Morality predates the Bible
ergo we did/(potentially)do not need the Bible to become moral beings.
Objection A: As was God’s intent, we are by nature moral beings, but through Adam we fell from grace; the Bible is simply a means to furthering our moral growth in an already fallen world.
Response: The Bible is not a moral book. The OT is littered with hideous accounts of divinely justified murder, contempt and misogyny. Four of the ten commandments do not deal with interhuman conduct but reek of divine egocentrism; the rest are suspect. The NT answers for these moral deficiencies of the OT by introducing the doctrine of salvation and the threat of hell.
Objection A.1: The OT is not immoral.
Response: Yes it is. If genocide, slavery and murder are considered immoral then by inference so is the OT.
O: How can you establish that if you have no objective set of morality?
R: How can you establish that the OT is moral, since your premise of God’s existence is susceptible to refutation?
Objection A.2: Jesus said many good things in the Bible.
Response: The bad things in the Bible contradict with, or often outweighs, the good. If the Bible is moral then I daresay so is Mein Kampf.
Objective A.3: You are taking the Bible out of context.
Response: Video.
Objection B: The Bible teaches salvation. Man is by nature sinful and only through Jesus Christ can we be saved.
Response: The OT is still immoral. The fact that old laws are replaced by new ones does not negate the charge of immorality. The NT avoids the moral question by superseding it with an eschatological one, conceding that we cannot by our own work redeem ourselves. Therefore the Bible still does not have a monopoly on morality.
Objection C: The Bible was the first book to properly addresses moral questions.
Response: See Grecian philosophy. See Buddhism. See Confucianism.
Objection C.1: The Bible was the first/only book of morality authored by God.
Response: It says so in the Bible.
Objection D: Without the Bible there can be no objective set of morality.
Response: Your claim to objectivity hinges upon highly dubious and subjective premises. A Muslim could easily use the same argument with the Quran, and he would sound just as convincing, ie. not too convincing at all.
Objection E: The way to God is by faith and faith alone. In other words, whatever you say, I shall still believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Response: I know, which is what worries me.
Objection E.1: God works in mysterious ways. Sometimes he orders genocide. Sometimes he orders children and babies to be dashed to death. Sometimes he orders a bear on unruly youths. Sometimes he orders people to be stoned to death for seemingly stupid reasons, like gathering sticks on Sabbath. Sometimes he punishes people for their sexuality, after having created them so. Sometimes he commands circumcision. Sometimes appears to condone slavery and misogyny. After all, who are we to question his will?
Response: I rest my case.
An adult enjoying a glass of wine is not subject to the laws that don’t allow a toddler to drink. A God who actively delivers perfectly impartial justice is not completely subject to the moral decrees He Himself has laid down in light of human sinfulness. For instance, God can be perfectly justified in killing because He knows all the facts and has no partiality, but it would be inappropriate to give partial, vengeful, finite humans with limited knowledge executive authority to engage in killing.
I beg to differ. God requiring us to worship him whilst himself being a personification of all that he tells us is evil is, I think, too much to ask of any morally responsible human being. The fact that one’s failure to do so will result in his eternal damnation makes the doctrine even more so reprehensible. And may I remind you that God **commanded** men to act as murderers on his behalf — therefore I presume that following this logic one can justify genocide, so long as he has God on his side?
And what of this silly Christian argument that God does not intervene in human affairs owing to our being in possession of free-will? The Bible, if it is proof of anything at all, is proof that free-will was a late addition to an existing doctrine of primitive violence, hate and injustice. No, there is no virtue in defending a book as morally bankrupt as the Bible. If men are sinful, the only real implication I can imagine is that they hardly fell short the example of their Maker! Why, does God punish us for making an example out of Him also? Or for carrying out His own orders of mass infanticide? No, the Bible makes no sense. Saying it has no claim on morality would be a severe understatement.
“And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” Leviticus 26:29
“And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.” Jeremiah 19:9
No, it’s more like an adult forcing one toddler to murder another toddler with a knife.
It’s a beautiful thing Christian, is it not? The love of your god?
What really gets me though is – the murder and maiming of adults and slavery aside – how you manage to justify the drowning, murder, abuse, rape and neglect of babies and children.
Pitiful fools.