Biblical Morality

In the discussions on this blog, the one thing that keeps coming to the forefront again and again is the concept of morality. Especially in the area of metaphysics. During the discussion of whether a rational basis exists for the belief in a transcendent god, the one premise that has been brought up is that if one does not believe in God (specifically the Christian God), then one is condemned to live a life of amorality. However, such an assertion lacks in regards to be a cogent, coherent analysis of the areas of morality and ethics.

The line of ‘reasoning’ that they use is flawed and contradictory, as shall be seen.

1. They make the assumption that there is a God.
2. They then assume that this God is the Christian God.
3. After this, another assumption is made that absolute morality emanates from this God.
4. Then this God inspired the infallible Bible, which begs the question of Inerrancy.

From the fourth point, they then begin the assertions of Absolute Morality is only to be found in the Bible, and can only be recognized by following the Christian path. Of course, another statement that begs the question is the assertion of Absolute Morality, which they conveniently forget to define. To this date, the slogan of Absolute Morality has been touted in fundie circles over and over again, yet even a little time spent on Google and certain academic, theological databases reveal that not one essay, not one philosophical argument has been offered that shows what this morality is without resorting to tautology.

Of course, when you take away the position of Absolute Morality, most theists will declare you as an inhumane, self centered person intent on ignoring the truth in order to satisfy your own lusts and sins. This attack is nothing more but an attack based in fear and ignorance. First, there are reasoned, logical arguments that do not resort to logical fallacies in order to support their positions in regards to absolute moral truth. The reason why most theists ignore these, however, is because these arguments do not resort to the unknown (a definition of God which turns out to be contradictory in most circles of theodicy, or resort to statements that morality can only come from this unknown in philosophical terms) in order to propagate their reasoning on what morality is, how it is to be achieved, and how to live by it.

Indeed, when the argument is looked at in its entirety, a rational person would have to conclude that this is the irrational response of a person who has invested much emotional energy into the construction of their metaphysics, but cannot be relied on to utilize reasonableness in assessment of their own claims. For instance, there is no consensus among theists about the attributes of God. Is it omnibenevolence? If so, then why is the scriptural writ of choice for Christians so vague when it comes to this absolute moral standard? If a person holds truth, but refuses to clarify that truth for the betterment of his fellow man, especially in areas where loss of life may be incurred through ignorance of this truth, then the person is guilty of murder through omission. If God is omnibenevolent, then where are His proclamations regarding gene splicing, genetic mapping, stem cell research? Is God omnipotent? If you know how to swim, and stand on the bank of a stream and watch a child drown, you are guilty of allowing that child to drown when you had the opportunity, the means, and the knowledge in how to save him. However, this Omnipotent God that the theists posit allows millions to die from natural causes every year. Remember the tsunami last year? Remember Hurricane Katrina?

This argumentation of the contradiction in terms between Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence has been discussed for centuries, with the theists always resorting to defending untenable positions. However, if we look at the Bible for attributes that belong to God, we find that many of the attributes are similarly contradictory. It should be no surprise, then, that if a theist is relying on a text that is irrational and contradictory, then his arguments for the existence and definition of God will likewise be contradictory. For example:

Ezekiel 6:12 He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that remaineth and is besieged shall die by the famine: thus will I accomplish my fury upon them.

Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Isaiah 45:6-7 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Numbers 11:33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

I Kings 22:21-23 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. 22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

II Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

So much for the idea of Omnibenevolence being an attribute of God. The Christians own scriptures are riddled with these, and dozens of other, contradictions when it comes to the exact attributes of God. The reason why these particular quotes were cited is because these are excerpts that are usually ignored in most Christian circles, as they tend to undermine their credibility when it comes to citing God as the author of Absolute Morality. Here, we see that God, according to the Bible, causes deafness, dumbness, inflicts sickness and disease, delights in lying to his followers, cause people to lie and to believe lies, is the author of evil, is vengeful, is jealous, is wrathful, and so on and so forth, all contrary to what the typical fundamentalist would want you to believe. These quotes, though, are in direct contradiction to the quotes that fundies usually espouse, which should illumine a rational person to the fact that the inerrancy doctrine is seriously flawed.

With such gaping holes in the Inerrancy Doctrine, one wonders how the Christian then goes on to argue for absolute morality in the Bible? The problem is that they can’t, but they do not want you to know it. The fundamental supposition that is false within a Christian Fundamentalists worldview is the fact that Absolute Morality is never defined. It is, to them, an unproven assertion that is brought out from time to time to attack others that do not adhere to their philosophical viewpoints.

Now, a more liberal interpretation of the Bible does not adhere to such fallacies as the fundamentalists. In their interpretation, there is an explicitly defined sense of what morality is, that is independent from the conception of God. The rational basis for the dichotomy of the argument is lest that Good becomes Evil, and Evil Good; for if there is no difference between the two, and they are defined arbitrarily by anything or anyone purporting to be God or speaking for God, then deception sets in, and the people are led down a rapacious path that is irrespective of moral standards and ethics. Only through reasoning what Good and Evil stand for can a person be relatively assured that his actions are righteous.

Of course, if there is a standard of Absolute Morality according the Bible, I have yet to see it. Maybe someone else can elaborate the argument?