Christian Morality Cannot Come from the Bible

[ForgedinHell]

Actually, the most horrid parts of the bible come from the so-called New Testament, not the old. Did the so-called old testament ever claim that god would torture someone for all eternity unless they accepted a human sacrifice? Now, that is sick.

I bet Isaac thought the idea of human sacrifice was a barrel of laughs.

The story of Isaac was about having the faith to not sacrifice. I bet you interpret the story as most christians do as showing faith by being willing to sacrifice. You are completely off base. By the way, if Jesus had really lived, I bet he would have thought his sacrifice was a barrel of laughs too. And don't give me this crap about it being god's only begotten son, since god could create as many sons as he wanted to, right?

[Mike Strand]

In trying to understand the people in my family and also acquaintances who believe deeply in the "sacrifice" of Jesus for mankind, the best I can do is to picture the symbolism of this legend (to me ) as God voluntarily giving up Godhood in order to experience what it was like to be human -- the joys and woes and pleasure and pain -- to die, and then to resurrect himself in order to assure believers that they, too, can overcome biological death. This was a powerful message to people whose lives were full of pain, disease, poverty, repression at the hands of the rich and powerful, etc. Life was (and still can be) brutish and short, and the hope for heaven very appealing. OK, I can understand and respect that emotion, that feeling, if not the claim that this can actually be the case for human beings.

To me, sort of along the lines of what FiH writes, it seems a stretch to believe that God, if extant, would actually make Himself so vulnerable, give up all His power, and let things go to "hell", so to speak, for 33 years. God must have known all along that he could rescue himself from death on the cross, so what was the "sacrifice"? Was it a demonstration of what he expected of his followers (e.g., let themselves be tortured and killed, without fighting, by other people as a sacrifice to the "cause"?) It's a real stretch to buy into this, in my view.

Isn't it enough to assume that various human individuals, such as Leviticus or Confucius or Jesus or Mother Teresa, taught the golden rule? Isn't it enough to think about the potential application of the golden rule, and to follow it in cases where it makes good sense for the happiness and survival of human groups?

[ForgedinHell]

In trying to understand the people in my family and also acquaintances who believe deeply in the "sacrifice" of Jesus for mankind, the best I can do is to picture the symbolism of this legend (to me ) as God voluntarily giving up Godhood in order to experience what it was like to be human -- the joys and woes and pleasure and pain -- to die, and then to resurrect himself in order to assure believers that they, too, can overcome biological death. This was a powerful message to people whose lives were full of pain, disease, poverty, repression at the hands of the rich and powerful, etc. Life was (and still can be) brutish and short, and the hope for heaven very appealing. OK, I can understand and respect that emotion, that feeling, if not the claim that this can actually be the case for human beings.

To me, sort of along the lines of what FiH writes, it seems a stretch to believe that God, if extant, would actually make Himself so vulnerable, give up all His power, and let things go to "hell", so to speak, for 33 years. God must have known all along that he could rescue himself from death on the cross, so what was the "sacrifice"? Was it a demonstration of what he expected of his followers (e.g., let themselves be tortured and killed, without fighting, by other people as a sacrifice to the "cause"?) It's a real stretch to buy into this, in my view.

Isn't it enough to assume that various human individuals, such as Leviticus or Confucius or Jesus or Mother Teresa, taught the golden rule? Isn't it enough to think about the potential application of the golden rule, and to follow it in cases where it makes good sense for the happiness and survival of human groups?

Mother Teresa? She was one of the biggest douchebags who ever walked the earth, an immoral creep who should have been criminally prosecuted for murder. She needlessly let people die to make millions and gain power in her church. While people needlessly suffered and died, including kids who could easily have been saved if provided proper medical treatment, Mother Teresa had more than 50 million in one bank account alone. Of course, by not providing medical care to people, and letting people needlessly suffer, the donations were flowing in like crazy. Had she provided actual care for these people, well, that would not have been profitable, and people would be less likely to send in donations, seeing how things were running well and lives were being saved. Plus, she had this sadistic streak that just loved people suffering.

Didn't she congradulate Princess Diana on her divorce, while campaigning in Ireland to keep divorces illegal? Wasn't she friends with Papa Doc? Didn't she keep stolen money she received as a donation from a theif, in return for her letter recommending a pardon to the convicted thief, while refusing to refund the money to the actual victims?

Mother Teresa, as Hitch said, "Too bad there isn't a hell she can go to."

[ForgedinHell]

."

[John]

The story of Isaac was about having the faith to not sacrifice.

The only reason Isaac wasn't sacrificed was because Abraham's hand was stayed at the last moment, through intervention, so who exhibited the faith not to sacrifice?

[Mike Strand]

To FiH: People's actions may belie their words. In the case of Mother Teresa, Leviticus, Confucius, and Jesus, I don't need to assume anything about their actual behavior. I was just listing these as a plausible pronouncers of the golden rule (i.e, the "second great commandment").

My point was that this rule can still be thought about and considered as a rule that may be applicable as part of a society's code of conduct (or its morality), regardless of its source. Even Hitler may have spouted the golden rule, but the rule should be judged on its own merits. I'm trying to avoid argumentum ad hominem, a fallacy I think some have fallen into, in this thread and others.

My other point is that the source of a rule or moral principle being merely human, not divine, is not a reason to discount it automatically.

P. S. There's a fallacy that goes beyond "argumentum ad hominem", that I believe I've seen sometimes in this forum: Making negative (or positive) assumptions about the character or behavior of people you don't really know, as a basis for attacking (or supporting) their arguments. Granted, the negative aspect can be fun and exciting at times.

[Mike Strand]

About Abraham and Isaac: Not easy to interpret or derive a lesson from this story. My first take on it was, "Do whatever God tells you to do, damn the consequences, and sometimes you'll get lucky." Then I thought, well, God isn't speaking to me, like the Bible claims He spoke to Abraham. So I'll just have to use my own judgment after all.

There were times, though, when I contemplated sacrifice of offspring -- when mine became teenagers.

[ForgedinHell]

To FiH: People's actions may belie their words. In the case of Mother Teresa, Leviticus, Confucius, and Jesus, I don't need to assume anything about their actual behavior. I was just listing these as a plausible pronouncers of the golden rule (i.e, the "second great commandment").

My point was that this rule can still be thought about and considered as a rule that may be applicable as part of a society's code of conduct (or its morality), regardless of its source. Even Hitler may have spouted the golden rule, but the rule should be judged on its own merits. I'm trying to avoid argumentum ad hominem, a fallacy I think some have fallen into, in this thread and others.

My other point is that the source of a rule or moral principle being merely human, not divine, is not a reason to discount it automatically.

P. S. There's a fallacy that goes beyond "argumentum ad hominem", that I believe I've seen sometimes in this forum: Making negative (or positive) assumptions about the character or behavior of people you don't really know, as a basis for attacking (or supporting) their arguments. Granted, the negative aspect can be fun and exciting at times.

The golden rule is not a moral rule at all. The Crusaders kept it in mind as they slaughtered Jews, in the hopes of killing every Jew alive. They just told themselves, "If I were a heathen, I would want someone to kill me." And, as I stated previously, a murder-suicide is consistent with the rule, literally. The person who shoots himself, is treating the other as he wants to be treated, by shooting him.

[ForgedinHell]

About Abraham and Isaac: Not easy to interpret or derive a lesson from this story. My first take on it was, "Do whatever God tells you to do, damn the consequences, and sometimes you'll get lucky." Then I thought, well, God isn't speaking to me, like the Bible claims He spoke to Abraham. So I'll just have to use my own judgment after all.

There were times, though, when I contemplated sacrifice of offspring -- when mine became teenagers.

The story of Isaac was written at a time when the Jews were engaging in human sacrifice, along with their neighbors. So, Abe being willing to make the sacrifice would have been no big deal, that's what was going on. The act of faith was not the willingness to kill, but the willingness to let his son live. A clue that this is the point of the story is that the angel has to tell Abe two times to stop. It took faith to believe that god would not cause havoc without a human sacrifice. That is the true meaning of the story. Most Christians don't want to acknowledge the story's true meaning, because the idea of showing faith by sacrificing a son goes with the Christian story about a god sacrificing his son. As a result, most people living in Christian dominated societies have a gross misunderstanding of the story.

The same is true for many of the Jewish stories. Their meanings are typically far different from the popular conceptions. For me, it's just a matter of being intellectually honest. It is not right to distort a belief, and then attack the distorted view.

[Mike Strand]

FiH wrote:

The story of Isaac was written at a time when the Jews were engaging in human sacrifice, along with their neighbors. So, Abe being willing to make the sacrifice would have been no big deal, that's what was going on. The act of faith was not the willingness to kill, but the willingness to let his son live. A clue that this is the point of the story is that the angel has to tell Abe two times to stop. It took faith to believe that god would not cause havoc without a human sacrifice. That is the true meaning of the story. Most Christians don't want to acknowledge the story's true meaning, because the idea of showing faith by sacrificing a son goes with the Christian story about a god sacrificing his son. As a result, most people living in Christian dominated societies have a gross misunderstanding of the story.

The same is true for many of the Jewish stories. Their meanings are typically far different from the popular conceptions. For me, it's just a matter of being intellectually honest. It is not right to distort a belief, and then attack the distorted view.

This has the ring of truth, and thanks for this interpretation of the story. I heard another, related interpretation that is less satisfactory: That it reflects a change in Jewish tradition, away from human sacrifice, and the story supports that change in what they perceived as God's "new" will. Your explanation is much more specific and complete. And it is plausible that the meaning of the story has been changed or distorted by Christian teachers for their purposes.

As for your interesting claim that the golden rule is not a moral principle, I can see how it can be construed to support what many would view as immoral acts -- your example, and also one I thought of, the case of a masochist torturing others because that's what he likes. However, I think it can be interpreted in other ways -- for example as the rule, "Treat yourself and others with kindness and respect", that may reasonably be taken as a code of conduct.

[ForgedinHell]

FiH wrote:

The story of Isaac was written at a time when the Jews were engaging in human sacrifice, along with their neighbors. So, Abe being willing to make the sacrifice would have been no big deal, that's what was going on. The act of faith was not the willingness to kill, but the willingness to let his son live. A clue that this is the point of the story is that the angel has to tell Abe two times to stop. It took faith to believe that god would not cause havoc without a human sacrifice. That is the true meaning of the story. Most Christians don't want to acknowledge the story's true meaning, because the idea of showing faith by sacrificing a son goes with the Christian story about a god sacrificing his son. As a result, most people living in Christian dominated societies have a gross misunderstanding of the story.

The same is true for many of the Jewish stories. Their meanings are typically far different from the popular conceptions. For me, it's just a matter of being intellectually honest. It is not right to distort a belief, and then attack the distorted view.

This has the ring of truth, and thanks for this interpretation of the story. I heard another, related interpretation that is less satisfactory: That it reflects a change in Jewish tradition, away from human sacrifice, and the story supports that change in what they perceived as God's "new" will. Your explanation is much more specific and complete. And it is plausible that the meaning of the story has been changed or distorted by Christian teachers for their purposes.

As for your interesting claim that the golden rule is not a moral principle, I can see how it can be construed to support what many would view as immoral acts -- your example, and also one I thought of, the case of a masochist torturing others because that's what he likes. However, I think it can be interpreted in other ways -- for example as the rule, "Treat yourself and others with kindness and respect", that may reasonably be taken as a code of conduct.

There you go, "Treat others with kindness and respect." That's a moral rule. Now, how come we can read hundreds of pages of religious scripture and not find something so straightforward and meaningful? Too bad it was not listed as the first of the ten commandments. It may have saved the lives of millions of people.

[Mike Strand]

Thanks, FiH!

[John]

About Abraham and Isaac: Not easy to interpret or derive a lesson from this story. My first take on it was, "Do whatever God tells you to do, damn the consequences, and sometimes you'll get lucky." Then I thought, well, God isn't speaking to me, like the Bible claims He spoke to Abraham. So I'll just have to use my own judgment after all.

There were times, though, when I contemplated sacrifice of offspring -- when mine became teenagers.

The story of Isaac was written at a time when the Jews were engaging in human sacrifice, along with their neighbors. So, Abe being willing to make the sacrifice would have been no big deal, that's what was going on. The act of faith was not the willingness to kill, but the willingness to let his son live. A clue that this is the point of the story is that the angel has to tell Abe two times to stop. It took faith to believe that god would not cause havoc without a human sacrifice. That is the true meaning of the story. Most Christians don't want to acknowledge the story's true meaning, because the idea of showing faith by sacrificing a son goes with the Christian story about a god sacrificing his son. As a result, most people living in Christian dominated societies have a gross misunderstanding of the story.

The same is true for many of the Jewish stories. Their meanings are typically far different from the popular conceptions. For me, it's just a matter of being intellectually honest. It is not right to distort a belief, and then attack the distorted view.

That's an interesting interpretation but if the Wikipedia article on The Binding of Isaac is to be believed then it is not the only one. I suspect different groups of Jews often interpret scriptures differently in the same way that different groups of Christians do.

[reasonvemotion]

FIH

There you go, "Treat others with kindness and respect." That's a moral rule. Now, how come we can read hundreds of pages of religious scripture and not find something so straightforward and meaningful? Too bad it was not listed as the first of the ten commandments. It may have saved the lives of millions of people.

Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

[John]

FIH

There you go, "Treat others with kindness and respect." That's a moral rule. Now, how come we can read hundreds of pages of religious scripture and not find something so straightforward and meaningful? Too bad it was not listed as the first of the ten commandments. It may have saved the lives of millions of people.

Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

A lengthy part of this debate has been about FiH's insistence that it is immoral to do unto others as you would have them do unto you or at least that it is an immoral principle because because it will not always lead to outcomes considered desirable by the person on the receiving end. For example, I may be a sadomasochist who enjoys being punched in the face but but most others probably wouldn't want me to do to them as I would like done to me in that case.

I think FiH makes a reasonable point but I believe his objection to this positive form of the Golden Rule is probably overstated because it's main intent, as I interpret it but no doubt others will disagree, is that it is fundamentally encouraging people to do good rather than just avoid doing harm. It should be considered in the context of "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" but it should not be interpreted to mean that it is justifiable to impose your world-view on others.