The Myth of Absolute Morality

A topic commonly discussed by Christian apologists is that of morality. There are three common arguments:

  1. They declare that the atheist has no basis for making moral decisions, whereas Christianity has an absolute basis for morality, given to us by God in the Bible.
  2. This argument is often supplemented by accusations that the atheist is being logically inconsistent when they make ANY judgements of right and wrong.
  3. Many Christians will further claim that atheists reject god because they wish to be free of moral constraints. Those Christians will ask, “Without a belief in god, and the threat of eternal damnation, what is to stop humans from devolving into wanton murderers, rapists, etc?”

This article focuses on the first claim – that the Bible provides the sole basis for absolute morality

Note: all Bible references in this article are from the NRSV.

On Absolute Morality

Christians’ claim that the Bible provides their guidance in absolute morality has two major problems:

First, Christians themselves can’t agree on several significant moral issues, such as abortion and homosexuality. Christians on both sides of the abortion issue bolster their case with Bible verses in support of their respective positions.

Second, the Bible condones a number of practices that most modern civilized people (including most Christians) abhor. This includes rape, slavery, genocide, and the subjugation of women.

So the undeniable fact is that few if any Christians actually treat the Bible as their go-to source in matters of morality. Instead, it’s treated like a Chinese menu, from which they cherry-pick their positions in various matters of morality, ignoring any that don’t fit with their own worldview, and inventing other positions that are absolutely lacking any sort of Biblical basis.

Remarriage by Divorcees

One of the best examples of Christians ignoring Biblical teachings is in the case of remarriage by divorcees. Jesus himself unambiguously condemned remarriage by divorcees. From Mark 10:1-10




In spite of this condemnation, most modern Christians, including many of the most ardent Bible thumpers, see no moral problem with divorcees remarrying. It is commonplace among their ranks, and I’ve yet to hear of a Christian baker or florist refusing to hire out their services for weddings involving heterosexual divorcees (as they have for same-sex weddings). So in this case at least, most Christians clearly don’t really believe the Bible provides any sort of absolute moral guidance. I’ve raised this issue numerous times with conservative Christians, and have yet to hear a single meaningful response as to why they ignore Jesus’ condemnation of remarriage by divorcees, while being unyielding on the subject of homosexuality.


The Old Testament (Leviticus chapters 18 and 20) declares homosexual acts to be an abomination. From Leviticus 18:22-23:

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.

Leviticus 20:13 defines the penalty for being caught in homosexual acts:


Interestingly, we can see that the author of Leviticus only had a problem with homosexual acts between men. Note that immediately following his proscription of male homosexuality, he made it a point to explicitly prohibit bestiality for both men and women, so it would seem that lesbian acts were deemed to be perfectly acceptable.

There is also the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis Chapters 18 and 19), which were destroyed due to wickedness. A central part of that story is the attempted gang rape of Lot’s male visitors by a mob of men in Sodom. There is considerable debate among Christians as to the significance of this story, and what “wicked” behaviors ultimately led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But certainly it seems consistent with the overall Old Testament views on male homosexuality.

Jesus himself never said a word on the topic of homosexuality, though I’ve frequently seen opponents of same-sex marriage point to Mark 10:6-7 (part of the section that I referenced earlier in which Jesus condemned divorcees remarrying) claiming that Jesus was overtly defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.


They infer that since Jesus described ONLY marriages between man and woman, that no other types were allowed. Of course, reading those same verses, and using the same strict logic, we would also have to conclude that a man may never leave his parents except to be married (since Jesus listed that one reason, and one reason only). Clearly there are few Christians who would infer or follow that extreme (and silly) rule.

But there are other New Testament passages that also DO appear to condemn homosexuality, though there are varying opinions on those among Biblical scholars. These include:

  • Romans 1:26-27
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Since I am NOT a Bible scholar, I won’t engage in that debate. I will just summarize that the Old Testament clearly condemns homosexual acts between men, as does (apparently) the Apostle Paul, while Jesus was silent on the topic. In spite of that, many millions of Christians don’t view those proscriptions as absolute moral guidance, but rather (correctly in my opinion) as being just a product of the culture and the times. Conservative Christians, in particular, generally take a hard line in condemning homosexuality (both male and female, in spite of the fact that the Bible condemns only the former).

Marriage – One Man and One Woman?

An argument frequently made by conservative Christians in their opposition to same sex marriage, is that marriage is defined in the Bible to be between one man and one women. But that claim is patently false. David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc. all had multiple wives and/or concubines. Solomon is reported to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

1 Kings 11:1-3


Genesis 16:2-3


Genesis 30:1-13


When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, she took her maid Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. 10 Then Leah’s maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 And Leah said, “Good fortune!” so she named him Gad. 12 Leah’s maid Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. 13 And Leah said, “Happy am I! For the women will call me happy”; so she named him Asher.

There are many other such examples. Apologists have made various attempts to explain these, such as:

  • God did not condone these, but tolerated them. But there’s no Biblical support for this claim.
  • God condoned these, because they were required to grow and propagate the Jewish population, etc. This is an argument for moral relativism, in direct contradiction to the claims for absolute morality.
  • Polygamy was commonplace during those times. This argument sidesteps the question as to whether polygamy is morally acceptable, but appears to be another argument for moral relativism.


The Old Testament unequivocally condones rape, as long as the victim is:

  • Female, and
  • Not married, and
  • Not betrothed

Relevant verses

Deuteronomy 22:22-29





So we have several specific cases here:

  1. A man is caught having intercourse with a married woman (verse 22): Both are executed, with no apparent regard for whether it was consensual.
  2. A man is caught in town having intercourse with a betrothed woman (verses 23-24): The presumption is that it was consensual (since she did not cry out), and they both are executed.
  3. A man is caught outside of town having intercourse with a betrothed woman (verses 25-27): Since it happened outside of town, she is given the benefit of the doubt (as to whether she cried out), so only the man is executed.
  4. A man seizes a non-betrothed virgin, and is caught having intercourse with her. Well in this case, his “punishment” is to marry the object of his desires.

Christians have claimed that this does not condone rape, but rather it was the merciful solution for a woman who had been sullied, and who would likely have trouble finding a husband as a result. But that argument fails on two counts.

1. Few women would welcome being forced to marry their rapist, so in that sense, it’s hardly a mercy.

2. As noted previously, most modern civilized people view rape to be an evil act, regardless of the marital or betrothal status of the victim. So unless we’re all just misguided on that, the more appropriate “absolute moral guidance” would have been for God to direct that:

  • Rape is unequivocally wrong, and
  • A rape victim is blameless, and remains unsullied. PERIOD.

EVERY argument against those points that I’ve seen, has implicitly been an argument for moral relativism, and against the use of the Bible as an absolute moral standard.

Genesis 19:1-8


Yes, this is in one of the same stories that conservative Christians point to, as justification for their stance on homosexuality. But in this case, Lot (our hero) offered up his virgin daughters to be gang-raped (verse 8). Lot, of course, was spared from the destruction of the city, having been judged to be a righteous man (In spite of offering his daughters to the mob). But as we’ve already seen, the Old Testament condones rape of women, as long as they’re neither married nor betrothed.

Numbers 31:1-18

31 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your number for the war, so that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian. You shall send a thousand from each of the tribes of Israel to the war.” So out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe were conscripted, twelve thousand armed for battle. Moses sent them to the war, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest,[a] with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for sounding the alarm in his hand. They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male. They killed the kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, in addition to others who were slain by them; and they also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. 10 All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, 11 but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals. 12 Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the Israelites, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. 

So this story covers two atrocities: genocide against the Midianites (discussed later in more detail), and rape of their virgin captives (verse 18), with the rape commanded by God’s own prophet Moses.

The New Testament, as far as I’m aware, is silent on the topic of rape. So the only reasonable conclusion is that the Bible condones rape, as long as the victim is female, and neither married nor betrothed. The harsh position on rape of married and betrothed women appears to be due to the perceived harm to the husbands and fiancées, rather than to the actual victims.

Fortunately, even those who claim that the Bible is our only source for matters of morality will generally agree that rape is an immoral act.


In the rules for warfare, Deuteronomy 20:16-17 states:

16 But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17 You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded,

I previously mentioned the genocide inflicted by Moses’ army against the Midianites. But this was just the tip of the iceberg. The book of Joshua chronicles an entire campaign of genocide against the kingdoms of Canaan. Moses and Joshua led the slaughter of most of the people of Canaan, summarized in Joshua chapter 12:

The Kings Conquered by Moses

12 Now these are the kings of the land, whom the Israelites defeated, whose land they occupied beyond the Jordan toward the east, from the Wadi Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward: King Sihon of the Amorites who lived at Heshbon, and ruled from Aroer, which is on the edge of the Wadi Arnon, and from the middle of the valley as far as the river Jabbok, the boundary of the Ammonites, that is, half of Gilead, and the Arabah to the Sea of Chinneroth eastward, and in the direction of Beth-jeshimoth, to the sea of the Arabah, the Dead Sea,[a] southward to the foot of the slopes of Pisgah; and King Og[b] of Bashan, one of the last of the Rephaim, who lived at Ashtaroth and at Edrei and ruled over Mount Hermon and Salecah and all Bashan to the boundary of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and over half of Gilead to the boundary of King Sihon of Heshbon. Moses, the servant of the Lord, and the Israelites defeated them; and Moses the servant of the Lord gave their land for a possession to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh.

The Kings Conquered by Joshua


the king of Jericho one
the king of Ai, which is next to Bethel one
10 the king of Jerusalem one
the king of Hebron one
11 the king of Jarmuth one
the king of Lachish one
12 the king of Eglon one
the king of Gezer one
13 the king of Debir one
the king of Geder one
14 the king of Hormah one
the king of Arad one
15 the king of Libnah one
the king of Adullam one
16 the king of Makkedah one
the king of Bethel one
17 the king of Tappuah one
the king of Hepher one
18 the king of Aphek one
the king of Lasharon one
19 the king of Madon one
the king of Hazor one
20 the king of Shimron-meron one
the king of Achshaph one
21 the king of Taanach one
the king of Megiddo one
22 the king of Kedesh one
the king of Jokneam in Carmel one
23 the king of Dor in Naphath-dor one
the king of Goiim in Galilee,[c] one
24 the king of Tirzah one
thirty-one kings in all

To be clear, Joshua did not just take the kings. He slaughtered every man, woman, and child in those kingdoms. From Joshua 11:19-20:

19 There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all were taken in battle. 20 For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

But Joshua did leave some Canaanites alive, for the sole reason that he eventually became too old to finish the job. So God handled the rest, by just driving them out of Canaan. One must wonder why God didn’t just drive EVERYONE out of Canaan in the first place. This is recounted in Joshua chapter 13:

The Parts of Canaan Still Unconquered

Now Joshua was old and advanced in years; and the Lord said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed. This is the land that still remains: all the regions of the Philistines, and all those of the Geshurites (from the Shihor, which is east of Egypt, northward to the boundary of Ekron, it is reckoned as Canaanite; there are five rulers of the Philistines, those of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron), and those of the Avvim in the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the boundary of the Amorites, and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath, all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians. I will myself drive them out from before the Israelites; only allot the land to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you. 

The genocide against the peoples of Canaan was purportedly all at God’s direction. And for that reason, many Christians (Evangelicals at least) defend it, because God the creator has the right to kill (or order to be killed) anyone he chooses. The Great Flood would, of course set the record for genocidal acts if it was actually true.

So those apologists rely on the “God told me to do it” defense, which has been used by various religions and individuals for all of human history to justify all sorts of evil and barbarity. Indeed, the same people who defend the genocide of the Old Testament, are harshly critical of the same behaviors perpetrated by some Muslims (which is also purportedly done at God’s direction). The “God told me to do it” defense, if employed today in a murder trial, would at best land the perpetrator in a mental hospital. In any case, most modern, civilized people view genocide as immoral for any reason. That includes most Christians (Evangelicals perhaps notwithstanding).


While many Christians (conservative Christians in particular) are staunchly opposed to abortion, the Bible simply does not support that position. In fact it’s quite the opposite. I cover this topic in detail, in:

So this is a case where many Christians, especially those who are the strongest believers that the Bible is THE source for matters of morality, reject the Biblical position, and arbitrarily declare abortion to be immoral.


The Bible unequivocally condones slavery. Conservative Christians frequently will falsely justify it with the claim that it wasn’t slavery as practiced in the US South, but rather was just an indentured servitude, established as a means to pay debts. But that’s only partially true. Jews could be kept as indentured servants. And Mosaic law forbade the enslavement of other Jews as slaves, but non-Jews were fair game. Deuteronomy 20:10-11 describes, in the the laws for waging war, a directive to enslave any who surrender to the army of the Israelites.

10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11 If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor.

Exodus 21:1-11 institutionalized slavery, laying out the rules and regulations in the conduct of slavery.

The Law concerning Slaves

These are the ordinances that you shall set before them:



Exodus 21, verses 20-21 and 26-27 address the penalties (or lack thereof) for violence against a slave.

Exodus 21:20-21


Exodus 21:26-27

26 When a slaveowner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. 27 If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth.

So there can be no question that slavery was condoned and firmly institutionalized in the Old Testament. The New Testament has several mentions of slavery. Jesus told the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave, and The Parable of the Faithful Slave

Matthew 18:23-35


Matthew 24:45-51


In their Epistles, Paul and Peter repeatedly tell slaves to obey their masters, and/or masters to treat their slaves kindly.

Ephesians 6:5-9



Colossians 3:22-25


1 Timothy 6:1-2


Titus 2:9-10


1 Peter 18-25


22 “He committed no sin,
    and no deceit was found in his mouth.”


Colossians 4:1


Then, in his letter to Philemon, Paul says he is returning Philemon’s slave, Onesimus, but encourages Philemon to set Onesimus free.

Philemon 1:8-21



Onesimus was obviously a Christian, and a close personal friend of Paul, so Paul’s request to Philemon was an isolated instance. In all other cases, Jesus, Paul, and Peter tacitly condone the institution of slavery. None of them indicate any issues with the institution of slavery (whether it be the enslavement of non-Jews, or indentured servants). None of them even hint that slavery, in any form, is wrong.

So in summary, the Old Testament codified the institution of slavery, and the New Testament condoned it. This fact was routinely used by US slave holders to defend the practice, and was almost certainly a factor in the establishment of slavery in the American colonies, beginning in 1508, and its persistence here, for over 350 years.

But contrary to the Biblical stance, most modern civilized people, including most Christians, view slavery to be abhorrent, no matter how kindly slaves are treated.

Subjugation of Women

The Old Testament is firmly patriarchal in nature. The Old Testament views women as little more than property. As discussed above:

  • A virgin who is raped is forced to marry her rapist.
  • Men are allowed to have many wives, but a woman may have but one husband.
  • Lot offered his virgin daughters to be gang raped, rather than allow his male visitors to be gang raped by a mob.

The Ten Commandments clearly reflect the view that a woman is the property of her husband (Exodus 20:17):


Women can be sold by their fathers into slavery, as concubines (Exodus 21:7-11):


And women are consistently viewed as being inferior and subservient to men.

Genesis 3:16

    in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
    and he shall rule over you.”

A husband could divorce his wife, but a wife could not divorce her husband. And a woman who is divorced and then remarries, is viewed as having been defiled, such that she may not remarry her first husband if her second husband dies or divorces her. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

Laws concerning Marriage and Divorce


The New Testament likewise views women as subservient to men, having been created from man, and FOR man. They are overtly told to be submissive to their husbands, and told to remain silent in church. Some relevant verses below:

Ephesians 5:22-23


1 Corinthians 11:1-9


1 Corinthians 14:34-35


1 Timothy 2:13-15


Titus 2:3-5


1 Peter 3:1-2


On this topic, there certainly are many Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, who follow these teachings, but we also have no shortage of female Evangelical preachers and televangelists, who apparently reject the notion that it is unseemly for a woman to teach men on matters of faith.

But many other Christians, as well as a great many non-Christians take serious issue with the notion that women should be treated as second class citizens.


As discussed, while Christian apologists claim that the Bible is the source for absolute morality, not even they actually believe that, as evidenced by the fact that most of those same apologists reject Biblical teachings on rape, slavery, divorce, and abortion (at a minimum). And they can’t agree among themselves on what the Bible actually teaches on a number of matters (thereby rendering the Bible useless on those matters).

And the Bible condones a number of practices that most modern civilized people (including most Christians) abhor. This includes behaviors such as rape, slavery, and genocide. That fact alone should disqualify the Bible as a moral standard.

When one reads the Bible objectively, its moral teachings show no evidence that they were bestowed upon us by a loving, moral, just God. Rather, they show every indication that they were the inventions of ancient men, as the simple products of their time and culture.

It is absurd to think that modern man should be ruled by the primitive morals of ancient men. We can do far better.

2 thoughts on “The Myth of Absolute Morality

Leave a Reply


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

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: