Too much depends on the bible?

[Sunstone]

La Chalotais, writing in 1763, states that "...morals have been made to depend too much upon Revelation." (By "Revelation", I believe he means the bible.) In his view, morals should be more often grounded in "sound reason", than grounded in "Revelation".

What do you think of this? Is he right? Does it make more sense to ground your morality in sound reason than it does to base it on the bible?

 

[No*s]

No, not really.

What is moral and immoral? We determine that, not by reason, but by axioms. It's very hard, if not impossible, to establish a comprehensive system of morality using reason alone.

Why not slaughter millions to protect yourself if you have the power? The only way to answer that is to appeal to an axiom, and that is quite often beyond reason.

 

[Lightkeeper]

You are assuming there is no sound reason in the Bible. The Bible tells us to treat others the way we want to be treated. It says not to kill, steal or lie. It says to love your enemy, etc.

 

[Druidus]

I don't know, but I follow my own moral compass. If I feel something is right, I'm all for it. If I feel something is wrong, I'm very much against it, even if I must fight against a majority believing it right, or the government.

 

[linwood]

What is moral and immoral? We determine that, not by reason, but by axioms. It's very hard, if not impossible, to establish a comprehensive system of morality using reason alone.

Not true.
Morality can and is determined by reason by a great many people.

As you said it is not easy but it is far from impossible.

You are assuming there is no sound reason in the Bible. The Bible tells us to treat others the way we want to be treated. It says not to kill, steal or lie. It says to love your enemy, etc.

The Bible also tells us that Homosexuality is a sin and immoral.
The Bible tells us alot of things that don`t mesh with our culture.

How do we know which ones to pick and choose?

 

[Sunstone]

You are assuming there is no sound reason in the Bible. The Bible tells us to treat others the way we want to be treated. It says not to kill, steal or lie. It says to love your enemy, etc.

The bible seems to give us conclusions, but not the reasoning behind the conclusions. It tells us not to steal or lie, but does not lay out anything resembling an argument for its conclusion that we should not steal or lie. Of course, many of its conclusions make intuitive sense to us, and many of its conclusions are very reasonable. Still, it doesn't so much provide us with reasons, as it does provide us with conclusions.

 

[No*s]

Not true.
Morality can and is determined by reason by a great many people.

As you said it is not easy but it is far from impossible.

I agree that it's not impossible, but it will always have the honor of resting on moral axioms which cannot be proven for a large number of its judgements. There's nothing wrong with that. I think a great many of those are perfectly worthy of simply being assumed and not proven, and they don't require a holy book to do so.

I'm just a little on the hesitant side of ever going Sola Ratione just as I am of going Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide.

 

[Lightkeeper]

The bible seems to give us conclusions, but not the reasoning behind the conclusions. It tells us not to steal or lie, but does not lay out anything resembling an argument for its conclusion that we should not steal or lie. Of course, many of its conclusions make intuitive sense to us, and many of its conclusions are very reasonable. Still, it doesn't so much provide us with reasons, as it does provide us with conclusions.

When you do immoral things you will find out why you shouldn't have done it. Most people learn by doing. Why do you have to give a reason not to kill?

 

[No*s]

When you do immoral things you will find out why you shouldn't have done it. Most people learn by doing. Why do you have to give a reason not to kill?

I'm of a very traditional position on homosexuality, but I am dependant on my Church's teachings for that and won't speak on it outside of the Church's members.

That said, how do you think that the Bible arrived at the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong? It doesn't exactly have the same type of consequences as does killing.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm of a very traditional position on homosexuality, but I am dependant on my Church's teachings for that and won't speak on it outside of the Church's members.

That said, how do you think that the Bible arrived at the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong? It doesn't exactly have the same type of consequences as does killing.

I'm also genuinely curious how the bible arrived at the conclusion that eating shellfish was wrong, or that wearing clothing made of two or more kinds of fabric was wrong. Can we ever puzzle out the reasons for those prohibitions?

 

[Druidus]

I'm also genuinely curious how the bible arrived at the conclusion that eating shellfish was wrong, or that wearing clothing made of two or more kinds of fabric was wrong. Can we ever puzzle out the reasons for those prohibitions?

As well as cutting ones hair, or touching a women undergoing menstruation, or all of the other seemingly "absurd" rules.

 

[No*s]

I'm also genuinely curious how the bible arrived at the conclusion that eating shellfish was wrong, or that wearing clothing made of two or more kinds of fabric was wrong. Can we ever puzzle out the reasons for those prohibitions?

I don't have a clue. I trust it had a purpose, but I can't divine it myself, nor will I try ("trust" is the key word in that). For me, it's kind of like the Church's fasts. They are prescribed as a spiritual discipline to hone my life, but I don't comprehend all the reasons.

 

[SoulTYPE]

The Bible is only dependant on who chooses to follow it, whilst only part of may be accurate or true. Perhaps it is an excited novel that Christians rely on.

 

[Sunstone]

I think many people nowadays apply reason to the biblical injunctions. If they find that an injunction, such as "thou shalt not kill" is reasonable, then they accept it. On the other hand, if they find that one is not reasonable or has no apparent reason to it, such as "thou shalt not eat shellfish", then they quietly ignore it (and go right ahead and eat shellfish).

For those people who do this, does it make sense for them to say that they are following the bible, or are they really following reason? Perhaps, reason inspired by the bible?

 

[SoulTYPE]

..........or are they following the bible because they were TOLD to?

 

[Scott1]

What do you think of this? Is he right? Does it make more sense to ground your morality in sound reason than it does to base it on the bible?

It makes more sense to me to base my life, faith, and morality on the Church that Christ built..... not on a book..... but a man, and the Apostolic line he chose to lead the faithful.

But, that's just me.....

 

[SoulTYPE]

It makes more sense to me to base my life, faith, and morality on the Church that Christ built..... not on a book..... but a man, and the Apostolic line he chose to lead the faithful.

But, that's just me.....

So are you basing it on belief that God existed, and not in his supposed words?

 

[No*s]

I think many people nowadays apply reason to the biblical injunctions. If they find that an injunction, such as "thou shalt not kill" is reasonable, then they accept it. On the other hand, if they find that one is not reasonable or has no apparent reason to it, such as "thou shalt not eat shellfish", then they quietly ignore it (and go right ahead and eat shellfish).

For those people who do this, does it make sense for them to say that they are following the bible, or are they really following reason? Perhaps, reason inspired by the bible?

In your example, yes it makes sense. By eating shellfish, we follow the teachings of Christ who pointed out that it wasn't what goes into a person that makes him unclean, but what comes out.

In other cases, we must first interpret the Scripture. How would we apply, for instance, the injunction against making a fire on the Sabbath if we live in Alaska?

That depends entirely on how strictly we interpret those (are they absolute laws, guidelines, teachings, etc?), and when we have that, there is still the matter of practicality. I'd hate to live in Alaska without a fire. Period.

(as a side note: this is why more traditional churches don't rely on the Bible alone).

 

[No*s]

It makes more sense to me to base my life, faith, and morality on the Church that Christ built..... not on a book..... but a man, and the Apostolic line he chose to lead the faithful.

But, that's just me.....

Well said! I couldn't agree more, and you said it more eloquently than I.

Frubles to thee

 

[Scott1]

God's words are in the Bible yes..... but I also believe that God is in my faith.... in all faiths that contain truth and love.

I'm not sure what you're asking, but Christ lived.... founded a Church.... and that Church remains today..... the Bible is part of that Church, but not the summation of it.

Hope that helps.