Morality
Theist Morality.
Many times in AvG, Atheists have been accused of being immoral or of living by an inferior moral standard because their morals are not the absolute morals provided by God.
Gods laws are considered absolute, perfect and always right whereas mans laws are considered relative and applicable only to the society in which they were developed.
Gods laws are seen as neutral and applicable to all, whereas mans laws favor some of the population more than others.
Gods laws must be perfect because God himself is perfect whereas man is flawed and can only create flawed laws. Man's moral code changes to suit the self interests of the society, hence there could be no moral absolutes, what was wrong yesterday could be made morally correct if the majority of society so chooses.
Man is inherently evil and would do terrible things to one another if it were not for the moral absolutes provided by God.
Atheist Morality
Atheists recognise that there is no moral absolute in their own society. Moral values are transitional imperatives designed to give the greatest benefit to society. Adultery, Theft, Murder etc are considered wrong because they harm the society in which these things take place and not simply because a superior authority has decreed they are wrong.
Atheists believe there is no source of absolute morality in any religious document. There are even conflicts between different moral viewpoints within the Christian churches. The various denominations can not agree on what material should be included in the Bible and which laws are applicable to whom. The contradictory moral laws in the bible further indicate the absence of any moral absolute.
The Bible gives some seemingly indisputable moral guidance when it states:-
Deuteronomy 24:16 "Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death."
And
Ezekiel 18:20 "A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own."
From this we can see that it is wrong to punish a person for the crimes (sins) of a relative. However these moral absolutes are contradicted by:-
Ezekiel 23:43-46 "The assembly shall stone them (prostitutes) and with their swords shall cut them down; they shall kill their sons and their daughters and burn up their houses."
And
Deuteronomy 23:2 "Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord."
And
Exodus 20:5 "You shall not bow down to them or worship them (idols), for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me"
It is blindingly obvious that children should not be held responsible for what their parents do or think. This last quotation is part of the first of the 10 commandments. Christians seem to be quite selective about which parts of the commandments they quote from. This one is rarely mentioned.
Which moral absolute should be followed? Do you punish the children of someone who has committed a "sin" or do you not punish their children?
No matter how much you twist and reinterpret these passages, they can not be reconciled. In Ezekiel 23 it is absolutely clear that the children of whores must be killed. while only a few chapters before it states that children must not suffer for the wickedness of a parent.
The balance seems to be in favor of killing the innocent:
Here is another example of conflicting moral instruction.
Exodus 21:23-25 "...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. "
Here, it is clear that any wrongdoing should be met with an equal response. However,
Matthew 5:39 "...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Here, wrong doings against the person should not be resisted, they should be passively and nobly accepted.
If someone assaults you, which moral absolute should be adopted?
The Bible says it is acceptable to beat your slave to death so long as it takes longer than 2 days for them to die of their injuries. This is justified on the grounds that a slave is your property.
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Are we to believe this kind of behaviour is morally virtuous. Kill everyone but rape and enslave the virgins?
Which Christians would advocate this absolute moral law?
There is no suggestion that present-day Christian groups hold theses atrocities to be morally acceptable - even though the bible says they were part of god's ordinance. However, the fact that these ideas have been firmly rejected means that what was once morally acceptable to Christian teaching is no longer so. It is therefore the case that Christianity does not contain a fixed and inviolable moral code. It is a variable code in which even god's ordinances can be ignored or varied. The idea that Christian morality is fixed in some way is untrue.
Why do these ambiguities and aparent contradictions exist in Gods absolute moral code? It's because this moral code did not come from any God. It came for biased Jewish and Christian scribes who had their own adgenda, their own moral values and their own personal viewpoints.
Theists have no absolute moral standard in the Bible.
Atheists already accept their is no absolute moral standard.
What moral code should we adopt. A code that provides maximum benefit towards the well being of todays society? Or the code of a ancient nomadic Jewish tribe who practiced barbaric acts and atrocities against their fellow men?
Discuss...
