What is Morality?

[Crazy Anglican]

I’m more curious than ever about the question I asked you earlier. What would be an authoritative guide for morality? Any form of communication (written or spoken) is subject to interpretation. If that is where the bar is set for the Bible, then what written work could serve as a moral guide? Indeed, what conversation which any mentor would serve?

Sorry to have missed some direct questions. I ignored this thread for a few days over the holidays.

I think these points are directed more at Fritz in large part. I don't think the Bible is an authoritative guide for morality, because I don't think any particular written work could even conceivably be such a thing.

So when a literalist Christian of the Fritz variety tells me that the Bible contains objective moral truth, it seems important to qualify that even if that's the case much of it is functionally inaccessible to humans and/or won't relate well to the moral decisions they have to make in the real world.

I think the Bible and a Christian community could be a great starting point for living a moral life. But the morality of this life can't be measured solely by its "Biblicalness", a quality on which no human can have the definitive say. And to be truly moral, this person/community will need to do at least some moral thinking beyond Scripture (i.e., Scripture cannot be the *sole* source of morality).

I think you and I largely agree with this. Maybe Fritz does too, and just some wires got crossed. I got the impression he was claiming the Bible is the only source of true morality, that every moral problem has a Biblical answer, and that a smart Christian can discern the "right" Biblical answer by just reading the Bible. I would disagree with all three of these points.

I'm not seeing an answer to the question posed? Is there any such thing as an authoritative moral guide (written or spoken) according to your specs?

[Crazy Anglican]

You had cited two verses and gave them as examples of a contradiction in the Bible. Agreed, I think neither of us should highjack the thread with point and counterpoint on the incomplete or contradictory nature of the Bible. I just responded to your cited verses because you gave them as evidence of an obvious contradiction. If simply reading the rest of the page gave coherence, it seemed that maybe the Bible isn’t quite as full of contradictions as you believe it to be? It’s the old joke “I can do All Things with a verse that is taken out of context.”

This is, unfortunately, a somewhat lazy dodge.

The point, which I think you agree with, is that the Bible has a LOT of information that doesn't provide straightforward answers on moral questions. I summarized a single debate in Christian ethics on moral philosophy with two quotes not to cherry pick, but to condense what could have been a 5,000 page book on the subject that would have ultimately resulted in the same binary - either the Bible encourages capital punishment for murder, or it encourages mercy, and even if I lined up 25 well-researched Biblical arguments on either side I would still have no way of knowing which answer to preference as "Biblical".

I'm not sure why you're assuming I'd agree with you here, but I'm also not sure of the relevance. If, for the sake of argument, the Bible had a lot of information not directly related to moral instruction; why would that diminish the parts that do?

I'm sorry if you perceived it as a dodge, it just seemed interesting that the very thing you'd cited a evidence as a contradiction didn't appear to be. The argument about capital punishment seems to be beside the point as Christ focuses on the need for loving others.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I’m more curious than ever about the question I asked you earlier. What would be an authoritative guide for morality? Any form of communication (written or spoken) is subject to interpretation. If that is where the bar is set for the Bible, then what written work could serve as a moral guide? Indeed, what conversation which any mentor would serve?

Sorry to have missed some direct questions. I ignored this thread for a few days over the holidays.

I think these points are directed more at Fritz in large part. I don't think the Bible is an authoritative guide for morality, because I don't think any particular written work could even conceivably be such a thing.

So when a literalist Christian of the Fritz variety tells me that the Bible contains objective moral truth, it seems important to qualify that even if that's the case much of it is functionally inaccessible to humans and/or won't relate well to the moral decisions they have to make in the real world.

I think the Bible and a Christian community could be a great starting point for living a moral life. But the morality of this life can't be measured solely by its "Biblicalness", a quality on which no human can have the definitive say. And to be truly moral, this person/community will need to do at least some moral thinking beyond Scripture (i.e., Scripture cannot be the *sole* source of morality).

I think you and I largely agree with this. Maybe Fritz does too, and just some wires got crossed. I got the impression he was claiming the Bible is the only source of true morality, that every moral problem has a Biblical answer, and that a smart Christian can discern the "right" Biblical answer by just reading the Bible. I would disagree with all three of these points.

I'm not seeing an answer to the question posed? Is there any such thing as an authoritative moral guide (written or spoken) according to your specs?

I tried to answer "no". The Bible is no such guide and neither is anything else. In some ways, the Bible's length and complexity make it especially hard-to-use as a source of moral inspiration. If the whole book could have just been one line, "Do to others as you would have them do to you", I think it's moral advice would have been more practical and less susceptible to being used to scripturally-justify evil.

I think any person aspiring to live a moral life needs a lot more than just the Bible. Having good parents, good community, and good moral role models are probably the most important things. We obviously need to apply our own reason and empathy, which we we probably need to fine tune by reading broadly and/or getting a lot of life experience. Someone who does all of these things but never picks up a Bible has a reasonably good chance of being as or more moral than a believing Christian.

If I had an unlimited budget to improve morality in the world, I wouldn't buy everyone a Bible and encourage them to engage in an unwinnable debate about what the author meant for the next several thousand years.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You had cited two verses and gave them as examples of a contradiction in the Bible. Agreed, I think neither of us should highjack the thread with point and counterpoint on the incomplete or contradictory nature of the Bible. I just responded to your cited verses because you gave them as evidence of an obvious contradiction. If simply reading the rest of the page gave coherence, it seemed that maybe the Bible isn’t quite as full of contradictions as you believe it to be? It’s the old joke “I can do All Things with a verse that is taken out of context.”

This is, unfortunately, a somewhat lazy dodge.

The point, which I think you agree with, is that the Bible has a LOT of information that doesn't provide straightforward answers on moral questions. I summarized a single debate in Christian ethics on moral philosophy with two quotes not to cherry pick, but to condense what could have been a 5,000 page book on the subject that would have ultimately resulted in the same binary - either the Bible encourages capital punishment for murder, or it encourages mercy, and even if I lined up 25 well-researched Biblical arguments on either side I would still have no way of knowing which answer to preference as "Biblical".

I'm not sure why you're assuming I'd agree with you here, but I'm also not sure of the relevance. If, for the sake of argument, the Bible had a lot of information not directly related to moral instruction; why would that diminish the parts that do?

I'm sorry if you perceived it as a dodge, it just seemed interesting that the very thing you'd cited a evidence as a contradiction didn't appear to be. The argument about capital punishment seems to be beside the point as Christ focuses on the need for loving others.

I guess I'd push you to say what parts of the Bible provide clear moral guidance. "Thou shalt not kill" is only commandment 6. - was God implying that commandment 2 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." is actually more important? Should I think killing is okay, so long as it prevents someone from making a graven image? Besides, the Bible appears to gives me all sorts of circumstances that permit killing: capital punishment, warfare, self-defense, or if I'm carrying out a divine act ordained by God.

You can give me a Scriptural reason why this read of the Bible isn't correct, but your reasoning about the Bible is not coming from God but from human reasoning about God. I don't know why I would preference this form of human reasoning about the Bible over other forms of human moral reasoning that just try to directly grapple with the rightness or wrongness of killing in different circumstances.

[Crazy Anglican]

You stated as evidence of the incomplete nature of Biblical advice this idea of charity. Let’s take that to an extreme and assume that the intent of any moral work would be to give that level of specificity. How long would it be? What tables and charts would be necessary to handle all charities from all times past, present, and future? How about those income brackets for all members of all cultures who ever have and will ever give to charity based on that Bible's advice? I guess I don't find it compelling to expect an entire book tables, charts, lists, and exchange rates when simply stating the necessity of charitable giving and leaving the details up to the reader seems to work fine.

We agree here entirely. I'm not saying the Bible is insufficient because it can't direct me to the most effective charities in 2024. I'm saying its insufficient because it does not even produce a coherent framework from which I could evaluate my options. It's advice is just largely beside the point in this and many other practical matters.

This isn't a problem for me, because I have other methods of moral reasoning that get me to answers I can live with. This probably doesn't matter to you, since you also seem to have a nuanced and accultured Christian belief that would likewise equip you to make these decisions.

The only person this would be a problem for are those who believe the Bible is the sole and ultimate source of moral guidance, and those who are suspicious of any moral claims that don't come directly from the Bible itself. I suspect such a person would content themselves by just having been charitable, finding some pieces of Scripture to back up that being charitable is good, and calling it a day.

I'm not seeing what about the directive to be charitable is beside the point in the decision to give to charities. It seemed earlier you thought the Bible incomplete because it didn't provide unnecessary detail in this regard. If that's no longer the case, then is it a moot point.

I think we've stipulated that supplementary sources is okay?

The person you refer to in paragraph 3 still gives to charity and that's a moral good, right?

[Crazy Anglican]

Sorry to have missed some direct questions. I ignored this thread for a few days over the holidays.

I think these points are directed more at Fritz in large part. I don't think the Bible is an authoritative guide for morality, because I don't think any particular written work could even conceivably be such a thing.

So when a literalist Christian of the Fritz variety tells me that the Bible contains objective moral truth, it seems important to qualify that even if that's the case much of it is functionally inaccessible to humans and/or won't relate well to the moral decisions they have to make in the real world.

I think the Bible and a Christian community could be a great starting point for living a moral life. But the morality of this life can't be measured solely by its "Biblicalness", a quality on which no human can have the definitive say. And to be truly moral, this person/community will need to do at least some moral thinking beyond Scripture (i.e., Scripture cannot be the *sole* source of morality).

I think you and I largely agree with this. Maybe Fritz does too, and just some wires got crossed. I got the impression he was claiming the Bible is the only source of true morality, that every moral problem has a Biblical answer, and that a smart Christian can discern the "right" Biblical answer by just reading the Bible. I would disagree with all three of these points.

I'm not seeing an answer to the question posed? Is there any such thing as an authoritative moral guide (written or spoken) according to your specs?

I tried to answer "no". The Bible is no such guide and neither is anything else. In some ways, the Bible's length and complexity make it especially hard-to-use as a source of moral inspiration. If the whole book could have just been one line, "Do to others as you would have them do to you", I think it's moral advice would have been more practical and less susceptible to being used to scripturally-justify evil.

I think any person aspiring to live a moral life needs a lot more than just the Bible. Having good parents, good community, and good moral role models are probably the most important things. We obviously need to apply our own reason and empathy, which we we probably need to fine tune by reading broadly and/or getting a lot of life experience. Someone who does all of these things but never picks up a Bible has a reasonably good chance of being as or more moral than a believing Christian.

If I had an unlimited budget to improve morality in the world, I wouldn't buy everyone a Bible and encourage them to engage in an unwinnable debate about what the author meant for the next several thousand years.

Okay, so that's a point upon which we disagree. It seems you want a quick, definitive yes or no. A list or rules rather than an ethical debate? For me it is the debate that sparks growth.

[Crazy Anglican]

This is, unfortunately, a somewhat lazy dodge.

The point, which I think you agree with, is that the Bible has a LOT of information that doesn't provide straightforward answers on moral questions. I summarized a single debate in Christian ethics on moral philosophy with two quotes not to cherry pick, but to condense what could have been a 5,000 page book on the subject that would have ultimately resulted in the same binary - either the Bible encourages capital punishment for murder, or it encourages mercy, and even if I lined up 25 well-researched Biblical arguments on either side I would still have no way of knowing which answer to preference as "Biblical".

I'm not sure why you're assuming I'd agree with you here, but I'm also not sure of the relevance. If, for the sake of argument, the Bible had a lot of information not directly related to moral instruction; why would that diminish the parts that do?

I'm sorry if you perceived it as a dodge, it just seemed interesting that the very thing you'd cited a evidence as a contradiction didn't appear to be. The argument about capital punishment seems to be beside the point as Christ focuses on the need for loving others.

I guess I'd push you to say what parts of the Bible provide clear moral guidance. "Thou shalt not kill" is only commandment 6. - was God implying that commandment 2 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." is actually more important? Should I think killing is okay, so long as it prevents someone from making a graven image? Besides, the Bible appears to gives me all sorts of circumstances that permit killing: capital punishment, warfare, self-defense, or if I'm carrying out a divine act ordained by God.

You can give me a Scriptural reason why this read of the Bible isn't correct, but your reasoning about the Bible is not coming from God but from human reasoning about God. I don't know why I would preference this form of human reasoning about the Bible over other forms of human moral reasoning that just try to directly grapple with the rightness or wrongness of killing in different circumstances.

I guess I still find myself wondering where, if anywhere, you get that kind of specificity in moral guidance in a written form? We can certainly disagree as to how high to set the standard for what makes a good written guide, but you've already stated no book really fits the bill. So I think we'll just have to disagree?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm not seeing what about the directive to be charitable is beside the point in the decision to give to charities. It seemed earlier you thought the Bible incomplete because it didn't provide unnecessary detail in this regard. If that's no longer the case, then is it a moot point.

I think we've stipulated that supplementary sources is okay?

The person you refer to in paragraph 3 still gives to charity and that's a moral good, right?

My contention is that a moral person should be oriented towards doing the most good, however they define "good". Just being charitable in any amount, and for any cause, doesn't cut it. If a person gives stingily, or to a charity that is ineffective, or only for self-serving causes, then their charity is less moral good than it could have been.

A moral framework that's fixated solely on Biblical advice will be paralyzed when it comes to making real life decisions. You and I agree that we need something more than the Bible. I don't know that everyone in this thread agrees that supplemental sources are okay.

Okay, so that's a point upon which we disagree. It seems you want a quick, definitive yes or no. A list or rules rather than an ethical debate? For me it is the debate that sparks growth.

I don't expect the Bible to work like one of those Magic Eight Balls. But a lot of the Bible is written as if it provides "yes" or "no" answers (e.g., the commandments) when really its guidance is nebulous at best.

I agree also that moral reasoning comes from debate. I don't think that debate has to be centered around the Bible, although it can be.

As a non-believer, I don't have a strong reason to preference humans' debate about the morality contained within the Bible over humans' debate directly about morality itself. I think both can produce answers that really do point to objective and discoverable moral truths.

I guess I still find myself wondering where, if anywhere, you get that kind of specificity in moral guidance in a written form? We can certainly disagree as to how high to set the standard for what makes a good written guide, but you've already stated no book really fits the bill. So I think we'll just have to disagree?

No where. My point is that the Bible isn't a complete moral code because nothing is or even could be. Morality is too complex to be effectively communicated by rules written in any old book. I think we just agree on this. Again, I suspect there are some in the thread who would still say all you need is the Bible.

[Crazy Anglican]

I think any person aspiring to live a moral life needs a lot more than just the Bible. Having good parents, good community, and good moral role models are probably the most important things. We obviously need to apply our own reason and empathy, which we we probably need to fine tune by reading broadly and/or getting a lot of life experience. Someone who does all of these things but never picks up a Bible has a reasonably good chance of being as or more moral than a believing Christian.

I don't disagree with you here. It seems to show what source you think morality is derived from. All good things: Good parents, good role models, good community and yes these are important but deficient. If we apply the same standards to them that you apply to the Bible. Do all members of this good community contribute to the moral upbringing of the next generation of children. Do all of the children grow up to be moral people. If not, then don't they still have a place in the same good community?

I can see where this is helpful to a lot of people, but plenty of people supplement this with Biblical study and debate and it would reasonably provide a better chance at developing into a moral person than without them. I'd even say that some members of that good community should probably be avoided

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I think any person aspiring to live a moral life needs a lot more than just the Bible. Having good parents, good community, and good moral role models are probably the most important things. We obviously need to apply our own reason and empathy, which we we probably need to fine tune by reading broadly and/or getting a lot of life experience. Someone who does all of these things but never picks up a Bible has a reasonably good chance of being as or more moral than a believing Christian.

I don't disagree with you here. It seems to show what source you think morality is derived from. All good things: Good parents, good role models, good community and yes these are important but deficient. If we apply the same standards to them that you apply to the Bible. Do all members of this good community contribute to the moral upbringing of the next generation of children. Do all of the children grow up to be moral people. If not, then don't they still have a place in the same good community?

I can see where this is helpful to a lot of people, but plenty of people supplement this with Biblical study and debate and it would reasonably provide a better chance at developing into a moral person than without them. I'd even say that some members of that good community should probably be avoided

I want to make clear that I'm not claiming that any other approach to morality is perfect.

I don't hold the Bible up to this impossible standard myself and find it lacking. I personally think the Bible is maybe the most useful piece of literature written on the subject of morality, even though I don't believe in the God who supposedly wrote it.

All this is in response to some fairly extreme claims by Fritz throughout these threads, which would make it seem as though the Bible provides perfect useable advice that should not be watered down by outside sources.

[Crazy Anglican]

fair enough

[CaptainFritz28]

So when a literalist Christian of the Fritz variety tells me that the Bible contains objective moral truth, it seems important to qualify that even if that's the case much of it is functionally inaccessible to humans and/or won't relate well to the moral decisions they have to make in the real world.

Notably, you've entirely removed the element of Christianity which makes it "religious" - being the belief in God. If God exists, and if the Bible is true (which are two fundamental beliefs of Christianity), then, as Hebrews 4:12 states, the Word of God is living and active, and as 2 Timothy 3:16 states, all scripture is inspired by God. So sure, if you remove the Christian aspect of it, then it is no better than any other book. (except that it still is, as we'll see)

I'll put it this way: when we read the Bible with the intent of applying it to our lives, and learn what it says with the intent of glorifying God by following His commandments, He aids us in discerning what that means for our everyday actions. thus, when an old lady falls down on the sidewalk, I don't have to think "what Bible verse tells me to help old ladies up?" But rather, I know that to do that would be kind and loving, and thus I should do it.

I think the Bible and a Christian community could be a great starting point for living a moral life. But the morality of this life can't be measured solely by its "Biblicalness", a quality on which no human can have the definitive say. And to be truly moral, this person/community will need to do at least some moral thinking beyond Scripture (i.e., Scripture cannot be the *sole* source of morality).

But you have stated that there is no objective standard of morality, meaning that it is up to each of us to determine what "beyond Scripture" means for ourselves. If you mean that we also need basic logical reasoning, then I entirely agree; God gave us the ability to think for a reason.

I think you and I largely agree with this. Maybe Fritz does too, and just some wires got crossed. I got the impression he was claiming the Bible is the only source of true morality, that every moral problem has a Biblical answer, and that a smart Christian can discern the "right" Biblical answer by just reading the Bible. I would disagree with all three of these points.

It is the ultimate source of true morality, but not necessarily the only one. If the UN's Declaration of Human Rights states that all are equal, then yeah, it's morally true. However, there is no objective standard with which to determine what is right or wrong in the UN's Declaration if there is no objective standard in the first place. What you have said implies that it is up to each of us to figure out what it means for ourselves.

With no objective standard, morality comes down to the individual. I claim that the Bible is objective because it is true both as the author intended it and as God helps us discern it. Does that mean that every Christian will agree on everything? No. Oftentimes people call themselves Christians but either don't care to obey the Bible, don't actually believe the Bible, or don't care about Christianity at all, but say they do to gain money and power. People falsely calling themselves Christians doesn't mean that Christianity is false. You may ask, "Well how do we know what Christians are false?" To which I reply read the Bible. If they are advocating to murder a group of people because God told them we should, I look to the Bible, which says "do not murder." There is no "unless" with that.

Just because there's a traditional way to read the Bible doesn't mean there's a "right" way. No where in the Bible does it say "be sure to read part x before y, and reflect on part w in light of plasm z". It's all a product of human judgement.

It is not necessary to provide a hierarchy to what is most important or less important, because there doesn't need to be. It's all consistent. You have mentioned multiple times that there are lots of contradictions, but the only one which you brought up was simply a result of your lack of reading the context.

It's not at all scandalous to me that a Christian faith community would try to put some structure onto the reading of a complex and contradictory faith book. That different Christian traditions disagree on where to put emphasis underscores that we're lacking some more objective guidance. Had God really wanted us to interact with the Bible in a particular way, he certainly didn't bother to make it clear to us how.

On the contrary, it underscores a fault in that tradition's orthodoxy. I find that God made it very clear, but that often, people tend to disregard it for their own personal gain or because they don't like it. Why is emphasis needed?

Again, though, this is a point for Fritz rather than you. If the Bible is truly supreme and a literalist reading gives us all we ever need vis-a-vis morality, then it should matter a ton how we read it. If the Bible is more of a moral guidepost that we interpret through a faith community (closer to where I think CA is coming from), then this matters a lot less.

It does matter how we read it. When we read it with the intent of obeying God, in true belief of it, and with the intent to love God and love others, God will aid us in discerning what it means for our everyday life. That discernment will never contradict the Bible, but it may clarify how to apply a command like "be charitable" to one's situation specifically. I have stated this before, but perhaps you missed it. Reading the Bible like any other book eliminates the aspect of it that makes it the Bible, being instruction from God. The physical text of the Bible is not holy; what is holy is the Word of God.

Okay, but this has been my point throughout. I can't fight you on whether or not the Bible contains some perfect morality, obviously you have a faith commitment to that fact. But regardless, what good is the original intent if it constantly lends itself to misinterpretation?

This comes back to the fact that it is not simply the words on a page, it is the living, inspired Word of God, that is the guide for all morality.

If I give a big box of food to a starving village, but I encase everything except a few boxes of crackers in cement at the bottom of the box, then I haven't really fed the village. They are going to have to go find food from some other source, they can't just keep picking at the concrete block forever even though in theory there's enough food there to feed everyone.

As you said yourself, that would not really be feeding the village. That would be wasting food that could be used to feed the village. I don't see how that is particularly relevant here.

We agree here entirely. I'm not saying the Bible is insufficient because it can't direct me to the most effective charities in 2024. I'm saying its insufficient because it does not even produce a coherent framework from which I could evaluate my options. It's advice is just largely beside the point in this and many other practical matters.

If your options are company A, a company which feeds children and also funds terrorism, and company B, a company which feeds children and also digs wells for them which contain clean water, then which company is acting Biblically? Company A is obviously not, as they are funding terrorism. For you to fund them would mean that you are also knowingly enabling the funding of terrorism. Thus, you choose company B. Both fulfill the command to act charitably, sure, but one also enables evil. If the options are company A, which feeds children and provides shoes for them, and company B, which feed children and digs wells for them, then it doesn't really matter, as both are acting Biblically. Both fulfill the command to act charitably, and neither disobey other commands.
You act with what you know, as close to fulfilling the commands of the Bible and not disobeying the commands of the Bible as possible.

This isn't a problem for me, because I have other methods of moral reasoning that get me to answers I can live with. This probably doesn't matter to you, since you also seem to have a nuanced and accultured Christian belief that would likewise equip you to make these decisions.

However, all such methods of yours are entirely subjective. So long as they don't contradict the Bible, I'm all for them, but they don't provide a framework of moral reasoning that can be applied to all, because they are subjective. If they are in agreement with something objective, then what they say is objective as well, but otherwise they are no better than Hitler's method of doing what he thought was best for him to do.

The only person this would be a problem for are those who believe the Bible is the sole and ultimate source of moral guidance, and those who are suspicious of any moral claims that don't come directly from the Bible itself. I suspect such a person would content themselves by just having been charitable, finding some pieces of Scripture to back up that being charitable is good, and calling it a day.

Why is it a problem? It provides rather an extensive framework. Be charitable. And kind, loving, humble, gentle, patient, joyful, peaceful, etc. Being charitable is not isolated away from everything else.

Neither you nor Fritz will be able to say with any certainty whether Christianity influenced non-religious culture, or whether non-religious culture influenced Christian belief. Morality existed before Christianity, it will exist after Christianity, and it exists everywhere regardless of whether or not the people there have heard the good word.

And? That doesn't make it any more or less true.

The Bible is one of many, many, many ways to get people to consider helping others. But most people are probably born with the inclination to help the infirm and basically every non-Christian culture also venerate these sorts of virtues. Even if Jesus had never lived or the Old Testament had not yet been written, most of the world would be moral in this way.

Tell that to the Chinese, Nazis, USSR, and every other group of people which has decided as a majority to disobey just about every Christian virtue.

You seem to be projecting your own assumptions on everybody else, whilst not actually taking into account that a majority of the world does not agree with Christianity.

Saying that if Jesus has never lived or the Old Testament had not been written, we would still be at the moral state at which we are is just a lie. You're going to have to provide a lot of evidence for that. Look at the entirety of the world which chose to base themselves not on Christianity: Africa, the Middle East, China, India, etc. Where are slavery, war, human rights violations, severe inequality, a disregard for the rights of women, and just about every violation of standards like the UN's Declaration of Human Rights most prevalent? There is a reason that the nations which have a Christian origin have far less of this, and it's not just coincidence.

Doesn't mean the Bible isn't useful for a lot of people, I'm just really trying to cement that the Bible is not necessary for moral behaviour and, in a lot of real-world moral decision making, its moral teachings are somewhat beside the point.

From a standpoint entirely disregarding the religious aspect of Christianity, the principles of the Bible have brought about the rights and political stability of the West, as well as sending thousands of missionaries out to other nations to benefit them materially. I have presented, either here or in another thread, multiple studies to support this claim.

No other religion or worldview has had as much of a positive impact on the world as Christianity. Even if it's all subjective, nothing even comes close to the benefits that Christianity has had.

You may have agreed to this, but Fritz was recently of the persuasion that even Jews are morally deficient because they're not reading up on the Bible enough lol. Hopefully that's a stance he's softened on. I addressed the charity thing earlier, but happy to go back-and-forth on this as needed.

My claim is that the Bible is moral objective truth. So yes, anyone who bases their morality off of something not the Bible does not have a full moral picture. That is the very nature of it being objective. That doesn't mean that that you cannot reach some right conclusions without basing our worldview on the Bible, but it does mean that you will lack the full picture.

You actually do need a moral code that occasionally contradicts the Bible. No doubt you'll accuse me of cherry picking, but it actually matters to me that the Bible contains versus like "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ". That's a real theological and moral problem. We need an unequivocal way to say that part of the Bible is just wrong and it will be hard to do this using only other parts of the Bible, because why are those other parts more important than this particular passage? How could anyone but God convince me that he was just kidding when he wrote this part and that I should focus on other parts of the book? I'd prefer an answer that clarifies the wrongness of slavery without relation to the Bible, because I'm of the belief that even if the Bible actually did condone slavery then slavery would continue to be evil.

What is wrong with that verse? It does not say "slavery is good" nor does it condone slavery. The Bible also commands Christians to endure persecution by loving your persecutors. That doesn't mean that the persecution of Christians is a good thing or condoned. When you couple that with the fact that we are all created in God's image as equals, and the fact that in general kidnapping, beating, forced labor, and injustice are anti-Biblical concepts, you get the fact that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was immoral, and that any relationship between two humans in which one is considered to be more inherently valuable than another is wrong.
Your cherry-picking, even as it lacks all context, both theological and historical, does not prove your point.

I don't have the time to respond to everything else, but to summarize:

The Bible is objective not because of the words on the pages, but because it is the living and inspired Word of God. To take away the spiritual aspect of it, the giver of morality, being God, you also take away it's objective nature. So as a book alone, it would be subjective, but as God's Word, it is objective.
Even if it were subjective, it does not contradict itself, and a basic understanding of logic and historical context, as well as putting each verse in the context of the whole Bible, is enough to understand its instruction.
Even if it is subjective, it has done the most good of any worldview ever.
Without an objective standard, all morality is determined by the individual, which makes your moral assumptions no better than a Nazi's, and the "natural inclination" obviously does not stop people from committing moral evils.

Basically, if the Bible is objective, it is good. If it's subjective, it is good. If everything is subjective, as you claim, then the Bible is no worse than any other standard, but has done a lot more than anything else to bring about what good we do have now.

[DougJoe]

I want to make clear that I'm not claiming that any other approach to morality is perfect.

I don't hold the Bible up to this impossible standard myself and find it lacking. I personally think the Bible is maybe the most useful piece of literature written on the subject of morality, even though I don't believe in the God who supposedly wrote it.

All this is in response to some fairly extreme claims by Fritz throughout these threads, which would make it seem as though the Bible provides perfect useable advice that should not be watered down by outside sources.

As another non-believer I relate to this. I think there are a lot of good ideas on how to be a good person in the Bible and it's well worth discussion but I don't think it's the end all be all. A lot of what Jesus does kind of reminds me of as much of a proto-hippie as much as anything - challenging the societal norms, telling people to care more about others than themselves, etc. Compassion for your fellow humans. I don't need the divine aspect of things to come to the conclusion that there's some valuable ideas there.

One of my favorite computer games ever is _Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar_, and RPG-style game in which the basic object of the game is basically to be a good person. Rather than a "moral" approach, it takes a "virtuous" approach, where there are 8 virtues that the player has to learn to embody: Honesty, Compassion, Valor, Sacrifice, Justice, Honor, Spirituality, and Humility.
Many actions you take in the game affect your karma meter for each of the 8 virtues - taking things that aren't yours, for example, lowers your Honesty. Over the course of the game you're given information about examples of virtue so you know what to do/not do.

One unique thing about the game is that instead of rolling dice to determine your character at the start of the game (like in many RPGs) there's a questionnaire that contains ethical dilemma questions like this: "Entrusted to deliver an uncounted purse of gold, thou dost meet a poor beggar. Dost thou A) deliver the gold Honestly, knowing the trust in thee was well-placed or B) show Compassion and give the beggar a coin, knowing it won't be missed?" Each virtue that you don't choose isn't in a later question so it ends up being a playoff-bracket style "which virtue do you gravitate towards most" that determines your character class.

Anyway, I find that some days, a bit of self-reflection on "how virtuous was I today?" is a useful exercise.

[mOctave]

@Bert Esq.

It sounds to me like you are saying there is no possible way for a moral guidebook to be authoritative since all writing is subject to interpretation. Is that an accurate summary of your claim?

That's basically it.

I’m more curious than ever about the question I asked you earlier. What would be an authoritative guide for morality? Any form of communication (written or spoken) is subject to interpretation. If that is where the bar is set for the Bible, then what written work could serve as a moral guide? Indeed, what conversation which any mentor would serve?

I think what makes morality so hard is that there isn't a definitive, authoritative, and universally accepted answer no matter how hard some people are convinced there is.

I think the Bible has some relevant general moral guidance in it. But the Bible also obviously has some guidance that I would call confusing or even morally wrong. In my opinion, there really seem to be parts of the Bible one should ignore, or at least accept as having limited value - in practice, every branch of Christianity takes this approach because it's impossible to keep the whole book in mind all the time.

Take a look at the liturgy, the priest reads the Gospel lesson and gives the sermon about it. The lay reader reads the Old Testament lesson, the Epistle, and the Psalms. There is an implicit hierarchy there. The liturgical calendar also has the OT, Epistle, and Gospel lessons lined up in order day by day to point out which parts parallel with which other ones. There doesn’t seem to be anything particularly scandalous about that.

May I also point out that this is a feature of your church's liturgy? There are some churches in which this is far more flexible. 95% of churches, at least where I live, don't have daily services.

Christians have done both Good and Evil citing Scriptural justifications that seem equally valid to an outsider. Some literalists seem quite assured that their reading is right and others are wrong, but it's hard to convince anyone else of this truth unless you can claim some special insight into the divine author's intention.

I agree. we're human Christians have done both good and evil without citing Scriptural justifications. I still don't think that anyone's argument about the original intent of a literary work changes the intent. The interpretation is simply either right or wrong. The original intent remains the same whether it can be discerned or not.

All right, but how can we ever know if our interpretation was right or wrong? If we can't ever know, then it might as well not have a right and wrong to us. Society will not benefit from righteous actions that no one knows is righteous until they stand before God, and will suffer no visible harm from evil actions that no one knows are evil until they receive divine judgment.

I think you and I largely agree with this. Maybe Fritz does too, and just some wires got crossed. I got the impression he was claiming the Bible is the only source of true morality, that every moral problem has a Biblical answer, and that a smart Christian can discern the "right" Biblical answer by just reading the Bible. I would disagree with all three of these points.

It is the ultimate source of true morality, but not necessarily the only one. If the UN's Declaration of Human Rights states that all are equal, then yeah, it's morally true. However, there is no objective standard with which to determine what is right or wrong in the UN's Declaration if there is no objective standard in the first place. What you have said implies that it is up to each of us to figure out what it means for ourselves.

With no objective standard, morality comes down to the individual. I claim that the Bible is objective because it is true both as the author intended it and as God helps us discern it. Does that mean that every Christian will agree on everything? No. Oftentimes people call themselves Christians but either don't care to obey the Bible, don't actually believe the Bible, or don't care about Christianity at all, but say they do to gain money and power. People falsely calling themselves Christians doesn't mean that Christianity is false. You may ask, "Well how do we know what Christians are false?" To which I reply read the Bible. If they are advocating to murder a group of people because God told them we should, I look to the Bible, which says "do not murder." There is no "unless" with that.

This is a bit of a touchy topic, but what counts as a person, if you're defining murder? Does an unborn child? An unusually intelligent ape? An AI that is indistinguishable from a human in how it communicates? If you define personhood by the possession of a soul, then how does that stop you from doing things like justifying genocide on account of the people you're killing allegedly not having souls (something the Pope has historically done). If you went back in time and killed Hitler as a child, would that be a moral action, presuming it prevented the Holocaust?

Just because there's a traditional way to read the Bible doesn't mean there's a "right" way. No where in the Bible does it say "be sure to read part x before y, and reflect on part w in light of plasm z". It's all a product of human judgement.

It is not necessary to provide a hierarchy to what is most important or less important, because there doesn't need to be. It's all consistent. You have mentioned multiple times that there are lots of contradictions, but the only one which you brought up was simply a result of your lack of reading the context.

Thematically, the Bible may all be consistent, but not factually. In Genesis 1, God creates humans last. In Genesis 2, they come first. In Luke 2, we learn that Jesus was born during the First Census of Quirinius (6 AD), but in Matthew 2 we learn that he was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC.

These contradictions don't particularly matter: we know that Jesus was born and that the Earth exists, and these technicalities only add texture to the bigger picture. However, if we are imperfect humans, how can we be expected to always read the context and know which passages matter and which don't, which passages are meant to be factually accurate, which are meant to be allegory or metaphor, and which are included just because they were part of the Jewish tradition?

Okay, but this has been my point throughout. I can't fight you on whether or not the Bible contains some perfect morality, obviously you have a faith commitment to that fact. But regardless, what good is the original intent if it constantly lends itself to misinterpretation?

This comes back to the fact that it is not simply the words on a page, it is the living, inspired Word of God, that is the guide for all morality.

We live in an increasingly secular world. Even if the Bible is the living, inspired Word of God, how is this guide going to be at all helpful when most people disregard or actively reject it? And if it's so easy to poke small holes in and is misinterpreted, that further decreases its value in the modern world. Where I live, maybe 10% of people go to church and read the Bible regularly—probably a lot less. If it is so hard to read, then how can we keep applying it in the future if most people never bother?

We agree here entirely. I'm not saying the Bible is insufficient because it can't direct me to the most effective charities in 2024. I'm saying its insufficient because it does not even produce a coherent framework from which I could evaluate my options. It's advice is just largely beside the point in this and many other practical matters.

If your options are company A, a company which feeds children and also funds terrorism, and company B, a company which feeds children and also digs wells for them which contain clean water, then which company is acting Biblically? Company A is obviously not, as they are funding terrorism. For you to fund them would mean that you are also knowingly enabling the funding of terrorism. Thus, you choose company B. Both fulfill the command to act charitably, sure, but one also enables evil. If the options are company A, which feeds children and provides shoes for them, and company B, which feed children and digs wells for them, then it doesn't really matter, as both are acting Biblically. Both fulfill the command to act charitably, and neither disobey other commands.
You act with what you know, as close to fulfilling the commands of the Bible and not disobeying the commands of the Bible as possible.

Here, as elsewhere, you presume infinite knowledge and clear cut circumstances. What if your choices are instead, company C (which spends 40% of its budget on advertising), or company D (which wants to be doing great things but is currently stuck paying off debt)? Instead of company B, what if you donated the same amount to a charity in your own community that did slightly less for people thanks to the higher cost of labour where you live?

This isn't a problem for me, because I have other methods of moral reasoning that get me to answers I can live with. This probably doesn't matter to you, since you also seem to have a nuanced and accultured Christian belief that would likewise equip you to make these decisions.

However, all such methods of yours are entirely subjective. So long as they don't contradict the Bible, I'm all for them, but they don't provide a framework of moral reasoning that can be applied to all, because they are subjective. If they are in agreement with something objective, then what they say is objective as well, but otherwise they are no better than Hitler's method of doing what he thought was best for him to do.

The Bible doesn't provide a framework of moral reasoning that can be applied by non-Christians, either. I think we've already established that it only functioning perfectly as a moral code for those who believe in the Christian God.

The only person this would be a problem for are those who believe the Bible is the sole and ultimate source of moral guidance, and those who are suspicious of any moral claims that don't come directly from the Bible itself. I suspect such a person would content themselves by just having been charitable, finding some pieces of Scripture to back up that being charitable is good, and calling it a day.

Why is it a problem? It provides rather an extensive framework. Be charitable. And kind, loving, humble, gentle, patient, joyful, peaceful, etc. Being charitable is not isolated away from everything else.

There are lots of people who do things and then back them up with the Bible later. I'm sure there are people who store all their earnings in Switzerland and say, "oh, I don't have to 'render to Caesar,' since the government isn't actually asking me for tax on that portion of my income."

The Bible is one of many, many, many ways to get people to consider helping others. But most people are probably born with the inclination to help the infirm and basically every non-Christian culture also venerate these sorts of virtues. Even if Jesus had never lived or the Old Testament had not yet been written, most of the world would be moral in this way.

Tell that to the Chinese, Nazis, USSR, and every other group of people which has decided as a majority to disobey just about every Christian virtue.

You've just pointed at three facist regimes and said that they—as a nation—democratically decided to obey all Christian virtues? No, what really happened is they got into power and then used that power to keep their citizens thinking that they were doing the best they could.

You seem to be projecting your own assumptions on everybody else, whilst not actually taking into account that a majority of the world does not agree with Christianity.

Saying that if Jesus has never lived or the Old Testament had not been written, we would still be at the moral state at which we are is just a lie. You're going to have to provide a lot of evidence for that. Look at the entirety of the world which chose to base themselves not on Christianity: Africa, the Middle East, China, India, etc. Where are slavery, war, human rights violations, severe inequality, a disregard for the rights of women, and just about every violation of standards like the UN's Declaration of Human Rights most prevalent? There is a reason that the nations which have a Christian origin have far less of this, and it's not just coincidence.

Nations which have a Christian origin tend to be those that historically ended up focusing more on a capitalist and imperialist system. Europe and North America don't have such large problems anymore because they went and conquered other nations and foisted their problems on them, then fought a long and bloody war in which they lost all trust for their aristocracy, then fought another long and bloody war when they found out that electing fascists as their new kings was a bad idea. Christian nations aren't any better morally, just faster. Now we've gotten these things out of the way, and what do we do? We export our literal garbage to the countries that you've mentioned, rather than sending any aid. In the developed (mostly Christian) world, we earn 400% or more of the global average, and yet we spend very little of that helping to bring peace and stability to others.

Doesn't mean the Bible isn't useful for a lot of people, I'm just really trying to cement that the Bible is not necessary for moral behaviour and, in a lot of real-world moral decision making, its moral teachings are somewhat beside the point.

From a standpoint entirely disregarding the religious aspect of Christianity, the principles of the Bible have brought about the rights and political stability of the West, as well as sending thousands of missionaries out to other nations to benefit them materially. I have presented, either here or in another thread, multiple studies to support this claim.

See above. Stability for the West, chaos for everywhere else, and literal genocide in North America and Europe before we got that stability.

No other religion or worldview has had as much of a positive impact on the world as Christianity. Even if it's all subjective, nothing even comes close to the benefits that Christianity has had.

Neither has any other religion had as much of a negative impact. Christianity has simply had this much of an impact in both directions because of the fact that Christians "settled" all six habitable continents.

The Bible is objective not because of the words on the pages, but because it is the living and inspired Word of God. To take away the spiritual aspect of it, the giver of morality, being God, you also take away it's objective nature. So as a book alone, it would be subjective, but as God's Word, it is objective.
Even if it were subjective, it does not contradict itself, and a basic understanding of logic and historical context, as well as putting each verse in the context of the whole Bible, is enough to understand its instruction.
Even if it is subjective, it has done the most good of any worldview ever.
Without an objective standard, all morality is determined by the individual, which makes your moral assumptions no better than a Nazi's, and the "natural inclination" obviously does not stop people from committing moral evils.

Basically, if the Bible is objective, it is good. If it's subjective, it is good. If everything is subjective, as you claim, then the Bible is no worse than any other standard, but has done a lot more than anything else to bring about what good we do have now.

I think you've pretty much summarized the argument. The only thing we disagree on is how much good the Bible has done. I think it's helped bring about two millennia of religious wars, pogroms and schisms, with a similar quantity of genuinely decent actions.

[Crazy Anglican]

If your options are company A, a company which feeds children and also funds terrorism, and company B, a company which feeds children and also digs wells for them which contain clean water, then which company is acting Biblically? Company A is obviously not, as they are funding terrorism. For you to fund them would mean that you are also knowingly enabling the funding of terrorism. Thus, you choose company B. Both fulfill the command to act charitably, sure, but one also enables evil. If the options are company A, which feeds children and provides shoes for them, and company B, which feed children and digs wells for them, then it doesn't really matter, as both are acting Biblically. Both fulfill the command to act charitably, and neither disobey other commands.
You act with what you know, as close to fulfilling the commands of the Bible and not disobeying the commands of the Bible as possible.

Here, as elsewhere, you presume infinite knowledge and clear cut circumstances. What if your choices are instead, company C (which spends 40% of its budget on advertising), or company D (which wants to be doing great things but is currently stuck paying off debt)? Instead of company B, what if you donated the same amount to a charity in your own community that did slightly less for people thanks to the higher cost of labour where you live?

I'm not sure that I get your point here. Yes, there are more choices, and the field has more gray areas, yet the Bible can still provide useful insight to that wider field of choices.

Choice A: Proverbs 6: 16-19 “hands that shed innocent blood” and “sowing discord among brethren”. Easy enough to discount this one.

Choice B (original to the argument): Matthew 10:42 “Gives even a cup of cold water …shall in no wise lose their reward in Heaven.” Looks good.

Choice B (counter to the original): Really the same based on the Matthew verse. The implication that I see is do something even if it is small; help others. Still looks good.

Choice C Matthew 6.2 “When you give do not sound trumpets” – I’d be skeptical, there is nothing wrong with advertising so you can do more good. Fourty percent is high plus overhead. Probably only $4 for every $10 donated actually goes to the cause.

Choice D Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding except the debt to love one another I’d be skeptical here too. Their hearts seem to be in the right place, but I want to see how they manage things.

Yes, I’m citing verses out of context (which is problematic), but since this is for the sake of argument I didn’t do a deeper dive.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If your options are company A, a company which feeds children and also funds terrorism, and company B, a company which feeds children and also digs wells for them which contain clean water, then which company is acting Biblically? Company A is obviously not, as they are funding terrorism. For you to fund them would mean that you are also knowingly enabling the funding of terrorism. Thus, you choose company B. Both fulfill the command to act charitably, sure, but one also enables evil. If the options are company A, which feeds children and provides shoes for them, and company B, which feed children and digs wells for them, then it doesn't really matter, as both are acting Biblically. Both fulfill the command to act charitably, and neither disobey other commands.
You act with what you know, as close to fulfilling the commands of the Bible and not disobeying the commands of the Bible as possible.

Here, as elsewhere, you presume infinite knowledge and clear cut circumstances. What if your choices are instead, company C (which spends 40% of its budget on advertising), or company D (which wants to be doing great things but is currently stuck paying off debt)? Instead of company B, what if you donated the same amount to a charity in your own community that did slightly less for people thanks to the higher cost of labour where you live?

I'm not sure that I get your point here. Yes, there are more choices, and the field has more gray areas, yet the Bible can still provide useful insight to that wider field of choices.

Choice A: Proverbs 6: 16-19 “hands that shed innocent blood” and “sowing discord among brethren”. Easy enough to discount this one.

Choice B (original to the argument): Matthew 10:42 “Gives even a cup of cold water …shall in no wise lose their reward in Heaven.” Looks good.

Choice B (counter to the original): Really the same based on the Matthew verse. The implication that I see is do something even if it is small; help others. Still looks good.

Choice C Matthew 6.2 “When you give do not sound trumpets” – I’d be skeptical, there is nothing wrong with advertising so you can do more good. Fourty percent is high plus overhead. Probably only $4 for every $10 donated actually goes to the cause.

Choice D Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding except the debt to love one another I’d be skeptical here too. Their hearts seem to be in the right place, but I want to see how they manage things.

Yes, I’m citing verses out of context (which is problematic), but since this is for the sake of argument I didn’t do a deeper dive.

This is such a strange way to approach to a moral issue like this. The Bible's guidance here seems barely related, so why go to the Bible to help in this instance? What good is it to stack up a bunch of Bible quotes on different sides of the argument, especially if we're not in a position to know which Bible quotes to preference over others in order to actually make our decision? How is this different, even in principle, to someone just reasoning through the issue without then having to find a Bible quote to attach to each of their thoughts?

[Crazy Anglican]

How is this different, even in principle, to someone just reasoning through the issue without then having to find a Bible quote to attach to each of their thoughts?

I thought that would be self evident. In doing so you can be better assured that you are making a choice in line with the Bible. I can see where you might think it a waste of time, but the information is there and can be applied. It seemed to me that the point was that it wouldn't be applicable with a more complex issue. It's a relatively simple exercise that only took a minute or two.

[Jamiet99uk]

i tagged out of this but it's hilarious that you're still talking about this.

The Bible provides guidance about how we should treat slaves. Should we be keeping slaves? The Bible says yes.

Fuck the Bible, seriously. Wow.

[CaptainFritz28]

i tagged out of this but it's hilarious that you're still talking about this.

The Bible provides guidance about how we should treat slaves. Should we be keeping slaves? The Bible says yes.

Fuck the Bible, seriously. Wow.

Oh, I guess we should have all just ceased conversation because Jamie the all-knowing left. Why would we stop just because you left?

Also, where does the Bible state that we should be keeping slaves?
As a follow up, what is the inherent problem of slavery? Is it the fact that people are working without pay? Is it the fact that people are being treated in a certain way? Is it a problem of the way in which slaves are viewed? What specifically is the moral fault of slavery? Once we establish that, we can determine whether the Bible condones said moral fault.

[Crazy Anglican]

i tagged out of this but it's hilarious that you're still talking about this.

The Bible provides guidance about how we should treat slaves. Should we be keeping slaves? The Bible says yes.

Yes, it does. At the time it was written slavery was pervasive and accepted. It provided the framework for the eventual abolition of slavery in the west. Which was carried out largely by Christians.

No, of course not.

No, it doesn't.