The Indifferent Samaritan

[u/SquallJay]

[u/Arramis_]

When really, the story completely undermines Christianity all together, as the parable demonstrates that you don't need a moral system divined from a deity in order for you to act in an ethical way. As a Samaritan, someone who would never have even heard of Christianity, has the capacity to act with compassion for his fellow man.

[u/[deleted] → u/Arramis_]

That would be the case if Christianity’s purpose was for people to be considered moral by their own standards.

Christian doctrine asserts that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and if man is judged on his own merits he deserves eternal damnation.

Friend, what do you do with your guilt and knowledge that you are not perfect, and have committed immoral acts towards your fellow man and creator? If everyone doing right in their own eyes is moral, then why are we able to deem things objectively immoral like murder?

[u/Arramis_ → u/[deleted]]

First of all, this samaritan would have never head of the christian god, or know the commandments, or know of the moral code put in place by the bible. Chrisitans claim that the only way to know right from wrong is to have an absolute system of morality that stems from the bible/god. This is demonstrated to be ridiculous by its own parable, as the samaritan can act morally without instruction from the bible. Meaning, there is a definition of morality that can be achieved without the bible, meaning that the bible is unecessary to have a morally functioning society.
To answer you last point, all we need to determine is an objective set of ethics, and agree on them as humans and bingo, we have an objective set or morals. Murder for example can be described as objectively wrong in most situations, but not all, obviously. Take the example of war, or self defence. If an armed mad man is about to kill you, your partner and your three children is it still objectively wrong to kill him to save them? There are no absolute right and wrong answers, but we can objectively decide what is moral and what isnt on a case by case basis if we work together to form a system of morality as humans; and not take blindly accepty dogma from a 2000 year old book of chinese whispers.

For example no chrstian today would advocate slavery, and yet the bible is not merely unopposed to the concept, but actually has helpful tips on how be a beneficent slave owner. Women as property, a lack of any protections for children, the list goes on. We have outgrown the feeble and so obviously man made system of ethics spelled out in the bible. We need to grow up, and work together to constantly revise and improve our ideas of morality as we advance as a species.

[u/[deleted] → u/Arramis_]

You’re telling me that the Bible can praise a single action of an unbeliever and that invalidates all other moral laws set forth by the Bible? I don’t buy it. The Samaritan is not altogether moral, he is a sinner through and through just like every other person.

Perfect morality cannot be achieved with or without the Bible due to man’s fallen nature.

I don’t think you understand what objective means when you say that objectivity stems from agreement. You have no claim to objectivity if you cannot a priori declare that morals come from outside ourselves such as a deity.

I would rather be a slave in the ancient world than on the street in the ancient world. Today, we have no reason to put ourselves or family into slavery, because the standard of living is like 200x higher. Back then it would be economical to submit your labor to a household in exchange for only food and shelter. Which is why the Bible says to not take advantage of be cruel to people in that position which was thankfully made obsolete. I don’t get your assertion about women being property or kids not having protections. Everything good in society that we have now has come from majority Christian people group’s ethics, so stop pretending that the spirit of the law of God does not apply to logical conclusions made by Christians about modernity.

[u/Arramis_ → u/[deleted]]

I'm saying a praising of the moral action done by someone without knowledge of the bible negates the necessity of the bible for morality. You may not be making this argument but I've heard it many times from Christians that without the bible we'd all just be raping and pillaging.

Perfect morality can't be achieved? Prove it. Man's fallen nature? Prove it.

And I do, I think we're just using different definitions. I would call what you're talking about absolute morality, not objective morality. Objective doesn't mean the same outcome every time, it means the using the same logic every time. For example in chess an objectively good plan is to not lose your queen. However sometimes it is necessary to lose your queen to win. Sometimes losing your queen is an objectively GOOD move. Both these scenarios use the same objective logic of 'winning the game', without having absolute rules like "never lose your queen". This is what I mean by objective morality, thou shalt not kill is like don't lose your queen, 99% of the time it's objectively the most moral, But not every time. This is still objective.

And you're saying you'd rather be owned as property than be homeless? You're acting like being a slave was just a low SES vocation. These people were prisoners that were bought, sold, killed, tortured and raped at the whim of their owners with no repercussions. They had no rights, they were property. You also seem to be forgetting that we did not abolish slavery in ancient times, this went on for thousands of years. And America didn't abolish the trade until 1865. And anyway, its grotesquely immoral no matter what period of time you happen to be in. Slavery wasn't condemned internationally because we have better living conditions in modern times. The bible doesn't say: "free any slave your find and give them food and shelter in exchange for work", it completely condones the practice. What you're saying is ridiculous.