Forums → WEPR → Biblical Morality (or Religious Morality)
| 57 | 22721 |
This may or may not turn into another classic "Theism vs Atheism" thread, and I kind of expect that but I was hoping to keep it on a very specific topic with respect to Christianity. If anyone has another religion whose morality they'd like to discuss that'd be fine too. In general, I was hoping this could focus less on the "is God real" aspect of our discussion, which seems to be the driving force in most religious threads, and specifically on the "if this religion's god is real, is he/it moral?"
The topic is pretty general, but I'll try to start us off with some basic scenarios.
As many of us atheists may be ready to present, there are a lot of passages in the Bible about slavery (click here for specifics). I was wondering how this can be justified if these stories are part of the religion. The passages get pretty specific about how you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die and how they are your property. I find this immoral.
The second one that comes to mind is human sacrifice. Off the top of my head three stories come to mind. The first one, Abraham and Isaac, isn't really human sacrifice as God tells Abraham "just kidding" at the last second. Still, I find it odd that he is revered for his willingness to kill his own son in deference to his god. The second one, is the story of Jeptathah sacrificing his daughter to God since God let him win the battle, details here. We're talking about a God that let Jeptathah win the battle in exchange for Jeptathah sacrificing the first thing that came out of his house, and when it was his daughter, God should've come down and said "Hey, don't kill her, we're even. I don't accept human sacrifice." But he didn't. The third example I have is the most obvious one, Jesus Christ (no link necessary). God accepted the sacrifice of Jesus for repentence for our sins, who is supposedly (maybe not in all religions) considered fully human and fully divine. If this is the case, God accepted the sacrifice of someone fully human instead of just forgiving us without a sacrifice.
The last thing I want to mention is the idea of Hell. Eternal punishment for finite crime is immoral, in my opinion. If you believe God sends anybody to Hell, then he is immoral. Even Hitler doesn't deserve to be tortured forever because he would have to commit an infinite amount of crimes.
You by no means have to talk about every issue and add any issue you want to (even if Christians know an issue in their religion and want to bring it up to counter it, that's welcome). Final point, if the mods think this thread is too similar to another thread or just think this discussion should continue in the main one, I understand. But I was hoping the specific point of this thread could be morality of religions (I started off with the one I know best, my former one) and not whether or not to believe they are true.
- 57 Replies
So you're saying killing wouldn't be wrong if people didn't think it was? Like it as not, there are some basic fundamentals to a person's thoughts and actions. Why are we talking about this?
Killing isn't wrong if there's noone around to find it wrong, yes. For example, killing in self defence is considered by most people as "not wrong". Killing flies isn't considered wrong, either, usually. Heck, there would be no morality in the world at all if it were not for a few primate species like our humble selves (yes, morals have been found to be expected in some other primates, too).
So you're saying killing wouldn't be wrong if people didn't think it was?
No it wouldn't be. Though the way our species functions, in group killing would be at a detriment to our species to the extent of possible extinction. As such killing in such respects is generally ingrained as wrong.
So you're saying killing wouldn't be wrong if people didn't think it was?
the mayans offered people to their god of life and destruction. they did this by making a cut under the ribs and then the high priest went in whit his hand an came out whit the heart of the offer. sometimes still beating.
this was a nearly daily ritual. and it was not seen wrong.
now something closer to home...
the death penalty. it basically is murder.
So you're saying killing wouldn't be wrong if people didn't think it was?
Is it wrong for a soldier to kill? There you have your answer. Killing is approved of in certain instances, therefore, the act itself is viewed to be neither right or wrong. The reasons behind killing someone are what is judged in our society.
When I think about acting in the right manner I am considering what works in terms of bringing about calmness. For example when I try prayer to the Christian Trinity and I get frustrated by putting all my desires and problems into the hands of a God who may be just a figment of my imagination; when I try meditation I find that I grow calmer and I feel better about facing this world. I see things more clearly. I tend to focus on bringing about what I think is good in my little patch in the world. I may be able to do little about the situation in Syria. I can do more about the situation in Handlerland.
I wanted to start up the discussion again.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7: 13-14
We've already touched on the idea of infinite punishment for finite crimes, more or less, but this passage demonstrates that if God is all-knowing, then he created us knowing that most of us would go to Hell. Is this something a loving god would do?
Every time I look into this religion's god all I find is a "might makes right" scenario. We let God do what he wants and we have to call it good. Those that follow Divine Command Theory might actually say that whatever God does is good. Obviously God can get away with it and we can't stop him, but that doesn't make it moral. As empathetic human beings, how can we justify worshipping a god that created us and then tortures some of us, reveals himself to some of us, and most of the time pretends not to exist so we atheists can get tortured forever? If God is as he is portrayed by the Bible, I would never worship him. I would sooner worship Hitler. He killed millions. God, all powerful and omniscient, sends billions of us to be tortured forever.
If God is as he is portrayed by the Bible, I would never worship him. I would sooner worship Hitler.
Agreed, but Godwin would be my choice. (Yay pun.)
The way God is portrayed in the Bible, I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks he is just, wise, or kind. He's a whimsical, egotistical dictator who created everything just to worship himself and punishes those that don't obey.
Agreed, but Godwin would be my choice. (Yay pun.)
XD That's probably the best thing I've seen today.
The way God is portrayed in the Bible, I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks he is just, wise, or kind. He's a whimsical, egotistical dictator who created everything just to worship himself and punishes those that don't obey.
It's really all about not questioning it. You are taught a bunch of different puzzle pieces each designed to keep you in the religion. God loves you, so it's moral to worship him. You are a bad person and only God can forgive you, so you depend on the religion. Not accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is the one unforgivable sin, never question the religion.
Each piece is designed to keep you from finding a reason away from the religion, until you realize that the pieces are from different puzzles and they don't form a consistent belief system.
Why do you think that for a long time every religious text was in latin and only monks and clerics could read it? Why were even offices held in latin? Why is god considered the shephard of a troop of lambs? Control. The church needed control over their follower, and making god a distant powerful entity in their minds that they should not question, gave them that.
Why do you think that for a long time every religious text was in latin and only monks and clerics could read it? Why were even offices held in latin?
Because latin was the language of scholars, and only monks and clerics and the rich had an education.
As for why the peasants didn't have the education, there is the deceit.
Why is god considered the shephard of a troop of lambs?
Agriculture and livestock were the start of civilization. Maybe we're God's food, lamb chops are tasty O.o
Why do you think that for a long time every religious text was in latin and only monks and clerics could read it? Why were even offices held in latin?
Like Kasic said back in those times nobody had a good eduction one of those reasons are money another reason is the fall of Rome.
I mean, the bible isn't even 100% pure and true. It wasn't even compiled until the late, late 300's by a bunch of guys who didn't even know which books were true and canonical, and argued about what to put in the bible. Then the pope, the "Called of God" slash "Politically elected through all sorts of crap" picked x number of books and BOOM bible. Which was then "adjusted" to the whims of the priests and Catholic church for the next 1000 or so years.
You must be logged in to post a reply!