Big Picture on Biblical Morality
Atheists are always getting us to lose slight of the big picture. They put so many little knit picking arguments like "in Passage X God commands them to kill so and so,and so and so didn't do anything that wrong."
They will present a massive profusion of such passages, most of which (thinking of the OT now) are based upon the fact that people over 2000 years ago looked at things very differently and had different standards of what constituted morality, truth, compassion and brutality. So naturally a great deal ancient world morality will seem very brutal to us.
But the atheists always distract us form the big picture. Every time I try to demonstrate one or two major principles that over sweep the whole field and tie up all the problems into one neat little point that can easily resolved, they just go "Yea? well about here, where x got stoned for blowing his nose?" "what about about where God tells them to wipe out the Pedestriakites and kill even the bacteria on their dinner plates?!! that's bad, God is BAD BAD BAD!!!"
But never will they just face the central point and take it like real thinkers. They want this massive profusion of problematic verses to stand in the way of rally understanding or thinking about Biblical morality; and often much what passes for their problematic verses is misunderstood.
DD presents a lit of what's wrong with Jesus' morality, here's what he does:
(a) doubles up on synoptic passages so he can present them like four different instances, instant multiplicity of examples. Now Jesus dint' say "pluck out your eye" once, but four times! four times as bad!
(b) mostly misunderstood because no attempt is made to watch for figurative language so he sees "i come to bring not peace but a sword" as a literal statement that Jesus likes war! I can't even begin to comment.
But in this thread I want to ask each and everyone of you special, pease do not quote an massive profusion of texts in a vain attempt to show "how bad the bible is." Let's stick to the two central poinkts that I want to get at.Please?
Point 1: OT morality is progressive.
that's right. It doesn't seem so because it is brutal and unfair in many places. But:
(a) still better than surrounding cultures that had infant sacrifice and no ruels for freeing of slaves in jubilee year, no prohibitions against raping slave women, or civil recompense for rape or anything of the kind.
(b) Points to advancements in moral thinking over and above what the others had in terms of; written code, basic rights for slaves, expectation of humane treatment, laws to help the poor, ect.
The point; God told Israel they would be a light to the gentiles, they were. Their example led to better morality on a progressive scale; but it took time of course. Yet the standards did change.
Now of course atheists will argue that this is not indicative of a divine plan. On the other hand it meshes perfectly with my view of inspiration. It's not a memo from God but a collection of writings that are inspired by divine/human encounter.
Moreover, remember the principle of shadow to substance!
the Mosaic law was impossed to show how bad bad could be. It was a measuring stick to demonstrate and clearly define sin. It was not the solution to sin. So it shows how hard it is to live perfectly and how difficult it is to keep a benchmark of righteousness, it's suppossed to be hard and unreasonable; because trying to live a holy life under our own effectors is hard and unreasonable.
But in the NT we find God entering history as a man, and we have a direct example of what to do, just follow Jesus' charter. which leads to point 2.
Point 2: Jesus anticipated the Categorical imperative.
that gives us a logical modern framework in which to play out Christian morality in a deontolgoical fashion.
The imprative of Kant anticipated (and that's where Kant got it) in the golden rules do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The "as you would hagve them do unto you" clause is what makes it clever, because it is both objective and flexible at the same time.
These two points explain the basis of Biblical morlaity and they make up for all the little picky verses where God appears to be a rotter, because they explain why the context of OT morality is so culturally bound, and demarcate a sense in which OT morality is progressive. It also explains NT as modern, advanced, loigcal and Kantian.
Metacrock
They will present a massive profusion of such passages, most of which (thinking of the OT now) are based upon the fact that people over 2000 years ago looked at things very differently and had different standards of what constituted morality, truth, compassion and brutality. So naturally a great deal ancient world morality will seem very brutal to us.
But the atheists always distract us form the big picture. Every time I try to demonstrate one or two major principles that over sweep the whole field and tie up all the problems into one neat little point that can easily resolved, they just go "Yea? well about here, where x got stoned for blowing his nose?" "what about about where God tells them to wipe out the Pedestriakites and kill even the bacteria on their dinner plates?!! that's bad, God is BAD BAD BAD!!!"
But never will they just face the central point and take it like real thinkers. They want this massive profusion of problematic verses to stand in the way of rally understanding or thinking about Biblical morality; and often much what passes for their problematic verses is misunderstood.
DD presents a lit of what's wrong with Jesus' morality, here's what he does:
(a) doubles up on synoptic passages so he can present them like four different instances, instant multiplicity of examples. Now Jesus dint' say "pluck out your eye" once, but four times! four times as bad!
(b) mostly misunderstood because no attempt is made to watch for figurative language so he sees "i come to bring not peace but a sword" as a literal statement that Jesus likes war! I can't even begin to comment.
But in this thread I want to ask each and everyone of you special, pease do not quote an massive profusion of texts in a vain attempt to show "how bad the bible is." Let's stick to the two central poinkts that I want to get at.Please?
Point 1: OT morality is progressive.
that's right. It doesn't seem so because it is brutal and unfair in many places. But:
(a) still better than surrounding cultures that had infant sacrifice and no ruels for freeing of slaves in jubilee year, no prohibitions against raping slave women, or civil recompense for rape or anything of the kind.
(b) Points to advancements in moral thinking over and above what the others had in terms of; written code, basic rights for slaves, expectation of humane treatment, laws to help the poor, ect.
The point; God told Israel they would be a light to the gentiles, they were. Their example led to better morality on a progressive scale; but it took time of course. Yet the standards did change.
Now of course atheists will argue that this is not indicative of a divine plan. On the other hand it meshes perfectly with my view of inspiration. It's not a memo from God but a collection of writings that are inspired by divine/human encounter.
Moreover, remember the principle of shadow to substance!
the Mosaic law was impossed to show how bad bad could be. It was a measuring stick to demonstrate and clearly define sin. It was not the solution to sin. So it shows how hard it is to live perfectly and how difficult it is to keep a benchmark of righteousness, it's suppossed to be hard and unreasonable; because trying to live a holy life under our own effectors is hard and unreasonable.
But in the NT we find God entering history as a man, and we have a direct example of what to do, just follow Jesus' charter. which leads to point 2.
Point 2: Jesus anticipated the Categorical imperative.
that gives us a logical modern framework in which to play out Christian morality in a deontolgoical fashion.
The imprative of Kant anticipated (and that's where Kant got it) in the golden rules do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The "as you would hagve them do unto you" clause is what makes it clever, because it is both objective and flexible at the same time.
These two points explain the basis of Biblical morlaity and they make up for all the little picky verses where God appears to be a rotter, because they explain why the context of OT morality is so culturally bound, and demarcate a sense in which OT morality is progressive. It also explains NT as modern, advanced, loigcal and Kantian.
Metacrock
Comments
Good post. I'm reading some of Kant now but I have to get through Hume first before I get really involved.
I really enjoy your blog.
I am a decenter from the conventional line about "objective" morality. That is not really in the play book of academic ethical thinking.
I don't know why evangelicals can't read Dorothy Emmett. She was and Evangelical and highly respected. I urge everyone to read her book The Moral Prism. She does not say anything about "objective" morality, far from it. She says morality will always be contestable.
Good post. I'm reading some of Kant now but I have to get through Hume first before I get really involved.
I really enjoy your blog.
Hey thanks man. Glad you enjoy it.
As an atheist, I won't deny that certain aspects of the book, taken in broad strokes, display a general moral progression. As a christian, I don't think you would deny that interpretation of the bible has also undergone a moral progression. Indeed, all of history, taken in broad strokes, has been progressive in that broad sense.
My point is that the argument about whether the bible is good or bad doesn't address the contention that we, human beings, are the ones who have realized which selections of the bible are good and which are bad and how we've managed to do that. We disagree about whether or not that's the result of divine inspiration, the Holy Spirit, or the fact that treating people the way we want to be treated, telling the truth, and not murdering each other make for more successful living than their opposites.
I know we could go in circles over this, and I'm sure neither of us is interested in doing that here-- believe it or not, we get as exhausted with some christians as christians get with some atheists. I'm just playing a little counterpoint here for the sake of amplifying the discussion a bit.
Just bear in mind that many atheists regard such broad strokes regarding the bible's thematic elements just as frustrating as you find the atheist's attempt to get mired down in some of the dirtier details. I think it's the result of some deep seeded need on both sides to never concede a single point lest you take some rhetorical step towards becoming a christian or an atheist.
Anyway, I've already gone on longer than I wanted to. Thanks for a nice post and jump starting my brain a bit.
In my mind "progressive morality" means "progressive revelation of morality" and that's the thought I took from your post (which fits with my view). Progressive revelation would still have a objective standard, but it would just be incrementally communicated and, of course, incrementally binding.
Thanks for the Dorothy Emmett recommendation. I'm always looking for insight into this issue.
well see I think the minority reasonable atheists just assume the others have reasonable motivations because they do. But you are right I should have said "Dawkamentalists" rather than atheists.
And we take the fact that the bible includes passages that we all agree are barbaric (by today's standards) as proof that it is a book written by human beings and not by (or inspired by) a god.
Of course its a book written by human beings. No one argues against that.No one thinks God wrote the bible.
As an atheist, I won't deny that certain aspects of the book, taken in broad strokes, display a general moral progression. As a christian, I don't think you would deny that interpretation of the bible has also undergone a moral progression. Indeed, all of history, taken in broad strokes, has been progressive in that broad sense.
Yes of course the moral bits show progression, that's because the people and culture (influenced by God) came to a better understanding.
My point is that the argument about whether the bible is good or bad doesn't address the contention that we, human beings, are the ones who have realized which selections of the bible are good and which are bad and how we've managed to do that.
I don't understand how you would go about adopting God's view point blank without translating it into cultural constructs. Language is a cultural construct. It would be impossible to talk unless you know a lnguage that is pristine and isolated from human culture. I don't know who would read.
We disagree about whether or not that's the result of divine inspiration, the Holy Spirit, or the fact that treating people the way we want to be treated, telling the truth, and not murdering each other make for more successful living than their opposites.
those values that make up the bedrock of our cultural morality came from teh Old testament.
I know we could go in circles over this, and I'm sure neither of us is interested in doing that here-- believe it or not, we get as exhausted with some christians as christians get with some atheists. I'm just playing a little counterpoint here for the sake of amplifying the discussion a bit.
Just bear in mind that many atheists regard such broad strokes regarding the bible's thematic elements just as frustrating as you find the atheist's attempt to get mired down in some of the dirtier details. I think it's the result of some deep seeded need on both sides to never concede a single point lest you take some rhetorical step towards becoming a christian or an atheist.
I know about three atheist now enough about theology to write on a fly's bum. If they knew more they would understand why there is more coincidental connection between our deep cultural value and the Bible.
Anyway, I've already gone on longer than I wanted to. Thanks for a nice post and jump starting my brain a bit.
thanks. don't get me wrong, I think your views have merit. There's some truth in them. but don't forget there's nothing inherent about the values you named that guarantees that all people would find them.
I agree, that's what I meant, progressive revelation, not that murder was ok one generation then went out of fashion.
Thanks for the Dorothy Emmett recommendation. I'm always looking for insight into this issue.
you will enjoy it
Here's proof positive that some atheist bloggers have no clue: over at the Uncredible Hallq (and the name actually tells you a lot about the substance of the blog), Hallq actually calls you a fundie! You can find it here:
http://uncrediblehallq.net/blog/?p=149
LOL. I mean, really. I bet you can't remember the last time someone mistook you for a fundie.
You speak about a "central point" and "one or two major principles that sweep up the whole field and tie up all the problems" - but I don't see any such thing here. Progressive moral revelation and Jesus' pre-Kant categorical imperative merely beg more questions.
First: it is unfair and unjust for God to reveal morals to a specific pagan people, and to leave other peoples out. (See The Unchosen People.) Why would God play favorites?
Second: it is unfair and unjust to withhold moral information from us, and only allot us pieces or chunks of it at a time. The peoples who live in less moral times will not have the same opportunities as those later, and this can directly affect salvation and whether or not we accept God. Why is God's system unfair?
Why couldn't God give us all moral knowledge at one time? Or have it clearly and explicitly built-in? He could have given all of those pagan peoples throughout the world a religious demonstration of what happens with good morals and what happens with bad morals. By employing this universal vision, God would give us not just free will but the ability for informed choice.
Third: By being unfair, sitting back while the weak and unfortunate die for the "greater good", isn't God acting as an obvious utilitarian, and not a deontologist?
Fourth: "But in the NT we find God entering history as a man, and we have a direct example of what to do, just follow Jesus' charter."
This method of setting an example is weak and pathetic, or possibly even collectivist. Unlike past items of proof, like spontaneous fire or feeling the scars of Jesus' body, we today get no such items. This is unfair; why would he ask all people to believe in him without giving us all fair evidence of his existence? Doubting God should be as absurd and foolish as doubting the sun, but this is not the case.
Corollarily, we do not depend on faith in God but rather faith in fellow man and woman. It is unfair of God to expect his Word to be given to the whole world by word of mouth. Why would he make his divine embassy out of fallible humans? Why would he imitate the same type of embassy of all other false religions in his omnipotent effort to reach us?
Fifth: The Golden Rule predates Jesus - it is even within the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18) Hence, either God judged this attempt at revealing morality to be a failure and then continued on in the OT with stupid morals, or God is inconsistent.
you would lose that bet. just this very day someone on carm assumed I was a fundie. Its' very telling.
Here's proof positive that some atheist bloggers have no clue: over at the Uncredible Hallq (and the name actually tells you a lot about the substance of the blog), Hallq actually calls you a fundie! You can find it here:
http://uncrediblehallq.net/blog/?p=149
LOL. I mean, really. I bet you can't remember the last time someone mistook you for a fundie.
9/30/2008 02:22:00 PM
Delete
Anonymous Goliath said...
Once again, I don't care what excuses you offer. I would rather burn in hell for all eternity than follow Jesus for a single nanosecond.
have fun. is it soup yet?
does evolution mean that we started from homo sapien sapien? doesn't it mean we started from very primitive single cell organisms and wet all the way up to us? didn't we have to go through a lot of early stages that weren't human at all?
You speak about a "central point" and "one or two major principles that sweep up the whole field and tie up all the problems" - but I don't see any such thing here. Progressive moral revelation and Jesus' pre-Kant categorical imperative merely beg more questions.
how? you are posturing not aruging. I told you what those were.
First: it is unfair and unjust for God to reveal morals to a specific pagan people, and to leave other peoples out. (See The Unchosen People.) Why would God play favorites?
who says he left them out? The bible says God put the moral law on all hearts. It says God works in call cultures (Rom 2:6-14, Acts 17: 21-29
Second: it is unfair and unjust to withhold moral information from us, and only allot us pieces or chunks of it at a time. The peoples who live in less moral times will not have the same opportunities as those later, and this can directly affect salvation and whether or not we accept God. Why is God's system unfair?
I just answered that. Only those can make progress who heed the word. That's why the Hebrews got the word because they heeded eventually.
Why couldn't God give us all moral knowledge at one time? Or have it clearly and explicitly built-in?
I just told you he did.
He could have given all of those pagan peoples throughout the world a religious demonstration of what happens with good morals and what happens with bad morals. By employing this universal vision, God would give us not just free will but the ability for informed choice.
like in Acts 17 or Rom 2
Third: By being unfair, sitting back while the weak and unfortunate die for the "greater good", isn't God acting as an obvious utilitarian, and not a deontologist?
what did I just say?
Fourth: "But in the NT we find God entering history as a man, and we have a direct example of what to do, just follow Jesus' charter."
This method of setting an example is weak and pathetic, or possibly even collectivist. Unlike past items of proof, like spontaneous fire or feeling the scars of Jesus' body, we today get no such items. This is unfair; why would he ask all people to believe in him without giving us all fair evidence of his existence?
must I quote Paul? God's existence is obvious, you are without excuse. you will be condemned to shit through Aquinas lectures in eternity.
this is my concept of hell: boring universities, my concept of heaven; party universities.
Doubting God should be as absurd and foolish as doubting the sun, but this is not the case.
hey what a coincidence it is!
Corollarily, we do not depend on faith in God but rather faith in fellow man and woman.
ahahaahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahaha
It is unfair of God to expect his Word to be given to the whole world by word of mouth. Why would he make his divine embassy out of fallible humans? Why would he imitate the same type of embassy of all other false religions in his omnipotent effort to reach us?
what's unfair about it? he put the moral on your heart, but you too stuborn to listen that part of your heart.
Fifth: The Golden Rule predates Jesus - it is even within the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18) Hence, either God judged this attempt at revealing morality to be a failure and then continued on in the OT with stupid morals, or God is inconsistent.
so what?
http://uncrediblehallq.net/blog/?p=149
I saw. they misquoted me of course. the are typical dawkamentalists. can't argue fiarly don't understand concepts.
sulphur stew.You just said you want to be the devil's mushroom.
this is called "rational free thinking." My irrational hatred of X proves I am more intellectual than you and the hysteria with which I avow my hatred of X proves that those who hate X think more rationally an make choices based upon better logic than those morons who like X.
Does so-called dyslexia make people think that other people are made of soup?
1. Ah, yes, you're totally right! I understand why commanding to kill is progressive! You have finally swept the whole field and tied up this hanging problem. My heart is at ease now, thank you. This very tiny distraction of human lives and morality has been refuted.
2. I wasn't pretending to argue while posturing for the rest of my post's arguments. And, "I told you" isn't good enough to substantiate "sweep up the whole field ..."
3. If God had written his moral law on everyone's hearts, there would be no need for any revelation at all, progressive or up-front. "The bible says" - yes, and we sure see a whole bunch of evidence for the Bible's claim of "written on all hearts" from history and reality. The very fact we have the phrase "moral dilemma" seems to go against this, unless God's moral law is a bit to hard to read scribbled on our hearts... "God works in [all] cultures" - yeah, I can totally see how.
4. Heh, "heeded." Yes, they gloriously killed for God and were therefore worthy of more moral information ...
5. "I just told you" - I said (1) all moral knowledge, (2) at one time (not progressively!), and (3) clearly and explicitly. If (1) and (3) were true, nobody on Earth would be arguing morals. If (2) were true, we wouldn't have evolving religion.
6. Yes, like in Acts 17 or Rom 2. Except "throughout the world" and "universal", so that he would be fair and not just working his way around the world similar to how a false religion works.
7. Like it or not, the weak and unfortunate die all around the world, and I don't see any good reason for it. This is regardless of Acts 17 or Rom 2.
8 & 9. Heh, "obvious", "without excuse"? I've read Aquinas' arguments for God and found them lacking. If God were as obvious as the sun, we wouldn't be having this online conversation, and there wouldn't be any atheists.
10. Yes, faith in fellow man and woman. That's how missionaries work. That's how child indoctrination works. It's word of mouth and raking in the gullible masses. If God worked in our hearts, he wouldn't need missionaries and indoctrination.
11. What's unfair about it? Informed consent! I also note that you did not answer my question of why God chooses to imitate the same type of embassy of all other false religions in his omnipotent effort to reach us.
It's funny you say I'm too stubborn. I used to be a Christian, I was raised a Christian. I believed in and, I thought, talked to God. I listened. And eventually I came to realize, nothing came. (Can anybody say "Mother Teresa"?) You can apologize to me now all you want for God, but until God does so himself, I am unlikely to believe you about God. Or the silly Hebrews, for that matter.
If you reject, at face value, that God does not communicate to me in an appropriately clear manner, for the sole reason it conflicts with your sacred beliefs, then I'm unsure discussion of this point can continue. When my motivations are painted as ignorant and rebellious the second I dissent, I don't think you will, or can, listen to me.
12. So what? So God trashed out the best moral of all and gave the Hebrews back stupid morals? God should have stayed the course with that type of moral, in my humble opinion.
Also, your "I hate X, boo X" satire is very funny, actually. Congrats on not listening to me and making fun of me. Or rather, a straw man. You must be God's way of communicating to me.
My post has not been about how God is a big meaniehead, but rather, it reflects my best efforts to dissect and analyze, find mutually-agreeable negative implications of, and discover unsupported assumptions in your points. Whether or not my best efforts fail or succeed can be further addressed by you. If this isn't a sincere attempt at "rational free-thinking", I don't know what is.
Ben
I'm available for children's parties and cruses.
say did any of you idiots read this thing? you are all acting like I said "O it was ok to kill in Mose day. but not it's not.
what idiots what God of stupidity created you losers. why don't you read the stuff before you try to comment on it your major back of mental retardants.
where did I say that?
Trying to make the genocidal slaughters of the Old Testament conform to message of tolerance and charity just doesn't work and makes the whole Christian enterprise sound incoherent.
where did I say those actions conform to the message of charity? where did I say those actions are not wrong? did actually read it?
As an atheist I find actually have more genuine affection and respect for the human Jesus than I had for Christ the Son of God when I was a believer since I no longer have to go through these mental gymnastics trying to reconcile the vengeful, bloodthirsty God of the OT with the compassionate servant of the Gospels.
have you ever read it? I doubt it. you are in no position to think you are God's judge..
You did not read it? you didnt' erad it'
1 I said nothing of the kind dumb ass can't you read?
In the Bible, God orders the Hebrews to murder. You say God progressively hands down revelation of morality to humans. So I ask: why is it progressive for God to order the Hebrews to kill?
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. (Deutoronomy 20:16)
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. (1 Samuel 15:3)
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:17-18)
Or allow slavery?
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
A second question that is relevant is why God would set up false morals and teachings, only to abrogate them later. To me, this seems relativistic. It is utilitarian: as long as he gets us the right morals in the end, it's okay to give us wrong morals in the present. The ends justify the means.
For Mr. Hinman I offer reference to the following Biblical wisdom:
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29-32)
I'm sure 4,202,567 atheists before me have poisoned the well, and so you do not readily expect constructive criticism. I empathize, and am guilty of hasty responses myself. I forgive you for accusing me of having a lack of reading comprehension. However;
"What does this have to do with my argument?" Well class, you said, "Point 1: OT morality is progressive." and my point was in summary, "There's no compelling reason it could not have been standardized at the beginning and the progressive nature is best explained as the progressive nature of morality in many cultures that learn from their mistakes on their own." Perhaps you believe in open theism?
I've had this talking point of mine for a while and I was actually hoping there was a challenging response of some kind. Perhaps not though.
Ben
Yes Joe, I did, and this post looks to me like an attempt to reconcile the atrocities allegedly carried out by Moses at God's command with the larger narrative of Christian compassion; killing all of those Canaanite babies may have been awful but, according to you, was a step in the right direction because it is "still better than surrounding cultures that had infant sacrifice and no ruels for freeing of slaves in jubilee year, no prohibitions against raping slave women, or civil recompense for rape or anything of the kind."
I just don't see how killing those children in order to save them from being sacrificed is really an improvement...