Creating Our Own Commandments?

By Lisa Quintana

Perusing the abyss of social media helps me get outside of my Christian bubble. (It’s easy for me to stay in that bubble since I work at a church.) Where I get a big slice of the secular pie is on X (formerly known as Twitter). Recently, I was intrigued by a question posed by a user calling herself Godless Liz: “You’re the leader of a new religion, and you’re sitting down to write five to 10 commandments. What are they?”

It’s ironic that someone who claims to have no religion asks a very religious question about moral law. I mean, if Godless Liz is, in fact, “godless,” then where does she ground her morality? Without grounding morality in a transcendent, objective source, morality is subjective, as you will see by the answers she garnered on X.

Here are what some thought would be the “commandment panacea”:

1. Don’t murder.

2. Don’t rape.

3. Don’t lie unnecessarily.

4. Don’t hold slaves.

5. Don’t be racist.

6. Don’t abuse animals.

Another: 

1. Be kind.

2. Bodily autonomy and consent be respected at all times.

3. Personal property is to be respected.

4. Be honest.

5. Seek knowledge and understanding.

Yet another: 

1. I'm God.

2. I don't need your money.

3. Feed the hungry.

One more:

1. Sex is good. Enjoy.

2. You will strive to be your own person.

3. Only you can improve you.

4. Remember you share a house. 

5. Your housemates matter.

And finally:

1. Cause no harm.

2. Help when you have the means.

3. Live and let live.

4. Be honest.

5. Believe peer-reviewed scientific law.

Some respondents went on to declare that it was time to write “The Newer Testament”—the continuation of the stories of origins and ethics but 100 percent scientific and secular. (And it degenerated from that point on into sarcastic comments and hedonism.) Yet a secularist on YouTube recently claimed to have found the answer in two commandments:

Commandment #1

“A morally right action is something that promotes happiness, well-being or health, or minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering.”

Commandment #2

“A morally wrong action is when it diminishes happiness, well-being or health, or causes unnecessary harm of suffering.”

If we all just followed these two commandments, life would go great, right? Wrong. The claim is that these two commandments are not subjective but objective truths. We all would just know something is morally wrong by the outcome it produces. This is about outcomes, and it’s been done before. It’s called utilitarianism. This is the doctrine that assumes actions are right if they are useful for the benefit of a majority. These utility commandments fail because no one can predict the future. It’s difficult to know (with certainty) whether the consequences of an action will be good or bad in the long run. For example, slavery was believed to be for the betterment of society as it produced a maximum outcome economically. We now know better.

And how do these utility commandments account for values such as justice and individual rights?  For example, let’s say a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of only one life. This produces the greatest good for the greatest number, but would you want your organs harvested at the expense of your life for the lives of others? (Maybe if those were your four children, but that is probably the only way most people would ever do something like that.)

These utilitarian commandments are a reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, but I would not want to live in this world with its obvious moral limitations. Where would we place objectivity—in ourselves? We are not an objective source. It’s subjective based on whatever the culture deems morally acceptable at the time. Remember, what seems to cause harm or diminishes happiness can change with cultural trends. 

Recall that German society, specifically Nazis, used to think that it was morally right to gather up and exterminate Jews. This was considered the right thing to do because they believed, through years of propaganda and brainwashing, that the Jewish people were a sub-human race and thus needed to be extinguished to promote a more “perfected” race of Aryan humans. This perfected race, in turn, would create and promote the very things the utility commandments define as moral—the happiness, well-being or health of this perfected human race. After all, isn’t that what we are all trying to do—create a utopian existence for humans? So, if one part of this race is deemed “less than” and is viewed as potentially causing harm to the entire species, then who gets to say it’s not morally right to exterminate this cancerous section of the species?

Today, some have implied this in relation to people of faith. What does the book title The End of Faith say to you? Atheist author Sam Harris seems to feel that the best thing we can do for the betterment of humanity is to eliminate religion and notions of God. Although highly doubtful, let’s say Harris and other secularists succeed in convincing the populace to become atheists. What would happen, then, to a person who strays off the atheist’s path and finds faith? What will become of that prodigal believer?

These utilitarian commandments propose maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. This is all good and noble, but why maximize well-being for everyone if you personally might not benefit from it?  If we all just live and die and that’s it, who cares if some other person is suffering or not? Shouldn’t I just make the most of my own personal well-being because that’s all I have anyway? There is no God, so there is no judgment. There’s only me, and I’m going to make my life the best it can be, without diminishing my own well-being for the sake of another.

These utilitarian commandments also do not account for altruism. Why jump into raging flood waters to rescue a drowning child trapped in a car that has been overrun by torrential rains, and risk your own life? Why should fire-fighters risk their lives to save others? In utilitarianism, altruistic behaviors don’t make sense—you’d be cutting your life short and cease to exist.

In contrast, consider the Ten Commandments. The primary focus of the commandments is summed up in love and faithfulness. This is so contrary to the “new religion” commandments generated on X—notice the absence of any mention of love. Yet in the Gospel of Matthew 22:37-40, this is what Jesus says about it: “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (NIV).

Scholar Albert Baylis describes why he sees that faithfulness as important in moral law:  “First, faithfulness to God. No other gods. No idols. No misuse of his Name in oath-taking. Keeping the Sabbath is a sign of commitment to his rule over you. Faithfulness in relationship to others is the focus of the remaining commands. Parents deserve honor in the family. Faithfulness to your community of neighbors involves not lying, not committing adultery, not stealing, and certainly not murdering. It even involves faithfulness in your motivation. You should not mentally steal your neighbor’s wife or anything else that is his.”^[1]

It’s unfortunate that many people can maybe cite only one of the Ten Commandments (don’t kill anyone), but the first four commandments deal with relationship to God:
[1] No other gods
[2] No idols
[3] Do not take the Lord’s name in vain
[4] Remember the Sabbath.

The last six have to do with relationship to others:
[5] Honor your parents
[6] Do not murder
[7] Do not commit adultery
[8] Do not steal
[9] Do not lie
[10] Do not covet.

These commandments set Israel apart from all other ancient nations by establishing a relationship with God and instruction on how to treat humanity. That was simply unheard of back then, and I guess, after reviewing these “new religion commandments” generated on X, it is still rare.

The commandments have progressed in salvation history to the Law of Christ, showing us that God is interested in the whole person: body, mind, and spirit. His overarching concern is that humanity is motivated out of love. During Jesus’ ministry on earth, He taught a deeper meaning to the law, expanding it to include our motivations and thought life. It was insufficient to simply not commit adultery, for example, as now one must not even look at a person lustfully. This is to exemplify that sin begins in the mind before it becomes an action. Today, a Christian needs to understand the law by how Christ transforms and transcends it.

It is plain to me that the Ten Commandments must come from a transcendent, objective source, as they’re on such higher moral ground than anything X users could produce. I am convinced of this because humanity would never have “made up” these moral laws; we’re too selfish. Unfortunately for Godless Liz, she did not generate any new or viable moral commandments to replace the time-tested transcendence of the Ten Commandments.

Notes

[1] Albert H. Baylis, From Creation to the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 127.

— Lisa Quintana earned her Master’s Degree in apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. She is the Lead Instructor both at Christian Life College (study center), and School of the Bible located at City Church in Madison, Wisconsin. She speaks and writes on apologetics topics, with a passion to use it as a tool for evangelism to reach a skeptical culture. She wants people to know Jesus as the Author of love and life. Find her online at thinkdivinely.com.

---

Visit Point of View to listen to new and previous shows and to read or hear our Viewpoint commentaries.

---

"...LIKE GOD?": Post Modern Infatuation With New Age and Neo-Spiritism

“In this thorough and well-researched work, David Sonnesyn brings a lawyer’s mind to the task of exposing and challenging the leading false worldviews of our day. He leaves no heresy unexposed and exposes all of them to the liberating truth of Christianity.”

— Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Denver Seminary, author of Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith; Walking Through Twilight: A Wife’s Illness—A Philosopher’s Lament; Philosophy in Seven Sentences; and twelve other books.

Find . . . Like God? at Xulon Press, Amazon, and other major booksellers.

---

Would you like to grow in your knowledge of and ability to defend the Christian worldview?

Would you welcome the opportunity to learn from world-class Christian scholars and apologists?

If so, please consider subscribing to The Worldview Bulletin. Use the link below and receive 25% off of a one-year subscription!

You’ll receive exclusive articles, access to our full archive of past essays, the ability to join our video tutorials and presentations, as well as stream them at your convenience.

You’ll also be supporting our work of equipping Christians around the world to contend for the faith and demonstrating the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Christian worldview to nonbelievers.

If you prefer to give a one-time donation instead, you can do so here.

Thank you!

“The Worldview Bulletin offers readers compelling essays on apologetics, morality, and culture written by top evangelical thinkers.”
— Douglas Groothuis, professor of philosophy, Denver Seminary

“I find The Worldview Bulletin very stimulating and would encourage all thinking Christians to read it.”
— John Lennox, emeritus professor of mathematics, University of Oxford, emeritus fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science, Green Templeton College, author of Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? (Lion)

“It has made such a difference to me to realise that my Christian faith is intellectually respectable.” — Duncan Cooke, M.D.

“I just wanted to give a big shout out to you for creating this awesome newsletter. . . . I read it regularly with great joy and gain, not least because the articles manage to be intellectually thorough whilst spiritually stimulating. And my standards are high, being a professional philosopher.”
— Alin C., Lausanne, Switzerland  

“The Worldview Bulletin is a must-have resource for everyone who’s committed to spreading and defending the faith. It’s timely, always relevant, frequently eye-opening, and it never fails to encourage, inspire, and equip.”
— Lee Strobel, New York Times bestselling author of more than forty books and founding director of the Lee Strobel Center for Evangelism and Applied Apologetics  

“The Worldview Bulletin is a wonderful resource for the church. It’s timely and helpful.” — Sean McDowell, associate professor in the Christian Apologetics program at Talbot School of Theology and author of The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (Routledge) 

“The Worldview Bulletin is a wonderful resource for those desiring to inform themselves in matters of Christian apologetics. Learn key points in succinct articles written by leading scholars and ministers. All for the monthly price of a cup of coffee!”
— Michael Licona, associate professor of theology at Houston Christian University and author of Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn From Ancient Biography (Oxford University Press)

---

Advertise in The Worldview Bulletin

Do you have a ministry, book, course, conference, or product you’d like to promote to 6,871 Worldview Bulletin readers? Click here to learn how. We’re currently booking for January-February.