There is actually a lot of talk these days about ethics and morality. No matter what subject you are talking about, whether politics, race relations, medicine, the use of computer technology, sexuality, or virtually any other topic, everyone seems to have a belief about what is right and what is wrong. The only problem is, without some objective standard for determining what is moral and what is immoral, the discussion itself is quite meaningless. For instance:
- Technology – A computer technician fears that as computers become more powerful, those without access to the technology will be left behind. His concern “assumes” a moral framework where all people have a right to that access, and that if everyone can’t have it, no one should have it. But where does this moral point of view come from? It is just his own personal moral belief.
- Sports (Entertainment) – Major League Baseball decided to pull the All-Star game from Georgia because the top management believed that a law passed by the Georgia legislature concerning voting was discriminatory. This in spite of the fact that: their headquarters are in a state that has even stronger voting laws; the baseball commissioner himself is a member of an elite country club in Georgia;, and the leagues has defended their interaction with China – which is a one party system and actually does not even allow popular dissent. On top of that, they moved the game from a state that has a 30% black population to one that has about 4%. How do they justify these moral inconsistencies?
- Sexuality – In physical reality, there are only two genders – male and female. Every person has DNA and genitalia that makes them one or the other. However, many powerful people and institutions now insist that there are MANY genders (some identifying as many as 100). But where does this come from? Certainly not from science. It is a concept born of a desire to make any form sexual activity acceptable in general society. It is a moral choice, not a scientific one. But what is the basis for this moral choice?
- Science – Science is supposed to be based purely on observation and experiment. However, many people are now using a new standard to determine what is “scientific.” This new standard is “scientific consensus.” What this means is that if a majority of scientists believe something, it almost doesn’t matter whether or not it can be verified by the scientific method. Man-made global climate change and the theory of evolution are two topics in modern times that are deemed to be true, not because they have been demonstrated scientifically, but because they fit the naturalistic preferences of those in power in the scientific community. But it is the moral implications of this that is really the bottom line. Supporters of this point of view insist that societal changes be made based on their beliefs. But why these beliefs?
- Church – What is salvation? If you are a biblical Christian, you recognize salvation to be a spiritual concept where God provides a way for individuals to obtain eternal life. However, if you believe in most liberal forms of theology, salvation is the process of making society better based on the concept of social justice. The biblical point of view comes from a belief that the teachings of the Bible are objective truth. The point of view of liberal theology looks to relativistic philosophy for its moral foundation, and they adjust their religious beliefs to social circumstances. Thus they end up supporting non-biblical things like abortion, homosexual marriage, sexual relations out of wedlock, and they disregard certain civil laws that don’t fit their narrative. So just how do they justify redefining morality to be something other than what is revealed in the Bible?
- Education – Political correctness has taken over many educational institutions. Rather than being places where different ideas can be held and debated, many have become bastions of intolerance. The State University of New York, for instance, suspended a student from a teaching program for posting a video online that declared “a man is a man, a woman is a woman” (and it was on his own private account – nothing to do with the school). Somehow, the university bought into the moral belief that this kind of viewpoint was unacceptable for a student to hold. Where does the university get its moral beliefs?
- Journalism – NBC News anchor, Lester Holt, gave a speech and asserted that reporters don’t need to hear both sides of a story before determining the truth. He said, “I think it’s become clear that fairness is overrated … the idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in.” Somehow it has become okay for journalists to become partisan megaphones rather than honest reporters of the truth. How does this moral point of view become dominant in the news media?
- Business – One of the world’s largest businesses, Amazon, has now decided that there are certain books that it will no longer carry simply because the authors hold views about sexuality that disagree with the company’s leaders’ moral beliefs. They have come to see viewpoint discrimination as an acceptable approach to business without any kind of objective basis for doing it. So why these particular beliefs?
The Foundation of Relativistic Morality
Relativistic morality is simply the attempt to impose a moral code without any kind of objective foundation. The reason for the existence of any given moral standard, thus, becomes nothing more than some person’s or group’s personal preferences, or a pragmatic answer to some perceived problem.
In order for there to exist an objectively real morality, there must be an objectively real transcendent moral law giver who is able to express a moral law based on the existence of actual reality. Thus, those who insist on relativistic morality either dismiss the possibility that objective reality exists, or that, even if it does, it is impossible to know it.
Naturalism is at the root of most moral relativism in modern society. This worldview system is the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. With that as a starting point, no objective transcendent reality, nor a transcendent moral law giver (God), is acknowledged to exist. And if that is true, there is no other possibility for the existence of a moral code than for human beings to make it up for themselves.
If two people, or an entire society, agree on what the moral rules should be, there would not be any serious problems. However, that is virtually never the case. With no objective standard, settling this problem cannot be done based on what is objectively real, true, fair, or right. So what do individuals or groups who believe in this relativistic understanding of reality do when there is disagreement on what should be considered moral and what should be considered immoral? In a situation like that, the ultimate arbiter is power – the one who has the ability to impose their beliefs gets to set the rules.
The Foundation of Biblical Morality
As opposed to Naturalism, biblical morality is based on an objective foundation. What that means is that there exists objectively real, actually true moral values. These moral values are true no matter the circumstances.
What is important to realize is that for this kind of approach to morality to exist, there must also exist an eternal, transcendent moral law giver. After all, the values must come from somewhere, and any source less than an eternal, transcendent source would mean that there could be possible exceptions for any given moral rule. If there are possible exceptions, relativism becomes the only alternative.
The Bible reveals just such an objective source – God. He is both eternal and transcendent. His very personhood is the source of truth and right. When He created man in the natural universe, He revealed knowledge of Himself – which included values that characterize His being. It is these values upon which morality is based. With that as a starting point, we can say that the moral beliefs revealed in the Bible are both true and right. Along with that, we can also say that moral beliefs that are contrary to those taught in the Bible are objectively false.
How Christians Should Deal With This
Living out the Christian faith in an environment where Christian values are looked upon as deviant is no walk in the park. Pressure is exerted from everywhere to coerce Christians to compromise their beliefs – or at least to accept that what the Bible considers immoral acts are acceptable in society.
But compromise is not okay. Compromise means that one does not believe that the gospel message is absolutely true. For a Christian who truly believes the Bible, the relativistic values of naturalistic beliefs are, literally, the road to Hell. Believing and following the teachings God has revealed in the Bible requires that we understand what they are, and that we share them with those who don’t know Christ. And EVERYONE who accepts relativistic values has rejected the gospel message.
There are two things that Christians MUST embrace in order to confront and overcome the relativism that now dominates modern society – education and right action.
Education
The education element is nothing more than embracing Christian discipleship training. The teachings regarding what is moral and what is immoral are clearly taught in the Bible. Those who do not know what those teachings are can never be in a position to express God’s moral values in the world. But also realize that it is not enough to know “what” the Bible teaches. We need more than just a superficial understanding of Jesus. We also need to also know “why” what is taught in the Bible is true – as opposed to the relativistic values we confront in the world. If we don’t know the “why” part, we will never have a sufficient understanding as to why the teachings of the Christian faith are true, nor a sufficient reason for following biblical teachings in the face of the opposition we face in society.
Right Action
The action element of dealing with relativism in society relates to how we actually live out biblical values in daily life. It is one thing to know what is right, it is another thing altogether to be willing to live it out in an environment that literally HATES those values. That means being active in sharing the truth of the gospel, as well as promoting biblical values in society at large.
Bottom Line
There is only one way to stand up against the lies of relativism, and that is to be willing to live out and speak the truth no matter the cost. As difficult as it is to take this road, it is the only way. Otherwise the lie wins.
This means speaking out when relativistic values are promoted in technology, sports and entertainment, sexuality, science, church, education, journalism, business, politics, and any other place it rears its ugly head. And while pushing back against it is an important starting point, that too is not enough. We must also be ready and willing to share the origin of the truth – which includes an explanation of the gospel message. It is only when we get that right that we will be in a position to truly make a difference in modern society.
© 2021 Freddy Davis
You seem to advocate for a biblical authority that you say is objective. OK. Let’s look at some biblical morality. Exodus and Leviticus plainly state that slaves my be purchased. Male Hebrew slaves must be freed after six years but Hebrew woman and all non-Hebrews are not freed. It is explicitly stated that they are property and may be passed down. It was permissible to beat a slave as much as the owner wanted as long as the slave didn’t die in a couple of days.
In the new testament in Ephesians, Colossians, and other places, slaves are instructed to obey their masters, especially the cruel ones.
Using my morality, based and reason and empathy, I know that it is wrong to own human beings as property. I know that it is wrong to beat them. I know that the moral thing to say to a slave is not “Obey your cruel masters” but rather “Do what ever you must to escape. Bring as many of your fellow slaves as you can. I will help you.”
Using yours, all those things are just fine. After all, that is what the bible says.
It is hard to know where to start with your criticism. I suppose the first point is to note that proof texting and cherry-picking verses as a means of biblical hermeneutics is not valid. You totally ignore the context of what you mention (not only of the particular texts, but more seriously of the entire message of the Bible). You don’t seem to realize that there are many things that are mentioned in the Bible that are not to be considered either moral or normative. I’m very curious where you did your theological studies to come up with your interpretations.
More importantly, though, I am interested in your justification for your personal moralizing. You have expressed a moral code, but have not mentioned what you have based it on. If it is nothing more than your own personal opinion, then what makes it better than anyone else’s opinion? Very curious as to the basis for your moral standard.
It is hard for you to know where to start because as know from many years of engaging in these sorts of debates, there are no valid responses. “Cherry picking” verses is not valid? I suppose ignoring those you don’t like is. It isn’t my fault that your holy text says what it says.
Please provide the context that makes owning a human being as property a moral act. I can’t wait to hear it. If you are going to deny that the Bible condones it, please show why. It says what it says and you can’t deny it.
Morality is not nearly as complicated as you want to make it put to be. It is not some objective standard inferred form a book that approves of slavery. It is not some mystery beyond human understanding. We evolved to live in groups. The quality of empathy, our ability to understand other human’s feelings, is one of the traits that helps do that. I don’t want to be a slave, be forced to work for no compensation, and beaten as much as my owner chooses as long as I don’t die. Thus, I don’t want to do do it to others. Morality is arrived at based on this simple process, a subjective choice of what we want from our moral system, and objective decisions on how to achieve it.
If you want to talk about some deity and moral standards, I recommend the Euthyphro dilemma to your attention. In fact, if you want to talk about some deity, maybe you can define it so we are both on the same page. Finally, please don’t try a silly ad hominem about theological studies. Try to respond to what I say rather then that nonsense.
My request to understand your theological studies is not some silly ad hominem. You have made false accusations concerning the content of the Bible using a particular hermeneutical philosophy without defining or justifying it. You don’t get to do that. The fact that the topic of slavery is dealt with in the Bible does not necessarily lead to the conclusions that you are asserting. The Bible also deals with the subjects of sexuality and honesty, and many other topics. Anyone can cherry pick verses to try to justify false teachings on just about any subject under the sun (just as you have done with the topic of slavery). So, since you are being so nasty with your accusations, I am calling you out. What is the theological basis for your interpretation of the Scripture passages you are referring to?
Beyond that, however, you seem to be totally missing the entire purpose of Scripture. It is to reveal God and His ways. The fact that examples of bad people doing bad things are in the Bible, or that particular topics are dealt with in the context of less than ideal societal environments, does not mean that those things are approved by God. It is only by having a proper approach to hermeneutics that a person is able to actually get at the overall meaning of the text. So, yes, your theological background is important to know. Seems to me that you are trying to dodge responsibility for the wrong things you are asserting.
As far as your relativistic approach to morality, I really am having a hard time believing that you don’t understand the implications of what you have said. If there is no such thing as objective morality, as you claim, then then only possibility for creating a moral standard is by the force of those who are in power in society. You seem to be trying to set yourself and your personal (subjective) values as the standard everyone must follow. Well, what about those who don’t believe your standard is moral? What makes your beliefs right and theirs wrong. If morality is truly determined by the law of the jungle (the only possibility based on a naturalistic worldview), then no one can be put down as objectively wrong, only a deviation from some subjective standard. Even Hitler and Stalin claimed a moral basis for their actions. And why should your subjective choice overrule mine? What makes you the world’s moral arbiter? Using your naturalistic beliefs, morality is a relatively meaningless concept. The only thing that really matters is power.
I have not made false claims about the content of the bible. This is easily provable. What claims did I make that were incorrect?
So, when the Bible clearly says that slaves may be bought form the heathen around you, that you may beat them as much as you like as long as they don’t die in a short time, and that they are your property and may be passed down to your children, it actually means something else? The basis is that I can read and comprehend. That is all that is required. It says what I say it does. It does so clearly.
It is so tiresome to listen to the efforts at misdirection and avoidance one hears when confronting apologists with what the bible actually says.
Again, you are engaging in an ad hominem. How about instead of dodging using this tired and failed method, you simply answer the questions.
It is impossible to claim that the bible does not accept chattel slavery. If you do, you are being dishonest. Since you clearly think that the bible is the objective source of morality, do you claim that slavery is moral? Yes or no? Once you have done so, we can go on.
I doubt you will answer. You have failed to do so so far and you likely won’t have a sudden attack of being an honest interlocuter.
Did you even read my last reply? The problem you are running into is not related to specific words that you can find in the Bible, but your entire hermeneutical approach. The fact that there are passages that relate to slavery and that there are rules regulating it does not mean that it is something that God has revealed as something He is promoting. Do you have any idea what the Bible teaches about sin, the nature or man, the righteousness of God, or the nature of justice? Do you understand the prevailing historical context in that day which was being addressed? All of those things relate to the overall message that is being taught. If you don’t interpret in light of those things, you have no idea what is even being said. Your accusation that I am engaging in ad hominem only shows that you have no idea what I have said, much less what is taught in the Bible. You are using an interpretive approach that has no basis in reality. I would never accuse you of being dishonest as you have done to me. I truly believe that you honestly believe what you are saying. However, it is evident that you are severely lacking in your understanding of hermeneutics (in general, not just biblical hermeneutics) and in your understanding of the message of the Bible. Perhaps you should do a little more study before you go off accusing people of things that are simply not true.
So, the fact that the Bible makes it clear that slaves may be owned, describes how they are to be treated, and positively states that they are property that may be passed down means that your god is not saying that it is acceptable?
We are not discussing anything about what you think your god or your bible has said other then what it says about slavery. Please stop avoiding the question.
I do understand the historical context. Slavery was a common practice and the writers of the bible thought there was no problem with it so that’s what they put in the book.
You say I need more study? Really? How condescending. I say you need lessons in basic logic and reason. Your arrogant certitude is offensive.
Let’s try this again. In your opinion, based on your “objective” morality, is slavery acceptable or not? Yes or no.
First, no I do not think slavery is acceptable, and I have an objective reason for believing that – the Bible affirms the dignity of the individual. That said, the Bible does not make the case you are asserting. The focus of the Bible’s message is not a social contract, it was revealed to show humanity how to know a personal relationship with God. It applies to every person in the world, regardless of their station in life – male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile (or any other dichotomy you wish to come up with). Until you understand the overall purpose of the book you will continue to make the errors you have been making. You are trying to make the Bible say things that do not comport with its central message. You are basing your “logic and reason” on principles that do not correspond to the topic you are addressing. I’m sorry you take my correction as condescension. It is not. It is simply a matter of pointing out your errors. You obviously do realize that slavery was common in that time, but not understand the meaning of what was written based on the implications of the historical context. You also don’t have a clue when it comes to the theological implications of what is written because you have rejected the worldview beliefs of the writers and are interpreting based on your own personal beliefs. Your approach is incorrect, which makes your conclusions incorrect.
God actually does exist, you if you would open up your life to Him, you could know Him.
You say slavery is objectionable and you claim that is based on the bible. OK. This is progress.
Please explain why you get to reject parts of the text of the bible that you disagree with? The bible repeatedly describes how to own slaves yet never once says “thou shalt not own a human being as property” or words to that effect. You are enamored of saying that you are objective about the bible. Please explain objectively how you choose which parts to ignore and which parts to accept. I can show you chapter and verse of the bible explaining how to own slaves, how to punish them, and that they are property. Why don’t those parts count? Because you don’t like them?
You don’t seem to understand what you are reading. I never said I reject any part of the Bible. What I said was, your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Now, along with that, your interpretation of what I have said to you is wrong. Your cherry picking approach to hermeneutics, along with your attempt to interpret the Bible based on naturalistic philosophy is simply not valid. You keep insisting that I justify myself, yet you have not justified your hermeneutic. You have no idea what you are talking about.
By what objective standard do you claim that my interpretation is wrong? You love throwing around claims of objectivity.
You do reject parts of the bible. You said above that you find slavery objectionable yet the bible clearly condones it. It describes how to do it, who you can own as property, etc. Your rejection of those parts is obvious. It is dishonest for you to deny that.
Now, to reiterate, what objective standard do you use? This has nothing to do with me. I am asking how you make your determination. Maybe try answering.
I do know what I am talking about. That is why you are clearly growing so frustrated.
Your continued misinterpretation of the biblical text is not helping your case. I have already explained several times where you are wrong, and rather than give a studied reply, you keep repeating your same errors. I honestly believe you do not understand my replies, otherwise you would not keep asking me to repeat myself. At this point, it is all about you. Until you can justify your false interpretation using a legitimate hermeneutic, you continue to show that you do not understand the content of the biblical text. You complain that my interpretation is wrong, which assumes you think yours is. Yet you have yet to explain why yours is right. You literally do not know what you are talking about. I am sorry that you are growing so frustrated with my replies, but it might help if you would actually do some biblical research.
I understand your replies completely. They are the same shallow and banal efforts I hear constantly from apologists.
I ask again, what objective standards to you use to justify your “hermeneutic”? This is what I am talking about. You have gone on and on about objective standards yet when asked what yours are, you can’t even attempt to explain them.
I literally know exactly what I am talking about and it is insane for you to say otherwise.
In any case, I am asking you to explain what you believe about the bible and its support of slavery and what objective standard you used to get to it. If you deny that the bible supports slavery in spite of what it says, fine. I just want to know how you arrived at that conclusion. Do you understand now?
I have done biblical research. That is one of the reasons I became an atheist. You clearly need to do some because I am an atheist and I undesrtand your holy book better then you do.
So, again, you have said you find slavery objectionable. The bible expressly explains how to own slaves, who to own, etc. I want to know what objective (since you love that so much) reasons you can give for nit accepting that slavery is sometime acceptable.
Your constant attempts to shift the burden of proof do not impress. Either answer or admit you refuse to.
I have already, more than once, explained my hermeneutic and how that impacts my interpretation of what is written in the Bible about slavery. I don’t think doing it again will be helpful until you demonstrate that you understand what I have already written. If you want further explanation from me, explain what part of what I have already said that you disagree with and why. I will respond to that. Until you do, I honestly will not be able to believe that you do understand.
So, where did you do your theological studies? Simply saying, “I have done biblical research” is a rather meaningless statement without demonstrating that your research is based on something more than your own opinion. So, where did you do your research? I have read dozens of books and articles written by people who claim to have once believed the Bible and have since become Atheists. The fact that you have now bought into naturalistic philosophy does not prove that your new view of biblical beliefs is true. If you want to be taken seriously, then prove that your atheistic beliefs are true as opposed to biblical beliefs. You seem to object to my attempt to “shift the burden of proof,” but until you can justify why your beliefs trump mine, you don’t have a case. Absolutely you have to justify them, and until you do, you have no case in putting me down. That’s just the way it is.
OK. So your ” hermeneutic” is completely subjective and based on nothing other then what you like. Got it. You are unwilling to give an objective reply. Got it.
I will not submit to your examination of credentials. It it silly. By example of what you say compared to what I say, you have proven you are not qualified to have a discussion with me. You simply lack the background knowledge and reasoning skills.
Atheism is the position of rejecting claims of any god until evidence is provided. It does not require proof. You make the positive claim about a god and say you have evidence yet you refuse to define what you mean be “evidence” or provide any. All you do is try to shift the burden of proof. My position “trumps” yours because of your refusal to support your claims. This is basic logic, which you seem to have a lot of trouble with. You can go on about naturalism all you want but it boils down to one thing… you won’t answer my questions because you can’t answer my questions.
Again, not true. If you knew God, you would know that He is an objective reality, and that the revelation He has given is objectively true. You attempt to talk authoritatively about something you know nothing about, and are not open to learning. You can’t talk intelligently about the Christian faith until you understand it. You obviously do not.
Have you ever studied hermeneutics? If you had, you would not say what you have said. There are actual rules for interpretation (rules, by the way that you either don’t know or choose to ignore). Those rules certainly apply to biblical interpretation, but also to every other kind of literature. Your comment is simply false – again.
My request to know your theological background is not frivolous. The fact that you are not willing to reveal it is revealing enough. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
You talk once again about evidence yet you still refuse to say what kind of evidence you are willing to accept. At this point you doing nothing but trolling. You have completely rejected a rational discussion.