ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Christianity, the Bible & Jesus

The Immorality of Christianity

Updated on August 21, 2012

The comedian Ricky Gervais once said that “they (Christians) haven‘t a monopoly on good“. Not only do they have no monopoly but they have no share in morality. They are the immoral enemies of good. I will qualify that. Not all who identify themselves as Christians are immoral enemies of good, but all who fully believe that the bible is the literal word of god surely are.

First of all, biblical morality is thoroughly immoral. This is clear, and will be returned to with a weight of evidence.

Free Riders

But we must also consider the less well-known fact that springs from their status as enemies of rationality. For rationality is the source of our understanding of good, it has been revealed by centuries of philosophical discourse. But they deny this and claim that morality comes from the immoral bible. Therefore we can see that the Christian reaps the rewards of our acting as moral beings while not subscribing to that morality themselves. Not only do they benefit from our morality which safeguards them from persecution, but they simultaneously seek to impose their immorality on the rest of us with biblical based legislation.

Parallels can be drawn between their relation to morality and their relation to science. In both cases they are free riders. In science they are the equivalent of holocaust deniers holding onto antiquated ideas in the face of evidence. They hold that the earth is 6000 years old and deny evolution. Consequently they hold a contempt for science and launch attacks against it, while reaping its benefits such as modern medicine. The physicist Lawrence Krauss highlighted the paradox when noting that President Bush and his creationist followers responded to the threat of avian flu with science and vaccines. They didn't follow their beliefs to its logical conclusion and say that the virus was intelligently designed with the purpose to kill.

God's Will?
God's Will?

Biblical Morality

But what of biblical morality. Before dealing with the specifics let us consider the beautiful summation given by Richard Dawkins

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

This cannot be denied for the old testament is littered with behaviour proving Dawkins position. For is this Godly paragon of virtue not bloodthirsty, genocidal and an ethnic cleanser?

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” -Samuel 15:3

Then again, genocide and ethnic cleansing often spring from racism, and so it should be of no surprise to us that

“The LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” - Deuteronomy 7:6

Or that


“An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever.” - Deuteronomy 23:3

And some slavery for good measure

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." - Exodus 21:20-21

Not content with racism, slavery and genocide, God also indulges in baby killing.

“At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.” -Exodus 12:29

Anyone who gets their morality from God’s example is clearly immoral, perhaps mentally ill.

The Commandments

And what of God’s commandments, what moral wisdom do they display?

1 “You shall have no other gods before Me.”

2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.

3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.

Okay so far he is only concerned with himself, plenty of proof of the unforgiving and petty control freak of which Dawkins spoke. Quite the self obsessed psychopath it would seem. If the ten commandments are the basis of our morality, then four tenths of it relates to how we feel about the apparently, all good, all powerful creator. Seemingly there is no contradiction between these characteristics and the self obsession displayed. Not only is self obsession evident, but as is an irrational jealousy. The perfect, all powerful and good God is jealous of decisions taken by his imperfect creations. The final commandments are not too bad or disagreeable. It is just a shame they contradict all the other hatred and drivel within the book and so are a teardrop of good in an ocean of vile hatred and backwardness.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Druid Dude profile image

      Druid Dude 4 years ago from West Coast

      From a literary stand point, this is a really well written hub, and, if I may, I could only point out that the main problem with christianity isn't the bible itself, or even the true teachings of Jesus, but the fact that people down through history have cherry picked both to support whatever twisted agenda they themseles supported. Hitler, being one, found justification that really doesn't exist to bolster the eradication of the Jews (and anyone else he didn't like) As did early Americans in finding good cause to place others into lifelong servitude. They are outside the teaching and always have been. Even the pedophile c0ontroversy with the catholics. Dawkins is mistaken in this claim, for the ten commandments are about how we treat other human beings and only one deals with having no other gods. In my own beliefs, man and god are synomomous. They are two different states of the same thing, like colored, flavored water and JELLO. Keep writing!!!

    • Logos831 profile image

      Logos831 4 years ago from somewhere, ca

      I found it interesting that you say that rationality is the source of understanding [what is] good. I'm just wondering how you came to that belief? It seems to me that plenty of evil people have used rationality to justify their evil deeds, like druid pointed out above with the example of Hitler . Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, believed in negative eugenics as a way of stopping lesser, "unfit people" from reproducing. She rationalized her beliefs too like Hitler through their belief in survival of the fittest. Stalin was a staunch atheist and used his beliefs to kill millions of people in the earth 20th century. Pol Pot and Mao Zedong also used their atheistic, Darwinist beliefs to further their reigns of murdering millions of people. It seems to me that "rational" atheistic beliefs have led to billions of lives killed in the recent centuries in comparison to Christianity.

    • ninapaints profile image

      ninapaints 4 years ago

      Disagree with Dawkins ...God is a jealous good God, but fairness was never promised..nothing about life is fair anyway...I believe in the God of the bible, and our need for a savior. Mankind needs to be saved from himself!

    • Comrade Joe profile image
      Author

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      Thank you both for the feedback.

      @ Druid Dude - I don't see how you can see that only one commandment does not deal with how we treat other people. The first 4 are all about God - me, me, me. But I also don't think that there is an issue with people cherry picking from the bible to justify their own twisted views. If the bible did not contain such passages then they would not be able to do this. The very fact we know things like genocide and slavery are wrong is clear evidence that we get our morals outwith the supposed word of god.

      @Logos - That certain atheists may have done immoral things is besides the point. For that does not make atheism bad or wrong, neither does the fact certain Christians have done immoral acts make Christianity wrong. What makes Christianity so wrong and immoral is the message at its very core. If one believes the bible is the literal word of god then that compels them to being pro-genocide, racism, sexism and slavery - these are all things we know are wrong. There is no atheist doctrine which compels us to such immoral beliefs.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      "If one believes the bible is the literal word of god then that compels them to being pro-genocide, racism, sexism and slavery - these are all things we know are wrong. There is no atheist doctrine which compels us to such immoral beliefs."

      It makes sense you believe this, and it is good that you have these convictions. But how do you know things like genocide, racism, sexism and slavery are wrong?

      Also, there is no atheist doctrine that lay out a consistent morality. (that is why I ask what I do.)

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      Great hub as ever Comrade, voted up etc.

      Millercl: if I may answer the question not directed at me, personally I have always found a combination of the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have done on yourself" and the utilitarian code: "Do as is the greatest good for the greatest number" to be fine guidelines, humanism and utilitarianism are non theistic systems of ethics and as you can see from above following those codes would (except in the most extreme and bizarre of circumstances in which case it would be a necessary evil somehow) prevent racism, sexism, slavery etc.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      Josak, no problem man.

      When you suggest doing the greatest good, that is begging the question since deciding whether something is good or not is a morality issue. Does that make sense? Like, if I ask you to tell me what good is and you say good is doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

      I am sure that is why you would pair it with, "Do unto others..." but that is very subjective. Not a basis per say. (Though I do agree with it after the fact, once you decide what is good and bad.)

    • Nathan Orf profile image

      Nathan Orf 4 years ago

      You seem to be referring to the most fundamentalist of evangelical Christians. No complaint there. Their beliefs are not even in line with what I believe Jesus would have accepted. He would be most out of place among today's evangelical Christians.

      But I am catholic, and my own experience with most other Christians is not all that bad. We are not averse to reason or rationality; Did you know that Carl Sagan was a Christian?

      Your argument that Christianity is immoral because of the immorality that you see in the bible holds carries little wight, I think. The bible was written in a different time, in a different age. It was written by men who came from a small, still obscure, often victimized group. Of course they thought of themselves as special. They needed a reason to believe that they, or their god, would destroy their enemies.

      We need to look at the bible for what it really is; a relic of history. No one in their right mind, not even mainstream Christians, accepts everything that the bible says as the word of god. Except for Fundamentalist Christians.

      There is nothing immoral about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religion. It is, in other words, possible to live a moral life, and still be religious.

    • Comrade Joe profile image
      Author

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      @ Nathan I did state in my opening paragraph that people who identify themselves as Christian but do not follow the bible as literal truth, can be moral.

      However, I also was raised in the Catholic tradition and am all too aware of its awful record. Rather than the bible being infallible - the Pope is. I don't know what is worse, believing the word of bronze age shepards or the word of an aged out of touch man. That means the pope is never wrong. Therefore, when the church changes its stance on a subject, both the stance changed from and to are considered correct. For example, the papacy used to say we could not eat meat on Friday, now the papacy does not hold this. How can all Pope's be infallible yet contradict one another. And there must be some moral issues around believing a protector of child abusers is the representative of God on earth. So either he is not the representative of God, or God indeed is like the scummy character the bible portrays.

      And how can you reconcile science, evolution and the age of the earth with the catholic doctrine of original sin (a deeply immoral doctrine of collective punishment)? How can the church accept these scientific facts yet still hold a doctrine that is based on Adam and Eve and the story of creation found in the book of genesis? I hope you see this contradiction.

      Also, if mainstream Christians do not even believe what the bible says, surely that tells them there is something fundamentally wrong about their belief system: that they have to cherry pick the nice bits of scripture and ignore the nasty.

      I am glad you say the bible is a relic of history. I am just not sure that the Pope or too many Bishops or Cardinals would agree with you. If they did hold that, they would not have priests preach from it.

    • Comrade Joe profile image
      Author

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      @Millercl - you raise a fair point, and it is one philosophers have wrestled with. But the conception of good need not be so vacuous as the particular formulation which you made. We don't have to say good is to do the greatest good for the greatest number. But something to the effect of "good is to maximise utility for the greatest number."

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      How do you suggest we define utility?

    • Comrade Joe profile image
      Author

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      It may depend on the social character of the act concerned. But we will tend to be guided by things like does the act produce pleasure, or aversion to pain and suffering, does it benefit the majority or the minority/ the weak or the strong.

      I will stress I am not saying this is an exhaustive account of morality, far from it, but this is pretty much the foundation of rational morality. We must of course consider things like ends and means, commission v omission, mitigation and so on.

    • ninapaints profile image

      ninapaints 4 years ago

      Nathan, have you ever read the bible in it's entirety? Putting all preconceived notions aside, have you ever read it prayerfully and with an open mind as if it were written by the creator of you? I mean, if what's contained there in, is actually the 'word of God' we should consider every possibility. There's a verse in the NT, that states that 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...' We say it's written by man, and that 'no one in their right mind would accept everything the bible says as the word of God.' But what is a 'right mind' and what is normal, and what is truth? and who are we to suppose we know it? Anyway, I just thought you might like to try it...btw, I'm just a Christian..not a fundamentalist, evangelist or a member of any denomination .

    • Nathan Orf profile image

      Nathan Orf 4 years ago

      Comrade Joe,

      I do see the contradiction. It is all a matter of choice. Some people choose to ignore science and rationality, except when it suits them (like George Bush and the bird flu vaccines), other people choose to study science in order to reach a rational conclusion. The rest choose to reconcile the two, and, if you go back far enough in time, the two are reconcilable.

      I do not think Christians are inherently immoral because of their belief that the bible is the word of god. You have to read it in the context of the time it was written. The bible speaks of slavery. So did Aristotle. The bible speaks of dominating women. Ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, was a horrible place for women, too. Is Western Civilization inherently immoral, then, because Greece was a misogynistic, slave-holding society at the time that democracy came along?

      And how many ways are there to interpret god? Dozens. One can choose to believe in the embodiment portrayed in the Old Testament, which is truly a relic, or they can embrace a more accepting god, like the one Jesus portrays, in the New Testament.

      I agree that the Roman Catholic Church is sliding in a backward direction. Their stance on contraception really bothers me, because contraception is not a part of Jesus's actual teachings. Neither is abortion or homosexuality. But the Church has changed before, and it will again.

    • Comrade Joe profile image
      Author

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      We can't really compare the slavery in Aristotle to the slavery in the bible. Of course they are both the work of man, but one is not supposed to be. I expect that an all powerful God would if he thought slavery wrong have included it in his book. I can accept evaluating the work of Aristotle in it's historical context, but not the supposed work of an omnipotent deity . The latter should and I would think is meant to reflect some kind of eternal truth.

      I would agree there is no condemnation of homosexuality from Jesus (to the best of my knowledge). But Christianity is based on more than just the teachings of the earthly Jesus, particularly in Catholicism Jesus is God and God is Jesus - they are indivisible so I would infer that when the bible says "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them", then surely this is much the word of Jesus as "do unto others".

      Finally I am keen to know how do you manage to reconcile that particular contradiction? How can you believe in evolution and the doctrine of original sin? I just don't know how that is possible.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      "I will stress I am not saying this is an exhaustive account of morality, far from it, but this is pretty much the foundation of rational morality. We must of course consider things like ends and means, commission v omission, mitigation and so on."

      It is so wide open, that is exactly why it isn't the basis for rational morality. In fact, without God, you only have a subjective, irrational morality.

      I would suggest you consider the consistency there is in the biblical def of goodness, morality thereof, etc and you will see it all fits. Christianity is a worldview in itself. The way you will demonstrate it is wrong is through demonstrating contradictions within itself, not by using a baseless morality system then trying to judge another morality system.

      Does that make sense? ( I also see you are engaged with another fellow, of which I don't want to be associated with. So please, if you would, respond to me distinctively separate from him or her.)

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      "Finally I am keen to know how do you manage to reconcile that particular contradiction? How can you believe in evolution and the doctrine of original sin? I just don't know how that is possible."

      Haha. So true. While I am not a comrade in believing that evolution is true, it is wildly inconsistent to hold these two beliefs as true.

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      First I think we must accept the idea of natural morality, it did not take Christianity to create morality, indeed, long before Christianity reached them places like India, Japan and China had advanced codes of philosophy and morality many of them non theistic so to suggest that "God" is necessary for morality is preposterous when evidence shows this untrue, furthermore the areas dominated by the Christian beliefs during the middle ages are not what we would call the most moral, there seems to be no correlation between Christianity (or any faith) and morality.

      Because non theistic morality might not have strict rules does not make it inferior or irrational, quite the opposite, rational morality is functional to the situation where rule ethics might not be. The bible tells us not to steal but stealing is sometimes the more moral act and rational ethics allows us to determine that, thus making it often superior.

      The proof though, as they say, is in the pudding, experimentally how does Christian morality affect real world actions? Recent studies have shown that actually (in the US) atheists are far less likely to be imprisoned than the religious counterparts (by more than double) and religious nations and areas within nations actually have higher crime rates, which would speak directly against any suggestion that Christianity leads to more ethical behavior.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      The idea that other cultures have morality is explained by the bible, which says there is a law written in their hearts.

      I am not saying you know morality by knowing Christianity. I am saying that Christianity is the only consistent way to make sense of morality. Evidence like you suggest simply shows that cultures behaved in some ways that we could label as moral. But if you take the worldview of Christianity and apply it to the evidence, the bible demonstrates this would be the case.

      Also, just because men and women say they were Christians doesn't mean they truly were or they truly sought to practice Christianity. Their actions don't disprove the validity of Christianity as much as the actions of faithful men and women don't prove it is true. (Thus we could sit here all day and you would say, so and so was a Christian murdered someone, therefore Christianity is false. Then I simply say, so and so confessed the gospel as commanded and therefore Christianity is true. This is not an area of contention. I have even not done Christianity right, but that doesn't prove Christianity is false or wrong...)

      The non theistic morality is simply a game of subjectivity. Rational ethics? Tell me, is being irrational unethical? You are going to eventual pander to relativism...

      Again, just because a person gets on all fours and barks doesn't mean they are a dog. Just because these folks [convicts] would say they are religious doesn't mean they are. I am not suggesting that Christianity leads to more ethical behavior, I am saying you actually have a basis for morality or ethics.

    • Comrade Joe profile image
      Author

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      @Millercl - I would firstly endorse the comments made by Josak, and will consequently try to avoid reiterating points he has made.

      "Christianity is the only consistent way to make sense of morality". - I don't see how this can be so. In fact I find it entirely inconsistent. " Do unto others..." and “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and as”, seems to me to be a contradictory moral code.

      Similarly "the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" Exodus 34:14, and "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God" Galtians 5:19-21 - this screams inconsistent morality.

      "The non theistic morality is simply a game of subjectivity. Rational ethics? Tell me, is being irrational unethical? You are going to eventual pander to relativism." - Some sort of relativism is fine. I'm certainly no cultural relativist, but I am a relativist in the sense that I recognize that we are evolved species. As an evolved species we are by definition not static in nature, we evolve socially as well as physically. Our social evolution has reached a point where we devise a complex moral code out of the simple primitive morality of early man. Essentially our morality evolves in accordance with existing material conditions. As production develops so do ideas and consciousness: the birth of modern capitalism dramatically shifted our understanding, notions of liberty and equality, the rights of man etc - became central to our ethics. They weren't always there, they evolved in relation to the material world. I believe we will continue to evolve in this manner and continue to construct a more complex and diverse morality - one that correlates to the future world, ultimately we will develop a proletarian morality which develops from, mutates and evolves from bourgeois morality, which did the same from feudal morality...and so on and so forth.

    • profile image

      TWO-SIDES2-A-COIN 4 years ago

      As I will use only as an example: Say If one considers their self a Christian, because they may believe the basic beliefs of the Old and New Testament, then they most likely do consider themselves as gods. And as gods, I mean to state, that they may have an inherent belief, that they are the masters, and others not of their own belief, are therefore beleived by them to be beneath them, because they desire to be what the bible tells them they should be. I agree with your main story idea here, that there is a form of immorality being taught in the religious writings, and hence the beliefs that are taught to the disciples of certain religions. As a parent or society teaches their children or citizens, so shall the behavior of them be. If someone is taught that it is alright to physically strike someone for certain reasons, and it is enforced by the examples of rules, regulations, laws, or penalties, well then this will become a normal part of personal beliefs and of societal behavior, and therefore the acceptance of everyone involved, including those that the immorality is being done against. I'm sure I need not go into detail of examples, of where others have used barbaric behavior toward others, in their methods to display and control others, that are not able to defend themselves. There are all to many examples, that have happened, or are happening, every single moment in time. We all can only try to speak out the truth, for at the very least, this is our best offense in bringing light, to the indefensible things, that we as human beings do toward one another. That is what I love about the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it allows for light to expose hypocrisy. Good luck, Sincerely TWO-SIDES2-A-COIN

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      @ Comrade Joe:

      First, if we are examining the morality of the bible, then we must assume the fundamentals of the bible when attempting to point out a contradiction. If God is the creator and law-maker, as the bible reveals, then what He commands is good and true. So, if He wishes to carry out judgement on a people group and uses Israel to do so, then it is right and good He do so. No moral inconsistency there. (Because it is God ordaining and commanding the judgement be done. That is hard to swallow because you don't believe in God and you have your particular presuppositions about morality, but it is consistent within the Christian worldview.)

      Concerning the Jealousy, God is in a different place than people, in the sense that when He is jealous, the object of His jealousy is rightly His. General He had grown jealous of Jews' praise and worship of idols, etc. When people are jealous, it tends to be in a way that they want something that doesn't belong to them. That is a simple way of describing it, but it does share the difference between the two verses and their meanings. (That is a good point though.)

      Relativism is inconsistent, arbitrary and offers not solid grounds to judge the morality of other worldviews. Look, I understand why you say what you do, but you are saying Christians are wrong and inconsistent, contradictory, etc while holding to a morality that can be demonstrated as inconsistent and contradictory itself. The difference would be that I could provide a consistent way to understand your objections while I don't believe you can. (Not consistent in the sense that you would believe them, but rational or logically consistent.)

    • Comrade Joe profile image
      Author

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      @ Millercl -

      I’m afraid what your first paragraph does is to make mockery of morality. It means you are saying things are good because it is done or commanded by God. The implication of this is that God acts arbitrarily, he does not command what is good but acts are good by virtue of his command. It trivialises morality and reduces it to the product of arbitrary whims. If God says “thou must kill” or “thou must rape”, then these acts would be good and just by such reasoning.

      The very notion of a jealous God means God is not as he is meant to be. It means he is imperfect. For if he were perfect then he would be neither jealous, nor would he have created a flawed people which made him jealous either. The whole argument you advance on jealousy only reinforces my position over the arbitrary nature of his morality. Jealousy is good when it is God’s jealousy, wrong when it is ours. Therefore, we can further infer that good only means commanded by God. So again, if he says “thou must rape”, then that is good. It really trivialises morality and renders good all but meaningless.

      Some type of evolutionary, historical relativism is far less inconsistent than it may intuitively seem. It is consistent as it continually evolves, not by chance but as the scientific method and logic is applied to the ever-changing material world. We apply proven methodological thinking, rather than pick and choose from scripture. The great consistency is the use of reason. Reason and logic told us slavery was wrong, certainly not God.

      Also, our 185th million grandparent of ours was a fish. It would be ludicrous to say that our primitive ancestor should be held to some sort of eternal morality, some a priori endless truth. Morality can only develop alongside a social consciousness. Now I know you will simply deny evolution to get out of this problem, but that really is no valid escape route. As you may as well argue the earth is flat.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      Let's go through this one by one.

      What makes God commanding the Jews to carry out judgement on another people group arbitrary?

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      Hold on, before you go on:

      I will gladly defend a little of what I believe, but what is wrong with being arbitrary? From your POV isn't it ok?

      Now, if you are trying to say there is an inconsistency with what I believe here, that there is a contradiction in the manner of: 'God commands we don't kill then God demands we kill', then I would simply suggest that God is using what He created to carry out judgement on His creation.

      I don't think it would be hard to demonstrate that a better understanding of "Thou shall not kill" would be "thou shall not murder". Considering that, when the Jews, commanded by God to carry out judgement on a people group, they were not 'murdering' in the command sense. (Though you might not accept it, believe it, like it, etc, this does keep consistency.)

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      God's Jealousy:

      How do you know what a perfect God is to be like? Again, as a Christian, we define our God by what the bible reveals. Since it can be understood that God is perfect, then it is fine that He is jealous in the manner described. But don't confuse that jealousy with the jealousy we are told to be wary of. They are two different kinds of jealousy and you are comparing apples to oranges.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      Finally, if your morality is still evolving, changing, etc, then by your consent you will never know what is right or wrong, good and evil, etc. In fact, if you are truly evolutionary, then there is nothing wrong with killing if it advances your ilk.

      Reason and logic told us slavery was wrong? Under what flag did people abolish slavery? Was it under reason and logic or inherent freedom granted from a living God?

      If you believe in evolution, then everything is meaningless. You are simply a machine consisting of stimuli and responses. There is no 'meaning' to life other than what you arbitrarily apply to it. In fact, 'logically' it would better to terminate life now rather than risk the pain and suffering of living.

    • Comrade Joe profile image
      Author

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      1) If god commands not what is good, but what commanded is good because it is commanded, then his judgements cannot be anything but arbitrary. This is quite straightforward, for if God had commanded gentiles to carry out judgement on the jews, you would have to say that is good. So it is good either way, no matter what he does. Therefore good is arbitrary.

      2) If God gives contradictory commands is him carrying out his judgement on his creation, then it necessarily follows that his creation is flawed, and that he is imperfect. Therefore he is not the god he purports to be.

      3) You are defining jealousy out of existence. You say that God’s jealousy is not like our jealousy. Well if that is the case then it is no longer jealousy, it is something else. If when the bible says that God is a jealous God it doesn’t actually mean he is jealous, then it should not say he is and is it is the literal word of a perfect God it follows that he would not say he is a jealous God If you want to believe and say that God is a jealous god, then fine, but you cannot have it both ways by defining jealousy out of existence when it suits to do so.

      4a) It doesn’t follow that if morality evolves then there would be nothing wrong with killing if it advances our ilk. It is self-contradictory as you present the premise that “if morality evolves” to reach a conclusion that would assume an eternal truth or good: advancing biological evolution, as displayed by “there would be nothing wrong with killing if it advances our ilk. This is a vulgarization of evolution, often noted by professor Dawkins on the following basis. Just because we are evolutionists does not mean we hold evolution as some kind of ultimate good or end to be strived for, evolution just happens, it is a natural occurrence. But just because it occurs in the natural world and that we evolve, does not mean we have to live our life in a way that strives to somehow help or guide evolution along. Instead as the material world evolves so too does our understanding of it. Being a biological Darwinist does not make us social Darwinists. The actual social Darwinists paradoxically tend to be the religious believers such as the right wing of the Republican Party in the US or the Tories in the UK.

      b) It certainly was not Christianity that told people slavery was wrong since the bible is full of pro-slavery passages. So it had to come from somewhere else, such as empirical experience, human feeling and rational moral philosophy.

      c) It would not be logical to kill oneself in order to avoid pain and suffering. That assumes the world is so horrible that pain and suffering outweighs pleasure and happiness. We have all been “dead” for millions of years, and will be “dead” for millions more. We are fortunate that for a brief period of time we have life and all that it entails. That gives the atheist all the more reason to live a good life: we appreciate that it is short, extremely unlikely to happen yet has, we don’t hold out hope for a perfect afterlife and instead try to make the best of the one life we have.

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      TO add to what Joe said evolutionarily speaking there is no more valuable asset to a species than diversity which allows us to find members with immunities to certain illnesses etc.

      More to the point: christian morality evolves too, just poorly and slowly, you will find very few Christians left willing to stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night, why? Because the Christian morality has evolved, the only difference is the evolution of non theistic morality is dictated by pure reason and empathy while the evolution of theistic morality is based on reason and empathy hampered and crippled by illogical, outdated and backwards beliefs.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 4 years ago

      Josak, there are not Christians who will do that because that is not part of the new covenant. That just shows me you don't understand Christianity. No part of modern Christianity will suggest stoning a woman to death. If they do, it is a gross misunderstanding of what the bible teaches.

      I didn't think evolution had a goal in mind either. Also, the pure reason you talk about doesn't exist in the evolutionary world you suggest. In fact, morality is a fantasy of yours, or an illusion in the sense that you are merely a bundle of nerves and biological goop. Seriously, you are not different than an animal. What is right and wrong if you are just following the way you are made? Can something evolve wrong? Is there a right way something is suppose to evolve? Also, you don't know for a fact that there is no more valuable asset to a species than diversity because you are not done evolving. For all you know, this could be a wrong offshoot and this diversity thing is the worse thing that could have happened.

      How ignorant to take 20,000 years of human history (I am being generous), and suggest we would know the best of everything considering you believe the universe is 14 billion years old. That is more laughable than learning one character of an alphabet then suggesting you understand all the languages.

    Click to Rate This Article