What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

May I propose once again that the Bible is subjective?

Sure, I guess my question is what do you mean by subjective? It looks like you mean subject to interpretation. I'd agree with that, of course. Any written document is.

I'd say something is subjective when its true meaning is individualized and it has no singular truth.

And here is where I state that the Bible does not meet this definition. The command "you shall not murder" may be interpreted into oblivion, but it has a singular truth.

I think we often confuse the Bible itself and our interpretations of it. The Bible is true, and no matter who is reading it, it holds the same truth. However, we may interpret it differently, and sometimes not exactly as the Bible states.

So the Bible is objectively true, and our interpretations our subjective. This is the very nature of an interpretation, but as the Crazy Anglican brought up, it also applies to reading anything at all.

When the Bible says "be charitable" it means just that - be charitable. It is objective, and no matter who reads it or how they read it, that is what it means. Which charity to give to is not a matter of interpreting it, it is simply doing it. The Bible does not state specifically how to be charitable, so however you are charitable, you are fulfilling the objective command. Sure, it requires a basic understanding of what "charitable" means, but that is because it is a written book, and relies on writing and language to communicate.

(As an interesting side note, Oxford's definition of truth includes the word "fact," and their definition of fact includes the word "true." Same goes with "accurate," "correct," and truth. It seems like no one can easily define what truth is, which could make this conversation interesting.)

This is why I claim that we must have an objective ultimate standard, because without one, truth becomes circular, and then it becomes up to the individual to determine truth.

[Crazy Anglican]

May I propose once again that the Bible is subjective?

Sure, I guess my question is what do you mean by subjective? It looks like you mean subject to interpretation. I'd agree with that, of course. Any written document is.

I'd say something is subjective when its true meaning is individualized and it has no singular truth.

(As an interesting side note, Oxford's definition of truth includes the word "fact," and their definition of fact includes the word "true." Same goes with "accurate," "correct," and truth. It seems like no one can easily define what truth is, which could make this conversation interesting.)

I think the point of contention may be “not having a singular truth.” If you assume the non-existence of God then there is no singular truth in it any more than any other literary work. If you assume it’s inspired by God then the singular truth it whatever God wills it to be. In effect we take from it what we are able to like any other written work.

I think your side note is true

[mOctave]

This isn't necessarily an accurate reading, is what I said. It could be an accurate reading, although it not being one is just as likely, possibly more so.

Also, I don't believe inaccuracy=falsehood. You can be factually wrong and still have truth in what you say; we don't live in a black-and-white world.

Interesting. I suppose the question is: is the inaccuracy contradictory to the Bible? If so, then it is false (considering we are basing things on the Bible). So when Jamie said that God is cruel and unloving, that is false because the Bible demonstrates God's love and kindness. If we base our idea of God on something else, then sure, maybe Jamie is right that that God is cruel and unloving, but he was presenting that as an argument against the God of the Bible, and thus it must be accurate to the Bible.

I think this all comes back to the slippery definition of truth. If we accept that there is a Biblical God, then He naturally defines truth, and so what you say is right. However, this a circular argument, and so supports both an acceptance of a Biblical God and the rejection of one.

I guess here's where we disagree. At this point, I picture someone looking at the US constitution, but just the passage that says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Not only could that imply dictatorship, it also suggests that there is a time and place when, with most able-bodied people being drawn into a militia under the president's command, that the president would have to exercise a dictatorship, and that he would be right to do so, which it does.

On the other hand, you have a comprehensive understanding of our metaphorical Constitution-Bible. That doesn't mean that everything you say is perfectly accurate—if the American constitution was able to provide that, then why does the US have multiple political parties, at least four of which have a relatively major following at the national level, and two of which have very different views on almost everything and are constantly waging a nationwide political war?

An old, bearded, white man in the sky view of God comes from the Bible, just not a full reading of it. That reading of Genesis is a perfectly valid one (except for possibly the white part of it), if you don't know the context of Jewish culture and haven't read most of the Bible.

I think we are actually in agreement here - you are saying that to understand a part of the Bible we must have a comprehensive view of the Bible, and look at each passage within its Biblical and historical context, just as we would the Constitution. I agree entirely.

Yes, with the caveat that I think you can still draw true conclusions with an incomplete understanding, even if they aren't the generally accepted but also true conclusions of other people.

Hopefully what I said above helps clarify some of what I meant. I think your views are Biblically correct, and I would definitely prefer to believe in a good and loving God such as you describe. At the same time, though, I don't think it's right to dismiss another version of a God out of hand.

I dont mean to dismiss it entirely, and if that is how I come across then that is a fault of my communicative skills; I simply mean to point out where it differs with the Bible, and correct it to the Bible. If we are going to have a discussion on the God of the Bible, then we should try to be as accurate to the Bible as possible.

That sounds reasonable, although I think raising non-Biblical perspectives on such a God is also a good idea.

[mOctave]

Sure, I guess my question is what do you mean by subjective? It looks like you mean subject to interpretation. I'd agree with that, of course. Any written document is.

I'd say something is subjective when its true meaning is individualized and it has no singular truth.

(As an interesting side note, Oxford's definition of truth includes the word "fact," and their definition of fact includes the word "true." Same goes with "accurate," "correct," and truth. It seems like no one can easily define what truth is, which could make this conversation interesting.)

I think the point of contention may be “not having a singular truth.” If you assume the non-existence of God then there is no singular truth in it any more than any other literary work. If you assume it’s inspired by God then the singular truth it whatever God wills it to be. In effect we take from it what we are able to like any other written work.

I think your side note is true

This seems about right to me. My point is, that you can derive your definition of truth from the Bible, and if you do then an inaccurate interpretation of the Bible may well be false. Or, you can derive your definition of truth from somewhere else, and then to you there could be many true interpretations of the Bible.

I guess where this is leading is this: to a confident Christian, most of the Bible is objective. I would suggest that some parts, like the wisdom literature, are still subjective in that context, but as a whole, yes, it is objective. To anyone else, however, the Bible is subjective, since there is always a possibility, however remote, that God does not exist, and therefore we cannot base our definition of truth entirely on Him.

The inflexible nature of truth is something that I tend to find annoying about most major religions (including scientific atheism) and Western culture, actually. I would argue that 99.9% of our world is subjective, and the only thing that isn't is our own personal existences. Personally, I believe that the Bible is true, but not necessarily factually correct. Is there a God as it describes? I don't know for sure. Does it matter? For nearly two thousand years a significant portion of the Western world has proceeded as if such a God does exist. Either they are fools, we are fools, or we are all right. Maybe God can both exist and not exist simultaneously, or maybe God is a reflection of something else that we cannot fully name. I think it's safe to assume that God inspired the Bible, then. The question is then if humanity inspired God. If that is the case, then God cannot be the full definition of truth to all of humanity, and so the Bible is subjective.

[Crazy Anglican]

This seems about right to me. My point is, that you can derive your definition of truth from the Bible, and if you do then an inaccurate interpretation of the Bible may well be false. Or, you can derive your definition of truth from somewhere else, and then to you there could be many true interpretations of the Bible.

I tend to take it for granted that my interpretations are going to be inaccurate. For me the process of reading (and listening to readings and sermons in church - book study groups, etc.) is to gain a greater understanding. You remind me a bit about the discussions and debate between St. Peter and St. Paul about observing the law among Gentile converts. Still if the two of them couldn't agree on the exact course of action for Gentile vs. Jewish converts; I think it takes a bit of the pressure off of me to get everything exactly right.

I guess where this is leading is this: to a confident Christian, most of the Bible is objective. I would suggest that some parts, like the wisdom literature, are still subjective in that context, but as a whole, yes, it is objective. To anyone else, however, the Bible is subjective, since there is always a possibility, however remote, that God does not exist, and therefore we cannot base our definition of truth entirely on Him.

It's an interesting idea. Let me propose the converse. If, for the sake of argument, God doesn't exist; what exactly keeps me from still basing my version of truth or morality solely on the Bible? Even so, wouldn't it still be every bit as much of a guidebook? I'm not sure how imagining the nonexistence of God really diminishes the Bible in this particular instance.

The inflexible nature of truth is something that I tend to find annoying about most major religions (including scientific atheism) and Western culture, actually. I would argue that 99.9% of our world is subjective, and the only thing that isn't is our own personal existences. Personally, I believe that the Bible is true, but not necessarily factually correct. Is there a God as it describes? I don't know for sure. Does it matter? For nearly two thousand years a significant portion of the Western world has proceeded as if such a God does exist. Either they are fools, we are fools, or we are all right. Maybe God can both exist and not exist simultaneously, or maybe God is a reflection of something else that we cannot fully name. I think it's safe to assume that God inspired the Bible, then. The question is then if humanity inspired God. If that is the case, then God cannot be the full definition of truth to all of humanity, and so the Bible is subjective.

My Western mind latches first on your working definition of subjective. It seems to me that everything written at all could be thought of as subjective under your definition? That leads me down two paths simultaneously. The classroom teacher, who has to make these things clear to 12 year-olds, boils a definition for objective vs. subjective down to this. Subjective writing introduces the author's opinions, whereas objective writing tends to be more factual avoiding opinion. Thus "Bathing regularly has been shown to be healthy" is objective and "Take a bath, you smell like manure" is subjective. It's not the only definition by any means, but if we're going to make any headway about whether the Bible is subjective or largely objective; we should probably start by agreeing on a working definition of the terms?

My second path was that of the martial art enthusiast who wonders if you have studied Zen. Your definition reminds me of the notion I read years ago in a book called "The Way of Zen" that stated all knowledge that can be communicated to others in common knowledge and that truth was derived from within. it's been a long time, so I am probably misquoting, but that came to mind while reading your response.

One further question though, if the Bible is subjective by your definition of the word, how does that change (if it does change it at all) the way people should approach it?

[mOctave]

This seems about right to me. My point is, that you can derive your definition of truth from the Bible, and if you do then an inaccurate interpretation of the Bible may well be false. Or, you can derive your definition of truth from somewhere else, and then to you there could be many true interpretations of the Bible.

I tend to take it for granted that my interpretations are going to be inaccurate. For me the process of reading (and listening to readings and sermons in church - book study groups, etc.) is to gain a greater understanding. You remind me a bit about the discussions and debate between St. Peter and St. Paul about observing the law among Gentile converts. Still if the two of them couldn't agree on the exact course of action for Gentile vs. Jewish converts; I think it takes a bit of the pressure off of me to get everything exactly right.

I think that's a good way to go about it.

I guess where this is leading is this: to a confident Christian, most of the Bible is objective. I would suggest that some parts, like the wisdom literature, are still subjective in that context, but as a whole, yes, it is objective. To anyone else, however, the Bible is subjective, since there is always a possibility, however remote, that God does not exist, and therefore we cannot base our definition of truth entirely on Him.

It's an interesting idea. Let me propose the converse. If, for the sake of argument, God doesn't exist; what exactly keeps me from still basing my version of truth or morality solely on the Bible? Even so, wouldn't it still be every bit as much of a guidebook? I'm not sure how imagining the nonexistence of God really diminishes the Bible in this particular instance.

It would be just as much of a guidebook, except that rather than being the divine word of God you would have to accept it as any other fallible document. You would not be able to act upon it with any certainty, but it would still be a guidebook. The only issue would be that if you didn't believe God existed but believed that the Bible only set forth good principles, then you could end up committing socially unacceptable acts based on certain passages where those acts are condoned by God.

The inflexible nature of truth is something that I tend to find annoying about most major religions (including scientific atheism) and Western culture, actually. I would argue that 99.9% of our world is subjective, and the only thing that isn't is our own personal existences. Personally, I believe that the Bible is true, but not necessarily factually correct. Is there a God as it describes? I don't know for sure. Does it matter? For nearly two thousand years a significant portion of the Western world has proceeded as if such a God does exist. Either they are fools, we are fools, or we are all right. Maybe God can both exist and not exist simultaneously, or maybe God is a reflection of something else that we cannot fully name. I think it's safe to assume that God inspired the Bible, then. The question is then if humanity inspired God. If that is the case, then God cannot be the full definition of truth to all of humanity, and so the Bible is subjective.

My Western mind latches first on your working definition of subjective. It seems to me that everything written at all could be thought of as subjective under your definition? That leads me down two paths simultaneously. The classroom teacher, who has to make these things clear to 12 year-olds, boils a definition for objective vs. subjective down to this. Subjective writing introduces the author's opinions, whereas objective writing tends to be more factual avoiding opinion. Thus "Bathing regularly has been shown to be healthy" is objective and "Take a bath, you smell like manure" is subjective. It's not the only definition by any means, but if we're going to make any headway about whether the Bible is subjective or largely objective; we should probably start by agreeing on a working definition of the terms?

Aha! This is more problem. I would argue that most if not all objective writing is subjective. "Bathing regularly has shown to be healthy" may be true, but what is health? What is regularity? In this context, it is both the author's opinions and that of the readers that flavour the sentence. It may have been intended to have one definite truth, but it is only accepted as such because most people who read it agree that (a) "regularly" means often enough that you don't start to lose friends, (b) "health" is the thing that helps you live longer, and (c) it has actually been shown to be healthy by responsible professionals, and whoever is saying this to you isn't just making things up because you really smell bad.

My second path was that of the martial art enthusiast who wonders if you have studied Zen. Your definition reminds me of the notion I read years ago in a book called "The Way of Zen" that stated all knowledge that can be communicated to others in common knowledge and that truth was derived from within. it's been a long time, so I am probably misquoting, but that came to mind while reading your response.

No, I haven't studied Zen. Maybe I should.

One further question though, if the Bible is subjective by your definition of the word, how does that change (if it does change it at all) the way people should approach it?

I'm not sure it has too much of an impact on the way people should approach it, but I feel that people should be less assured of their own rightness with it, so to speak. If, by my definition, it is subjective, then why should we be so sure that our own way is the single true way? Maybe there is a single, true, God-given way, but if so we are unlikely to find it on an individual level.

I like your answer above about sermons etc., but I think it could be stretched a bit farther. It would be nice (but probably unachievable) if we were all forced to listen to such sermons more often, especially by those with different religious perspectives; maddening sermons that run counter to everything we believe may just harden our own resolve, but maybe it would provide some way to gain a mutual understanding over time.

[Crazy Anglican]

I like your answer above about sermons etc., but I think it could be stretched a bit farther. It would be nice (but probably unachievable) if we were all forced to listen to such sermons more often, especially by those with different religious perspectives; maddening sermons that run counter to everything we believe may just harden our own resolve, but maybe it would provide some way to gain a mutual understanding over time.

We do it voluntarily in these internet forums. The jury is still out about the mutual understanding part

[Crazy Anglican]

Aha! This is more problem. I would argue that most if not all objective writing is subjective. "Bathing regularly has shown to be healthy" may be true, but what is health? What is regularity? In this context, it is both the author's opinions and that of the readers that flavour the sentence. It may have been intended to have one definite truth, but it is only accepted as such because most people who read it agree that (a) "regularly" means often enough that you don't start to lose friends, (b) "health" is the thing that helps you live longer, and (c) it has actually been shown to be healthy by responsible professionals, and whoever is saying this to you isn't just making things up because you really smell bad.

I can see what you mean here. Maybe we can find something more toward the middle that will serve as a common concept. Been a long day, so I'll have to revisit that later.

[Crazy Anglican]

In thinking about it. Does your definition of subjective actually fit a different word better? Isn’t it that you think the Bible is vague or ambiguous since it can be interpreted in different ways?

[learnedSloth]

Now of course, I'm not convinced on this myself. Maybe in heaven we will still have free will, but who am I to know? I would suggest that both reading's are valid.

Honestly, I'm not certain. The Bible doesn't explicitly state a lot about Heaven. I would say either could be correct, but it doesn't really matter for the rest of the theology. It may be that being in God's presence and glory is enough to sway our minds so totally towards Him that it's as if we didn't have free will?

Earlier CA compared God to a suitor that accepts 'no' as the answer.
The heirs of the everlasting life have answered yes.

[mOctave]

In thinking about it. Does your definition of subjective actually fit a different word better? Isn’t it that you think the Bible is vague or ambiguous since it can be interpreted in different ways?

Maybe you could call at ambiguity. Vagueness doesn't really match my definition. I guess in full it would be subjective ambiguity: there is potential difference in the meaning based on the perspective of the reader. In a way, this is the "it can be interpreted different ways" thing, except it's not limited to just a factual interpretation, but the entire meaning of the Bible can change depending on who reads it.

[CaptainFritz28]

I think I can conclude this - the objectivity and truth of the Bible is dependent on the existence and sovereignty of God. If God exists and the Bible is His word to us, then it is objectively true, and interpretations are only true when they are fully consistent with the Bible. If God does not exist, then nothing is objective, so the Bible is subjective.
However, whether or not you believe in God does not make God exist or cease to exist. I see enough proof to find the existence of God to be the most reasonable option, and thus I believe that the Bible is objectively true, no matter who reads it or what they believe. That's why I say it is objective, but I agree that if God did not exist, it would be entirely up to the individual's beliefs and subjective views of it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

In thinking about it. Does your definition of subjective actually fit a different word better? Isn’t it that you think the Bible is vague or ambiguous since it can be interpreted in different ways?

Maybe you could call at ambiguity. Vagueness doesn't really match my definition. I guess in full it would be subjective ambiguity: there is potential difference in the meaning based on the perspective of the reader. In a way, this is the "it can be interpreted different ways" thing, except it's not limited to just a factual interpretation, but the entire meaning of the Bible can change depending on who reads it.

This seems like the crux of the issue to me.

Maybe the Bible contains within it some perfect objective moral truth. But, of course, that's a faith claim that's unlikely to convince those who aren't already believers.

And even if the Bible contains perfect moral truth, the only way to get at that truth is for humans to read and interpret the Bible. Smart Christians, contemporary and historical, have disagreed vehemently about how best to interpret Biblical moral advice. An individual Christian, in their own lifetime, will read and understand the Bible in different contexts. As a result, well-intentioned and scripturally-inspired Christians have found themselves on both sides of major moral debates around slavery, colonialism, abortion, homosexuality, etc., in addition to the huge fights within Christianity about the morality of issues that most modern Christians don't even care about anymore (idolatry, mixed fabrics, leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, etc.).

Any Christian taking a literalist approach can always try to explain away the bad behaviour of other Christians by suggesting "they were interpreting the Bible wrong." The problem is, there is no objective way to determine which Christian is being more Biblically accurate on many issues. Someone can make Scriptural arguments (e.g., passage A takes precedent over passage B, we can ignore section X of the Old Testament because of section Y of the New Testament, etc.), but there is no final authority to say which interpretation is right. Different Christian traditions do not even agree amongst themselves even about how, in theory, they could distinguish one moral idea as being more "biblical" than another (Sola Scriptura, three-legged stool, Liberation Theology, papal authority, etc.).

To the Sola Scriptura fans out there, I'd want to keep repeating that: THERE IS NO NEUTRAL AND UNINTERPRETATIVE WAY TO READ THE BIBLE. No Biblical story has a final, absolute, and known "moral of the story". It is impossible to read the book in its entirety and perfectly balance its many, sometimes contradictory, teachings in order to come to a conclusive answer on any moral issue. If you think it is easy to adjudicate these moral issues, you're almost certainly elevating your own moral intuitions or parroting the culture of your faith community. Consider:

(A) Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."
(B) Matthew 5:7 - "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."

If (A) is more important, I should support capital punishment for murderers. If (B) is more important, I should be strongly opposed to capital punishment in all cases. Christians and Christian-majority governments have been on both sides of this particular argument throughout history. You can make good Scriptural arguments either way.

Even if I believed the Bible contained perfect moral truth, I wouldn't trust any particular Christian or branch of Christianity to get it 100% right.

If the Bible's moral truths are objective, then I would have to be open minded to the possibility that other religions or even non-religious philosophies are independently discovering those moral truths.

If some Biblical interpretations are better than others, I'm going to need some non-Biblical way to determine wheat from chaff (e.g., Aquinas' approach of marrying reason with Divine Law).

[Crazy Anglican]

This seems like the crux of the issue to me.

Maybe the Bible contains within it some perfect objective moral truth. But, of course, that's a faith claim that's unlikely to convince those who aren't already believers.

And even if the Bible contains perfect moral truth, the only way to get at that truth is for humans to read and interpret the Bible. Smart Christians, contemporary and historical, have disagreed vehemently about how best to interpret Biblical moral advice. An individual Christian, in their own lifetime, will read and understand the Bible in different contexts. As a result, well-intentioned and scripturally-inspired Christians have found themselves on both sides of major moral debates around slavery, colonialism, abortion, homosexuality, etc., in addition to the huge fights within Christianity about the morality of issues that most modern Christians don't even care about anymore (idolatry, mixed fabrics, leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, etc.).

Okay lets continue your point. If the Bible does contain perfect moral truth what is the most reasonable response to it? I would think that it's to study it as closely as possible and learn as much as possible from it.

What about the converse? If it doesn't contain perfect moral truth, you've still spent time studying one of the most influential literary works in history. As far as rich literary texts go, you don't get much better. The history and moral awakening of an ancient civilization that thrives to this day plays out right in front of you. I'd venture that you've lost little and gained much by studying it. Is there another book that you recommend more highly?

Any Christian taking a literalist approach can always try to explain away the bad behaviour of other Christians by suggesting "they were interpreting the Bible wrong." The problem is, there is no objective way to determine which Christian is being more Biblically accurate on many issues. Someone can make Scriptural arguments (e.g., passage A takes precedent over passage B, we can ignore section X of the Old Testament because of section Y of the New Testament, etc.), but there is no final authority to say which interpretation is right. Different Christian traditions do not even agree amongst themselves even about how, in theory, they could distinguish one moral idea as being more "biblical" than another (Sola Scriptura, three-legged stool, Liberation Theology, papal authority, etc.).

True enough, I've gone on record as the three-legged stool variety of Christian. I'd propose though that arguments about a literary work do not change the author's original theme. If Job, for instance, was written with a specific theme in mind, my argument about what that theme may be has no bearing whatsoever on what that theme might have been.

To the Sola Scriptura fans out there, I'd want to keep repeating that: THERE IS NO NEUTRAL AND UNINTERPRETATIVE WAY TO READ THE BIBLE. No Biblical story has a final, absolute, and known "moral of the story". It is impossible to read the book in its entirety and perfectly balance its many, sometimes contradictory, teachings in order to come to a conclusive answer on any moral issue. If you think it is easy to adjudicate these moral issues, you're almost certainly elevating your own moral intuitions or parroting the culture of your faith community. Consider:

(A) Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."
(B) Matthew 5:7 - "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."

If (A) is more important, I should support capital punishment for murderers. If (B) is more important, I should be strongly opposed to capital punishment in all cases. Christians and Christian-majority governments have been on both sides of this particular argument throughout history. You can make good Scriptural arguments either way.

I'll preface this by saying, this is my thought on that. Usually if you just read a little farther you get a clearer picture even if it isn't totally accurate.

Yes, if you read those two lines alone. There is a definite tendency to think,” Hey there is a contradiction here.”

Especially when down the page Jesus, Himself, says.

“17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Sounds pretty incongruous until you remember How Jesus feels about the Pharisees. In just about every instance in which He mentions them. He considers them to be hypocrites. He appears to be pointing out that they are obsessed with the letter of the law and ignore the spirit of it, and that His followers are going to be held to a higher standard.
Then He addresses the very issue you brought up.

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

It seems to me that Jesus is saying merely not killing others is not good enough. Plenty of people obey the law in fear of punishment. He seems to be calling us to truly love people and treat them well. I think it is about loving others more than just obeying the law. Thus maybe Jesus is fulfilling the law that was set down in ancient times by saying something to the effect of "Hey guys, the law is great and you should follow it, but don't forget to actually like the other guy instead of just refraining from killing him."

Even if I believed the Bible contained perfect moral truth, I wouldn't trust any particular Christian or branch of Christianity to get it 100% right.

Me either, especially not me.

If the Bible's moral truths are objective, then I would have to be open minded to the possibility that other religions or even non-religious philosophies are independently discovering those moral truths.

agreed

If some Biblical interpretations are better than others, I'm going to need some non-Biblical way to determine wheat from chaff (e.g., Aquinas' approach of marrying reason with Divine Law).

Basic literary criticism seems to help. Finding commentary, etc. There are plenty of tools to help you on the way.

[CaptainFritz28]

He seems to be calling us to truly love people and treat them well. I think it is about loving others more than just obeying the law.

Wait wait wait... so you're saying it's almost as if Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God and others? And that all other commandments fall into one of those categories? No... surely not. :D

[Crazy Anglican]

In thinking about it. Does your definition of subjective actually fit a different word better? Isn’t it that you think the Bible is vague or ambiguous since it can be interpreted in different ways?

Maybe you could call at ambiguity. Vagueness doesn't really match my definition. I guess in full it would be subjective ambiguity: there is potential difference in the meaning based on the perspective of the reader. In a way, this is the "it can be interpreted different ways" thing, except it's not limited to just a factual interpretation, but the entire meaning of the Bible can change depending on who reads it.

My understanding of the two terms without looking them up is that ambiguity refers to something that can mean two things and vague means something that lends itself to meaning multiple things due to a fault in the writing. So I am open to either. My contention is still that the interpretation of a literary work doesn't alter the original purpose for it.

[Crazy Anglican]

@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?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

@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 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.

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. Some amount of historical and biblical research might provide some useful insight about the likely purpose of some Biblical stories, but there are deep issues that will remain profoundly unresolvable no matter how closely this gets studied (ambiguities in the text, competing variations of manuscripts, information that is already lost to history, etc.).

Biblical guidance, to the extent it's useful, is also obviously insufficient by itself as a moral code:

- The Bible's advice is often extremely incomplete when considering practical moral issues. Fritz noted earlier that the Bible is quite clear on its advice to be charitable, but not especially useful for determining how much to give or to which charity. I agree that giving is good, but I think a truly moral person needs to be seeking for the best answer to all three questions (should I give? if so, how much? and to whom?) and I don't think the Bible alone is going to be the best place to look. This style of argument applies to nearly any practical moral issue I can imagine encountering - the Bible will only have indirect and extremely partial advice, leaving me to reason beyond Scripture to make my decision.

- The Bible gives us directives and advice that require contemplation, but an awful lot of moral decision making is nearly instantaneous. In these cases, it seems likely to me that one's biology and upbringing are what really shape our in-the-moment responses. If I see an old lady falling over, I don't think back to Sunday School and try to remember which Bible passages extol me to help elders in duress. Christianity can still be useful in this context, not because of Scripture itself, but because of the way religion can inspire a style of parenting, community, etc., that inculcate moral behaviour. If some of our goodness is the result of our evolved nature, then the Christian God could have directed this very process. I don't think the Bible, absent a good community with good parents and a critical mass of temperamentally well-intentioned people, would do much good at all.

Given these limitations, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that the Bible is *functionally* a source of perfect morality for humans. It's at best an imperfect source of some good moral advice, but really only if it is read critically and its principles are practiced in community.

I think the idea that all possible moral quandaries could be solved with yet-more Bible study misses some of the Bible's fundamental blind spots. Even if I were a big Bible booster, I'd probably be looking to supplement its moral advice with some other human moral thinking (even starting with Christian moral philosophy).

Crazy Anglican, thank you for talking through your thoughts on Christian philosophy re: punishment and forgiveness. Forgive me for saying, though, that response highlights why I'm a skeptic of Christian morality - I don't think that reasoning about what Jesus really meant is the best way to decide whether capital punishment is right. Firstly, because while you can make more-or-less convincing arguments, we will never get to know the author's true intention. And secondly, because a debate about capital punishment that focuses on the probable views of a historic figure seems wildly beside the point of what I would consider the relevant moral facts of the case (what are the consequences of allowing the state to kill at all? how many will be wrongfully put to death? does capital punishment serve as a strong deterrent?, etc.) - to the extent we're not talking about these and related issues, I'm worried that we're sidestepping the actual moral content of the issue and are instead just having a meeting of the Bible Book Club.

[Crazy Anglican]

@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 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.

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.

Some amount of historical and biblical research might provide some useful insight about the likely purpose of some Biblical stories, but there are deep issues that will remain profoundly unresolvable no matter how closely this gets studied (ambiguities in the text, competing variations of manuscripts, information that is already lost to history, etc.).

Biblical guidance, to the extent it's useful, is also obviously insufficient by itself as a moral code:

- The Bible's advice is often extremely incomplete when considering practical moral issues. Fritz noted earlier that the Bible is quite clear on its advice to be charitable, but not especially useful for determining how much to give or to which charity. I agree that giving is good, but I think a truly moral person needs to be seeking for the best answer to all three questions (should I give? if so, how much? and to whom?) and I don't think the Bible alone is going to be the best place to look. This style of argument applies to nearly any practical moral issue I can imagine encountering - the Bible will only have indirect and extremely partial advice, leaving me to reason beyond Scripture to make my decision.

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.

- The Bible gives us directives and advice that require contemplation, but an awful lot of moral decision making is nearly instantaneous. In these cases, it seems likely to me that one's biology and upbringing are what really shape our in-the-moment responses. If I see an old lady falling over, I don't think back to Sunday School and try to remember which Bible passages extol me to help elders in duress. Christianity can still be useful in this context, not because of Scripture itself, but because of the way religion can inspire a style of parenting, community, etc., that inculcate moral behaviour. If some of our goodness is the result of our evolved nature, then the Christian God could have directed this very process. I don't think the Bible, absent a good community with good parents and a critical mass of temperamentally well-intentioned people, would do much good at all.

The Bible, as one of the most influential books in history, has had a role in the development of the very same cultures you reference. No, it isn’t necessary to cite a verse to help someone in need. I don’t think anyone said that it was.

Given these limitations, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that the Bible is *functionally* a source of perfect morality for humans. It's at best an imperfect source of some good moral advice, but really only if it is read critically and its principles are practiced in community.

Skepticism aside, I think that read the Bible and practice its principles in your daily life is something any Christian would agree with.

- I think the idea that all possible moral quandaries could be solved with yet-more Bible study misses some of the Bible's fundamental blind spots. Even if I were a big Bible booster, I'd probably be looking to supplement its moral advice with some other human moral thinking (even starting with Christian moral philosophy).

I thought Capt. Fritz and I both agreed with you on this. The Bible is a guide to morality, but there is nothing wrong with using other sources too, so long as they don’t contradict the Bible. Even Sola Scriptura is usually defined as “All knowledge necessary for Salvation is contained in the Bible”. I am not aware of anyone who expects the lists of actual current charities and their website addresses.

- Crazy Anglican, thank you for talking through your thoughts on Christian philosophy re: punishment and forgiveness. Forgive me for saying, though, that response highlights why I'm a skeptic of Christian morality - I don't think that reasoning about what Jesus really meant is the best way to decide whether capital punishment is right. Firstly, because while you can make more-or-less convincing arguments, we will never get to know the author's true intention. And secondly, because a debate about capital punishment that focuses on the probable views of a historic figure seems wildly beside the point of what I would consider the relevant moral facts of the case (what are the consequences of allowing the state to kill at all? how many will be wrongfully put to death? does capital punishment serve as a strong deterrent?, etc.) - to the extent we're not talking about these and related issues, I'm worried that we're sidestepping the actual moral content of the issue and are instead just having a meeting of the Bible Book Club.

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.”

[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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The Bible, as one of the most influential books in history, has had a role in the development of the very same cultures you reference. No, it isn’t necessary to cite a verse to help someone in need. I don’t think anyone said that it was.

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.

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.

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.

I thought Capt. Fritz and I both agreed with you on this. The Bible is a guide to morality, but there is nothing wrong with using other sources too, so long as they don’t contradict the Bible. Even Sola Scriptura is usually defined as “All knowledge necessary for Salvation is contained in the Bible”. I am not aware of anyone who expects the lists of actual current charities and their website addresses.

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.

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.

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".