I am continually astounded by Christian claims to moral supremacy, that they somehow have access to a pinnacle of ethics that non-believers just don’t share.
When I point out that non-believers do a great deal of good in the world, I find myself mostly ignored by theists. Apparently atheist acts of love and charity don’t count. So I tried another angle. If the good-deed doing Christians were to suddenly give up their faith, would they cease their acts of good will? Not a chance. If they actually cared about their fellow humans (which, in most cases, I believe they do) then the belief in some external sky faerie would have no bearing on their desire to help out their brothers and sisters. Again, my point is most frequently met with avoidance. And so, as I cannot get anywhere by promoting the morality of the faithless, I will now try lighting the candle of enlightenment from the other end. In this post I intend to debunk the validity of Christianity’s cornerstone of ‘ethics’: the ten commandments.
When defending the morality of their faith, Christians claim that all a society needs is wholesome and is found in the commandments. Further (as discussed above) the Bible is the only place to find these teachings. The most often cited are commandments five through nine, so I will start with those. Honour your parents, don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, and don’t lie. Christians will go on and on about how good these rules are and to how bad things get when they are not obeyed. Surely, they must be divinely ordained and we ought to worship the supernatural being that delivered these rules to us. You catch that? Attribute an obvious truth to your deity and suddenly its THE god. That just doesn’t work.
Let me explain.
Don’t murder and don’t steal are not revelations in morality. Indeed, these have been laws for every human society for as long as there have been laws (and in case you’re not sure, the existence of laws does in fact predate Christianity). Further, these same laws have been observed in societies within the animal kingdom. Same with honouring parents. It’s an evolutionary strength found in a multitude of species. The young simply have a better chance at survival if they are close to their parents. What about that adultery one? Animals don’t get married, so that commandment is homo-sapien specific. Right? Oh wait. Marriage is just an extension of the ‘mate for life’ behaviour which IS displayed by a number of animal species (most at higher rates than us) including pigeons and termites. That’s right. Commandment number seven has been mastered by termites. Not really your typical image of absolute moral authority, is it? Not lying is a similar case. No society has every promoted duplicity between its members. These rules just aren’t that difficult for people to come up with on their own, and they certainly do not require some god to teach them.
So far the commandments are irrelevant to societal morality, as any society is perfectly capable of deriving these rules themselves. I will call this irrelevance “best case scenario”. To see how the commandments can fall short of this, we must look to the ones not yet mentioned. The first three are basically the same while the fourth is an extension of those three.
1. The Christian god is #1
2. Don’t worship other ‘false’ gods
3. Respect/love the Christian god
4. Respect god’s day of rest.
At this point I’d like to remind everyone that the penalty for disobeying any of these commandments is death. Even if one were to decide to not take this literally (although there is nothing in the Bible to suggest one shouldn’t and quite a bit to suggest one should) the result for non-conformers is still grisly. Non-believers do not get to enter the kingdom of heaven. Whether that means an eternity in limbo, in hell, or in silent oblivion (the immortal soul version of execution), it is a monstrous fate when compared to the reward promised to believers. So the message is, bluntly,”Love me or die”. Demanding love and fear is akin more to the mentality of a rapist than to that of an ethics teacher. Perverse barely begins to describe how “god-fearing” is considered a virtue by Christians.
This idea of compulsory love is continued in the New Testament when the commandments are summarized into two “love god and love your neighbor as you love yourself”. First, it’s impossible to love anyone the way you love yourself. Love is based on your interactions with a person, and your relationship with yourself is unique. I am not saying that people must love themselves more than anyone else, indeed instances of love for another that dwarfs self love are common. I am merely saying that the love of self is a unique type that cannot be transferred to another.
Second, any time love is commanded, imposed, or demanded instead of given freely, it is no love at all. Imagine if, in response to the query “why do you love me?”, someone responded “because some powerful guy told me too and I don’t want to incur his wrath”. Would you say this person’s love is genuine? I should say not. Morally, I find this affront to the concept of love horrendous. This I will call “the worst case scenario”.
The last of the commandments is also reprehensible, only slightly less offensive than the perversion of love. “Do not
covet”. Desiring what other people have is one of the greatest inspirations that humans have access to. The whole notion of ‘heroes’ relies on this. “I want to be as good as him!” “I want her virtues!” Without this desire, people would be content with the inadequate and the mundane. Desire is the fuel for growth. Obviously, these ambitions can be twisted into undesirable phenomena like jealousy and contempt, but these results are not what’s prohibited in the commandments (going by the first three commandments, god would be quite the hypocrite if he forbade jealousy). Instead, what is outlawed is our base human nature to want something better. The tenth commandment is the essence of George Orwell’s frightening concept of ‘thought crime’.
I would like to conclude by making clear my point is not that it is impossible for a Christian to be a good person. Rather, they are good in spite of the Bible and its teachings. I am certain of this because of two things. Christians who are good people would continue to be good people even if they suddenly lost their faith. Second, the teachings found in the Bible are either obvious, making its god irrelevant, or a grievous slur on morality, making it a disastrous guide for anyone wanting to live the good life.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
17 comments
November 30, 2009 at 8:31 am
Robert Peoples
Interesting enough, most Christians can’t make the differentiation between morals and ethics. They obey out of fear, while the non-believer obeys their inner man; their ethical self. The nobility of the latter is much greater than the former.
Good post.
LikeLike
November 30, 2009 at 10:08 am
The Arbourist
Mystro has a large axe to grind with most of christianity. Exposing the duplicitous nature of the beast is what he does best.
LikeLike
December 2, 2009 at 2:19 pm
askingquestions
Very well thought out post. I want to first say that I’m not religious and not posing anything on you. However, I think a lot of your descriptions are exagerrated. I’m guessing you have not read a lot of the bible, as it is made clear that being a good person is not about being a Christian. A lot of what you describe sounds like “Old testament” believers that worshipped and believed in fear of death. In the “New testament,” which is the basis for Christians faith, it is made clear that none can do absolute good, and that God’s grace is what saves people.
Sadly, I think a lot of what you describe is true, about how Christians discredit atheists for good works. However, the bible makes it clear that Christs judges the heart of believers and unbelievers alike–it’s not a “love me or die.”
Again, I’m not religious, but I think this post is innacurate. I’ve studied the bible, not for religion, but for a personal understanding. I think if you read it to (in an accepting way, rid of pre-concieved ideas) you’d come to realize your post is a generalized exaggeration and inaccurate of the true Christian faith.
LikeLike
December 2, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Mystro
Thank you for your post, askingquestions.
First, I’d like to agree that, yes, most of this post focuses on the old testament. But I feel that’s justified as that’s where the topic of the post, the ten commandments, are found. And it is these old testament commandments that Christians today still boast about when preaching the moral strength of their religion.
Christians are also rather quick to point out John 14:6 “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Sounds to me like the ‘love me or die’ mentality is still there, it just has a smiley face with a kind voice giving out the ultimatum.
Lastly, I wonder at the concept you put forth of ‘true Christian faith’. Due to the ambiguous nature of the book, its no surprise that if you ask ten Christians what the true faith actually entails, you’ll get ten very different answers. Herein lies a great danger, because a good percentage of those answers will include some of that old testament mentality and there is nothing within Christianity to say they are wrong in holding on to those barbaric teachings.
LikeLike
December 2, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Mystro
Oh, and you can find my thoughts on the Christian idea that we need to be saved here
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 10:38 am
askingquestions
I see what you mean. Like every religion, I think that Christianity has the people who take things far out of context, and I think those who do are the church going westerners who are knee-deep in legalism. I will completely agree with what you are saying, but to me it simply seems that you are making a generalization in stating that “Christians” are like how you describe in this post.
I can understand what you mean when you say that you want to focus this post around the Old Testament, as that is where the ten commandments are found. However, I’d like to point out once again, that it is irrelevant to say the Ten Commandments are the pillar of Christian faith. If you read the whole chapter 7 of the book of Romans (which I’d encourage you to do if you haven’t, as it is very relevant to your post), the Apsotle Paul writes about how Christians are suppose to be no longer bound to the law. As a woman is bound to her husband, when the husband dies the woman is free. Therefore, as Christians have died in Christ they are free from the law and no longer have to focus their work on following the law, but rather following the direction of Christ. I agree, sadly a lot of wesntern church-going “christians” feel their main goal in life is to follow the ten commandments. While it is important for Christians to live a holy life, you learn in Romans that the law does not matter compared to God’s will. So again, I feel you are making a generalization of the classic American church-going, legalistic and luke-warm Christians.
Lastly, to adress this whole “love-me-or-die” topic, I’d like to point out the context in which the verse is placed in. I think many make a mistake in pointing out one verse without reading the surrounding chapters to find it’s context. Jesus is talking to his disciples about how he will leave the them, and they are all unsurprisingly discomforted. They ask Jesus how they can find him since they still want to follow him, and true, he does reply that no one can get to the father except through him. But he goes on to say that the father is in him and that he is the father, so all they have to do is seek and they will find. He never mention anything about if they don’t seek him they will be, for the lack of better words, damned. He also doesn’t preach about if no-believers don’t seek him they will be damned also. But it says in the bible that he will judge the heart of even those who don’t believe. It’s just simply that if they want to follow the lord, which I’d assume most Christians would want to, they have to seek him out. I don’t feel any love-me-or-die type message is going on there, even if he is stating it in a kind way.
Sorry for the long message, but again I feel like you are making quite a generalization of those “Christians” who are caught up in legalism, and have never died in Christ and been set free. Sadly many are like that, but I’ve met a fair share of other Christ-believers over-seas who are far different, and are actually “new-testament” Christians.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Robert Peoples
Askingquestion, very detailed and thought out answer-however, Mystro’s interpretation is rightfully justified. Albeit there are some Christians that resist the adoption of fundamentalism (so-to-speak), what’s problematic is this: Christianity has literalized its mythology. I agree that the metaphysical erudition has been removed and replaced w/ a dead letter caricature-ergo, the spiritual acumen of most Christians remains in the dark ages.
Also, very interesting point you raise about the Jesus quote: I am the way, the truth and the life, etc… What’s blatantly missed is according to post-modernity, Jesus was really atheistic in his posture. As w/ Buddhism-there is no anthropomorphic, arrested entity, just the inner god in us all.
The Christianity of today was created 70 years after his death-what remains today is an oligarchy forgery, handed down to the masses in an infinite continuum of embellishments-technically, that wouldn’t make Jesus Christian to begin-but that’s another story.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 1:59 pm
The Intransigent One
Seems to me there’s plenty of “love me or die” going on in the New Testament. We’ve already got John 14:6, but there’s plenty of other stuff. For example, the notion that we aren’t saved by good works, but by grace. And how do you get grace? By loving/seeking Jesus. No love for Jesus? No grace for you. No grace, no salvation. No salvation = straight to hell.
Consider also:
Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 18:3
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. –Mark 16:16
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. –John 3:18
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. –John 3:36
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. –John 12:48
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. –John 15:6
Oh, and that’s just the first four gospels, only the words of Jesus and John the Baptist!
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 9:04 pm
askingquestions
Intransigent, I appreciate your responses to my questions on Mystro’s blog, but I’m am honestly curious about his response. And I will respectfully disagree, if you will allow, in that The Bible doesn’t say if you don’t love Jesus you don’t get grace. And all religion have a basis that if you don’t believe in that diety, you will be damned. No need to single out Christianity. You will be “damned” if your not Muslim as well I’d suppose. Without these fundamentals, religion would not be religion after-all, agreed?
As for Robert Peoples, I appreciate your response as well in helping me understand. But I aslo disagree withyour notion of the “inner god” in us all. The Bible absolutely nowhere has nation to any sort of inner God–Jesus was simply talking about the trinity.
If both of you will allow it, I’d like to hear Mystro’s opinion without help and bias, hehe.
I’ll say again–I’m NOT religious. I just like studying and learning and I’m curious of idividual viewpoints.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Mystro
“you are making a generalization in stating that “Christians” are like how you describe in this post.”
I was quite deliberate in not pointing out how Christians are, but rather what they spout about morality and how bad of a source for morality the commandments are.
“it is irrelevant to say the Ten Commandments are the pillar of Christian faith.”
Say what? I stand by original post when I said that Christians quite often point to the commandments as a supreme moral guide. I’ve heard it and seen it often. Not too long ago, high up politicians in the states were trying to get them on display in court houses, the senate, and any other place of judicial goings on. You definitely would have to come up with some evidence to show that Christians have dropped the commandments as a moral guide.
“he does reply that no one can get to the father except through him…(but) He never mention anything about if they don’t seek him they will be… damned.”
If the only way to be saved is through him, then if you don’t go through him, you’re not saved. Fairly simple logic. Sorry if I sound snide, but your argument reads like “he says ‘2+2’ but he never says ‘4’.”
As to the “love me or die” thing. Intransigent pointed out ample sources which back it up (which you promptly ignored) and I would like to add the entire book of revelation. Its completely devoted to describing how followers of Christianity will be rewarded while non-believers will be tortured in a number of gruesome ways. I’d say Jehovah’s rapist mentality is still going strong.
“No need to single out Christianity”
You are right, religions as a rule segregate non-members and are the most divisive powers on the planet. They are evil. In that sense, Christianity is no special case. In an ideal world, all religions have been abandoned to history and mythology books. But that is a lofty goal indeed, and one must start somewhere. I see no reason not to start with Christianity.
“I’d like to hear Mystro’s opinion without help and bias”
I’m sorry if I cannot respond immediately all the time, but that’s no reason to taunt. My opinion? All your arguments reek of the classic believer’s inability to follow the maxims of their delusions to their logical conclusions. You also follow the tired pattern of “if you look at my favorite Bible passages, obviously my version of Christianity is the best and most correct.” You can’t debate scripture with scripture. All passages are just as not-based-on-anything-rational as the next. I mentioned earlier about the many views of ‘true Christianity’.
The purpose of this post was to look at the morality of the ten commandments rationally. It was found to be severely lacking. Proper objections would either question my thought process in criticizing the commandments or provide rational reasons why the commandments are good moral guides. You have done neither.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 10:53 am
askingquestions
Fair enough my friend. I’m not sure if both you guys still have not realized that I’m not religious, so I don’t have good answers to your questions. I was just curious. To give a little background, I’ve been studying U.S History for over 40 years, and as a secular person, I obviously teach at Denver University from a secular viewpoint. Though I am non-religious, one thing that has always fascinated was Christianity, because it plays a vital part in U.S history. I’m simply curious on why many people attack Christianity and their reasoning–and you both defnitely are well thought out on the subject.
I apologize, if you guys feel offened by my question and answers–but I’m honestly curious about peoples different viewpoint on this specific religion. I did not mean to sound like I AM one of those religious people that you need to disprove. I’m not an expert, so I’m sorry that my questions are inadequate.
But I can see how my reasoning is not well-thought out enough, I’m not an expert.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The Intransigent One
Good point: it takes a certain amount of knowledge to start asking good questions. May I suggest that if you are fascinated by and curious about Christianity, you start by sitting down and reading the Bible. Otherwise you end up sounding like the many, many Christians who have only memorized certain verses in Sunday School and your questions start sounding more like apologetics than honest inquiry.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 4:38 pm
askingquestions
Yeah, I definitely didn’t want to come across like that to you guys.
LikeLike
February 6, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Shawn Beaty
You are very well spoken, but I would encourage you to read the Bible and actually have a understanding of it. Get a good translation like Eugen Peteron’s “The Message” and then you can knock Christian morality.
Christian morality looks nothing like the 10 Commandments. If you want to know what Christian morality is read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 and the rest of Matthew 6-7 (Jesus expounding on the commandments and the rest of the Jewish Law) . The 10 Commandments are the low bar for human morality. I mean really “could you not kill people? Could you not have sex with your neighbors wife? Could you take a day of? Could you not use the Lords name in vain? Not really that hard.
LikeLike
February 7, 2010 at 2:30 am
Mystro
“The 10 Commandments are the low bar for human morality.”
Um..yeah. Kinda the point to my entire post. These are not divinely inspired rules and in some cases, they are morally repugnant.
For instance, when taken to the lengths in your preferred verses, like in Matthew 5:22 where just calling a sibling ‘stupid’ is equivalent to murder and gets you sent to hell.
Or the thought-crime references in 5:29 where having natural thoughts due to an attraction is evil, regardless of whether you deal with those emotions in a mature way (i.e recognize the object of your attraction is in a committed relationship and therefore it would be improper to pursue him/her in any fashion).
And Matthew 6 is just jam-packed with that ‘love me or die’ rapist mentality. I could go on (for quite some time) but actually reading/quoting the Bible makes me sick.
I’m just so tired of people saying things like “well, that atrocious doctrine is from the OLD testament, not the new”.
First off, the vile teachings most certainly are also in the new testament. The new testament just surrounds them with bits of happy fluff to help disguise the hate within. At least the old testament was straight forward about it.
Second, the entire *cough* “validity” of the new testament is based off the prophecies of the old, so if you want to discredit the old, then the new falls as well.
All in all, I see no reason to accept your claim that Christian morality does not resemble the 10 commandments. As stated earlier, Christians quote them so much, (if you’ll pardon the expression) you’d think that they were scripture. Further, the ‘new’ teachings are full of the exact same wretched ideas as the old, but with a more flowery garnish.
One last note, just because it always bothered me, on that whole “don’t use jebus’ name in vain’ thing. “In vain” means to no avail, as in trying something but it doesn’t work. That means when someone stubs their toe and yells out “CHRIST!” what they want to do is express that they are unhappy about something. And it works. If anyone around heard the yell, they would know that it came from an unhappy person. Not in vain.
Now imagine if somebody prays for food for their starving family one day, but none was obtained. They wanted food, they didn’t get it, so the prayer didn’t work that day. That would be in vain.
LikeLike
February 7, 2010 at 1:10 pm
The Arbourist
Either you believe in the WORD OF GOD, or you do not. Do you?! mere human dare to INTERPRET HIS PERFECT WORD?
Or is being inconsistent a little easier for you?
LikeLike
February 19, 2012 at 6:17 am
The DWR Sunday Disservice – Christianity Fails at Objective and Moraility « Dead Wild Roses
[…] to the christian god that are about as far from ‘good’ as one can get (examples 1 2 3). This will usually result in the believer switching to the first position addressed in this post […]
LikeLike