Bible “ethics”

[white_raven23]

The whole bible is one big long list of unethical events perpetrated by man, and by god.

Incest, Murder, Rape, Sexism, Racism, Bigotry, and Genocide are all events that happen in the Bible with God either behind them, or in support of them.

In the Bible God gives people a set of rules to live by, then instructs them to break those rules in various ways (creation of a bronze snake idol comes to mind).

 

A God who doesn’t abide by his own rules? How is this ethical?

 

Christian Argument to Explain this Crap: “Oh…..it was the people who were brutish and uncivilized. We are much more civilized now…..so really the stuff in the OT is just a historical account.”

 

Are you kidding? God behaves brutish and uncivilized in the OT and somehow that’s humanity’s fault? How is this even a good excuse? God didn’t have to set an example of love for us, because we wouldn’t “understand” it……and so since the “big” lessons of civility are a few hundred years off, that means god can cut loose and behave like an unethical jackass until his slow stupid creations get with it?

 

Why do Christians make excuses for God as though he was an errant and reckless six year old? You’d think they created God or something.

 

So come on……pick your favorite examples of unethical BS perpetuated by Biblegod.

 

My faves are Lot’s daughters (incest), and the whole bronze snake fiasco (breaking own commandments).

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

The entire book of Job is full of immoral acts performed by and at the request of biblegod.

 

The Abraham and Isaac "incident" that christians use to show how faithful Abraham was is completely immoral. If anyone came to me demanding that I kill my son I would know immediately that s/he/it was evil. I would refuse to do as requested since only someone evil and immoral would make such a demand.

 

If we assume for a minute that this fable is true, Abraham was not being faithful, he was being stupid and a coward. Thanks to this story we still have parents killing their children because they think god has asked them to. It's in the bible so it must be true and they don't consider that maybe, just maybe, they're off their rocker and need to seek professional help.

[Eponymic]

Damn straight.

 

One way or another Bible God is all about 'do as I say not as I do'

 

Killing the first borns of Egypt. BAM! God sins.

I could give a list of other sins God does, but really, we all get the idea.

 

How can you validate following a God that doesn't even abide by his own ethics. Yup. It's a crock.

[Guest stooch]

white raven,

 

Would you be willing to debate me on your topic of God, Christians and ethics.

 

stooch

[Taphophilia]

white raven,

 

Would you be willing to debate me on your topic of God, Christians and ethics.

 

stooch

 

 

Um Stooch, are you under the impression that all morality stems from the bible? You are aware that much of the OT Laws are from the earlier Code of Hammurabi from Babylonian? And that the Egyptians had laws against rape, murder, including eavesdropping...which btw are much more fair to women than the bible. Just wondering if you knew this already. If not, I suggest you take a look at history before making an ass of yourself.

 

 

Don't forget the inquistion, treatment of heretics and "witches", torture, slavery, genocide, etc.

 

Taph

[white_raven23]

white raven,

 

Would you be willing to debate me on your topic of God, Christians and ethics.

 

stooch

 

Stooch,

 

If you would like to enter into Formal debate with me, we need to tighten up on the Topic. "God, Christians and Ethics" Is a REALLY big monkey to swing. The topic needs to be much more specific than that, or my opening post alone will eat up tons of bandwidth and make the mods cranky.

 

Also, I'm a bit wary, as I've seen other respected members of this Forum enter into Formal debate with fairly unknown members, and after clearly putting large amounts of time and effort into their Argument.....literally got "God said it, that ends it." as a rebuttal. To say such an unsatisfactory and ignorant response was unpopular would be putting it mildly.

 

However, I want you to know that I appreciate your offer, it's the first formal debate offer I've received. And I've been here almost a year. I've been ex-christian for longer though.

 

Please let me know if there is a more specific topic you would like to debate. I would be happy to consider it.

 

~WR~

[Checkmate]

The "ethics" of god, huh?

 

Well let's talk about King David, Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite.

 

David "sins" by committing both adultery and murder. "God", of course, KNOWS about these sins. But rather than punish DAVID for his sins, God punishes...the child of incest? The CHILD who had NOTHING to do with Dave's sin? How is THAT ethical?

 

(And I could have SWORN that somewhere else in the bible a prophet [Ezekiel] says that NO ONE shall suffer/pay for the inequity of another. What's up with that?)

 

Also, how about the many times that "god" punishes the "children of Israel/Judah" whenever a KING "sins".

 

Too many to mention, so let's just stick with my man King Dave.

 

"God" or Satan/adversary (depending on which lie you wish to go with) causes David to number his forces in a census. (Why is this a crime? God told Dave to conduct one before. ) And then god gets pissed at David for numbering his men, (even though GOD told David to do so ) so god punishes...the PEOPLE with a plague. (After giving Dave a choice of punishments, of course.)

 

Again, how is THIS "ethical"? (How is this even SANE?)

 

And before I leave this subject behind like a bad fart, has anyone ever noticed God's double standard for dealing with sinners? If you're a common sinner (i.e. normal Joe or priest) and you sin, then god smites them instantly. (Example: Uzzah touches the Ark, BAM!) Yet if you are a KING and you "sin", not only does god NOT punish instantly or severely, but he will punish another in the King's place, AND god gives his Kings plenty of time to rethink their sin and to repent. (See King Dave and any other King of Judah or Israel.) WTF?

 

So much for god not being a respecter of persons, huh?

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Most Christians think that their god's blodthirst is only evident in the OT. Not true.....

 

Ananias and Sapphira

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

 

3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

 

5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

 

7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"

"Yes," she said, "that is the price."

 

9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

 

10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

 

Lesson learned? I pity da foo who don't give the church EVERY LAST DIME! God will kill you if you keep some of your property. That's called "lying to the Holt Spirit", and it is very bad. I suspect we are all lying to the spirit right now.

[Guest stooch]

Um Stooch, are you under the impression that all morality stems from the bible? You are aware that much of the OT Laws are from the earlier Code of Hammurabi from Babylonian? And that the Egyptians had laws against rape, murder, including eavesdropping...which btw are much more fair to women than the bible. Just wondering if you knew this already. If not, I suggest you take a look at history before making an ass of yourself.

 

 

 

 

Um Serene, Are you under the impression that I believe all ethics are from the Bible. No Way! I'm familiar with Code, not so familiar with Egypt. Thanks for protecting my ass, but I think I can do that myself.

[Antlerman]

In looking at the ethics of the God in the Bible we are faced with one of three possibilities:

 

1. God's nature is unchaining and we should not understand "Love" in relation to God in anyway that has connection to us in every single aspect of our human experience

 

2. God used to be a very primitive and vindictive deity, but improved his behavior with more experience over the ages

 

3. Man created God in his own image, and the atrocities and subsequent changes we see in the Bible are a reflection of an evolving human culture

 

My vote is for number 3, because it provides the most cohesive framework to address everything that we see in the Bible. "God" is a product of us, so "God" in fact does change because we change.

[Lycorth]

I agree, Antler - #3 is the only rational choice. A backwards moron like the god of the Babble cannot possibly exist, or else the whole world would be destroyed by now.

 

And the story of Sapphira is just another example of the sick and inferior "morality" of the Babble. If you don't sell your soul to Gawd, you will suffer in this world and the next. The whole thrust of the Babble is about slavery to a god which doesn't reveal itself; indeed, that is the one thing in which Xianity and its Babble is consistent, and that is the preaching of the dehumanizing cult of slavery and zombie-ism that is Xianity.

 

Biblegodzilla, Jesus the Scum of Gawd, and the Holah Fart - the unholy trinity that has scourged humanity for all too long.

[Guest stooch]

Thanks for protecting my ass, but I think I can do that myself.

 

Yes, I'm quite sure that you can.

 

Could you please elaborate on what you believe the bible has to offer that cannot be found in earlier religions regarding morality?

 

Serene Aspiration,

 

I brought up the topic not to prove that all morality comes from the Bible. Make no mistake, I do believe the Bible. However I say that to state my position, not so several people will email me to rip me for my position. If you will allow me to entertertain a few questions so I can understand how you understand morality I would be grateful. I know you have a lot of experience on this site. If you are willing, could you answer these questions for my understanding?

 

What is morality and how do you account for morality? What makes something right and wrong?

 

Thanks, Stooch

[SkepticOfBible]

 

What is morality and how do you account for morality? What makes something right and wrong?

 

Hey Stooch,

 

Your question is really tempting, but I let Serene answer that since that was directed at her.

 

However I would like to ask you a question

 

Do you not think that morality in the bible changes according to the revelation/period that a person is living in, ie certain things were wrong in a different period whereas in a different period it is ok?

 

Do you not think that the bible God promotes situational ethics(ie in certain circumstances it's wrong whereas in others it's not or some people get preferential treatment)

 

Thanks

[Checkmate]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

..........Albert Einstein

 

The essence of the Christian/religious position states that man's sense of morality/ethics MUST stem from god. In fact, Christians are so certain of this that they believe that all of society would devolve into anarchy without god belief.

 

Tell me then, what percentage of convicted felons are atheists? Without checking the facts, I will go out on a limb and say that this number is probably less than 1%. While those who believe in some god or other is over 90%. I can say this because our criminals come from the American meme pool, where god-belief is standard, not optional.

 

Also, tell me Christian, where were the morals and ethics of Christians who have lied, cheated, stole and MURDERED? Don't pretend that you don't know of ANY Christian who has so-called "fallen from grace", only to commit fornication, adultery and stock fraud. What happened to their so-called god-centered morality and ethics?

 

Truth of the matter is this, while Christians are swift to attempt to set themselves up as the moral arbiters of society, it is in fact the Christians who possess NO moral compass. It is the Christians who possess NO ethical boundaries. It is the Christians who seek to hide behind god's "grace and mercy and forgiveness" to excuse their horrific and sociopathic behavior. (Commit a "sin"? No problem! Just ask god for forgiveness and all is well again. Never mind the people you've hurt or killed. Fuck 'em. Who needs morality and ethics when you've got god on your side?)

 

To paraphrase Einstein, you would be a sorry excuse for a human being if the ONLY reason you behaved morally and ethically is your delusion and fear of being watched and punished by your imaginary friend. If the ONLY thing keeping you in check is your psychosis, and not an inherent knowledge of goodness and societal benevolence that even ANIMALS possess, then perhaps the rest of society would be better off placing you in a cage until you are cured.

[Lycorth]

Well put, Mista Grinch. Einstien said it well, and it bears repeating. A person who cannot realize the necessity of doing good for goodness' sake is only doing good to appease a god. When a person does something just to appease someone else, inside their hearts all they want to do is give up doing the appeasing. When they think they can get away with it, they drop the charade and behave as badly as the so-called "sinners" do. Then they crawl to their god, wracked with guilt, to start the cycle all over again.

 

Morality and goodness should be stand-alone concepts, not dependent on religion or a god of any sort. After all, there is not one shred of evidence that any god instituted anything anywhere at any point in history, but rather that human hands and human minds fashioned every moral code or treatise known to exist. Xians and other religionists should just cut the crap and accept this simple and freeing truth, and realize the burden of moral behavior falls on their shoulders alone, and that includes formulating and understanding moral concepts. It is not dependent on some god to reveal it nor define it - the responsibility is all theirs.

 

If people took responsibility for their own morality, the world would drastically improve, methinks.

[Antlerman]

If people took responsibility for their own morality, the world would drastically improve, methinks.

Here is the heart of the issue: Religion for some serves as a replacement for individual ethics. Why are there so many pedophiles in the priesthood? Because it breeds them, or because they just are that way and are running into the priesthood to try to keep themselves from sinning? In other words, they're trying to hide themselves from themselves behind a system of higher morals, thinking it will change them. Not!

 

The question I would like addressed is this: Which of the following approaches produces a more meaningful expression of love and ethics:

1. An external system that lays out prescribed laws and punishments that we look to in order to keep our behavior acceptable to others?

 

2. An internal choice to behave in such a way as to foster good will and cooperation in society, with the mindset that it will benefit everyone else and consequently ourselves by doing so?

My vote is for number 2. This is why I say atheists will go to heaven before the religious, because they lived sincere lives within themselves and before the world.

[Guest stooch]

Morality to me is how well we treat those around us. What makes something right or wrong are the laws we have established in our country, albeit many laws are unfair and many try to run a persons personal life and need to be stricken from the books, i.e.; laws against homosexuality, laws against oral sex, silly laws like that.

 

 

Serene Aspiration

 

 

Thanks for your response. I agree with some of what you said, especially that we need to make an internal choice and the principles of morality.

 

If I’m reading you right I’m hearing two things.

 

First, Morality is how we treat others. How do you know how to treat others? Where does that come from? In a previous response you said there were laws from the Hammurabi code or old Egyptian laws. Again, I ask in a different way, how they came up with these laws. Is there a norm, or is it the situation or is it existential. I assume and please correct me, but you would not believe in a norm because that would mean there is a God. If it is the situation, then what constitutes what is right? For me, when is it OK for me to harm someone or cheat on my wife. Is it because I feel it is right or wrong. How do you judge?

 

In your response there is a sense of “oughtness”. It is rooted in some set of beliefs, so those beliefs can be defended. In a naturalistic world there is no obligation to society or the universe for that matter.

 

Second, Folks aren’t hurting anyone and just want to “be”. That sounds great, but who just “is”. We make choices everyday that effect people. If we are to foster good will and cooperation in society as Antlerman said, we can’t just “be”. Why would someone even care in society?

[NotBlinded]

I believe our natural state is love, joy and happiness and when anything goes against these states, the outcome is fear, hatred and sadness. It is only natural to assume these states in other people also and to empathize with them. I don't believe in a 'god' per say, but a life energy or essence.

 

Another explanation is that cooperation is an excellent evolutionary trait.

[Guest stooch]

Do you not think that morality in the bible changes according to the revelation/period that a person is living in, ie certain things were wrong in a different period whereas in a different period it is ok?

 

Do you not think that the bible God promotes situational ethics(ie in certain circumstances it's wrong whereas in others it's not or some people get preferential treatment)

 

 

Why do I feel like this is a trick question? Can you be more specific?

[Guest stooch]

White Raven,

Thanks for your response. I agree society is not perfect and our laws are not perfect either.

 

If I’m reading you right I’m hearing two things.

 

First, Morality is causing the least personal harm to a person or a group. There is a sense of “oughtness” in your statement. You said there is an “obligation” to try and foresee how your action will affect others involved. That might be a little presumptuous, because you do not know how someone may want to be treated. If you know how they want to be treated, then there is an absolute. If not, where does this obligation come from? I agree with you, rape is wrong, but how do you know?

 

 

You seem to think some of the laws we have are good and some are bunk. How do you know which are good, or bad? To you, rape is wrong, but abortion is not. To me, and I do not mean to be insensitive, but for example sake, a late term abortion is killing a baby. I’m not going to get into the details of abortion, but unless you believe a late term baby is not a person, it is wrong. You may want to argue that, but my point is who asked the baby? It is a living, breathing, has a heart beat, and can hear. Is it just a piece of flesh or is it special? Is it the least harm done to have an abortion?

 

From a different angle, if the baby I just a piece of flesh, then why care about people at all. If it is special, then you we have purpose. Purpose and ethics are bound and some naturalistic answer does not give us purpose. If you try to tear purpose and ethics apart you have anarchy.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Stooch

[NotBlinded]

The only purpose is to enjoy the dance of life. When your dance interfers with another's dance and causes that person to fall, then neither is enjoying the dance.

[NotBlinded]

To you, rape is wrong, but abortion is not. To me, and I do not mean to be insensitive, but for example sake, a late term abortion is killing a baby.

 

So would you say "Happy and Blessed is he that takes the infants of his enemy and dashes them against the rocks" as in Psalm 137, is moral? What about where the bible says where the Lord "Will cause the bellies of pregnant women to be opened and their children dashed to pieces." Is that "moral? I call it EVIL and VILE... What say you to those biblical morals?

You know...I just realized that stooch is calling atheists baby-killers! Wow...talk about a generalization. Sheesh! I don't remember anywhere in this thread that anyone endorsed late-term abortions.

 

Stooch, I don't know what you've been reading but please hold off on these sort of accusations. Please...

[Antlerman]

In your response there is a sense of “oughtness”. It is rooted in some set of beliefs, so those beliefs can be defended. In a naturalistic world there is no obligation to society or the universe for that matter.

As a starting point stooch, here's part of a post I made a little while back:

Back to what I tried to state yesterday, human nature is such that we benefit through cooperation. We all operate on all levels through self-interest. At the same time,

we all have greed inside of us

, but that GREED works against our own best interests in harming the greater benefits that comes through cooperation. Pursuing peace promotes cooperation. Demonizing Greed, promotes cooperation. We call things that promote cooperation "good", and we demonize greed calling it "evil".

 

God is our symbol of "good". So yes, there is in that one sense, a "characteristic" of humans that we have inherited through race memory that could be called "natural" that leans us toward functioning in society through cooperation. And as in all genetic inheritance you have aberrations such as two heads, tails, and Osama Bin Laden.

 

We promote the ideal of Love, Peace, Patience, Compassion, Selflessness, etc, because it benefits us. Pure and simple. Greed only benefits the one. Both systems work effectively to get humans what we want, but only one works for the majority. Impatience leads to Greed, leads to... etc. Our ancestors learned this and passed socialization down to us, genetically and culturally.

 

So these "leanings" towards a god system, are probably part of this inheritance. "God" as a symbol and promotional mechanism of theses aspirations, as defined by societies back in history, did in fact work for them for that purpose. But that "God" is outdated and is broken. "God" needs to be updated to address modern thought. The struggle we see today I believe stems around this growing pain.

 

Words like Good and Evil are holdovers from historical understandings of God. Long and short of it, calling "good" "God" would sort of still be valid - in certain contexts - because the idea is to promote cooperation. But we are too acutely aware of the relativism of morals in today's world for terms like to be spoken with the connotation of absolute qualities.

So to address your point "In a naturalistic world there is no obligation to society or the universe for that matter." That statement is true in the sense there is no "obligation", but untrue in the sense that it is most certainly in the best interest of the individual to do so if they wish to reap the benefits of the larger society. Human beings are societal animals, and we need to cooperate as a group to thrive as a species.

 

I really despise the rhetorical argument directed towards atheists that says "what will keep you from just killing someone if there is no God?" I don't believe in God and yet I feel no wild compulsion to fly out of control and kill. That's a short-sighted, and just plain silly argument meant only to frighten people into staying in the "protective" fold of religion. It has no basis in reality.

[white_raven23]

First, Morality is causing the least personal harm to a person or a group. There is a sense of “oughtness” in your statement. You said there is an “obligation” to try and foresee how your action will affect others involved. That might be a little presumptuous, because you do not know how someone may want to be treated. If you know how they want to be treated, then there is an absolute. If not, where does this obligation come from?

 

I may not know exactly how someone wishes to be treated. I can however ask them what they want if their need is unclear. Am I somehow not 'allowed' to ask someone how they want to be treated? Not everyone is the same, but no one is going to feel hurt by someone who is obviously trying to help.

You seem to think some of the laws we have are good and some are bunk. How do you know which are good, or bad? To you, rape is wrong, but abortion is not. To me, and I do not mean to be insensitive, but for example sake, a late term abortion is killing a baby.

 

You are entitled to you own feelings in this matter, and certainly there are those who would not be thrilled with how I feel about late-term abortion. But I'll say it anyway. I may disapprove of someone doing it......because I feel that decision should happen a heck of a lot earlier. No excuse to allow a pregnancy choice linger longer than the first trimester. But just becasue I disapprove, doesn't mean I feel people shouldn't be permitted to go through with it. What someone else does with their own body is none of my business. That person is entitled to use their own sense and conscience in such matters.

 

As for the baby? To be honest, unless it can draw breath on it's own without the aid of a machine, and is no longer 100% supported by the blood supply of the mother......that baby has no legal rights. It isn't it's own being until the umbilical cord is severed. Until then, it is a parasite entirely dependant on the body and the mind of it's mother.

 

If a pre-mature baby dies in the hospital because it's lungs never properly developed, do the police and district attornies come in to sue the hospital in the name of the child? Or even sue the parents for possible negligence that resulted in the premature birth in the first place? How about trotting out to sue mother's best friend who smoked around her during the pregnancy?

 

As someone else here once said somewhere.....if the unborn have legal rights, then they in turn are equally subject to those laws accompanying those rights. When a cop pulls a seven months pregnant woman over for speeding, he should also give her a ticket for improper use of a seatbelt. Those are only designed to be used by one person at a time!

 

I’m not going to get into the details of abortion, but unless you believe a late term baby is not a person, it is wrong. You may want to argue that, but my point is who asked the baby? It is a living, breathing, has a heart beat, and can hear.

You are trying to compare a birthed baby with an unbirthed baby. Abortions only apply to unbirthed babies.

It is not breathing. if it did so, it would drown in amniotic fluid. It may have it's own heartbeat, but it doesn't have it's own blood. And sure it can hear. But we kill a lot of things that can hear. Heck we EAT a lot of things that can hear.

 

From a different angle, if the baby I just a piece of flesh, then why care about people at all. If it is special, then you we have purpose. Purpose and ethics are bound and some naturalistic answer does not give us purpose. If you try to tear purpose and ethics apart you have anarchy.

 

So, by this logic, if I don't love babies, I shouldn't care about other people? Well guess what? It so happens I'm not particularly enamored by babies. Does that mean because my 'care' meter is faulty by your standards when it comes to infants, then obviously I should be sociopathically carving my initials in someone's butt against their will?

 

I knew I was off schedule today.

 

Babies are not "special".

 

Look at how babies are treated in nature.......they serve a purpose YES. They make easy-to catch carnivore food. Babies cannot reproduce. They are a luxury of plenty (see a comparison of food prevalance and litter size for mice and rabbits). They are as useless as they are helpless. Put four men and four women on an island, they can create a population. Put four boy babies and four girl babies on an island and it won't be long until you have an uninhabited island again.

 

So no, babies are no more or less special than we choose to make them. Something that could very much be said regarding people in general....true. This makes true morality, a very subjective thing. We won't all agree what it is......but there are areas of similarity. This is where we get our laws in the first place. Laws however, ar not indefinite. They can be changed. And when minds change about what is moral and what is not, the laws will eventually change too. Abortion used to be completely illegal after all (not that this stopped anyone determined from having one). Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder at one time too.

[Guest stooch]

I'm not calling athiest baby killers, no way! It was an example to explain my point and I was addressing a specific person's reply.