Johnny Skeptic

The myth of absolute morality is patently absurd. Christians have NEVER believed in absolute morality. Over the last 2,000 years, Christians have frequently revised what they consider to be moral behavior. For about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, a sizeable majority of Christians endorsed slavery and the subjugation of women. The largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property. In the U.S. in the 1890's, the vast majority of Christians believed that is was immoral to wear bathing suits about the knees. Even today, some Christians believe that it is sinful for women to wear binikis at publics beaches, for people to play cards, and for people to drink alcohol. About ten years ago, a gay couple who lived in Texas were arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own home. The couple sued the state of Texas, and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court overturned anti-sodomy laws in Texas and 12 other states, most of which were predictably Southern Bible Belt states. Two exceptions were Utah and Idaho, both of which have a large percentage of Mormans. It is no accident that the deplorable and utterly detestible anti-sodomy laws that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court were in states that have large percentages of conservative Christians. When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered busing decades ago, the state of Virginia closed down the public school system so that white children would not have to attend school with black children. In this predominantly Christian nation, women did not get the right to vote until 1928, and black people did not get the right to sit in the front of buses until the late 1950's. The abuses of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. the selling of indulgences) speak for themselves. Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002:

By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective.

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�?

Very few, if any Christians living today would have the same moral values if they had been transported back in time at birth to say the year 120 A.D. In addition, what if some Christians living today were transported back in time
and raised by Attila the Hun? Today's Christians are only one step away from barbarism, and are merely the lucky recipients of millennia of gradual social changes that have taken place at a rate that make a Galapagos tortoise seem like a race horse by comparison.

achristianbeliever

Hey Elaine Pagels I saw her on that PBS Jesus thing. I read a book that in my opinion completely debunks this claim. Its called Hidden Gospels.

This is one of the editorial reviews from
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...89751?v=glance

Johnny Skeptic

This topic of this thread is absolute morality. What in the world does "the historical validity of the New Testament" have to do with absolute morality? You replied to one small part of my post and completely disregarded the rest of it. Why was that? Is it or is it not your position that the moral conduct and beliefs of the majority of Christians over the last 2,000 years have been absolute, otherwise stated consistent?

achristianbeliever

Maybe because its the only part of your post I had any interest in?

Until Christians change their opinions on murder I'm not gonna care about how Christians changed their views on drinking alchohol or bikinis. After all Romans 14 talks about Christians arguing over things like alchohol. So I don't care whether Christians changed their minds on some issues. Now you tell me do Christians today think that murder is wrong?

Gawen

Not sure on that one. I wonder why the majority of prisoners in American prisons claim Christianity as their faith and less than 1% are atheists....:huh:

Joe Bloe

Of course they do. Everyone does. "Murder is wrong" is true by definition: 'murder' means "wrongful killing."

But what sort of killing is wrongful? Capital punishment? Some Christians (and some others) say yes, some say no. The Bible is fine with it, in some cases anyway, including rebelling against one's parents or picking up sticks on the sabbath, but most Christians (even those who accept capital punishment) now disagree with the Bible in those cases. Is abortion murder? Again, some say yes, some say no, and the Bible says nothing at all about abortion. Is stem-cell research moral? Some yes, some no, the Bible doesn't say. Some read the Bible and infer that it implies "yes," others that it implies "no."

Disagreement doesn't mean that each side must not believe in absolute morality. But it does show that even if there is an absolute morality, we haven't figured out a way to determine precisely what it is. Even the Bible fails us on that score.

Johnny Skeptic

Maybe it is because you do not want to embarrass yourself and because you do not want to stay on topic.

I am speaking mainly of Christian morality prior to 1900, which was in fact NOT consistent and NOT absolute, i.e. colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women.

Regarding murder, absolute morality is about much more than just murder. The Bible basically says that if you have broken one commandment not to sin, you have broken them all. Surely it is not your position that everyone who does not commit murder will go to heaven. In your typically evasive fashion, you conveniently avoided replying to the following from my previous post:

Now then, how about replying to all of my post for a change? Your frequent evasiveness indicates your ineptness at debating. Over the past few years, I have found evasizeness to be a typical character trait among fundamentalist Christians who are more than happy to reply in detail to any argument as long as they feel that they will not embarrass themselves.

BruceWane

Considering the alignment of many christians with the doctrine of preemptive war, I'd say yes and no.........which is a direct demonstration that christian morality certainly is subjective, and not absolute.

Christians may claim to adhere to an objective morality, but when the source of that objectivity has such widely varying interpretations it becomes competely a product of the interpreters point of view, i.e. subjective, and anything but absolute.

This is but one example; there are plenty more. For instance, do christians today think the death penalty is wrong? Some do, many don't, and among those who don't is that so called "man of god" who currently occupies the Oval Office. He even went so far as to mock a woman on death row pleading for her life.

achristianbeliever

You judge me on my motives based on a few posts and condemn me as preventing to embarrass myself and then ask me to do what you want? You want to believe my motives are based on a fear of being afraid to debate? Go ahead. I got nothing to prove to you. You've given me less of a reason to respond.

EricK

On the contrary, Christians have always believed in an absolute morality. The thing is, each generation believes in a different absolute morality.

Eric