The Bible And Morality

[nailit]

why do christians claim to derive their morality from the bible?
My own reading of the bible led me to believe that it is a grotesque, immoral, unjust and disgusting piece of work. I honestly fail to see how people in the 21st century can claim that the bible is a 'manual for living.'
If theres any bible believers reading this can you explain to me why you think a work choc full of unjust laws, genocide, racism, homophobia etc is in any way moral. I'm genuinely curious.
Thank you.

[Khandro]

wildwood; if "anybody can be an hypocrite" why do you single out followers of a religion? I'm sure the Pope would be first to agree with you that he, being human and fallible, is capable of hypocrisy.
There are people to whom being without hypocrisy comes easily, most of them are in prison. These are people lacking any form of moral guidelines, take and do whatever they want, and lacking in empathy, have no consideration for the effects of their actions on others.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Rochefoucauld: Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.

[Khandro]

Right on vetuste; - virtue is impossible without some hypocrisy. I'm all for hypocrisy, it denotes striving and not quite making it, being against hypocrisy is moral nihilism.

[naomi24]

Khandro, I get the impression you don't understand that quote.

[Khandro]

Really! and why is that naomi?

[nailit]

some interesting answers. I was rather hoping to get a reply from someone who takes the bible literally. My own experience with biblical literalists has always tended towards them asking me where I get my morality from if im an atheist?
By what standards do I measure what is wrong and right? Always found it a bit strange that someone needs a book to tell them that certain things in life are wrong but I have found it stranger that they use a book that is full of things that are patently wrong to someone living in todays world to justify their own morality.
Ah well, as has been said, cherry picking and selective reading. (and probably not been willing to take responsability for their own actions...God did it, the devil did it etc)

[beso]

The often cited notion that morality is derived from religion is one of the most ridiculous claims of the religious.

Chimpanzees have a concept of what is fair and individuals will even take actions that disadvantage themselves as a response to others who exploit the advantages of being part of a social group.

Yet they have no holy books and as far as I can see, no sense of religion.

The concept of fairness and mutual advantage through cooperation is a deeply embedded part of the hominid psyche. Religion didn't invent it but it definitely exploited it.

Religion is an aberration in social behaviour that came about because some recognised the vulnerability and worked out how to exploit it.

[Khandro]

beso; If anything is "ridiculous"' it is your notion of attempting to graft the anthropomorphic concept of "fairness" on to animal behaviour. Have you been watching Walt Disney lately?

[beso]

No not Disney but peer reviewed scientific studies of primate behaviour.

Perhaps you should broaden your literary scope a little?

[Khandro]

//peer reviewed scientific studies of primate behaviour.//
Carried out by primates, no doubt.

[beso]

Definitely.

[atalanta]

If you follow the example of the judaeo-Christian god of the Old testament, you will really really enjoy genocide and animal sacrifice. Lambs and doves especially have to be sacrificed at regular intervals, and tribes who offend god have to be massacred.
Murder is often alright, and rape, if the victims are enemies. "Enemies and victims" mean "not-the-Chosen-People". "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to fellow tribesmen who worship this god. Everyone else seems to be fair game.

[Khandro]

atalanta; I don't think you need restrict these findings to the Bible, a glance at any newspaper would suggest that this applies equally to struggles for power in the modern secular world.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Two propositions which I hope you won’t find anthropomorphic, Khandro:

1. Pack animals need to co-operate; it is a precondition of their existence.
2. The (necessary and instinctive) willingness to help other members of the pack is in most species very limited, i.e. I help my mates, but not yours, because you’re a different pack and I’m competing with you for food.

The rise of consciousness allows us to reflect on our instinctive behaviour and to see both “good” and “bad” things in it. For example, I reason that proposition 1 puts food in my belly (three cheers), but that proposition 2 denies food to you (three cheers for me, but no cheer for Khandro). I might further reason that Khandro is probably very similar to me and the reason for our enmity is based only on the competition for food and not on accidents such as my tribe members all being two metres tall and green (hooray!) and yours been one metre tall and orange (yuk!). These reflections may not alter my behaviour towards Khandro (and most certainly not if food remains scarce), but it does allow me to see things from Khandro’s point of view. Even if I am not led to feelings of empathy for the K-tribe, at least I can imagine alternative ways of behaviour which makes life less difficult for both of us.
This, at any rate, is how I think our morality is derived. Please don’t bring God into this: the three great monotheisms (taken at their word) reinforce all the divisions and hatreds of proposition 2 (a point I see echoed in the latest post from Atalanta).

[Khandro]

vetuste-; You are absolutely correct; animals, particularly carnivores hunting in packs, need to co-operate, - if the pack survives, then their genes survive. My comments were on the subject of "fairness", which had been raised. I think a certain R.Dawkins had a lot to say about this!
Bah! you won't let me bring God into it, and I was about to Quote Tennyson's 'Nature red in tooth and claw'.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I have obviously expressed myself poorly, Khandro. It is the rise of consciousness which allows us to understand our behaviour and makes empathy possible. In the example I gave I can see that I am prepared to treat Khandro in a way that I would not like to be treated. I can understand why I have inherited this behaviour. I can see "good" (i.e. practical) reasons why modifying our behaviour might be better for both of us. With a sufficient imagination (and a bit of soul if you will) I might even see that extending the sympathy I have for members of my own tribe to members of others might be Good. The lion has no choice in the matter; he must obey his own instincts. For him nature is and must remain red in tooth and claw. We do have a choice. We can reason and argue about good and evil. We do not need shamans and priests to tell us what to do. God is dead, Khandro. But He won't lie down.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I haven't heard from Birdie for a long time. What have you done with him?

[naomi24]

//God is dead, Khandro. But He won't lie down. //

Human imaginaton won't allow him to lie down.

[vetuste_ennemi]

By the way, Naomi, I recorded the repeat of the program about the rise of Christianity in Rome last Wednesday as well as the previous night's. Then the Humax went on the blink and I've lost all my recordings. Another proof if any were needed that God does not exist.

[jomifl]

V_E, I have a digital recording of last weeks 'Rome' If you cannot get it on iplayer because of regional limitations I might be able to put it on a DVD for you, technology and competence permitting.
Khandro, please explain how virtue is impossible without hypocrisy,(which seems to have little to recommend it being as it is based on falseness, dishonesty and selfishness, still, whatever floats your boat)