Interpretações e visões diferentes de passagens da Bíblia e outras religiões

[Fernando Silva]

As regras de moral da Bíblia não são absolutas ou imutáveis. Dependem de contexto, época, cultura, interpretação.

The Bible Doesn’t Teach Objective Morality

A Conversation between a Christian and an Atheist

Sheng-Ta Tsai Mar 4, 2026

Christian: Morality is objective. God determines what is right and wrong, and His standards do not change.

Me: OK, then, how do I know what those objective moral standards actually are?

Christian: The Bible teaches them. For example, the Ten Commandments come from the Bible, and we would be wise to follow them.

Me: Then do you keep the fourth commandment, to observe the Sabbath on Saturday (Exodus 20:8–11)?

Christian: Well, that was transformed into Sunday worship in the New Testament.

Me: But you just said God’s standards do not change. If something is objectively moral, then it should not change, right? What else changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament?

Christian: Well, the sacrificial system is now obsolete, and circumcision is no longer required. But those are mostly ritual, not moral.

Me: Alright, then let’s talk about commands that seem directly moral. What about the mass killing of the Canaanites? God explicitly commands it in passages like Deuteronomy 20:16–17. Was that objectively moral?

Christian: God was working within the context of the Ancient Near East. In that setting, yes, it was justified.

Me: So was it objectively moral, or merely culturally understandable?

Christian: I would say it was objectively moral because the Canaanites were deeply sinful. They practiced things like child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31, Leviticus 18:21).

Me: So, because some Canaanites sacrificed their children, that made it morally right to kill the Canaanites, including their children?

Christian: …What would you have done then? Let them die in the desert? It would be better to end their lives than leave them orphaned in a barren land.

Me: I would not have killed all the adults in the first place, even if some kind of war was unavoidable. But that is just my subjective moral view, I guess. Let’s try another example. Was it objectively moral for the Israelites to own foreigners as permanent slaves?

Christian: Just because something is in the Bible does not mean God approved of it.

Me: But in this case, God does explicitly permit it. Leviticus 25:44–46 says the Israelites could buy slaves from the nations around them, treat them as property, and pass them on as inheritance.

Christian: Again, you have to understand the cultural context. God was accommodating their economic system.

Me: So now objective morality cannot simply be applied as it stands, but has to be reshaped to fit the culture of the time? I thought you said the Bible teaches objective morality, not culturally adjusted morality.

Christian: Fine. Maybe the Old Testament is not the best place to look for objective moral teaching. Why not focus on Jesus?

Me: Alright. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give to the poor (Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). Is that an objective moral duty for everyone today?

Christian: No, not for everyone. That was specifically for the rich young ruler.

Me: So what exactly are you saying? That Jesus gave him a subjective moral command that only applies to him?

Christian: No. It means objective morality has to be applied in context. The principle is objective, but the application can differ from person to person depending on their circumstances.

Me: And what exactly is the objective moral principle being contextualized here?

Christian: Do not be enslaved by wealth. Be generous. Give to those in need.

Me: Jesus teaches something similar in the Sermon on the Mount. He says that if someone wants to borrow from you, you should not refuse (Matthew 5:42). He is not speaking to just one individual there, so does that mean this objective moral teaching applies to everyone?

Christian: Obviously Jesus was using hyperbole. He did not mean that literally. It would not be good stewardship to lend money to absolutely anyone who asks.

Me: So it seems Jesus’ teaching can become whatever you need it to be. If it sounds reasonable to you, it is treated as a timeless moral principle. If it sounds impractical, then suddenly it is hyperbole, a literary device, or something not meant to be taken literally. Can you give me an example, then, of a timeless and objective moral principle that applies to everyone without needing all this contextualization, accommodation, or reinterpretation?

Christian: Jesus taught the Golden Rule: do to others what you would have them do to you (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31).

Me: But that sounds deeply subjective. How the Golden Rule gets applied depends on how I want to be treated, and that can vary a lot from person to person. Its basis is human wishes, not some stance-independent objective moral fact.

Christian: Fine, but there are also moral teachings that do not depend on personal preference, such as “do not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

Me: Hold on. That comes from the Ten Commandments, and you already said the Sabbath command no longer applies literally. So how do you decide that “do not murder” remains unchanged, while other commandments are transformed? And we just discussed the killing of Canaanite children. You would not say those killings violated God’s moral law, would you?

Christian: Of course some killings are justified and others are not.

Me: Exactly. So even “do not murder” still depends on context. The real question is: how do we decide when a command is universal, when it is temporary, when it is contextual, and when it is overridden?

Christian: We are called to exercise discernment.

Me: But that is exactly the problem. When the Bible says something modern readers already agree with, Christians call it objective morality. When it says something morally disturbing, suddenly it becomes context, culture, hyperbole, accommodation, a command limited to certain individuals, or a temporary arrangement. So in what sense is the Bible really giving us a clear and consistent standard of objective morality?

(How would you respond as a Christian? Leave a comment below.)

https://medium.com/deconstructing-chris ... 18356c4339