Why do Christians claim to get their morals from the bible?

[The People of George]

If you read the bible then you will clearly see that if people actually got thair morals from it....

Well to put it simply the world would be more fu*ked up than it already is.

I'd like to hear what all of you have to say on this topic.

all the Christians I know (not including those of the Interwebs) claim they get their morals from the Teachings of Jesus. not from 'The Bible' in total.

Well even the teachings of jesus aren't too helpful. If christians only did what jesus said, then they would own nothing but the colthes on their back and they would would hate every person in their family just so they could love jebus.

That's definitely false.

Have you read the bible? Or more importantly the New Testament?

Yeaaa....i'm a Christian...it does not say that.

[Tekania]

The irony of this law being delivered via a murderer was always something of an amusement to me.

Moses?

Yes, he murdered an Egyptian Guard... that's why he fled for awhile and moved in with his future father-in-law before coming back as the spokesman for the Hebrews.

[Geniasis]

all the Christians I know (not including those of the Interwebs) claim they get their morals from the Teachings of Jesus. not from 'The Bible' in total.

Well even the teachings of jesus aren't too helpful. If christians only did what jesus said, then they would own nothing but the colthes on their back and they would would hate every person in their family just so they could love jebus.[/quote]

You're ignoring context. Jesus was using hyperbole to make a point. The idea is that you're supposed to love God so much, that the love you have for your family is almost like hate by comparison.

If you take that literally, it clearly makes no fucking sense. Which... is why you're not supposed to.

[Free Soviets]

I think you're confusing commandments with morals, which aren't the same.

in the context of revealed religion, how do you figure?

Because commandments tend to be hard and fast statements that don't cover everything. Morals can be derived from commandments, yes, but it's hard to make a moral judgement about, oh say, which charity is more deserving of a limited amount of aid when the commandment is to give to the poor.

the morals are the commandments, the implementation of them is just the implementation. in your example, the moral imperative is to give to the poor. your worry about how to best accomplish that is a cost minimizing-benefit maximizing economic problem.

[Greed and Death]

If you read the bible then you will clearly see that if people actually got thair morals from it....

Well to put it simply the world would be more fu*ked up than it already is.

I'd like to hear what all of you have to say on this topic.

the bible is so loosely written and defined it can be used to justify just about anything.
Much like the US Constitution.

[Blouman Empire]

The irony of this law being delivered via a murderer was always something of an amusement to me.

Moses?

Yes, he murdered an Egyptian Guard... that's why he fled for awhile and moved in with his future father-in-law before coming back as the spokesman for the Hebrews.

Oh yeah true that, which then asks the question can murder ever be justified?

[The Adrian Empire]

That is what I wonder.

They say atheists don't have morals, but if we followed the morals from the Bible we would all be murderers, we would be stoning people, burning "sorceresses." It's weird isn't it? The bible tells people the disobey the Ten Commandments.

Mainly, "Thou shalt not kill"

Your comment shows your ignorance of Christianity, all to common today with those who lambaste us, Of course Atheists have morals, but the very foundation of Western Morals is Christianity, this cannot be denied, and although society today has been more and more abandoning these tenants (I won't go into that though). You also confuse New with Old Testament, Jesus advocated that we be merciful "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" ring a bell. I don't believe anywhere in the Bible is burning witches mentioned, witches in fact are never mentioned in the Bible, witches were a pagan myth endemic to Europe that the masses of medieval feudal society still hadn't flushed out, unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church took advantage of this to eliminate powerful women who seeked to change the misogynistic views of the Church, that had nothing to do with Christian beliefs

[New Azura]

The irony of this law being delivered via a murderer was always something of an amusement to me.

Moses?

Yeah, Moses was a murderer. He killed an Egyptian who was harming a Hebrew slave:

"And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand."

- Exodus 2:11-12,

[The Rifle Brigade]

Your comment shows your ignorance of Christianity, all to common today with those who lambaste us, Of course Atheists have morals, but the very foundation of Western Morals is Christianity, this cannot be denied, and although society today has been more and more abandoning these tenants (I won't go into that though). You also confuse New with Old Testament, Jesus advocated that we be merciful "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" ring a bell. I don't believe anywhere in the Bible is burning witches mentioned, witches in fact are never mentioned in the Bible, witches were a pagan myth endemic to Europe that the masses of medieval feudal society still hadn't flushed out, unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church took advantage of this to eliminate powerful women who seeked to change the misogynistic views of the Church, that had nothing to do with Christian beliefs

Witches are never mentioned in the Bible? Which translation are we talking about, I'd be interested in looking.

Anything about sorcerors, fortune tellers, communers with spirits, any of that kind of thing?

[The Deus Corporation]

Have you read the bible? Or more importantly the New Testament?

I would like you to explain your second point and how you got to that reasoning.

You mean the hate your family thing:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "

Matthew 10:34-37

[Blouman Empire]

Have you read the bible? Or more importantly the New Testament?

I would like you to explain your second point and how you got to that reasoning.

You mean the hate your family thing:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "

Matthew 10:34-37

That's not telling you to hate your own family.

[The Deus Corporation]

Have you read the bible? Or more importantly the New Testament?

I would like you to explain your second point and how you got to that reasoning.

You mean the hate your family thing:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "

Matthew 10:34-37

That's not telling you to hate your own family.

It's saying that he came to earth to turn family members against each other.

[Arresyl]

Have you read the bible? Or more importantly the New Testament?

I would like you to explain your second point and how you got to that reasoning.

You mean the hate your family thing:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "

Matthew 10:34-37

That's not telling you to hate your own family.

It's saying that he came to earth to turn family members against each other.

It's telling you to put your God before all else, really. To serve humankind as a whole, rather than just your own people.

It makes perfect sense if you realize that there is more to existance than yourself and those closest to you.

[New Azura]

That is what I wonder.

They say atheists don't have morals, but if we followed the morals from the Bible we would all be murderers, we would be stoning people, burning "sorceresses." It's weird isn't it? The bible tells people the disobey the Ten Commandments.

Mainly, "Thou shalt not kill"

Your comment shows your ignorance of Christianity, all to common today with those who lambaste us, Of course Atheists have morals, but the very foundation of Western Morals is Christianity, this cannot be denied, and although society today has been more and more abandoning these tenants (I won't go into that though). You also confuse New with Old Testament, Jesus advocated that we be merciful "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" ring a bell. I don't believe anywhere in the Bible is burning witches mentioned, witches in fact are never mentioned in the Bible, witches were a pagan myth endemic to Europe that the masses of medieval feudal society still hadn't flushed out, unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church took advantage of this to eliminate powerful women who seeked to change the misogynistic views of the Church, that had nothing to do with Christian beliefs

He raises an important point, actually, regarding the Catholic Church. Not to offend Catholic Christians who would enter here, but the practices of the Catholic Church during the middle ages is the indirect cause for such fear and resentment towards Christianity today. Western Civilization split into three divergent paths around the turn of the sixteenth century. One group, Reformationists sought to reform Christianity and bring back the true meaning of the Word and Salvation through a new movement, which they called Protestantism (after Luther's "Protest", I'd reckon). The second group was a group that sought to reform the Catholic church from within, or at least keep the status quo going. This would eventually morph into the group that we know as the Catholic Church today. And there was yet a third group that rose following the Catholic Church's loss of political influence: the secularists. These were people who'd been unable to express their true views prior to the Catholic Church's loss of secular power, or had become disillusioned with the faith following the Catholic-led massacres and the Protestant Reformation. Catholics and Protestants share the same general path, while the secularists went down a different road. People of the Christian faith became more and more interested in understanding their place in God's universe, while the secularists focused on the role of man in the universe.

First you had the "Age of Enlightenment", where philosophers attempted to use reason as a means of explaining reality without seeking a divine inspiration. Though the first major movement following the Catholic/Protestant/Secularist split, it's probably the most endearing and has demonstrated the greatest longevity of the cavalcade that would follow. The Christian influence wasn't quite shaken by this point, as a lot of major Enlightenment thinkers still held belief in Christ. Secularists moved into the period of Romanticism following this, trying to expound on the belief that, if there was a God, he was too far from man to be of any use. This is why you had the Romantic movement of the 18th and early 19th century which focused on the idea that man was the peak creature in the universe and was the paragon by which all other materials were to be judged. Romanticism was destroyed by the French Revolution in large part. American transcendentalism bares a strong resemblance to this era.

Existentialism came next, and basically brought the equation down to the study of man himself, and his own inner nature. This gave rise to two competing philosophies in the twentieth century: modernism and post-modernism. Modernism could be seen to advocate that there's only one right answer, and that all others should be forced to conform to it. This is why we had Imperialism throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Fascism in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s, and the prolonged Capitalist vs. Communist struggle known as the Cold War in the 1950s. There was supposedly only one answer, Imperialism and Fascism had been eliminated, so it either had to be Communism/Socialism/Totalitarianism or Capitalism/Free-Market/Democracy. Well, Democracy finally won out in 1991, but surprise surprise, turns out that Capitalism wasn't always the end-all, be-all for people. That's where we've come to today: post-modernism. The belief that there's not one single answer out there for life's mysteries, and that people's viewpoints can be equally equitable and charitable given sufficient justification.

The problem, which most are coming to terms with, is that if there's no one correct answer, then it juxtaposes that there could be any number of "correct" answers, and that everything is a matter of interpretation. But if every answer can be deemed right, then can any answer truly be deemed "right"? So what you'd assess to be the future of secular thought would come into the question: can man truly know anything outside of his own physical self? I of course mean this in a philosophical sense, not a physical sense. Rational thought is the name of the game, and the secularist movement has been trying to figure it out for centuries now.

[The People of George]

Have you read the bible? Or more importantly the New Testament?

I would like you to explain your second point and how you got to that reasoning.

You mean the hate your family thing:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "

Matthew 10:34-37

That's not telling you to hate your own family.

It's saying that he came to earth to turn family members against each other.

It's telling you to put your God before all else, really. To serve humankind as a whole, rather than just your own people.

It makes perfect sense if you realize that there is more to existance than yourself and those closest to you.

Furthermore, you are taking it out of context...you have to know what the chapter is talking about. I could read a history book take one excerpt from and try to define the entire scope of the book on it..and i would be wrong.

[Grays Harbor]

Why do Christians claim to get their morals from the bible?

Gonna go out on a limb here. It may be because perhaps not all Christians, like members of any religion, are not all cynical hypocrites, and see more than just the cherry-picked “ebul” verses that are so oft quoted as “proof” the bible is nothing but death, violence and mayhem. There are so many folk here who, rightfully, point out that not all muslims are of the extremist variety, mostly a small percentage of them are, actually. The extremists are, however, the ones who get in the news most often. Why is it so difficult to see that the same applies to Christians? Only a small percentage are of the fundie variety, but they are the ones who get the press attention, mostly because their extremist views are so unlike normal folk.

[The People of George]

Why do Christians claim to get their morals from the bible?

Gonna go out on a limb here. It may be because perhaps not all Christians, like members of any religion, are not all cynical hypocrites, and see more than just the cherry-picked “ebul” verses that are so oft quoted as “proof” the bible is nothing but death, violence and mayhem. There are so many folk here who, rightfully, point out that not all muslims are of the extremist variety, mostly a small percentage of them are, actually. The extremists are, however, the ones who get in the news most often. Why is it so difficult to see that the same applies to Christians? Only a small percentage are of the fundie variety, but they are the ones who get the press attention, mostly because their extremist views are so unlike normal folk.

[CanuckHeaven]

If you read the bible then you will clearly see that if people actually got thair morals from it....

Well to put it simply the world would be more fu*ked up than it already is.

I'd like to hear what all of you have to say on this topic.

all the Christians I know (not including those of the Interwebs) claim they get their morals from the Teachings of Jesus. not from 'The Bible' in total.

Well even the teachings of jesus aren't too helpful. If christians only did what jesus said, then they would own nothing but the colthes on their back and they would would hate every person in their family just so they could love jebus.

I think you have the wrong Jesus?

THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS

Try that one.

[Nercer -]

If you read the bible then you will clearly see that if people actually got thair morals from it....

Well to put it simply the world would be more fu*ked up than it already is.

I'd like to hear what all of you have to say on this topic.

Don't be scared, we can say "fuck" . . . we can right???

[Geniasis]

Have you read the bible? Or more importantly the New Testament?

I would like you to explain your second point and how you got to that reasoning.

You mean the hate your family thing:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "

Matthew 10:34-37

This was already addressed.

[Grave_n_idle]

The irony of this law being delivered via a murderer was always something of an amusement to me.

Moses?

He's the dude that wrote them, right?

[Grave_n_idle]

You can justify pretty much anything by appeal to scripture.

Get caught doing something naughty? Find the right verse, and that's okay - you were serving a higher power.

Umm, can one not do this with anything? "Oh, it's ok that I conquered that city, and burned it to the ground, slaughtering every citizen... Genghis did it, and he's remembered in the annals of history."

So, your point seems a bit too general as it relates to this context specifically.

"I do it because the Mongols did it" isn't half as good as an excuse as "God Told Me" (or the other favourite, "the Devil Made Me Do It").

People have their own free will, the devil may tempt you to do something but ultimately it is up to you to follow through...and when people say "God told me" if it doesn't line up with with the Word says then they didn't hear it from God.

People say that 'god' and 'the devil' told them to do things for exactly the saem reason - it's easy to blame someone who isn't there to call you a liar.

And what i am saying is Christians who do that as a scape goat are wrong...

But, that is why Christians might claim to get their morals from the Bible, no?

There's sufficient conflict in trhe text that - as I said before - you can CLAIM just about any set of morals, or any single moral principle, if you're just willing to look around.

[Grave_n_idle]

Have you read the bible? Or more importantly the New Testament?

I would like you to explain your second point and how you got to that reasoning.

You mean the hate your family thing:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "

Matthew 10:34-37

That's not telling you to hate your own family.

Luke 14:26 "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. "

[Egyptian Card Games]

I believe the Bible is God's actual words to us. So if Jesus is God, the Bible is his teachings. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for correcting, rebuking, teaching and training in righteousness." 2Timothy 3:16 Also, we cant take everything literally that the Bible says because there are different types of writing and it was written in an earlier time period with earlier rules. One thing we can do is know that it is true because of 2 timothy 3:16.

[Grave_n_idle]

I believe the Bible is God's actual words to us. So if Jesus is God, the Bible is his teachings. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for correcting, rebuking, teaching and training in righteousness." 2Timothy 3:16 Also, we cant take everything literally that the Bible says because there are different types of writing and it was written in an earlier time period with earlier rules. One thing we can do is know that it is true because of 2 timothy 3:16.

So, the Mormons are also right, and so was Mohammed?