Religion is good because it gives the believer an objective and absolute standard of morality

[Vivacia]

(This idea was introduced in another thread, but it felt like an unfair tangent for that thread to be taking in my humble opinion, but one I'd be interested in discussing).

Firstly, I absolutely disagree with the statement.

Secondly, I feel as an atheist I have an objective morality, if not an absolute one.

I think we have different definitions of "objective" Keep. Objective is outside of self's subjective opinion, not that necessarily that it is absolute or right.

that's how I think of objective.

cat according to Christian belief God does not change. Hebrews 13:8 say,

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (KJV)

I think of it as the nature of God, His character, remaining the same, but treating individual people according to the individual context and individual needs, at the time.

There is mystery there though, as illustrated here, in John 3:8,

"8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Which shows we cannot assume we know what God wants, what is good and continually have to search our conscience and question our own motivations. So yes, not as simple, as a set of rules, but more effective according to my belief, as intentions are important because rules can be misapplied.

Forget the racism, that is only relevant to you living 2000 years later. The point being made was/is that God's love is universal

I'll take what I want from it thanks! To me this either reads that Jesus did do something immoral, or that the sense of what's moral has in fact changed.

This discussion (more the contributions from those who think it DOES) has convinced me that religion doesn't provide an absolute moral sense - and I think that's probably a good thing.

Binky of course you can take from it what you want. If you don't want to understand things in their context, by all means, don't even try. Just know that your criticism will ring extremely hollow because of this.

That's the whole point though, for the sake of this discussion. The standards changed with the context, so the standard wasn't objective.

I can understand the context perfectly well though and if Jesus wasn't being held up as a perfect example of good then of course i would say that he was being more moral than most for that time. But he is being given as an example of a higher standard, so I can judge him as such.

Sorry, I meant absolute, not objective.

^ Although there is the OT law, containing commandments. Jesus fulfilled the law.

"17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19King James Version KJV)

Christ, by showing us the basis of the law, that is love, simplified it.

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Galations 5:14 KJV)

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." (Romans 13:8 KJV)

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4 KJV)

I think we have different definitions of "objective" Keep. Objective is outside of self's subjective opinion, not that necessarily that it is absolute or right.

That's part of what it means to be objective, but surely objective is more than that. I am outside your self, but that doesn't make me objective basis for morality. Obviously not everything external to us is an objective basis for morality (are lions?).

That's the whole point though, for the sake of this discussion. The standards changed with the context, so the standard wasn't objective.

yeah. I fail to see how anything promoting slavery 2000 years ago can be the basis for objective morality. Context is certainly important for understanding why people did things, but it also means that things change when the context changes. Sounds rather subjective to me.

"22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."(Matthew 15: 22-28)

The thing I get from Jesus' interaction, with the Canaanite woman, is that He was sent to deal with the Jews as a first priority. They were the in a Covenant relationship with God. They worshipped him. They studied scripture. Made sacrifices, were blessed and cursed according to the law.

The Canaanites were not in a Covenant relationship with God, did not worship Him, did not observe or necessarily know the law. Hence the comparison to a pet animal, who doesn't know our laws, have our knowledge understanding and appreciation. Although we will feed and keep a pet animal if we can afford to.

People tend to prioritise the needs of people over animals? Why, animals are living creatures? But we do not share knowledge and understanding with them. Would we expect them to appreciate as we do?

Then Jesus discounts this type of consideration, sees that the woman can appreciate Him, although she will have not studied scripture, will have little formal knowledge, and carries out her request to heal her daughter.

forget the racism

So if they expected him to be racist, they wouldn't have been shocked by him being racist. What would have been powerful was if from the get go he helped her, because he could, without making her grovel and accept that he viewed her as a lesser being than the disciples. You're just not using the same logic you would everywhere else. If a white supremacist Dr initially refused to treat a Pakistani using such language, and then the Pakistani said 'but even dogs have their uses' and the Dr relented because of her insistence, that does NOT make the Dr look good. That says 'if you grovel a bit and accept that I am helping you inspite of your inferior status then I will help you. That's disgusting.

See on a quick reading of that I take it that he would only help her if she worshipped him, which I take to be immoral and arrogant and I would think that someone who acted in that way today to be in the wrong.

would we expect them to appreciate as we do

Er, she was a human! And I'm sure she would have appreciated her daughter surviving as well as any other loving parent. If jesus wasn't racist and loves everyone equally he would have healed her daughter straight away and bollocked the disciples for being sexist/racist. If my daughter had a serious accident while we were on holiday in a foreign country and the medical staff said that I had no right to expect them to treat her because I wasn't familiar with their culture and they were only going to help me because of how good they were, that wouldn't make me think too greatly off them. That's not goodness.

grievously vexed with a devil

One that he created by the bibles reasoning, and he still made her grovel.

now to you, this may be quite upsetting

You forget, I doubt this exchange happened in the way it is written or at all. What interests me is how christians justify it and work to fit it in with an infinitely benevolent God outside of space and time. It's fascinating.

if I was cruel to anyone

Why is it wrong to be cruel?

You are actually saying it's okay to view a human being as being on a par with a dog capsium. Truly shocked. Does that still apply today or has it changed?

they have to act according to their own conscience

I doubt you would say that if I asked you what you thought about hetero relationships

If we are required to act according to our own conscience why did God provide a bible? What about when people, acting on their conscience, do illegal things? How come people using their conscience come to opposing decisions. Is there any specific issue that you think you know what gods opinion actually is? Any at all? Or is it all deliberately nebulous and ethereal so as to avoid showing any edges?

head Jesus was not racist. He preached to a Samaritan woman, when Jews did not have any dealings were the Samaritans. He told a parable where a Samaritan man acts more righteously than a Jewish priest. The encounter with the Canaanite was shows Jesus, whilst not being racist, as he meets her need, also acknowledges the Jews commitment to God and how God rewards this.

So it would be like someone walking into a Private Boarding School and saying, 'Wow I like this school. It is fantastic, can I come and live here?", and the Head Teacher saying, "This is a Private School, the pupils families pay fees and there is an entrance exam. We cannot just let you stay, we will have to see if there is a spare bed, and check whether there are any school places, and ensure the funds are paid". Then the child says, "But you provide scholarships and I can pass the entrance exam," and the Head then says, "Ok, then you can. I like your enthusiasm".

People are racist out of a prejudiced intent to be derogatory about someone's race. In the Bible the Jewish people were genuinely separate because they showed commitment to God. They worshipped Him, upheld His laws, made sacrifices to Him. Other races could be adopted into the Jewish faith if they showed they genuinely wanted to be part of the same Covenant.

Like the people who make a commitment to a University, pay fees, do the work, obey the university rules are the ones who receive qualifications from that University.

Jesus had to establish the woman's faith as she could have been feigning worship just to receive a reward and his priority was to deal with the Jews who were already in a commited Covenant relationship with God.

You are actually saying it's okay to view a human being as being on a par with a dog capsium. Truly shocked. Does that still apply today or has it changed?

I most certainly am not, cat. (Though people who genuinely love and revere animals might not be offended or mean offence by comparisons - so I am talking generally here). Today Christ is available to 'whosoever will' 'believe..'.

So the separateness, regarding race, is not at all applicable - although there was opportunity for Gentiles to join the Jewish Covenant with God in Jesus' time. The point is that God acknowledges commitment to Him, whilst being available to anyone who will receive Him, His help and blessings.

I doubt you would say that if I asked you what you thought about hetero relationships

I most certainly would say that, if you asked me what I thought about hetero relationships, head! People do have to examine their conscience and consider their own motivations, continually.

Do you believe hetero relationships cannot be dysfunctional? If so you are truly mistaken!

If we are required to act according to our own conscience why did God provide a bible?

The Bible can affect us on a subconscious level and inform our conscience. It is a process though. People come to it from different starting points, have different strengths and weaknesses. Hence the differences in how people act.

So it would be like someone walking into a Private Boarding School and saying,

so, god is like a business. you give him what he wants, and he gives you what you want.

while that's great for business, it's hardly the basis of morality. god essentially damns you for eternity unless you accept and worship him. I just can't see the morality in that. That's the act of an authoritarian ruler.

God is not like a business either, keep. We cannot earn His blessings or Salvation, we receive them through God's grace. So people's sacrifices did not buy salvation, they were done in hope of what was to come. The Messiah.That is Jesus, the embodiment of God, provided the perfect sacrifice, to atone for people's sins / flaws, in sacrificing Himself. In believing on Him, what He has done through Christ, we can receive His blessings and salvation, that is already there for us to receive.

"10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. "(Hebrews 10:1-3KJV)

can I get salvation without accepting him?

keep I see Salvation as being at one with God. If you don't accept Him or what He stands for, His nature, how could you be at one with Him?

Would you want to be?

Would you deny yourself? But that would mean accepting Him over yourself...