Freethought & Rationalism Archive

babelfish · 04-09-2002, 06:50 AM

Lately on the <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=24" target="_blank">Baptist Board</a>, (where I post as "lyra"), every thread seems to deteriorate into a discussion about moral absolutes. Frankly, when those Christians start quoting stuff to me from the <a href="http://www.equip.org/" target="_blank">equip.org</a> web site, I don't know what to say in response!

Although I know that moral authority from On High is unnecessary in order to live a moral life, I find it difficult to express exactly why. Any suggestions?

Viti · 04-09-2002, 12:55 PM

Hey Babelfish. I have had good luck using the fact that Biblical Morals are not absolute or even coherant! For every "moral" in the bible, you can find a contradictory passage quite easily.

For instance "Thous shall not kill." Isn't that really, "Thou shall not kill; unless God tells you to for any number of reasons as he has often done." God demanded murder over land rights, as a test of faith, and in the case of Jesus as a sacrafice. Definitly not an absolute.

Also, it should be noted that there is nothing in the Bible that was new at the time. Any number of ancient civilizations had values and laws...I mean, if people are not capable of living morally without God, how did ANY people other than his chosen survive and thrive?

I think the best morals are based on empathy. I don't go around hitting others over the head with a brick, because I have empathy and know it would hurt quite badly. The Golden Rule speaks to this, and versions of it abound, not just in the Bible.

voltaire321 · 04-09-2002, 01:07 PM

I agree with Lady Shea, the golden rule is the best foundation for morality. Any utopian society I could dream up would have a social contract and laws based on the golden rule. Ah what a world that would be!

Pomp · 04-09-2002, 01:09 PM

You might also point out a few moral "absolutes" from the Bible that modern Xians don't adhere to. The same passage that claims that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the LORD also claims that eating shellfish is an abomination.

Also, as turtonm is fond of pointing out, Biblical "morality" has nothing to say about many modern issues, such as where to site dams or power plants, how to justly arrange our governments, etc.

babelfish · 04-09-2002, 01:34 PM

Thanks everyone! I just used a version of LadyShea's suggestions over at the BB. Like I said, even though I "know" the answer, it's sometimes difficult to articulate. (Honestly, I need all the help I can get.)

echidna · 04-09-2002, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Do we need an ultimate moral authority?

How mature are �we� ?

JL · 04-09-2002, 04:11 PM

You could also point out that no matter how much they might like to think of their morality as absolute there have been some pretty drastic changes in it in the past two millenia.

Point to any Church endorsed abomination (take your pick, Inquisition, slavery, bigotry, etc.) and ask them why percisely common Christian opinion has been turned on its head in modern times.

If there is an absolute, then what the hell have they been up to?

And if our own reasoning is at fault then what good is an absolute if they can't figure out what it is?

James AD · 04-09-2002, 04:22 PM

Christianity is not the cornerstone of morality. It is a parasite that rides on it's back and perverts it. What kind of morality is it, where people have to go to a church every week, dumbly listen to the incoherent ranting of a preacher, and pay 10% of there income, to keep a sadistic deity from plucking their conscious essence from their dieing body and tormenting it for eternity? Why are you not a Christian yourself? Doesn't their glowing kindness and honesty leave you awestruck? How about their towering intelligence?

I read this article recently on the II Newswire:<a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-031002mag.story" target="_blank">The Indisputable Mr. Scruples</a>

It is an article about a secular ethicist. It is a little long, but it makes some very good points.

Quote:

His research resulted in what he calls the Six Pillars of Character, five of which--[are] caring, fairness, responsibility, trustworthiness and respect... The sixth is citizenship.

I think these "Six Pillars" are inherently logical. I think they hold true whether or not "an authority" teaches or enforces them. You would expect "an authority" to possess these characteristics too.

John Page · 04-09-2002, 04:50 PM

The purpose of moral standards is to enable mutually beneficial and reliable behavior patterns in the society adopting them.

The ultimate arbiter of the appropriateness of those morals is the environment in which the society exists. Back to survival, Darwinianism for societies.

Assuming the above is accurate, the following tautology results: Societies with inferior moral standards fare worse than societies with superior moral standards.

Get the theists to talk about how their interpretation and practice of the moral standards handed down (who cares where from) is superior to other religions/factions and why. If true god is unknowable for the baptist, they should just make up something that's better than the catholics (and thereby "win").

Good Luck.

Wyrdsmyth · 04-09-2002, 08:38 PM

Only if I get to be it.

Otherwise... let's stick with those situational ethics-thingies.

04-09-2002, 06:50 AM	#1
babelfish Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Augusta, Maine, USA Posts: 2,046	Do we need an ultimate moral authority? Lately on the <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=24" target="_blank">Baptist Board</a>, (where I post as "lyra"), every thread seems to deteriorate into a discussion about moral absolutes. Frankly, when those Christians start quoting stuff to me from the <a href="http://www.equip.org/" target="_blank">equip.org</a> web site, I don't know what to say in response! Although I know that moral authority from On High is unnecessary in order to live a moral life, I find it difficult to express exactly why. Any suggestions?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2002, 12:55 PM	#2
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Hey Babelfish. I have had good luck using the fact that Biblical Morals are not absolute or even coherant! For every "moral" in the bible, you can find a contradictory passage quite easily. For instance "Thous shall not kill." Isn't that really, "Thou shall not kill; unless God tells you to for any number of reasons as he has often done." God demanded murder over land rights, as a test of faith, and in the case of Jesus as a sacrafice. Definitly not an absolute. Also, it should be noted that there is nothing in the Bible that was new at the time. Any number of ancient civilizations had values and laws...I mean, if people are not capable of living morally without God, how did ANY people other than his chosen survive and thrive? I think the best morals are based on empathy. I don't go around hitting others over the head with a brick, because I have empathy and know it would hurt quite badly. The Golden Rule speaks to this, and versions of it abound, not just in the Bible.

04-09-2002, 01:07 PM	#3
voltaire321 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 423	I agree with Lady Shea, the golden rule is the best foundation for morality. Any utopian society I could dream up would have a social contract and laws based on the golden rule. Ah what a world that would be!

04-09-2002, 01:09 PM	#4
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	You might also point out a few moral "absolutes" from the Bible that modern Xians don't adhere to. The same passage that claims that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the LORD also claims that eating shellfish is an abomination. Also, as turtonm is fond of pointing out, Biblical "morality" has nothing to say about many modern issues, such as where to site dams or power plants, how to justly arrange our governments, etc.

04-09-2002, 01:34 PM	#5
babelfish Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Augusta, Maine, USA Posts: 2,046	Thanks everyone! I just used a version of LadyShea's suggestions over at the BB. Like I said, even though I "know" the answer, it's sometimes difficult to articulate. (Honestly, I need all the help I can get.)

04-09-2002, 04:11 PM	#7
JL Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Mawkish Virtue, NC Posts: 151	You could also point out that no matter how much they might like to think of their morality as absolute there have been some pretty drastic changes in it in the past two millenia. Point to any Church endorsed abomination (take your pick, Inquisition, slavery, bigotry, etc.) and ask them why percisely common Christian opinion has been turned on its head in modern times. If there is an absolute, then what the hell have they been up to? And if our own reasoning is at fault then what good is an absolute if they can't figure out what it is?

04-09-2002, 04:50 PM	#9
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	The purpose of moral standards is to enable mutually beneficial and reliable behavior patterns in the society adopting them. The ultimate arbiter of the appropriateness of those morals is the environment in which the society exists. Back to survival, Darwinianism for societies. Assuming the above is accurate, the following tautology results: Societies with inferior moral standards fare worse than societies with superior moral standards. Get the theists to talk about how their interpretation and practice of the moral standards handed down (who cares where from) is superior to other religions/factions and why. If true god is unknowable for the baptist, they should just make up something that's better than the catholics (and thereby "win"). Good Luck.

04-09-2002, 08:38 PM	#10
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	Only if I get to be it. Otherwise... let's stick with those situational ethics-thingies.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.