Your Moral Guide

I think Pat Condell summarizes my take on morality pretty well, especially when applying it to the Bible (or Quran, etc.).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-9uJrotC4

Everyone interprets morality on their own terms -- including so-called literalists.

 

I love the subject of morality. Glad you brought it up.

Speaking from a Christian perspective, I disagree with the assumptions in the video. As a Christian I don't assume that atheists have no morality. On the contrary, God has given us all a conscience. The underlying theme to our morality is the Golden Rule. Interestingly, Jesus elevated this rule above all others by saying that all of the law in the Bible is based upon loving your fellow man and God. As a result, we will all be held accountable.

Furthermore, our morality seems to also be shaped by authority figures. This includes your parents, the state, the church, etc. Basically, whatever you elevate as an authority figure holds sway over you. This can be seen with such topics as abortion and slavery.

Before the Civil War in the US, slavery was legal. Although you had people protesting it, by in large it was accepted as being "OK". However, after it was made illegal for over hundreds of years, today the thought seems archaic and evil. Likewise, before abortion was legalized, by in large it was deemed immoral, but today after being legal for decades it now seems, OK, even though there are those who protest it.

The Bible says something very interesting. It compares us to sheep. Looking at these facts it seems that the Bible is not too far off, eh? The only question becomes, who is your shepherd? It is not flattering to say the least. In fact, without a dose of humility I dare say an unacceptable conclusion.

So what of the inner conscience to overcome the Golden Rule? In the case of slavery, people compared slaves to glorified apes. They were not really our equal. In this way, we can subvert the Golden Rule because we need not treat something that is not our equal the way we would like to be treated. Likewise, the unborn are not babies, rather, they are a fetus. We also see examples of this in Nazi Germany. Jews were not human they were vermin. Today, Muslims call nonbelievers "infidels". The key to doing harm, therefore, to other humans and still be able to look at yourself in the mirror, is to dehumanize them. At that moment you are free to kill or do worse.

Of course, the allegation that Christians simply ignore the "bad parts" of the Bible is also erroneous. By in large Condell is no theologian and has no interest in it. For example, the issue of slavery in the Bible comes to mind. You have the Bible begin with Moses being raised up to deliver his people out of slavery that lasted hundreds of years. Even though slavery is allowed after the JEws are delivered out of slavery, Jews who are slaves are commanded to be set free after about 7 years or so. Jesus even compared sin to slavery when he said that those who sin become slaves to sin because they cannot seem to stop. And so we have enough evidence on a theological level to interpret slavery in a dim light Biblically. However, Condell is blind to this fact.

 

While I agree with most of your post, I think what stands out for me is the whole literalist angle.

It's true that a lot of Leviticus mentions penalties including death for various seemingly random actions. Clearly, modern Christians don't follow that book literally.

Yet, of all the things that Leviticus condemns, the one thing that a lot of modern Christians fixate on is homosexuality. Why is that so much worse than all of the other stuff?

 

I'll try to give you the theological scoop the best I can.

The Bible is consistant when mentioning sin as the target for destruction. In the Old Testament, that meant destroying the sinner. In the New Testament, Christ was able to deliver sin from the sinner as in the case of the woman caught in adultery. In fact, they were about to stone here according to Mosaic law when Christ intervened. To then say that the Christian has no Biblical authority to also show mercy is a lie. Condell needs to use those beedy little eyes of his and do some reading.

And lastly, the nation of Israel is not the United States or any other secular nation. God raised up Israel for one sole purpose, which was to produce the Messiah. However, keeping the nation together was probematic. What was vital for it's survival was the family unit. This meant punishing anything that threatened the family unit such as various sexual sins. What was also vital was not losing sight of their God. This meant revering the Sabbath and not serving other gods. This, along with circumcision, seperated them from other ancient cultures. This was important because the Sabbath was revolutionary. At that time the entire ancient world were slaves 24/7. It was a deviation from the norm which once again took issue with slavery. Also people during that day were notorious for sacrificing their children to various idols. So to use draconian measures to prevent that seems reasonable to me. I submit that without these draconian methods, the Jewish culture would have been swallowed up and forgotten like all other ancient cultures. In fact, show me a religious culture that has survived that is older.

Even with these draconian punishments the people still alomst destroyed God's plan. Of course, without this plan none of the people mentioned would have had any eternal hope and the same could be said for us.

What really irks me is that people are more than willing to compare the ancient society of Israel to their own. However, they stop there. They then refuse to compare the ancient society of Israel to the surrounding societies, which were sooo much worse. God was using a primitive people and he did the best he could. Change often happens slowly, but make not mistake, change for the better had taken place. In fact, would we even have a weekend without the Sabbath? As the Bible says, the entire world would be blessed through the ancient nation of Israel.

 

I don't see the Hebrews as being any better culturally than their contemporaries, but it is true that some of them engaged in human sacrifices.

 

Well lets see, the Hebrews forbade idol worship and child sacrifice, they gave all men one day of rest, they set slaves free after 7 years, they took a dim view on anti-social behavior like theft and murder and adultery and they set up a government without some power hungry king, rather, they set up mere judges to hear disputes amongst the people.

Who else is better during that time?

 

In the most basic sense, I agree with him. But attacking the bible for what was historically acceptable punishment, is just a little to harsh in my opninon.

 

Thank a union member for your weekend. Before they won it, it simply didn't exist in this country, in spite of the biblical admonition against working on the sabbath.

As for slavery, you conveniently leave out the directives about foreign slaves. They were mere property of the Hebrews and could be treated as such, and were. Rules appear in the bible about how to treat them. You could beat them to death, as long as they held on a day or two. In the NT, Paul is fully aware of his obligation to return a runaway slave, and never once considers helping the fugitive slave along toward his freedom.
You are painting a rosy picture, instead of the more accurate blood red one.

 

One of the good things about secular law is that morality is contained in the law. I don't mean "morality" in the sense of prudishness, I mean in defining what is right or what is acceptable and what is wrong and what is unacceptable. Secular law works on different principles and that is why it is superior to religious-based laws such as Sharia and Halakha. Besides, secular law covers everyone, not just believers. Don't you think that's preferable in working out a moral code for all?

 

I compare slavery to divorce. Jesus said that divorce was allowed due to the hardness of the hearts of men and women. It was never what God had intended, rather, it was merely allowed to try and keep the peace.

Like it or not, slavery served a function. It was for those who were down and out and without a family unit to help them survive. As such they lost many of their rights. It is troubling to me that Hebrews were given preferential treatment in such instances, but it is equally troubling for people to say that the Bible is pro-slavery when it is the only document at that time attacking the institution of slavery. For me, slavery illustrates sin in many ways. Although there have been steps to overcome it, by in large we still are tainted by it and have yet to overcome it fully.

If Condell had lived as a slave during that time, I dare say he would pick being a Hebrew slave and would celebrate their revolutionary stand on it. Even if he were a foriegn slave, at least he could rest on the Sabbaath.

 

Sabbath law did not apply to foreign slaves, and they were as subhuman in their place in the cultural strata as any slave has ever been.
"Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Don't romanticize what slavery was in those days. It was brutal and inhuman and justified by scripture.
That is the truth, and a hard one at that.

 

Slavery was merely an economic process, nothing more, nothing less. Just as in agriculture we used animals to work for us and looked after them only to ensure they didn't die before their useful working lives had run their course, so we used slaves to work for us but without being paid. It was just economics. Slaves didn't need slavery to survive, they could do that by working in their own societies. They were only slaves when they were captured and used as labour without wages.

 

All law is based upon morality. That is why saying you can't legislate morality is retarded. You are saying that one behavior is "good" and another "bad". So the question begs, by who's morality? As I have said, the Golden Rule is a universal tool for such laws. Live and let live so long as you don't harm another. However, this law can be skewed for such instances as the unborn when they are dehumanized or in the instance of a slave during the 1800's.

Then there are "sexual sins". I suppose this is where reilgion and the secular world part ways. So long as two parties are of consenting age and give their consent, it is allowed by secular law. However, the state seems to still want to give the thumbs up or down when it comes to marriage. I would like to see this taken away and not have the state recognize sexual unions at all. I see no reason why you would let gays marry and not polygamists. There is zero consistancy there and the state has taken a stance that is not defendable by secular standards.

And lastly, there is collectivism. From this vantage point doing others harm is not paying your fair share. Now we may all go to jail for not buying health coverage. Is this moral? I don't think so but many self righteous liberals would beg to differ.

 

By what evidence do you say that the Sabbaath did not apply to slaves? Where does this say that in scripture?

 

Legislating morality doesn't work. Exhibit P1 - the Volstead Act. Any law without broad public support is doomed to failure. No, you can't legislate morality.

Any law is based on what is acceptable or not acceptable in general terms to the society which passes the law.

 

Yes, I realize it was a harsh existence but have yet to see evidence they worked on the Sabbath. Not even a beast of burden in the fields was allowed to work.

 

The laws regarding slavery and abortion would beg to differ. Clearly laws were passed that swung the moral pendulum the other direction. Of course, that may not always swing the moral compass of a state but it is still legislating morality.

Of course, you are only focused with changing the consensus of the population. Who cares how many agree or disagree? After all, there will always be those who disagree. I suppose you are looking at this through the lense of democracy. So long as the mob agrees in part they should rule? For example, most states have voted down gay marriage, but should the state care? Trust me, they don't.

 

I would like to explore the morality of collectivism. Is it a moral approach? It seems to me that it bypasses the Golden Rule by assuming you are doing others harm by not trying to help them in a collective fashion. I subumit this to be a dangerous philosophy. In San Fransisco they ban happy meals because they say that it is "bad" for society as they cite medical evidence for their position. However, the same city allows gay sex which accounts for well over half of AIDS cases in the US despite gays being less than 10% of the population. Clearly this morality is skewed beyond measure and purly based upon personal preferences.

 

You are correct. Exodus 20 tells us the slaves must also observe the Sabbath, although I think this was more for indoctrinational purposes than worshipful ones.
Masters had to take one day off from beating their slaves.

 

I'm pretty sure Hebrews didn't have a monopoly on laws against stealing and murder.

 

Not at all, the guy's a militant atheist bigot - just because he attacks Islam as well as Christianity doesn't make him any less of a crank. Not much different than the Islamics or Christian fundamentalists he rants about.

 

Pat always makes some interesting points.

 

The Israelites were never slaves in Egypt. After spending around 400 years of living off of Egyptian welfare the Pharaoh had them build a couple of treasure cities. They whined like puppies for having to do some manual labor. When they left they stole everything smaller than the Sphinx. Blacks, on the other hand, were actual slaves in America for about 245 years.

 

My moral code can fall into three compact bullet points.

1. If it doesn't hurt me unwillingly its okay.

2. If it doesn't hurt someone else unwillingly its okay.

3. People should leave the world a better place than they came into it in.

You keep religious dogma, religious ideas and fancy moral schemes out of things and it all seems to break down to these points anyway so why make things more complicated.

 

Treat everyone as an equal and respect their right to make their own choices.