For all you new readers, "Think about it" Thursday (I like alliteration) is a weekly feature intended to provoke thought and discussion. Questions are often, but not always, directed at theists. My hope is to get people to think about their beliefs in a way that perhaps they haven't before, and to make sure they have a good reason for holding that belief, other than just because that's what they've always believed. I'm always open to suggestions for future discussion questions. Email me if you have an idea.
This week's question was suggested by John. He asks:
The Bible is often said to be used as a moral guide in one's life yet there are many rules in it that were considered holy in the day that would be unthinkable to follow today. For example: Stoning adulterers. When presented with an example like this, most would say "Oh, you're just picking out the bad parts in Bible." So the question remains: What higher moral guide do you use that says this part of the Bible is good and this part is bad?
Discuss. :-)
"Think about it" Thursday: Morality
If you enjoyed this post, I hope you'll check out my new blog.
The idea that people actually think the Bible would be a good moral compass is...terifying. I mean, have they read it? Parts of Jesus' message:
ReplyDeleteLet ye who is perfect cast the first stone, love thy neighbor as thyself, turn the other cheek, etc., are worthwhile. Unfortunately, I can't say I know any Christians who actually live according to those principles. Also, aren't those really just humanist messages? So, who needs the Bible?
The "Golden Rules" were happening thousands of years before the bible in Eastern religions like Buddhism and Taoism, and perhaps way before that. Maybe the writers and the rewriters of the bible stole/borrowed/inspired from those traditions.
ReplyDeleteReciprocal altruism was also happening in early communities from hunter gatherers and into agricultural, and both predate the bible. So morals, being good, happens naturally.
Third, about the stupid outdated rules from the bible...somewhere it says something like the woman must be a virgin to get married. Who the hell wants that. Just like other passages in the bible, it doesn't make sense.
Happy New Year, be safe, be merry.
Kriss
Actually I did a little bit of quick research and found out that Buddhism didn't originate until the mid 5th century BC as Buddha himself wasn't born until approximately 583BC and Taoism didn't originate until the 4th century BC at the earliest. Moses, the author of Leviticus, the source of the law in question above, was born in the 15th century BC which predates the advent of both Buddhism and Taoism. Even Confucianism didn’t originate until about the 5th century BC. So, it would seem as if Buddhism and Taoism were in fact not around for thousands of years before the early books of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteNow, let me say a few words with respect to the stoning of adulterers and the problem that people have with the harshness of the levitical law. I’m wondering if it is it capital punishment in general that we have a problem with? Does anyone argue that even in today’s society that there are certain crimes that are worthy of capital punishment? I wonder how the percentages of marriages that end as a result to infidelity would change if the law of capital punishment was still in affect today with regards to adultery? I doubt that anyone would argue that adultery is not a major problem in our society. One only has to read the news to see that it runs rampant. We utilize capital punishment in this country in certain cases because of the atrociousness of certain crimes. One could also argue that committing adultery is as atrocious as murder because in its own way it destroys lives. I can attest, having been on the offended end of a marriage that was destroyed by adultery that it is nothing to laugh about and that it does indeed destroy families. Leah, in your last post you ponder what might have been. Well, I am sure that there are millions of people out there that also ponder how their lives would be different had infidelity in their marriages not occurred. In my case, I wish I didn’t have to experience the whole thing, but in hind site I am infinitely more happy because it afforded me the opportunity to meet and fall in love with the woman with whom I am now married. Despite that I am now extremely happy I still would not wish that experience on anyone else. However, many are not so lucky and if there are children involved then they are left to have to deal with a broken family. This post is intended to provoke thought. Well, I'm not by any means advocating making adultery a crime worthy of capital punishment but it is a bit thought provoking to wonder how the landscape of this country would change if the punishment for adultery were a little more severe. One would maybe think twice before violating the marriage vows if there were a criminal charge attached to it.
Some of the laws in Leviticus seem a bit archaic and harsh to us today but when considering this one should also consider what the original intent of the law was. Maybe God had our best interests in mind because He knew that adultery has devastating consequences and therefore He wanted to discourage it as much as possible.
In response to Kriss' comment on marrying a virgin: I can think of at least one reason to wait until marriage to have sex. How ‘bout a life free of ever worrying about contracting an STD?
Patrik,
ReplyDelete1) Is the Bible the authoritative, inerrant word of God?
2) If so, and there is a law in the Bible that has a penalty/punishment, that these laws are inerrant and authoritative?
3) Does it not state in the Bible, in Matthew 5:17-18 (New King James Version)
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
I add these up, and it would indicate, that if one is a Christian, one obeys ALL of the Mosaic laws, including stoning to death offenders of a very large list of trespasses.
If one were to believe the bible to be the perfect and inerrant word of god.
Oh, and as for any 'Atheist war on Christmas'
Jeremiah 10:2-4 “Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.... For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.”
I would stop putting up Christmas trees if I were you--God doesn't seem to like it, being a jealous god and all.
@Patrik
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't believe a single person if they said they followed all the rules in the Bible. Stoning was just one example of the many rules that are not followed today but I'll just continue with this example. You said yourself you would not stone an adulterer. So why not? The Bible doesn't say don't stone adulterers. Why then, do you feel we shouldn't. What else guides your moral compass?
Strict adherence to the law was the requirement for the people of Israel to be righteous with God before the coming of the prophesied Messiah. Just like Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, He fulfilled the law. The ultimate culmination of the law was the sacrifice of Jesus for our inability to meet the requirements of the law. If you accept Jesus' sacrifice then you are free of the law and are righteous through Him and not through adherence to the law. In Romans 7:1-6 Paul explains a little about our new relationship to the law. He says, "But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old ways of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit." Did Jesus nullify the requirements of the law? No. He fulfilled the law and paid the penalty of the sin for us on the cross. Much of Pauls letters in the NT were addressing questions such as these. Some of the Jews that became Christians were in turn trying to turn non-Jewish people who became Christians into Jews by making them follow all of the laws of the Pentateuch (like circumcision,eating pork, etc.) and much of his writings were addressing these very things. The Pentateuch was how the nation of Israel (pre-Christ) was to be righteous with God and the authors of the NT teach how Christians are to be righteous with God.
ReplyDeleteAlso take a look at John 8:1-11. If you want to be in the business of going around enforcing the requirements of the law on other people then you should probably meet the requirement of being without sin yourself. Since I am not without sin I am not in the business of enforcing the law. Jesus, who is the judge, is the enforcer of the law and he paid the penalty of the law for us on the cross.
The only reason I gave the example earlier about a stricter punishment for adultery is because one of the main reasons it is such a problem is because there are no real consequences involved and nothing to deter someone from committing it (except in many a case a monetary one in the form of alimony or child support) and to show that there is probably a coorelation between how common something like adultery is in a society and the associated legal ramifications.
I'm not sure where the Christmas tree thing came from but a closer look at the referenced passage in Jeremiah will reveal that they were cutting the trees down and turning them into idols and worshiping them as gods. If you do that, then I'm sure God would have a problem.
I've heard the argument that the world would fall into chaos without religion to guide people so I came up with this question to point out why that argument wouldn't hold up. Maybe I didn't word my question properly. The point of my question was not to debunk the Bible and say "HA! Christians don't follow every rule in the Bible so how can they justify following it at all?" I'm asking what guides people outside the influence of religion in general. I could be interpreting this differently but it sounds like "...you are free of the law..." and only need to believe in Jesus so why do you follow the rules that you do? You could say fear of punishment from the law but I would say most people don't kill or steal simply because they feel it's wrong which is why the law was made in the first place.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I will give you what I believe is an answer to the question you are asking. However, I now that our opinions on the matter will differ. But since you ask, I will answer.
ReplyDeleteWhy do I follow the rules that I do? Well, first off I don't necessarily like the phrasing of the question. Being a Christian is not about being legalistic and having a strict set of thou shalts and thou shalt nots. Unfortunately there are some denominations that impose this sense of legalism on its followers. Mormonism is one of them. However, if one were to read through the New Testament one would find that there is great freedom in Christ. I've heard people say that Buddhism and Confucionism are not really religions but ways of life. I would argue the same is true about Christianity. Being a Christian is not about following a bunch of rules, but trusting in Christ and trying to immulate Him as much as is humanly possible. So, since there are things that Jesus would not have done, like murder someone, we try to live like Him. If you find yourself in a particular religion, like Mormonism, that forces on its followers a huge burden of rules then one tends to be filled with guilt if one is not able to follow, but Christ set us free from the burden of sin.
Now, about your statement that most people don't kill or steal simply because they feel it's wrong. My question to you is where does that feeling of wrongness come from? This is where our answers will probably differ. You will probably say that our moral sense of right and wrong is left over from altruistic tendencies that evolved in us and most helps the species survive and flourish. My answer can be found in Romans 2:14-15. "Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instictively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for thier own concience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." You see, I believe that God designed into us our basic moral code. I have heard your argument before. I believe it is one of Christoher Hitchens' favorite questions to ask in a debate. However, I believe his question is faulty because the moral code is present whether you are a Christian or not. All of us have some sort of standard that we strive to live by and we all know that we are not perfect, that we do not meet that standard. The only difference is a Christian has chosen to accept Christ's forgiveness for all the times that we fall short of His standard.
More than anything, I just want to add this to the dialogue:
ReplyDeletePatrik said, "I believe that God designed into us our basic moral code."
I believe that Random Mutation, Natural Selection over time and consciousness have left an effect upon us that we have described as a basic moral code. I also believe that misunderstood terms such as Random Mutation, Natural Selection, time and consciousness will likely be recontextualized so that the terms (or new ones) will become more precise through the process of study and inquiry. I don't have ultimate answers. Just like I don't have absolute, objective ethical codes. I do have a society that surrounds me and has put into code some guidelines that I better follow or recognize, or I'm going to have to live with the consequences.
Patrik says something remarkably insightful and important here:
'...his question is faulty because the moral code is present whether you are Christian or not. All of us have some sort of standard that we strive to live by and we all know that we are not perfect, that we do not meet that standard.'
The question is not faulty in any means. It is a clear demonstration that belief is not what is to be strived for. As well, there are people that do not have a standard to live by, I think, at least in terms of how you are describing it. The terms 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' were developed because there were recurring examples of people that didn't seem to share this so-called standard. But their existence, and our public recognition that they are different, has by no means stopped the rest of us from 'trying to live more or less ethically well.'
So I'm on board. Let's live ethically! But we must approach it properly, and without trump cards. This isn't a game to win, after all, right? We have lives in which to live well.
I believe that we have moral codes because we have developed a brain capable of empathy. I'd guess that empathy is the main drive behind selecting certain bible rules.
ReplyDelete"My question to you is where does that feeling of wrongness come from?" That's probably the phrasing I was looking for. You guessed my answer just about right but let's go with the "God did it." side. Even if god made us inherently moral I still don't feel the need for religion as we will naturally try to be like god. Personally from what I've read about Christ he doesn't sound like a standard I wanna live up to. And I certainly don't feel the need for his forgiveness for anything I've done in my life.
ReplyDelete@Patrick
ReplyDeleteBy your own logic we don’t even need a belief in god to be moral, because as you said we have morality built into us. So whether it is by god or natural selection you have admitted a belief in god is superfluous to our morality.
I’d like to know how you justify the claim that god gave us our morality seeing that all of our laws and codes of ethics have natural consequences. I would like you to name one form of ethics or morality that can’t be derived from a natural need. I don’t believe you can, and I don’t see any reason to believe that a god gave us our morality as we couldn’t survive as a species, or live in a community without ethics and law. That alone is natural cause enough for all of our moral systems.
The means that you believe salvation is achieved is also very curious. In an earlier post you told us, “If you accept Jesus' sacrifice then you are free of the law and are righteous through Him and not through adherence to the law.” Have you thought of what the logical conclusion of this sentiment is? You’ve pretty much told us that the commandments, and Jesus gave us a few of his own, are really only suggestions. You have told us that we really don’t have to keep any of them so long as we accept Jesus’ atonement. It seems like you now have the perfect excuse to be completely amoral.
I mean really what is the point of giving commandments if you don’t really expect anybody to keep them anyhow? I also find it interesting that the God that gave all the stringent commandments in the Old Testament would stop caring if his people keep his commandments just because he had his son nailed to a cross. You know I’ve read the Bible, and when I take the whole of it, it seems to me that god expects you to keep his commandments, it just depend on what verses you read.
You know, even if you don’t believe that it is needful to keep the commandments you still believe in the god that gave them, so I wonder how you justify all of them; some of them are truly grotesque. Take Deuteronomy 13 for example, or any other that we would today find reprehensible. Just because you don’t fallow the commandments doesn’t mean that you don’t believe in the god who gave them, they are part of your religion, and you should justify believing in such a god or commandment regardless of your need to follow them.
Jesus' atonement an excuse to be immoral? Earlier in this post I referenced John 8. What does Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery to do? Does He tell her to just go back to her lover and continue in her ways? No. He tells her to go and sin no more. Romans 6 also has something to say along these lines. Paul says "Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? Of course not!" Or in the KJV "God forbid!" Jesus' atonement is not a license to sin.
ReplyDeleteI am not trying write off the commandments by any means or suggest that we can live immoral lives. It is just that Jesus has taken upon Himself the penalty we have incurred by violating them. You see, He could have stoned the adulteress in John 8 because He was without sin and had the authority to enforce the law, but He didn't. So, did He let her off the hook of the very law that He established? I don't think so. I think that He knew that He was soon to pay her penalty for her on the cross. And not just for the one time she was caught in adultery but for all the times she violated the law. As it is for each of us. Jesus paid for all the sin that we have committed and will commit in our lives.
Also bear in mind that the Law, as it is found in the first five books of the Bible, was a covenant established between God and the nation of Israel on how to maintain a righteous relationship with Him until the coming of the Messiah. Jesus, during the last supper, established a new covenant, or fulfilled the covenant, with his blood. (Luke 22:20)
I have posted my response to this thread.
ReplyDeleteJesus' atonement an excuse to be immoral? Earlier in this post I referenced John 8. What does Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery to do? Does He tell her to just go back to her lover and continue in her ways? No. He tells her to go and sin no more. Romans 6 also has something to say along these lines. Paul says "Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? Of course not!" Or in the KJV "God forbid!" Jesus' atonement is not a license to sin.
ReplyDeleteI am not trying write off the commandments by any means or suggest that we can live immoral lives. It is just that Jesus has taken upon Himself the penalty we have incurred by violating them. You see, He could have stoned the adulteress in John 8 because He was without sin and had the authority to enforce the law, but He didn't. So, did He let her off the hook of the very law that He established? I don't think so. I think that He knew that He was soon to pay her penalty for her on the cross. And not just for the one time she was caught in adultery but for all the times she violated the law. As it is for each of us. Jesus paid for all the sin that we have committed and will commit in our lives.
Also bear in mind that the Law, as it is found in the first five books of the Bible, was a covenant established between God and the nation of Israel on how to maintain a righteous relationship with Him until the coming of the Messiah. Jesus, during the last supper, established a new covenant, or fulfilled the covenant, with his blood. (Luke 22:20)
More than anything, I just want to add this to the dialogue:
ReplyDeletePatrik said, "I believe that God designed into us our basic moral code."
I believe that Random Mutation, Natural Selection over time and consciousness have left an effect upon us that we have described as a basic moral code. I also believe that misunderstood terms such as Random Mutation, Natural Selection, time and consciousness will likely be recontextualized so that the terms (or new ones) will become more precise through the process of study and inquiry. I don't have ultimate answers. Just like I don't have absolute, objective ethical codes. I do have a society that surrounds me and has put into code some guidelines that I better follow or recognize, or I'm going to have to live with the consequences.
Patrik says something remarkably insightful and important here:
'...his question is faulty because the moral code is present whether you are Christian or not. All of us have some sort of standard that we strive to live by and we all know that we are not perfect, that we do not meet that standard.'
The question is not faulty in any means. It is a clear demonstration that belief is not what is to be strived for. As well, there are people that do not have a standard to live by, I think, at least in terms of how you are describing it. The terms 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' were developed because there were recurring examples of people that didn't seem to share this so-called standard. But their existence, and our public recognition that they are different, has by no means stopped the rest of us from 'trying to live more or less ethically well.'
So I'm on board. Let's live ethically! But we must approach it properly, and without trump cards. This isn't a game to win, after all, right? We have lives in which to live well.
John, I will give you what I believe is an answer to the question you are asking. However, I now that our opinions on the matter will differ. But since you ask, I will answer.
ReplyDeleteWhy do I follow the rules that I do? Well, first off I don't necessarily like the phrasing of the question. Being a Christian is not about being legalistic and having a strict set of thou shalts and thou shalt nots. Unfortunately there are some denominations that impose this sense of legalism on its followers. Mormonism is one of them. However, if one were to read through the New Testament one would find that there is great freedom in Christ. I've heard people say that Buddhism and Confucionism are not really religions but ways of life. I would argue the same is true about Christianity. Being a Christian is not about following a bunch of rules, but trusting in Christ and trying to immulate Him as much as is humanly possible. So, since there are things that Jesus would not have done, like murder someone, we try to live like Him. If you find yourself in a particular religion, like Mormonism, that forces on its followers a huge burden of rules then one tends to be filled with guilt if one is not able to follow, but Christ set us free from the burden of sin.
Now, about your statement that most people don't kill or steal simply because they feel it's wrong. My question to you is where does that feeling of wrongness come from? This is where our answers will probably differ. You will probably say that our moral sense of right and wrong is left over from altruistic tendencies that evolved in us and most helps the species survive and flourish. My answer can be found in Romans 2:14-15. "Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instictively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for thier own concience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." You see, I believe that God designed into us our basic moral code. I have heard your argument before. I believe it is one of Christoher Hitchens' favorite questions to ask in a debate. However, I believe his question is faulty because the moral code is present whether you are a Christian or not. All of us have some sort of standard that we strive to live by and we all know that we are not perfect, that we do not meet that standard. The only difference is a Christian has chosen to accept Christ's forgiveness for all the times that we fall short of His standard.