Christians Follow the Bible Not Because It Teaches Objective Morality

It’s about the benefits that come with embracing biblical ethics

This is my third article on the subject of absolute vs. relative moral standards (links to the previous two articles are provided at the bottom). Frankly, I write on this topic not because I’m particularly excited about it, but because there’s been a lot of confusion spread by Christians on the matter. For some reason, they often assume a moral high ground over relativists, while oblivious to the fact that they pick and choose which “absolute” moral standards to accept and which to ignore in the Bible.

My contention is that when Christians emphasize the superiority of absolute moral standards, it’s often a diversion. Their main interest isn’t necessarily in the absolute nature of these standards they advocate for, but rather in the perceived benefits that come from following these standards.

Most Christians are pragmatists after all

When I say that most Christians are pragmatists, it’s not meant to be an insult. In fact, a lot of people, myself included, have a pragmatic side. It’s completely fine to prioritize the real-world outcomes of what we do.

I have discussed elsewhere the horrendous nature of some of the commands and teachings in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. The following article is an example.

It’s quite ironic how Christians sometimes attempt to rationalize the killings of innocent people like children in the Bible. Previously, I often found myself pondering: if adopting objective moral standards involves seeking justifications for acts such as mass killings, oppression of pagans, and even slavery, which are all explicitly condoned in the Old Testament, then what’s the point?

One day it dawned on me. I realized that it’s all about seeking God’s approval for a passage to heaven. Whether God’s commands are morally justifiable becomes less relevant. What matters is His authority to grant eternal life. It’s as simple as that.

At its core, Christians’ insistence on the objectivity of God’s moral teachings stems from the desire to validate their choice to adhere to His path. Naturally, most people like to think of themselves as good and decent. Therefore, if they decide to agree with something, they are more likely to stand up for it even when it falls short in certain aspects.

A thought experiment

I invite Christians to try a little thought experiment here. Imagine everything else stays the same, but the Bible suddenly states that its teachings are subjective, relative to God’s arbitrary standards, which could change from time to time. Would you then reject the Bible, or would you now consider the idea of God’s subjective moral standards to be a positive aspect?

I bet that many Christians would now choose the latter, arguing for the goodness of God’s changing moral standards. I would, too. Who doesn’t want to go to heaven? Right?

Now let’s throw in another intriguing scenario. Imagine that the Bible now claims that humans won’t be held accountable according to God’s objective and absolute moral standards anymore. In this new perspective, God wouldn’t impose His rules on people, giving Christians the freedom to shape their own moral principles. The sole requirement from God is for you to stay true to your own values. If you manage to do that, the reward is a ticket to heaven.

In this scenario, how many Christians would still support the mass killings or the chattel slavery imposed on foreigners (e.g. Leviticus 25:44–46)?

It’s actually not too hard to see why most of us would reject such cruelties as unacceptable. Even if we label these acts as stemming from objective moral standards, we don’t feel compelled to accept or justify them, do we? Why is that?

Because we don’t really gain anything by supporting these so-called objective moral standards. That’s the bottom line.

Which takes us to the last point.

There is no objective measure

Whether a set of moral standards holds value doesn’t actually hinge on whether they are flexible or unchanging. Instead, it’s the outcomes they lead to that truly matter. Moreover, how we determine if these outcomes are positive or negative is rooted in our own personal viewpoints. We can’t avoid the influence of our individual subjectivity in this process.

Why do Christians believe that God’s moral standards are good? Beyond the rewards they receive for following these teachings, their conviction arises from the idea that abiding by these standards can glorify God. But here’s the question: how do people decide that glorifying God is inherently good? Those who believe in God assert its goodness, while those without that belief don’t share the same enthusiasm.

This applies to non-Christians as well. Personally, I identify as a humanist. In my perspective, a set of moral standards is commendable if it improves individuals’ wellbeing and contributes to a flourishing society. Now, is humanism an objective measure? Not at all. My agreement with it comes from being a human being. If I were, say, a cow, my criteria would be completely different.

Given my personal values, observing instances where God commands the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites or supports chattel slavery in the Bible leads me to recognize that these actions don’t contribute positively to human well-being. Consequently, I form the belief that such commands are morally unacceptable. Is this perspective of mine subjective? Yes, indeed. However, does that imply that my standpoint lacks reasonable justification? I don’t believe so.

Considering that my judgment is rooted in subjectivity, it remains open to persuasion. Hypothetically, if I were to become convinced of God’s existence and His rewarding of those who align with biblical teachings, the allure of a heavenly afterlife might indeed impact my viewpoint. It could lead me to alter my stance and consider whatever God dictates as inherently good, regardless of whether it pertains to genocide or chattel slavery.

I could delude myself into believing that I’m adhering to a higher level of moral standards, but the reality is that there’s nothing virtuous about holding onto such a conviction.

In conclusion, Christians can save their “holier than thou” attitude when discussing the subject of morality with non-Christians. They don’t follow the Bible because it teaches objective moral truth. It’s the other way around. They claim the Bible teaches objective moral truth because they believe in it. Why do they believe in it in the first place? Because they want all the benefits that the Bible supposedly promises to give them.

Here are my previous articles on moral relativism and absolutism.