[Serious] What does religion have to offer?

[Belacqua]

What about a situation where one has a blend of their own morals from experience and the Bible, and is aware that they are doing that? What about those who recognize it is possible to be good for goodness sake while simultaneously saying that it has a basis in their faith? I don't know, it feels like you're oversimplifying both the Bible and morality.

 
The Bible is quite explicit about morality coming from the authority of god (Moses's tablets delivered from Mt Sainai, and Jesus's sermon on the mount delivered in homage to that act).  Indeed, if there is a morality that is independent from what any god says (as atheists argue) then what need for god? A Christian such as you describe has essentially decided to do away with any need for god. 

Often times, such a Christian who has their own morality separate from their faith will selectively call on authority of their faith to insist on a morality that is in conflict with society's evolving mores. Everyone knew homosexuality was morally wrong, and the Bible seemed to agree. From the Bible, one can learn just how a master is to treat his slaves. And the Bible is quite clear about the subservient roll wives must have to their husbands. The religiously devout are often the last to acknowledge changing morality, and the Bible and resulting Christian faith deserves much of the blame.

@Aegon

Interesting ideas!

I'm not exactly sure how to think about a Christian having a morality "independent of their faith." Naturally there are a lot of different flavors of Christians and hardly any agree, but many of the ones I've read would see any morality at all to be an act of their faith. That is, their faith isn't the expression of only those rules explicitly found in the Bible, but merely doing what is right in any given circumstance. 

One way they see it (which is somewhat unfair to Jews, unfortunately) is that the laws of Moses were intended as training for beginners -- something to be outgrown. When they say Jesus has "fulfilled" the Law, it means sort of that he has put the law into the hearts of his followers. The written rules are no longer enough. There's now just this one big imperative, which says: always do the right thing.

As I see it this is actually more difficult than following the 613 mitzvahs. It introduces more anxiety, because if the only injunction is to be good, we can never really know if we've managed that. We can only use our brains to choose, rather than consulting a definitive rulebook. The Sermon on the Mount is more about aspirations than rules. 

Depending on how traditional or liberal a given Christian is, he might look back to more specific rules in the OT or elsewhere. But there are plenty of Christians who aren't sola scriptura literalists who see it as their duty to evaluate new challenges. Using their own judgment will mean they often make stupid choices -- especially, I think, when they take on the values of capitalism more than those of the NT. But it also means that specific rules concerning divorce, gay people, etc., may be re-evaluated by sincere people, who consider the truth of God to be something we are still working toward. 

There is support for this in theology. For example, in The Divine Comedy sins are seen less as moral failings than as psychological quirks which distract us from doing the good things we would naturally do otherwise. After the pilgrim has his sins cleaned out in Purgatory, his guide tells him that from this point he should do whatever he wants, since his desires will always be good ones. That's the ideal state for a Christian, I think. To just be clear on goodness, without rules. 

Simone Weil wrote about situations in which a person acts without thought -- in which the correct thing to do is so obvious to him that no conscious rules or decisions are necessary.