• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Why do some Christians Seem to think The Bible is the only source of objective morals

C

Chairman_Xi

Greenlighter
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
13
Location
Not of this world
First post, and I'm posting in here...

Anyway, something which I've seen brought up many times by Christians when I get into theological discussion/debate/whatever is the claim that the Bible is the only source of objective morals. Now, coming from an, agnostic-ish, maybe atheist background, that sounds like a rather bold claim to make. I don't see how people can say that without stopping for a moment and looking at the world. By claiming that the Bible is the only source of objective morals, the implication that civilisations (back in the day) which had no previous contact with Christianity were immoral, and went around shagging corpses of dead swine.

So I guess what I'm really saying is, could someone explain this to me? Personally, I think there is something ingrained in the human psyche which just tells you some things are wrong; if that weren't the case, then I struggle to see how so many world religions have essentially the same message.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would say that, to a Christian, the morality of Christianity is objective in that it is external to humanity, and has an external arbiter. If you believe that the god of the Bible is the one true god, then any other value system, theistic or not, is totally anthropogenic and thus subjective. This isn't to say that there is no value system at all, i.e that people go around shagging corpses, but that the value system is not objective.
 
I agree that Christian morals are certainly not objective. I don't think there are morals ingrained in the human psyche. I think the only ingrained things are tasks necessary to sustain life (eat, fuck, fight, etc.)

If someone was born in the middle of the wilderness somewhere and their primary care givers are hedonistic murderers, there is no way that they will have any knowledge of anything else.
 
Chairman_Xi said:
Personally, I think there is something ingrained in the human psyche which just tells you some things are wrong; if that weren't the case, then I struggle to see how so many world religions have essentially the same message.
Click to expand...
Even if we could interact with a human raised by wolves I think we'd find they were imprinted with some wolf values. I'm not arguing against there being an internal sense of right or wrong from either a spiritual or biological cause but how would we know? Everyone is raised by something, internalizes some values, and rejects others.

Affiliation with other humans and rules for doing so is almost certainly biological to a large extent based on observing other mammals.
 
Enki said:
Affiliation with other humans and rules for doing so is almost certainly biological to a large extent based on observing other mammals.
Click to expand...

How can you say this with any certainty?

I stand by my initial position that only activities necessary to sustain life would effect an entirely unaffected crotchfruit (nearly impossible to get a concrete answer)

Edit:

Also, one of the main differences between humans and other mammals is that we engage in a litany of activities not necessary for sustaining life while most mammals every waking moment is consumed with survival. Right?
 
Last edited:
^Taking care of young, finding mates, dominance, and other things have been found to have biological components like oxytocin in mother/child bonding, pheromones in finding mates, etc I'm certain enough that biological causes are involved that I'm not even going to look up examples. Feel free to reject my position that a lot of biology is involved in humans affiliating with each other and likely influences rules for doing so as well.
 
Your first sentence would fall under activities necessary to sustain life, right?

I agree that there is a lot of biology involved. I think that a child born with zero outside positive influences would not have the ability to discern society's sense of right and wrong.

Edit:

Nice. Post #400
 
Christians do not say the Bible is the ONLY source of objective morals. They say it's the only one that MATTERS to them. That's because it is what their religion teaches them... to have blind faith without question.

There can be benefits to having such strong conviction in your beliefs because it liberates you from doubt and you can act with absolute certainty free of distractions with all of your mental energy. Unfortunately, that's only good when your energy is directed towards something worthy. If your religious leaders send you down the wrong path, you're at their mercy.
 
I would have to say that some interesting points have been made.

I agree that Christian morals are certainly not objective. I don't think there are morals ingrained in the human psyche. I think the only ingrained things are tasks necessary to sustain life (eat, fuck, fight, etc.)

If someone was born in the middle of the wilderness somewhere and their primary care givers are hedonistic murderers, there is no way that they will have any knowledge of anything else.
Click to expand...

I have been through the hoops thought-wise, and though I did come to this conclusion once, I don't think it's that simple. Yes, the necessary tasks to sustain life are there, no doubt, but I firmly believe there's something more to it. I think that by virtue of belonging to the species Homo sapiens, there's some sort of higher thought process going on; not just an awareness of oneself in relation to the universe, but I think also the ability to use the higher order thought processes we have to control afore-mentioned basic urges. Indeed, when you ask yourself what separates a human from an animal, I think you'll find that self-control is one of the answers. The second difference between animals and humans, in my opinion, is empathy, the ability to relate to and understand other creatures.

The problem with the second point you bring up about hedonistic murderers is that if we follow the logic through to its end, truly hedonistic murderers only interested in their own needs don't care about anyone else. If we then make the concession that the said murderer cared enough to want a child, then immediately the child would have some knowledge of activities outside of pestilence and death.

Even putting that aside for a moment, I reckon that if you were to be placed in a, shall we say, "immoral" environment, yes, you would eventually have no idea about the "wrongs" and "rights" of society. However, I see it as more of a case of these external influences overriding the innate human nature.

Of course, I will admit that one reason why I think this way is because I choose to believe that humans are innately good-willed, but that's another matter in itself...

And somehow this has gone off-topic and I can't figure out how to drag it back.
 
definition of objective:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

I think objective and morals are incongruent together.
 
I think the bigger question is.....how in the world could anyone on this planet of ours think that they have it right....no one else but their book? I never understand the point of these arguments...if you are a christian then you will follow only the christian rules if you are fully into the religion.
 
Chairman_Xi said:
First post, and I'm posting in here...

Anyway, something which I've seen brought up many times by Christians when I get into theological discussion/debate/whatever is the claim that the Bible is the only source of objective morals. Now, coming from an, agnostic-ish, maybe atheist background, that sounds like a rather bold claim to make. I don't see how people can say that without stopping for a moment and looking at the world. By claiming that the Bible is the only source of objective morals, the implication that civilisations (back in the day) which had no previous contact with Christianity were immoral, and went around shagging corpses of dead swine.

So I guess what I'm really saying is, could someone explain this to me? Personally, I think there is something ingrained in the human psyche which just tells you some things are wrong; if that weren't the case, then I struggle to see how so many world religions have essentially the same message.
Click to expand...

Christianity/the Bible is a well-intentioned means of establishing a written code of law for human behavior, with punishments and rewards included inherently as a means of enforcement. A lot of the old testament can be seen as a reflection of moral consensus at the time. Certain things were known to be difficult to clean before eating, so they were innocently included as part of the holy guidelines of what displeases God to stay in tune with the theme of having an enforcement mechanism beyond the earthly risks and ramifications.

It is really just a highly influential work of political writing, and the reason it resonates so well with people today as a moral compass is that many of the "thou shalt nots" really do just cause a pain in the ass for everyone. It's not that the Bible was necessarily a means of forcing followers to violently eradicate previous cultures, but when a book so fine-tuned to the consensus gets politicized it is human nature that takes over and adopts the role of "earthly enforcer."

The New Testament represented a compromise to the code of the Old Testament with the advent of Jesus, who offered a peaceful loophole by which enforcement would hopefully be dampened by forgiveness and understanding that it is human nature to "sin" and that you can always fall back on a god that understands this and really only "wrote" those rules in the first place to make life easier.

Unfortunately this was also turned into a code of violent enforcement by means of not necessarily forcing other cultures to obey specific laws, but to reject their own symbols with the cross. This is obviously counterproductive from a human relations standpoint, as evidenced by your observation that all religions are essentially the same. The problem lies in the mechanism of enforcement placed inside each different text, which has to necessarily claim that "this is the only way," which on the positive side may help human beings discipline themselves more easily and on the negative side forces factionalism.
 
Chairman_Xi said:
First post, and I'm posting in here...

Anyway, something which I've seen brought up many times by Christians when I get into theological discussion/debate/whatever is the claim that the Bible is the only source of objective morals. Now, coming from an, agnostic-ish, maybe atheist background, that sounds like a rather bold claim to make. I don't see how people can say that without stopping for a moment and looking at the world. By claiming that the Bible is the only source of objective morals, the implication that civilisations (back in the day) which had no previous contact with Christianity were immoral, and went around shagging corpses of dead swine.

So I guess what I'm really saying is, could someone explain this to me? Personally, I think there is something ingrained in the human psyche which just tells you some things are wrong; if that weren't the case, then I struggle to see how so many world religions have essentially the same message.
Click to expand...

The problem of hardcore Chrisianity is not exclusive to hardcore Christians.
It all boils down to the fact that one will not question something they were raised to believe n change their perspective on thngs.
Its not something thats ingrained into our psyches via evolutionary instinct.
Its something thats ingrained into the developing ego that grows into personality as we grow older.
So many ppl are confused that their personality is the same as the being they truely are. (ego vs. the true self)
To question ones traditions n beliefs of their personality, one will confuse that as an attack to their true being.


P.S.
"...went around shagging corpses of dead swine."
hahahaha.
that was a funny one right there.
 
Xians would instead claim that the Bible is the most expedient and direct way to discern the character of an objective, universalistic set of morals. If one were to arrive at the same ethical conclusions by another route, these would be God's same morals, right?

Given Kant's (to me) apparent failure to establish a basis for morality in terms of what reason necessitates (and the failure to establish a fully adequate and consistent system of logic), and the failure of those claiming morals entirely subjective to engage firm, systematized frameworks of meaning, I consider the very dichotomy underlying the debate flawed.

To me, the question instead is, what processes form the intersubjective spaces through which people apply ethical meanings and undertake practices with ethical implications, and what are the characteristics and dynamics of such social subsystems?

ebola
 
A Christian would answer "Because The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God" Its been so long since I thought that way about anything that I'm sure I couldn't even begin to comprehend how important that is to Bible believing people.

When the Bible makes no sense to them personally its because of human fallacy examining the infallible word of God, the approach is to adjust your thinking to be congruent with the Bible rather than hold the Bible to make sense by human reasoning. For the believer it is end of story.
 
enki said:
A Christian would answer "Because The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God" Its been so long since I thought that way about anything that I'm sure I couldn't even begin to comprehend how important that is to Bible believing people.

When the Bible makes no sense to them personally its because of human fallacy examining the infallible word of God, the approach is to adjust your thinking to be congruent with the Bible rather than hold the Bible to make sense by human reasoning. For the believer it is end of story.
Click to expand...

Which Xians though? If the word of god is infallible, and if god is truly omniscient, it would be hubristic to assume that one can easily and directly interpret divine meanings via human language. Most Xians with whom I talk wrestle with what their holy book's allegories point to.

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top