Is the bible really your moral compass?

[Dr.Physics]

this is not going to be the typical argument about the bible's moral problems, where i point out that god endorses slavery and stoning people ect.

instead, i want to ask a different, less discussed and in my opinion more important issue...

everyone i ever talk to in real life that finds out im an atheist asks me "well if you are an atheist, where do you get your morals?"
i could tell them that a simple principle, such as humanistic principles, allow me to be moral, but instead what i have began to do is ask them where they get THEIR morals.

Most bible followers think that they are moral because they know what is good and wrong from the bible. yet in the bible, only a very miniscule amount of common sense morality is discussed... let me discuss an example of where i think the bible has a hole in revealing morality:

**what do we do about life more intelligent than us?

1) if there are aliens that have a greater capacity to feel empathy, love, pain and joy than we do, how are we to treat them? can we cut them open and display their carcasses in museums? how are they to treat us? can they treat us like we treat dogs and cattle because we are lower intelligence-wise? remember, the morality in the bible is universal and eternal, unchanging. this means that it applies everywhere in the universe, (and even in heaven). does the bible address this issue? even by inference? remember, you cant speculate what god might think, this is just a question of what the bible reveals, because this is a thread addressing the ability of the bible to be the moral compass.

2) or what if in 1000000 years from now, or longer if need be, we coexist with another species that passes our intelligence and our ability to feel empathy, love, pain and joy? are we still allowed to cut open and eat this animal? can we still skin it and wear its fur? now that this species is intelligent enough to know right from wrong if it was revealed to them, are they now required to follow moral commands from god? or do you claim that there will never be more intelligent beings than us? what does the bible have to say about other beings and morality? are they off the hook, so to speak?

------------------------------------------------------------

there are probably dozens of other examples of issues that god doesnt address in the bible, that WE are left to figure out on our own what is right and wrong.

the importance of realizing this, is that if there are moral issues that can be resolved without the bible, where are you getting that moral answer from? what is deciding whether an action is good or evil, if you aren't using the bible? i claim that it is our inherent morality which most of us have instinctively, and that the bible is not actually giving you your moral compass, but rather you are imposing your moral compass on the bible.. what do you think? is the bible THE moral compass?

***ps: if you already agree with me, please think of other examples of where the bible can not/ does not give an answer or solution to a moral question. thanks!@

[JehovahsWitness]

....slavery is condoned by the bible?

#QUESTION: Does the bible condone slavery?

The bible tolerated and in the case of Israel legislated for slavery - there is nowhere the bible says its a good thing and certainly nothing to indicate "support". Many man made institutions have existed that were less than ideal - God has realistically accepted that they will exist until he puts an end to all human stuctures and establishes a world of total justice.


QUESTION Why did the bible not condemn slavery during the Christian era?

Even in Roman times, slavery was very different to what was practiced in the 19th century. Slavery and servitude where more like a form of employment that allowed individuals a certain degree of financial secruity and social protection.

Also, unlike those under the Mosaic law, the christians did not live under divine theocracy but Roman rule and not as a group responsible for the system that existed. Christians were instructed to be subject to human rulerships (see Romans 13:1). They were not commissioned by Jesus to either overthrow unjust human rulerships of participate in civil disobedience in order to reform human laws. They were instructed to be "no part of the world" effectively remain neutral with a view to politics and world affairs.

It is for the above reasons that the bible makes no specific demand for christians to rise against the Roman laws of slavery*. Christians that owned slaves were instructed to treat them with the respect and consideration due as their Christian brothers but were allowed to individually decide if they wanted to free them or not.

[McCulloch]

#QUESTION: Does the bible condone slavery?

The bible tolerated and in the case of Israel legislated for slavery - there is nowhere the bible says its a good thing and certainly nothing to indicate "support". Many man made institutions have existed that were less than ideal - God has realistically accepted that they will exist until he puts an end to all human structures and establishes a world of total justice.

It seems to me to be quite odd that an omniscient loving god would provide humans with a divinely revealed moral guidebook, which regulates slavery but neglects to point out that slavery itself is a bad thing. The omission of any kind of prohibition on or condemnation of slavery is a lack that requires explanation.

QUESTION Why did the bible not condemn slavery during the Christian era?

Even in Roman times, slavery was very different to what was practiced in the 19th century. Slavery and servitude where more like a form of employment that allowed individuals a certain degree of financial security and social protection.

So slavery should not be abolished, merely reformed. That you for that.

[cnorman18]

It seems to me to be quite odd that an omniscient loving god would provide humans with a divinely revealed moral guidebook, which regulates slavery but neglects to point out that slavery itself is a bad thing.

It would seem quite odd to ME that an omniscient loving God would provide humans with a divinely revealed moral guidebook, period.

First, I don't know that God is either "omniscient" or "loving." Even if one reads the Bible literally, which also seems "quite odd" to me, considering the actual nature of the book itself, it does not consistently support either of those conceptions of God.

Second, it would seem very odd indeed to me that any God whatever would attempt to regulate human behavior with a "divinely revealed moral guidebook." Better to simply create humans without any ability to act independently in the first place, and make them wholly moral and altruistic robots... Occam's Razor, if you'll forgive the gross misuse of that concept.

I don't have any answers. I don't know what God is, or even for certain that there is a God at all -- at least in any sense of which we humans can conceive. But I DO believe, with or without evidence, that it's up to us to figure stuff out for ourselves, including what "right" and "wrong" mean. I think the Bible is useful when considering what humans who lived before us thought about those questions, as well as others -- the Meaning of Life and allathatstuff. But I think it foolish to expect to have the answers handed to us on either golden platters or paper pages. That doesn't seem to me to be the nature of reality, and I come to that conclusion through experience and observation, not faith.

[JehovahsWitness]

It seems to me to be quite odd ....

Firstly, what seems "odd" or "parculiar" to you is irrelevant. That is a personal opinion based statement. I can no more debate what seems "odd to you" as what appears "beautiful" or tastes "salty". Your perception of what should or should not be is just that, a personal objective perception and redundant in a debate, even a theological one.

... a divinely revealed moral guidebook, which regulates slavery but neglects to point out that slavery itself is a bad thing

The bible is a book of both law and principle. The principles cover the range of human experience and allow the perceptive reader to deduce whether something is "good" or "bad" in God's view. In short not everything is explicitly stated, but may be implicit in scriptural principle:

• *treat your neighbour (fellow human being) as you want to be treated (Matt 7:12)
  *to love everyone including your "enemy" (Math 5: 44)
  *that all humans are equal in the eyes of God (Act 10: 35)
  *human domination causes human suffering (Ecc 8:9b)

The above principles and many others, allow the decerning reader to accurately assess God's attitude to not only slavery but many other manmade structures and institutions that he is temporarily allowing to exist.

[God] neglects to point out that slavery itself is a bad thing

I want to come back to address this question of "neglect". According to Merriams online dictionary to "neglect" something is "to leave undone through carelessness" it implies you haven't done what you SHOULD have done; what you were morally obliged to do. As I outlined above, God does however address the question in addressing the underlying principles. However the question must be asked, who decides if God has been "careless"? can there be a universally accepted academically verifiable body of agreed upon set of "requirements"?

The omission of any kind of prohibition on or condemnation of slavery is a lack that requires explanation.

"Required" by who? The word "require" implies there is some kind of authority that has a minimum set of conditions to be met. Who or what can impose a moral obligation on an omnipotent Creator and then pronounce "neglect" or "omissions" if that minimum is not met? How when or indeed IF a loving God expresses that love is ultimately up to him and HIS set of values - and dependent on HIS perception of what is right and proper at any given time.

The assessment of something as "good" or "bad" is also a purely personal opinion based subjective pronouncement and while there are no doubt forums for individuals to expound their personal beliefs about what is "good" or "bad" those individuals must accept that not everyone will agree with their own belief systems or even find them relevant. In short, who says God HAS to pronounce it "bad"?

Before this degrades into ad hominem I will point out that I am not arguing whether slavery is "good" or "bad" I am pointing out the difficulty in the presumption of a universally accepted standard setter of what is "good or bad" without which any debate on the topic is merely and exchange of "I think" "you think".

Quite frankly the whole question is not really a debateable one. The most anyone can reasonably say is "According to MY set of rules that I established in MY head (and heart) about what "loving creator" means, G "I believe God should do A, B or C"; while someone else says "I believe God should do C, D or E". Both may be valid in their own personal belief system but to imply there is one universally accepted code of behaviour for an omniscient loving creator and that short of meeting all items listed "neglect" can be universally agreed on, is again, just a subjective expression of personal beliefs.

I respect beliefs of course and can hear a claim that god SHOULD do A, or B and if not he is not "good" but I'm sure you can see that to presume that what YOU believe is a universal norm and must be agreed upon by others (which would be needed in order to be the basis of any objective debate) is unreasonable.

QUESTION Why did the bible not condemn slavery during the Christian era? Even in Roman times, slavery was very different to what was practiced in the 19th century. Slavery and servitude where more like a form of employment that allowed individuals a certain degree of financial security and social protection.

So slavery should not be abolished, merely reformed. That you for that.

Where is your rationale for suggesting that? I made a statement of fact regarding 1st Century Roman slavery system, I neither recommended it nor made any statement as to my personal views on slavery. I most certainly did not say anything that indicated I was recommending reform over abolishment (or indeed visa versa). I have simply made no comment on my personal views on the matter. Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote my words and explain where you got any impression to the contrary.

Anyway in short, my original posts simply pointed out that the bible remains "neutral" on the subject and I now add that how God *feels* about slavery and how he expects his servants to act in relation to their fellow men are not "ommitted" from the Sacred Text but implicit in bible principle.

I repeat that God however did not (and does not) commission his followers to attempt to overthrow unjust regimes or to reform them through their involvement in political or social bodies but individuals may make their own decision as to what they individually chose to do as long as they respect the above (Christian) mandate of neutrality.

Your FEELINGS about what God should or should not do and whether he is guilty of neglect are purely personal and although I am NOT denergrating the personal, I hold that such personal beliefs are effectively outside the the realm of debate.

That you for that.

I take it you mean "thank you for that" to which I respectfully reply "you are most welcome".

[fewwillfindit]

You are correct in saying that the New Testament does not forbid slavery. It gives instructions to masters on how to be kind, loving and honest masters. Also, in, Philemon 1, when the slave Onesimus escaped from his master, Paul told him to return to him. Slaves and masters co-existed in the New Testament churches. It wasn't looked upon as an immoral practice if it was done lovingly. The Christian slaves of Christian masters were considered spiritual equals. If a slave had a loving master, he had security, food, clothing and shelter, and led a pretty decent life. The masters were not domineering taskmasters.

really????? lovingly slavery??? i hope this is a joke

No joke, but you knew that already. And would you look at all those question marks? My my.

You are approaching this from a contemporary perspective, injecting your modern perception of slavery into what I posted without taking into account that cultures have radically changed over the last two thousand years.

Being a slave of a prominent citizen in the New Testament era was actually a coveted position in some cases. The slave, in the marketplace, carried the full weight of his master's authority. He had the authority to purchase goods, was trusted with decisions, and led a pretty good life.

It was not anything like the horrible slavery that is in our modern history with the abuse of African Americans. It's difficult NOT to picture that when we think of slavery, because it is so fresh in our memories, but the slavery in New Testament era was different. Certainly, there were abusive masters, but I have already mentioned that Christian masters were commanded to treat their slaves with dignity.

There's not much more that I can say about this, but I'm not trying to convince you of whether or not we should like the idea of slavery. I'm simply showing you that it wasn't the best example to use to show that we do not derive our morality from the Bible. As a matter of fact, I haven't even given my opinion yet on whether or not we DO get our morality from the Bible.

My point in bringing this up is not to engage in a debate about whether or not we are called to be slaves of Christ. Rather, it is to show that slavery, from a New Testament perspective, is not an immoral thing, so it shouldn't be used as an example attempting to show Christians that their morality is not derived from the Bible. Just because something has been perverted and abused, as in slavery in relatively modern American history, doesn't mean that thing (anything), is immoral in its purest form.
To me, space aliens and slavery are not compelling examples that illustrate how Christians do not derive their base morality from the Bible.


Edit: I need to make it clear that I am not advocating slavery in this day and age. It was culturally acceptable in the New Testament era, and the Biblical guidelines for slavery were meant to conform to that practice.

well, this is exactly what i want to show people, how the bible not only is NOT the way to moral enlightenment, but the opposite. i honestly think it speaks for itself

Actually, if I am to believe your opening post, you wanted to show people that their morals did not come from the Bible. When you were told that aliens weren't the best of examples, you brought up slavery in the Bible, which I addressed, and showed, from the Bible, that it wasn't considered immoral. But instead of conceding my point, you switched gears and are now disparaging Biblical morality itself. So...have we switched topics then?

[Dr.Physics]

You are correct in saying that the New Testament does not forbid slavery. It gives instructions to masters on how to be kind, loving and honest masters. Also, in, Philemon 1, when the slave Onesimus escaped from his master, Paul told him to return to him. Slaves and masters co-existed in the New Testament churches. It wasn't looked upon as an immoral practice if it was done lovingly. The Christian slaves of Christian masters were considered spiritual equals. If a slave had a loving master, he had security, food, clothing and shelter, and led a pretty decent life. The masters were not domineering taskmasters.

really????? lovingly slavery??? i hope this is a joke

No joke, but you knew that already. And would you look at all those question marks? My my.

You are approaching this from a contemporary perspective, injecting your modern perception of slavery into what I posted without taking into account that cultures have radically changed over the last two thousand years.

Being a slave of a prominent citizen in the New Testament era was actually a coveted position in some cases. The slave, in the marketplace, carried the full weight of his master's authority. He had the authority to purchase goods, was trusted with decisions, and led a pretty good life.

It was not anything like the horrible slavery that is in our modern history with the abuse of African Americans. It's difficult NOT to picture that when we think of slavery, because it is so fresh in our memories, but the slavery in New Testament era was different. Certainly, there were abusive masters, but I have already mentioned that Christian masters were commanded to treat their slaves with dignity.

There's not much more that I can say about this, but I'm not trying to convince you of whether or not we should like the idea of slavery. I'm simply showing you that it wasn't the best example to use to show that we do not derive our morality from the Bible. As a matter of fact, I haven't even given my opinion yet on whether or not we DO get our morality from the Bible.

My point in bringing this up is not to engage in a debate about whether or not we are called to be slaves of Christ. Rather, it is to show that slavery, from a New Testament perspective, is not an immoral thing, so it shouldn't be used as an example attempting to show Christians that their morality is not derived from the Bible. Just because something has been perverted and abused, as in slavery in relatively modern American history, doesn't mean that thing (anything), is immoral in its purest form.
To me, space aliens and slavery are not compelling examples that illustrate how Christians do not derive their base morality from the Bible.


Edit: I need to make it clear that I am not advocating slavery in this day and age. It was culturally acceptable in the New Testament era, and the Biblical guidelines for slavery were meant to conform to that practice.

well, this is exactly what i want to show people, how the bible not only is NOT the way to moral enlightenment, but the opposite. i honestly think it speaks for itself

Actually, if I am to believe your opening post, you wanted to show people that their morals did not come from the Bible. When you were told that aliens weren't the best of examples, you brought up slavery in the Bible, which I addressed, and showed, from the Bible, that it wasn't considered immoral. But instead of conceding my point, you switched gears and are now disparaging Biblical morality itself. So...have we switched topics then?

1) slavery was not "a good life" for people back then... even IF it was, it was AGAINST THEIR WILL!!!! so its immoral. but the bible doesnt condemn it. my point.

2) switching gears doesnt mean i am running from the question, its just i see we hit a wall were neither will move, so i made a turn... you say slavery was moral, i say it wasnt, so i turned to other stuff

[fewwillfindit]

Actually, if I am to believe your opening post, you wanted to show people that their morals did not come from the Bible. When you were told that aliens weren't the best of examples, you brought up slavery in the Bible, which I addressed, and showed, from the Bible, that it wasn't considered immoral. But instead of conceding my point, you switched gears and are now disparaging Biblical morality itself. So...have we switched topics then?

1) slavery was not "a good life" for people back then... even IF it was, it was AGAINST THEIR WILL!!!! so its immoral. but the bible doesnt condemn it. my point.

2) switching gears doesnt mean i am running from the question, its just i see we hit a wall were neither will move, so i made a turn... you say slavery was moral, i say it wasnt, so i turned to other stuff

Fair enough

[Zzyzx]

.

thankyou very, very much. i also think it is nice to see intelligent older people who are non-religious and open about it, because most younger people picture old people as conservative and traditional (not that i do). thanks again

Thanks DP -- I think.

Surprisingly, perhaps, I do not think of myself or function as an "older person" (but "work to the ground" many people who are decades younger -- and have attitudes that are much more liberal than theirs). Most cannot run a chainsaw with me all day or a wood splitting maul (I do not use our hydraulic splitter), or lift (I still bench press more than body weight).

Although my offspring are fifty years old or so, I do not EVER accept a "grandfather" role (even though that generation has probably reproduced by now but have no way of knowing how to contact me).

Perhaps part of my attitude is attributable to the fact that I have been non-religious for about sixty years. I simply did not, even as a child, believe the incredible tales told by religious "authorities" or literature and did not accept societal mores about what one should or can do at various stages of life -- but followed my own path, made my own decisions, and took personal responsibility for my actions.

[Dr.Physics]

.

thankyou very, very much. i also think it is nice to see intelligent older people who are non-religious and open about it, because most younger people picture old people as conservative and traditional (not that i do). thanks again

Thanks DP -- I think.

Surprisingly, perhaps, I do not think of myself or function as an "older person" (but "work to the ground" many people who are decades younger -- and have attitudes that are much more liberal than theirs). Most cannot run a chainsaw with me all day or a wood splitting maul (I do not use our hydraulic splitter), or lift (I still bench press more than body weight).

Although my offspring are fifty years old or so, I do not EVER accept a "grandfather" role (even though that generation has probably reproduced by now but have no way of knowing how to contact me).

Perhaps part of my attitude is attributable to the fact that I have been non-religious for about sixty years. I simply did not, even as a child, believe the incredible tales told by religious "authorities" or literature and did not accept societal mores about what one should or can do at various stages of life -- but followed my own path, made my own decisions, and took personal responsibility for my actions.

parden the pun, but AMEN to that, and good for you