Biblical Morality Was Always New Testament Morality: Christians See Morality More Rationally

Don’t let the atheist fool you with the accusation that “Biblical morality” changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Biblical morality does not consist of a bunch of rules. The rules that God did give out, circumcision, the laws of Moses, the warnings of the prophets, these were gifts from God to those who loved him, feared him, obeyed him.

It was always the same “New Testament morality”. This absolute morality has two inviolate rules, i.e., the two greatest commandments. Now some will bring up the same tired old objections of slavery and stoning, which I’ll deal with later. Suffice it now to say that the idea that the Old Testament “endorsed slavery” is just plain false, and what the Bible talks about is a much lighter idea of “servant”. Think “customer service”, “military service”, “unpaid intern”, “medical internship”….

Keeping the first commandment “with all thy heart soul and mind” provides the anchor for applying objective, rational criteria for keeping the second.

In other words, if you decide what your own morality is, then you can allow yourself to say Jews are not persons, Gypsies are not persons, dissenters and believers should get mental health “treatments”, babies in the womb are not babies if they inconvenience you. You can decide that it doesn’t matter that sodomy is extremely harmful to the person and to others and to the body politic, without having to consider the facts.

But the absolute morality that comes from God keeps one’s eyes open to even those things that inconvenience us. The “fear of God” and the “love of God” obligate us to face reality.

This is why we can see clearly that the baby in the womb is a live human, even if we didn’t have Psalm 139:16 to tell us so, because we have the unchanging immutable 2nd commandment. “The love of Christ” constraineth us”. We are better able to look at the issue in context of reality rather than human-centered convenience.

Fpr example, I read once said that “humanistic thought always expands its concepts of morality to become less exceptionalistic and to view more and more beings as deserving of moral consideration” is an absurd statement that is wiped out by facts from history and reality.

And then he used a dirty trick. It’s DOUBLE absurd that he use the issue of abortion AS IF it supported this absurdity, because we can see around us that it is contradicted by reality.

“Humanistic thought” –meaning the idea that there is no God-given absolute morality– has made just our one nation (the U.S.) a killing field of 50 million babies (and counting). The human-centric thinker can just change the definition of what beings are “deserving of moral consideration”.

Such “humanistic thought” motivated the slaughter of more that 100 million human beings in the 20th century alone, not even counting prenatal infanticide!

Look at Spain! They should be the laughingstock of the whole world! In 2008 the Spanish Parliament granted “human rights” to great apes! And in July 2010 they declared baby-killing-on-demand as legal, as long as the baby is still inside the womb! But bull-fighting continues!

So yes, the decay in respect for moral absolutes that came from abandoning Biblical morality led to legalizing prenatal infanticide. By Biblical morality, I mean the absolute morality that comes from following the two greatest commandments. They have always been in effect, from the time of Adam’s first day, to today, and forevermore.

But if you don’t have the first, then you can decide when, where, to whom, wherefore, and how to apply the second. That puts the lie to the false label of “humanism”, in a way. The “Humanist Manifesto” (or one of the three versions) said that “man is the measure of all things”.

Abortion (it’s not a human life), next euthanasia (it’s a human life, but not “quality of life”), next eugenics (it’s a human life, but not enough), where does it go? Then there’s homosexuality. Male sodomy especially has proven to be extremely dangerous to health and life expectancy generally, independent of moral considerations, and yet almost all vocal humanists today demands that nobody even mention such facts.

Now almost every single application of the Golden Rule from the Christian perspective has a perfect rationale even in “natural” terms.

That’s why there are atheists who despise abortion and do regard it as murder.

So the morality that atheists today claim to be independent of God or Biblical morality, they only have it to the extent they do practice it, as an effect of the Christian heritage of a post-Christian society.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: