existed as long as documented homosexuality.

The word "homosexuality" was coined in the 19th century. Are you saying that homophobia has only existed for 2 centuries?

In contemporary times, these things only connect to religion because they connect to tradition, and religion has been a base of tradition for as long as religion has existed. In fact, almost all established cultures have some form of religion, so I'd say that to connect these things to religion would be more or less a step away from the fact that all of these things tend to exist naturally. They don't stem from religion; however, they stem from the same base as religion.

So your argument is that tradition is the basis of sexism, homophobia, etc? If scriptures like the Bible are to be treated as the infallible word of God then you seriously can't be arguing that they need to be interpreted in context to the traditions that existed at that time. Obviously God wants everyone to live as they lived 2,000 years ago. If an unmarried women is raped then she needs to be put to death, if a man sleeps with another man then he needs to be put to death, if a child dishonors his parents then he needs to be put to death, if someone works on the Sabbath then he needs to be put to death, if a slave misbehaves then his master must only beat him hard enough that he dies a couple days after the beating, and on and on. That is the word of God in the Bible and so that is the moral thing to do.

The concept of widespread agnosticism is fairly new, at least on the accepted scale that it is presently. However, I am not convinced that agnosticism creates less sadism, sexism, prejudice, or anything else. What it does do is create a mentality against the mainstream, so they are more likely to think about what they "believe" or why they should behave a certain way. That is only as long as we are in the process of change and new ideas, though; once agnosticism is established, it's likely that it will be as blindly followed as anything else, and won't really eliminate anything.

It's not new in the least. Before Christianity and Islam began their crusade to convert the world, most of the world was agnostic. They are militant religions, based on militant people, that spread militant ideologies and militant traditions. Read the Old Testament.

The thing you should be pointing fingers at is conformism, not religion. Religion in and of itself is not a bad thing, nor does it aim to do harm. However, blind following of anything, be it religion, government, philosophy, or anything else, will lead to prejudice and prosecution.

It says right in the Bible that all there is is the word of God. There is no middle ground. You are either with God or against him. It is black and white, good and evil. The Bible is conformity. Christianity is conformity.

I disagree. Religion in the sense of spirituality is not obsolete. Religion in the sense of conformism, though, is obsolete, and should be reconsidered.

You want to throw the Bible out of Christianity?

 

[Shai Gar]

And to everyone who says the old testament doesn't matter after jesus came, jesus himself was quoted to have said that he didn't come to abolish the old rules, but to make them stronger.

So in essense, jesus says you should be killed if you're wearing blended fabrics like a cotton/poly blend.

 

[just me]

I think the Mongols may have helped to spread Islam as a side effect more than anyone else, and they left piles of heads in the towns they torched.

I think someone has a very bad understanding of the Bible...

Hey: I posted some T !

 

[Quinlan]

When you follow up your question with a statement like "
surely not a contradictory old book?" when you know it's something that is important and/or sacred to those you're speaking of, then you shouldn't be surprised if it comes off as offensive or judgemental.

Well most of the responses in this thread have agreed that the root of their morality is not in the bible. You even said yourself that the time the bible was written (oldness) had influenced it's content, which most modern people find distasteful. The concept of making a physical object "sacred" is so very foreign to me, that it is difficult for me to take into account.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I think you need to take the potential effects of your words into account. You're expecting me to not be offended by the things you say, but then you seem to be offended by what I'm saying.

I'm not offended, I just don't like offending people and would rather avoid it entirely than keep walking a mine field.

 

[Shai Gar]

I think you've got your brain switched off. You're the only person who has mentioned mongols. They had their own religion, Animism.

 

[Jana]

People who are looking for contradictions in Bible should know that every text is partly determined by historical and social context. Yes, Bible is inspired by God, but it has been written by people. Their language was result of their experience and has to be interpreted with understanding for that experience. I am not educated theologian, but I hope that I am not wrong so much.

 

[Shai Gar]

You're not terribly wrong. Some of my fathers friends are Theologians. When they come over I get into very long discussions with them over the topic of the bible, and of muslim history and the Talmud and Torah.

 

[Quinlan]

People who are looking for contradictions in Bible should know that every text is partly determined by historical and social context. Yes, Bible is inspired by God, but it has been written by people. Their language was result of their experience and has to be interpreted with understanding for that experience. I am not educated theologian, but I hope that I am not wrong so much.

My point is that your morality, your sense of right and wrong, is reflected in the way you interpret the bible, it therefore precedes the bible.

 

[Jana]

My point is that your morality, your sense of right and wrong, is reflected in the way you interpret the bible, it therefore precedes the bible.

So, my morality is reflected in the way I interpret Bible, but my past interpretation of Bible are also reflected in my morality. It's not one way road. As a Christian, I can't without my conscience and I can't without Bible.

 

[Satya]

The Bible does not support sexism, homophobia, slavery, and sadism

Old Testament in Red and New Testament in Blue. Your God is an interesting fellow. Where do you read in the Bible that God says all the old rules are suddenly obsolete? Is there a specific verse you could point out?

Sexism:

1 Corinthians chapter 14:

• As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 11 is important:

• But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

1 Timothy chapter 2:

• Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Homophobia:

Leviticus 20:13:

• If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
  
  

Sadism:

Exodus 35:2

• For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Deut 21:18-21

• If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town,

 

[Satya]

I'm sorry but I disagree with you Satya, religion is not obsolete and I hope it never will be. Like it has been said before in this thread, I question organized religion, but the spirituality of mankind is a beautiful thing. If mankind as a whole looses all connection to beliefs about the supernatural (be they provable or not, real or not) I think mankind will suffer culturally, and greatly. Religion for those who are spiritual is a source of inspiration, beauty, aestetics, hope, and future. To say that these have no place (not that you have to have religion or spiritualism but that mankind as a whole has no need for it) is extremely closed minded and dangerous. It limits choice, imposses stupidity on people who believe in something other than logic, and makes claims that you are the one with the right answer.

I wasn't talking about spirituality in general. I was talking about religion. Spirituality is simply believing in something greater than yourself. You are simply wrong to argue that the supernatural is synonymous with spirituality. Some spiritual people reject all that is supernatural and look to just the natural world. And I said specifically that religion has value; just not as a source of morals.

 

[Jana]

Please, point out some peaceful verses. Paint a different picture of the book than that which is used to enforce ideals of sexism, homophobia, etc.

May the LORD bless you
and protect you.
May the LORD smile on you
and be gracious to you.
May the LORD show you his favor
and give you his peace.

Numbers 6

 

[Satya]

May the LORD bless you
and protect you.
May the LORD smile on you
and be gracious to you.
May the LORD show you his favor
and give you his peace.

Numbers 6

Very nice. Now please explain how the LORD does these things while he is endorsing the subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals, the beating of slaves, and the destruction of anyone who disobeys his commandments.

 

[Quinlan]

So, my morality is reflected in the way I interpret Bible, but my past interpretation of Bible are also reflected in my morality. It's not one way road. As a Christian, I can't without my conscience and I can't without Bible.

Do you think that if you had never been introduced to the bible, you would be an immoral person?

 

[Jana]

Sometimes is easier to know what I think than express it (look my signature, please. And I think that cruel punsihments are part of social and historical context I mentioned earlier.

 

[Jana]

Do you think that if you had never been introduced to the bible, you would be an immoral person?

I don't know. But I think that I wouldn't be same person, I know that my religion made me a better person. With more understanding for others. Some parts of Bible (not one you qouted..) became my guidelines in differente situations.

 

[Satya]

Sometimes is easier to know what I think than express it (look my signature, please. And I think that cruel punsihments are part of social and historical context I mentioned earlier.

Basically you reject a literal interpretation of the Bible, but if your morals are ever challenged then you will still use the Bible to support them. What I don't understand is why you simply don't use rational moral propositions. Why do you have to believe in a book of limited relevance to this day and age? I can understand believing in God and trying to live in accordance with some of the relevant teachings, but I just can't understand people who use it to justify how they personally feel about things. Why should some anti gay rights activist use the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality but not parts that endorse slavery and sexism? Just because he personally feels an aversion to homosexuality, he has that right as a Christian? At what point did cherry picking become an acceptable practice in Christianity?

 

[bamf]

1. Have you ever heard the moral proposition, "Treat others as you would like to be treated". It predates Christianity by centuries. It's known in the Golden rule and it even appears in the Bible as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Basically every "moral" you just cited could be reduced to that premise. The Bible didn''t teach man any morals that we didn't come up with ourselves before it existed. In fact, the Bible seems to do a pretty good job of distorting the basic premise so as to support constructs like sexism, homophobia, ect.



2. Atheism is a religion in itself in that argues that there is no God without proof that there is no God. I asked if you knew any agnostics who held to those conceptions. Do you? Could you cite some famous ones? I can cite dozens and dozens of Christians who do so you should be able to come up with at least one or two agnostics who do. Please share them and show me how unfounded my arguments are.



3. The word "homosexuality" was coined in the 19th century. Are you saying that homophobia has only existed for 2 centuries?



4. So your argument is that tradition is the basis of sexism, homophobia, etc? If scriptures like the Bible are to be treated as the infallible word of God then you seriously can't be arguing that they need to be interpreted in context to the traditions that existed at that time. Obviously God wants everyone to live as they lived 2,000 years ago. If an unmarried women is raped then she needs to be put to death, if a man sleeps with another man then he needs to be put to death, if a child dishonors his parents then he needs to be put to death, if someone works on the Sabbath then he needs to be put to death, if a slave misbehaves then his master must only beat him hard enough that he dies a couple days after the beating, and on and on. That is the word of God in the Bible and so that is the moral thing to do.



5. It's not new in the least. Before Christianity and Islam began their crusade to convert the world, most of the world was agnostic. They are militant religions, based on militant people, that spread militant ideologies and militant traditions. Read the Old Testament.



6. It says right in the Bible that all there is is the word of God. There is no middle ground. You are either with God or against him. It is black and white, good and evil. The Bible is conformity. Christianity is conformity.



7. You want to throw the Bible out of Christianity?

1. I agree, the bible didn't teach humanity any morals that it didn't already have. Man after all wrote the bible.

2. I am uncertain at what you are trying to say. From my understanding it looks like you are trying to say that there aren't 'bad' agnostics in the world but I could be completely mistaken.

3. You're twisting her words. She said there has been homophobia as long as there have been homosexuals. Just because the term wasn't coined until the 19th century doesn't mean that there weren't homosexuals previous to that. Are you implying that before the bible there was no homophobia?

4. I don't think she said the bible is the unfailiable word of god (she might have, I'm too lazy to go back and read, but I highly doubt it). She admits that the bible is written by man.

5. no comment

6. Once again I think you have to realize that all Christians do not take the bible as a literal word of god, more of a book of lessons. Yes there is bad and yes there is good. If you are only out to see the bad, it's all you will ever see.

7. um...strawman much?

 

[Quinlan]

Just because he personally feels an aversion to homosexuality, he has that right as a Christian? At what point did cherry picking become an acceptable practice in Christianity?

Yeah, it should be all or nothing, litteral interpretation of the text or accepting the moral zeitgeist of the times.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Jana]

Why should some anti gay rights activist use the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality but not parts that endorse slavery and sexism? Just because he personally feels an aversion to homosexuality, he has that right as a Christian? At what point did cherry picking become an acceptable practice in Christianity?

You ask difficcult questions. I will think about them and then write (at me is midnight and I work in the morning. But, logic is not all, there are thing that are not logical always. And, I don't belive that anyone has right to attack others.