What do you find immoral?

[DC Al Fine]

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened. And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

Speaking as a practising Christian with a very wide group of contacts, that's simply not the case. I mean, most Christians would agree that parts of the Bible are metaphorical or poetical, but full throttle view you're describing is almost exclusively the domain of the liberal Protestant sects. This is even more true once you eliminate Chreasters from the sample.

Taking that into account, you have to interpret the Bible using common sense.  If the Bible appears to say something absurd, like the creation story or that homosexuality is wrong, you have to find a non-absurd interpretation. 

Let's back up here a second. You keep using loaded terminology like rational and absurd. On what basis are you declaring things from the Bible rational or absurd?

[bedstuy]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

Just ethically then.  If you don't understand why murder is ethically wrong, aside from your belief in God's rule on murder, you're mentally ill.  That sounds strident, but it's true.  That's an intellectually dishonest position to take.

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened. And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

Speaking as a practising Christian with a very wide group of contacts, that's simply not the case. I mean, most Christians would agree that parts of the Bible are metaphorical or poetical, but full throttle view you're describing is almost exclusively the domain of the liberal Protestant sects. This is even more true once you eliminate Chreasters from the sample.

That's my experience.  Maybe it's that I've lived only among educated, cosmopolitan people in a few major US cities.  But, ideas like homosexuality being immoral or biblical literalism are not really considered normal among people I've known.

Taking that into account, you have to interpret the Bible using common sense.  If the Bible appears to say something absurd, like the creation story or that homosexuality is wrong, you have to find a non-absurd interpretation. 

Let's back up here a second. You keep using loaded terminology like rational and absurd. On what basis are you declaring things from the Bible rational or absurd?

To be honest, I know nothing about theology.  I've never been to a Christian sermon presentation.  I've never really read the Bible.  But, I know a good deal about interpreting specific meaning in a text so I have a valid, if unconventional, opinion on this stuff.

Here's what I mean:  Text generally has numerous potential meanings.  You can't truly understand something just from reading the words.  So, you have to use interpretative tools, you look at dictionaries, you look at the text in context, you compare similar text, you get to know the history when it was written, you learn about the author, etc. 

But, those don't always arrive at one clear meaning.  A good rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity is just common sense.  A meaning that is common-sensical should be preferred over a meaning that is absurd.  If one interpretation means the Earth is 6000 years old, it's an absurd interpretation, so you take another interpretation.  Similarly, the idea that homosexuality is immoral is absurd, so you need to find another way to understand the text. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

I don't think bedstuy was asking you about God, in this context.  I think what he meant was, if there was no Bible, would you still consider homosexuality wrong?  After all, you don't have to believe what the Bible says, let alone God, to consider shoplifting and murder morally wrong.  The two are not inseparable.

The way I see it, you have to have some kind of moral compass independent from Scripture to believe that what Scripture - the Scripture that lays the foundation for Judeo Christian belief - says, is the key to living a moral life.  Otherwise, you're just following words on a page.  (I know that approach isn't compatible with Calvinist theology, but that, of course, is why I could never accept Calvinist teachings...)

[Goldwater]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

This honestly, legitimately worries me.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

Oh that's good, Al. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

[Del Tachi]

The immoral ones...

Abortion
Euthanasia
Sex before marriage 
Divorce
Polygamy
Pornography
Homosexuality
Gambling
Unwed Birth
Suicide
Cloning animals
Cloning humans

I may be a bit out-of-the-mainstream on this one...

I remember one of your post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you believe you're yourself immoral?

Yes. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, I should add that it's bad theology to attribute all sin to violation of the First Commandment.  Sin simply means "to miss the mark."  When a person commits a felony, for example, they are not charged for "putting themselves ahead of the state;" they are charged for the consequences of breaking that law and causing hardships for the person or people affected by it.  Even the Ten Commandments are appropriately divided into two categories: those which apply to God and those which apply to Man, and Jesus' summation of the entire law demonstrates a clear distinction, as well (Matthew 22:37-40).

But as others have said, if you base everything you think is moral and immoral on what a book tells you and don't care why those laws are there and proclaim that you'd reject all morality if you didn't believe in a God, you're either seriously f**ked up in the head or you need to reevaluate yourself on, well, everything.  I don't know what else to tell you.

This is why so many people are saying, "F**k it," when it comes to religion.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

You are aware that without a God, we all would be moral nihilists, whether we want to be or not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

You are aware that without a God, we all would be moral nihilists, whether we want to be or not.

No, I'm not.

[Goldwater]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

You are aware that without a God, we all would be moral nihilists, whether we want to be or not.

What about people who are already atheists and aren't moral nihilists? And don't tell me they don't exist, I know you're smarter than that.

[Cassius]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

'Moral depravity'. Hardly, DC Al Fine seems like a thoroughly nice chap. I will say that (and I'm not trying to speak for DC Al Fine here), in a sense, Christianity is a very good bulwark against immorality. Now, you might say 'but not everyone shares the Christian view of morality' which is true. However, I think the vast majority of us would agree that things like murder, theft, adultery etc are basically morally wrong. However, it is also true that a lot of people will do things that are immoral even if they know what they are doing to be immoral, and, as you said, a mark of moral depravity. Which brings me to my next point; appealing to people's reason not to commit abhorrent acts is all well and good, but, to put it very bluntly, saying 'if you murder somebody then you'll burn in Hell forever and ever' can be a far more effective method of persuading people not to do things than actually trying to convince them using 'reason'. A similar principle applies to criminal justice, if we take into account one of it's many purposes as a deterrant. So, I guess what can be said is that, for some people (and I'm sure DC Al Fine was exaggerating, though that's for him to tell you), blunt threats of divine vengeance are a far easier way of persuading them to be good than simply trying to 'convince them'.

Now, I'll get to the most thorny problem for my argument, which is the existance of perfectly moral and nice atheists. Many exist, just as some thoroughly awful Christians (like that fellow Jim Jones et al) have and do exist. But, to some extent, their basic sense of morality, given to them by society, is still molded by Christianity. I mean, a lot of our, to put it very crudely, hangups, about killing humans (and I'm not just talking about plain and simple murder here, I'm talking about the death penalty, war, euthanasia and abortion among other things) are very Christian in their nature. Whilst this is certainly not exclusive to Christianity, or indeed religion in general, a basic belief in something like the sanctity of life is one of the central tenets of Christianity. This can be contrasted, quite heavily, with plenty of pre-Christian societies in Europe; I mean, the Romans weren't exactly overly concerned about the sanctity of life, as was shown by their regular slaughter-fests of both humans and animals at games and festivals (such practices, were, in general, only outlawed by Christian Emperors).

Thus, I would argue that a belief in Christianity, or at least and acceptance of it, is one of those things which really keeps our society, our civilisation, rooted. There are, doubtless, plenty of atheists who would rather like to expunge Christianity from society, along with all of it's quaint hangups. But, once that's gone, what remains? Something has to take it's place. Will it be something that's rather gentle, like Christianity (after all, this is the religion that argues that you can ultimately obtain salvation as long as you genuinely repent of your sins, no matter what they are)? Or will it be something a little harsher, one rooted in the values of 'rationality', 'logic' and 'functionality'? My basic point is that, yes, not doing bad things because you're frightened perhaps isn't the most 'moral' reason for not doing them. But it's a hell of a lot better than doing those bad things anyway.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality?  

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

You are aware that without a God, we all would be moral nihilists, whether we want to be or not.

What about people who are already atheists and aren't moral nihilists? And don't tell they don't exist, I know you're smarter than that.

Chairman, I'm an atheist, and one time I gave a homeless person some money and a hug around the holidays.  Explain why I didn't punch him in the face instead.  

(Here's the catch.  You can't say, "because of God"... because it wasn't)

[bedstuy]

'Moral depravity'. Hardly, DC Al Fine seems like a thoroughly nice chap. I will say that (and I'm not trying to speak for DC Al Fine here), in a sense, Christianity is a very good bulwark against immorality. Now, you might say 'but not everyone shares the Christian view of morality' which is true. However, I think the vast majority of us would agree that things like murder, theft, adultery etc are basically morally wrong. However, it is also true that a lot of people will do things that are immoral even if they know what they are doing to be immoral, and, as you said, a mark of moral depravity. Which brings me to my next point; appealing to people's reason not to commit abhorrent acts is all well and good, but, to put it very bluntly, saying 'if you murder somebody then you'll burn in Hell forever and ever' can be a far more effective method of persuading people not to do things than actually trying to convince them using 'reason'.

Two responses to that point:

First, it's also effective to tell your kids that if they don't eat their vegetables, the boogie man will eat them while they sleep.  It doesn't mean that the reason vegetables are healthy is their boogie man deterrence value.  This isn't a discussion of how to control the masses, it's a question of whether something is right or wrong which is a question in itself, distinct from how you compel morally just behavior.

Second, actually knowing the "why" behind something is a key pedagogical tool.  If you tell someone, wear a seatbelt because I said so, they might well ignore you.  But, if you tell them, wear a seatbelt because it will prevent neck injuries and flying through the windshield at 40 MPH, that's more effective.  Ethics is a life-long intellectual pursuit.  "Because I said so" is effective for children and those who are on the intellectual level of children, but it's pretty basic.  What you want in society are people who understand why things are right and wrong, can question and interact with those ethical ideas, so they can apply them to new situations and complex problems presented by life.  By reducing morality to hellfire, you're actually giving yourself a tremendous ethical handicap in practice.

Now, I'll get to the most thorny problem for my argument, which is the existance of perfectly moral and nice atheists. Many exist, just as some thoroughly awful Christians (like that fellow Jim Jones et al) have and do exist. But, to some extent, their basic sense of morality, given to them by society, is still molded by Christianity.

No.  Maybe that's true to an extent, because our society is shaped by Christianity in fundamental ways.  But, it's also true that both secular morality and Christian cannon are shaped by Western intellectual culture and basic human ethical principles.  If the causality was running directly from Christianity, Japanese people would be pure evil. 

I mean, a lot of our, to put it very crudely, hangups, about killing humans (and I'm not just talking about plain and simple murder here, I'm talking about the death penalty, war, euthanasia and abortion among other things) are very Christian in their nature. Whilst this is certainly not exclusive to Christianity, or indeed religion in general, a basic belief in something like the sanctity of life is one of the central tenets of Christianity. This can be contrasted, quite heavily, with plenty of pre-Christian societies in Europe; I mean, the Romans weren't exactly overly concerned about the sanctity of life, as was shown by their regular slaughter-fests of both humans and animals at games and festivals (such practices, were, in general, only outlawed by Christian Emperors).

This argument is basically garbage.  Christians also did some of the most evil things in human history and have killed millions and millions of people.  There's no good evidence that Christian people are more or less ethical or moral than non-Christians.

Thus, I would argue that a belief in Christianity, or at least and acceptance of it, is one of those things which really keeps our society, our civilisation, rooted. There are, doubtless, plenty of atheists who would rather like to expunge Christianity from society, along with all of it's quaint hangups. But, once that's gone, what remains? Something has to take it's place. Will it be something that's rather gentle, like Christianity (after all, this is the religion that argues that you can ultimately obtain salvation as long as you genuinely repent of your sins, no matter what they are)? Or will it be something a little harsher, one rooted in the values of 'rationality', 'logic' and 'functionality'? My basic point is that, yes, not doing bad things because you're frightened perhaps isn't the most 'moral' reason for not doing them. But it's a hell of a lot better than doing those bad things anyway.

That's a complete false choice.  Nobody is proposing outlawing Christianity, nor is anyone proposing doing away with any positive, reasonable idea Christianity has contributed to our society. 

[afleitch]

I find it curious that in putting my husband above myself I'm somehow 'putting myself ahead of god.'

[Peter the Lefty]

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened. And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

Speaking as a practising Christian with a very wide group of contacts, that's simply not the case. I mean, most Christians would agree that parts of the Bible are metaphorical or poetical, but full throttle view you're describing is almost exclusively the domain of the liberal Protestant sects. This is even more true once you eliminate Chreasters from the sample.

Taking that into account, you have to interpret the Bible using common sense.  If the Bible appears to say something absurd, like the creation story or that homosexuality is wrong, you have to find a non-absurd interpretation. 

Let's back up here a second. You keep using loaded terminology like rational and absurd. On what basis are you declaring things from the Bible rational or absurd?

The basis of common sense.  Though frankly, it would seem you don't have it if you believe faith to be the only basis for your morality. 

Now please tell me one rational (yes) argument for why homosexual sex is wrong.  "The Bible says so," does not count, as "the Bible says so" also justifies slavery, the stoning of adulterers, and sexism.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

It's all context, however I do find medical testing on animals & cloning humans to be immoral in almost any circumstance.

[Mordecai]

I think I must have missed the death penalty when I first read the poll, I do find that one immoral but nothing else really stands out to me as being immoral unless I'm meant to imagine some sort of negative consequence. There are of course some things I wouldn't do but I don't consider it immoral to do them.

A lot of it is thinking that none of it's really my business as long as the people involved consented to it and other things are just absurd to consider 'immoral'. I also think the animal rights stuff is just stupid.

[DC Al Fine]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality?  

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

You are aware that without a God, we all would be moral nihilists, whether we want to be or not.

What about people who are already atheists and aren't moral nihilists? And don't tell they don't exist, I know you're smarter than that.

Chairman, I'm an atheist, and one time I gave a homeless person some money and a hug around the holidays.  Explain why I didn't punch him in the face instead.  

(Here's the catch.  You can't say, "because of God"... because it wasn't)

That's completely irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for the other commenters, I just worked 16 hours straight and need some sleep. F[inks] tax season... Anyways I'll try to address your points in the morning.

[Gustaf]

I'll just note that the position that there cannot be morality without God has a long tradition and is a legitimate viewpoint. You can disagree with it but it isn't absurd and the people who are saying so in this thread don't seem to fully grasp the concept.

Also, teenage sex? So, if you're 19 and married it'd be immoral to have sex? How can anyone think that?

[Mordecai]

I'm always fascinated by religious people who say that if they didn't have the bible or god (or the death penalty, or hell, etc.) that they would not be discouraged from murdering other people.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll just note that the position that there cannot be morality without God has a long tradition and is a legitimate viewpoint. You can disagree with it but it isn't absurd and the people who are saying so in this thread don't seem to fully grasp the concept.

It might be a legitimate viewpoint, but it is one that deeply offends my sense of morality.

[Gustaf]

I'll just note that the position that there cannot be morality without God has a long tradition and is a legitimate viewpoint. You can disagree with it but it isn't absurd and the people who are saying so in this thread don't seem to fully grasp the concept.

It might be a legitimate viewpoint, but it is one that deeply offends my sense of morality.

Well, people often get offended by moral disagreements. It's sort of in the nature of things.

[Mordecai]

You keep using loaded terminology

If there was no God

[DC Al Fine]

Ok starting with Bedstuy since he was fisrt

To be honest, I know nothing about theology.  I've never been to a Christian sermon presentation.  I've never really read the Bible.  But, I know a good deal about interpreting specific meaning in a text so I have a valid, if unconventional, opinion on this stuff.

Here's what I mean:  Text generally has numerous potential meanings.  You can't truly understand something just from reading the words.  So, you have to use interpretative tools, you look at dictionaries, you look at the text in context, you compare similar text, you get to know the history when it was written, you learn about the author, etc. 

But, those don't always arrive at one clear meaning.  A good rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity is just common sense.  A meaning that is common-sensical should be preferred over a meaning that is absurd.  If one interpretation means the Earth is 6000 years old, it's an absurd interpretation, so you take another interpretation.  Similarly, the idea that homosexuality is immoral is absurd, so you need to find another way to understand the text. 

Here's what I was getting at: On what basis are you declaring opposition to homosexuality absurd? Creationism is a question of fact. Either it is or isn't true, and it's relatively easy to determine that. Morality is much more ambiguous.