Right and Wrong

[Phred]

As an offshoot of the marriage thread I saw concern about right and wrong... I wonder. How does belief in God determine what is right and wrong? I don't believe in God or any gods and I determine right and wrong very simply... in fact, I would bet that I determine right and wrong the same way Christians do. For example... I try to not harm others. I don't steal because that would harm others. If I walk into a store and take a magazine that ultimately takes food out of someone else's mouth. I don't need God to tell me it's wrong and neither does anyone else. Sure, you can say that there is a commandment against stealing... but if you need that to stop you from stealing are you really a moral person?

 

So why do you need a god to tell you what is right and wrong? What issues do you require the input of a god to decide? How do you get that input? Why is it that people against an issue seek guidance from their deities and always find corroboration?

[Greta]

I don't believe in God or any gods and I determine right and wrong very simply... in fact, I would bet that I determine right and wrong the same way Christians do. For example... I try to not harm others.

 

Trying not to harm others IS, (in my opinion, and I'm in pretty good company here), the definition of morality. Every culture and every major belief system on this planet has always come up with that definition for "morality" -- some of them believed in many Gods, some believed in one God, some believed in NO Gods, and yet they all came up with this same definition.

[PariSarah]

So why do you need a god to tell you what is right and wrong? What issues do you require the input of a god to decide? How do you get that input? Why is it that people against an issue seek guidance from their deities and always find corroboration?

 

Do I believe that only theists make good moral choices? No, of course not!

 

Do I believe that ethics requires an appeal to a god? I'm agnostic on this one. In theory, I'm not opposed to the idea that a philosophically persuasive ethics can be built without reference to a god or some absolute truth or being, but I haven't seen it done well. (I'm talking about philosophical systems, here, not individuals.)

 

But the way your questions are constructed seems to imply that people who appeal to their deities for their ethics are doing so because they can't think up a better excuse. It really doesn't work that way for people of faith. I don't "need a god to tell [me] what is right and wrong." I don't subscribe to a god because that god is a philosophical necessity. I've met God. I've experienced God. God is as real as the sun. Do you "appeal" to the existence of the sun to justify your choice to rise in the morning and go to bed at night? Or do you just look at it and know it's there, and live according to its rhythms?

 

Through Holy Scripture, through other people, through creation, through the traditions that form me even without my knowing it, through my experiences of suffering and loss, and through experiences of joy and contentment, I've met God. It is not that I run across random ethical dilemmas, during which I call upon an otherwise abstract or absent deity. It's that knowing God allows me to see the world in such a way that moral decisions are possible. It's not that I go on about my daily life, and when I run across a moral dilemma I run to consult the Bible. It's that the Bible gives light such that I can see my daily life in a new way, in a way that corresponds to reality. And because of that light, I make certain moral commitments.

 

So, yes, my "ethics" are completely and ineluctably tied to my relationship with God. I can't do ethics any other way than by relating it to God, because there is nothing that is not related to God, who is the creator of all.

 

And, though this may be offensive to atheists, I don't, actually, believe that they can be moral without God. I just don't mean that the same way that you do. They can make moral decisions without philosophically relating them to a god, but I believe that their ability to do what is good comes from God, whether or not they can name God as the author of their goodness.

 

I really don't know how to fit that into your poll. How do you think I should answer?

[Guest Amy in MS]

Sure, you can say that there is a commandment against stealing... but if you need that to stop you from stealing are you really a moral person?

 

So why do you need a god to tell you what is right and wrong? What issues do you require the input of a god to decide? How do you get that input? Why is it that people against an issue seek guidance from their deities and always find corroboration?

 

Now, I can only speak for myself. . . .

 

I'm really in transition right now regarding my religious beliefs. I didn't come from a religious background, but was born again in junior high and since then--until now, have been ardently Christian.

 

Right now, I'm not sure what I believe, and it's changed me. . . in good ways.

 

Now, I really see my children more as people. When I try to teach them right from wrong, I don't say, "Now, 'Elwood.' did it hurt when you pinched 'Lulabelle'? Is she sad? Do you like people to hurt you? Do you like to be sad?" That seems much more compassionate and much more sincere than, "Now, Elwood, God doesn't want you hurting people." It helps them see their siblings as people with feelings, not just entities with whom they have to interact according to a set of rules.

 

I'm not ready to abandon belief in God and Christ yet, but I'm becoming increasingly pluralistic, and I see people's needs and desires and hurts much more clearly now that I can see them plainly rather than try to figure out:

 

1. Why does a good God allow this suffering?

2. Did God cause this suffering, or does he just allow it?

3. If so-and-so hadn't been sinning, would that have changed this situation?

 

etc.

 

The less I'm concerned with my Christianity and God, the more I'm focused love. How backwards is that?

 

Amy

[mcconnellboys]

I didn't join in that other thread but I will say in the face of this one that no, of course I don't believe that I would need to believe in God in order to acquiesce to the moral law which I believe sets humans apart from other creatures in our world (although not as much as we might suppose, as I believe animals have their own morals). But I see no evolutionary benefit in the moral laws that humans, in general, abide by. I believe that the moral law is part of God's gift to us that sets us apart from other creatures. I believe it is part of our eternal soul and is another evidence that there is a Creator God, Phred.

 

I'm reading Alan Dershowitz's book, Shouting Fire, right now and although I've just begun, I find it very interesting. I'm also reading Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, which I believe is another book that is going to address moral law.

[mcconnellboys]

And Phred,

 

I don't believe that we must believe in a God in order to be able to hope to know right from wrong. I believe He gifted us with morality as part of our immortal souls. We are free to do with it what we will, as we are free in all things to exert our own will. I simply believe that belief in and relationship with God nourishes our souls in ways that no human love can touch.

[Mekanamom]

I determine right and wrong the same way you do, Phred.

 

I've always wondered about the people who say I cannot be a moral person without a religious framework to base my decisions on.

 

Have to say I was a bit shocked at some of the responses in the gay marriage thread. I left the church I was brought up in specifically due to bigoted doctrine. But then, I had not ever been a true believer in that religion anyway, though I was born into it and raised with it.

 

Actually, I think it was a pretty moral thing to leave a group that was teaching intolerance and bigotry.

[PrairieAir]

I voted no because I don't think only those who believe in God (or a god) can make moral decisions and live by ethics. I will admit, though, that I wasn't sure at first how to vote because of the way you've phrased the question and because I haven't been following any threads that may have led up to your question. It would take more than a simple yes or no to give my answer meaning and insure that we are talking about the same thing. For instance, when you said "you" do you mean me or people in general? Are you asking if I need God's guidance for every moral decision I make or if I seek it anyway? I almost didn't answer because I don't have time to explain well enough. (I am supposed to be here for a quick question only as I'm getting ready for ds' graduation party.) Parisarah has said much of what I'm thinking, though, so I'll go with that:D

[nukeswife]

QUOTE=Mekanamom;236050]I determine right and wrong the same way you do, Phred.

 

I've always wondered about the people who say I cannot be a moral person without a religious framework to base my decisions on.

 

Have to say I was a bit shocked at some of the responses in the gay marriage thread. I left the church I was brought up in specifically due to bigoted doctrine. But then, I had not ever been a true believer in that religion anyway, though I was born into it and raised with it.

 

Actually, I think it was a pretty moral thing to leave a group that was teaching intolerance and bigotry.

 

:iagree:

[Karenciavo]

And, though this may be offensive to atheists, I don't, actually, believe that they can be moral without God. I just don't mean that the same way that you do. They can make moral decisions without philosophically relating them to a god, but I believe that their ability to do what is good comes from God, whether or not they can name God as the author of their goodness.

 

Yes, this is it exactly. Paul tells us in Romans 2, "...when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

 

One unfortunate side-effect of being a law to themselves is that man, because "none is righteous", begins to establish laws that justify his sinful behavior. His moral code evolves. God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. I'll stick with him and praise him because even though I am guilty under his law I am justified by faith.

 

By His Grace,

Karenciavo

[RebeccaC]

As an offshoot of the marriage thread I saw concern about right and wrong... I wonder. How does belief in God determine what is right and wrong? I don't believe in God or any gods and I determine right and wrong very simply... in fact, I would bet that I determine right and wrong the same way Christians do. For example... I try to not harm others. I don't steal because that would harm others. If I walk into a store and take a magazine that ultimately takes food out of someone else's mouth. I don't need God to tell me it's wrong and neither does anyone else. Sure, you can say that there is a commandment against stealing... but if you need that to stop you from stealing are you really a moral person?

 

So why do you need a god to tell you what is right and wrong? What issues do you require the input of a god to decide? How do you get that input? Why is it that people against an issue seek guidance from their deities and always find corroboration?

 

 

My belief and your belief in God has absolutely nothing to do with our ability to live moral lives or absolutes on what is right and wrong. What you believe and what I believe is nothing more or less than our free will to make a choice on what morality is or is not.

 

Following your logic why, "why do you need a god to tell you what is right and wrong? " I would respond with why does the government need to make and enforce laws..... Why because lawlessness exists...it is a reality and some thing or someone needs to reign it in. Can some folks live law abiding lives with out side forces like God or government sure, but just because they can does not negate either the US gov or God.

 

It is my opinion that you are coming at this from the wrong angle. Most people of faith do not hold the belief of a higher being so that they can live out what nature has already imprinted on the soul of every human. I use the idea of imprinting because too many societies on the planet have held the same or similar basic moral beliefs no matter whether they are stone age nomadic Bushman or modern city dwellers. It is a universal belief... moral law...., ect, that a better way to live is to do no harm to others. Some chose to live by it and other chose not to.

 

My question to you is where does the universal belied...law come from. How did it get imprinted on the human psyche? Who or what ordained it to be a better way, more moral way to live? If not God then what?

[Kimber]

While I believe that Christians and non-Christians, basically all-people, are equally capable of making moral decisions of all kinds, I believe in a higher morality--the morality of God.

 

I do not think that I, nor anyone, can obtain that level of wisdom and understanding without outside guidance. I know that Christians do immoral things--I am one of them. I know that many atheists do good and moral things--members of my family.

 

But I believe that all of mankind needs the influence and presence of God to be perfectly moral.

 

I am really amazed at the negative impact that the Christian church has had upon many people. I think I am a Christian today, because my relationship is with God and isn't based upon the actions of men. I don't expect any man or woman to be "good". I go to church because the bible says to. But I do not like everyone at church. I am not friends with everyone at church.

 

As I see it, Christians are part of one church body. But just like human bodies have arm pits that reek, so does the church body. I just don't have a problem with the hypocrisy of the church or the condemnation of the church that people perceive and which may really be there. People are people, the only good one is God. God is the reason I am a Christian, not the church which is made up of people.

[Erica in PA]

I voted yes-- but that could be intepreted many different ways. The reason I voted "yes," is because I believe, apart from God, there can be no absolutes, and therefore nothing considered "moral," or "immoral." Things are right or wrong because God made them so.

 

Many people have said that what they consider moral is "not hurting anyone." But why should that be the definition? What if harming someone is the best way to get what you want? Apart from God and His law, who is to say that it is wrong for me to harm someone else, if it brings me gain? Why is that "immoral"? Who is that person to judge me, just because he has decided it's wrong for me to harm others?

 

Of course, I believe that it is wrong to do so, but *because* God who created the world and all of us has made it that way. And personally, I believe that the reason why almost all of us, regardless of belief, agree that harming others intentionally is wrong, is because we are all made by God who has given us that perspective, whatever else of His revelation we choose to disavow.

 

The point is, logically speaking, apart from God no judgments can be made at all about right or wrong-- it's all just subjective, human opinion, which can't be applied to anyone but oneself.

 

Erica

[Greta]

My question to you is where does the universal belied...law come from. . . . If not God then what?

 

Reason.

 

There are objective, knowable truths that are just as much a part of this universe as is the electromagnetic force or gravity. And our capacity to think, to reason, to rationalize, to explore, to discover, to measure, etc. enables us to discover and understand them.

 

 

 

 

But I see no evolutionary benefit in the moral laws that humans, in general, abide by.

 

Respectfully, I must point out that just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact it is. The particular evolutionary path that our species took meant that we had to rely very heavily upon a "tribe" or a society in order to survive. People who had the ability to cooperate with other people survived and procreated more effectively than those who could (or did) not. We were driven by natural selection to be able to treat our fellow humans with kindness, because it improved our own survival.

[Mekanamom]

Respectfully, I must point out that just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact it is. The particular evolutionary path that our species took meant that we had to rely very heavily upon a "tribe" or a society in order to survive. People who had the ability to cooperate with other people survived and procreated more effectively than those who could (or did) not. We were driven by natural selection to be able to treat our fellow humans with kindness, because it improved our own survival.

 

:iagree: Very nicely put. :)

[elegantlion]

I voted yes, only because the question was posed as how "I" live. I do believe one can live morally without a God-centered framework, but I chose to use God as my moral center.

 

In that respect, I don't try to be God for anyone else. I won't judge anyone on how they live based upon my morals. I've seen that happen too many times within the christian community, where someone uses their own moral convictions to tear down another. How is that christian?

[PariSarah]

Reason.

 

There are objective, knowable truths that are just as much a part of this universe as is the electromagnetic force or gravity. And our capacity to think, to reason, to rationalize, to explore, to discover, to measure, etc. enables us to discover and understand them.

 

It's not entirely clear to me that you can get to (what most people would call) morality from reason. Reason deals in what can be measured, compared, quantified, or systematized. Reason can get you to hedonism/utilitarianism--the philosophical school that can address what is best for people in terms of what maximizes enjoyment.

 

But I'm not entirely clear that hedonism or utilitarianism addresses moral concerns. It can answer the question "Which course of action will confer the greatest benefit on the most people?" That's a question of mechanics, of efficient causality. But it only becomes a moral question when you start to ask what is good, what is worth pursuing. I haven't found the rational step that can get you from what is to what ought to be.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I also found it difficult to answer the question. Because I believe that right and wrong exist only because there is a God. Your definition of morality leaves no explanation for why millions of individuals living in societies with established morals still choose to break those morals daily, even hourly, in spite of the consequences or the effect on their society.

 

If there is no God, we *are* just animals, why should we care about morality? I don't think the tribe thing explains it at all. There are many kinds of animals that live in colonies and packs, but they are amoral. Why are we not amoral? Do we have a morality gene, where did it come from? Do genetics explain why some people find it easier to follow the "natural" laws of morality than others? If so why do we punish them, or even try to reform them?

 

Belief in God does not determine what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist outside of belief, because God is.

[Jenny in Atl]

I also found it difficult to answer the question. Because I believe that right and wrong exist only because there is a God. Your definition of morality leaves no explanation for why millions of individuals living in societies with established morals still choose to break those morals daily, even hourly, in spite of the consequences or the effect on their society.

 

If there is no God, we *are* just animals, why should we care about morality? I don't think the tribe thing explains it at all. There are many kinds of animals that live in colonies and packs, but they are amoral. Why are we not amoral? Do we have a morality gene, where did it come from? Do genetics explain why some people find it easier to follow the "natural" laws of morality than others? If so why do we punish them, or even try to reform them?

 

Belief in God does not determine what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist outside of belief, because God is.

 

Please share with me animals that are amoral. Are all of them, insects too or just certain species. I'm really wondering.

[RebeccaC]

Reason.

 

There are objective, knowable truths that are just as much a part of this universe as is the electromagnetic force or gravity. And our capacity to think, to reason, to rationalize, to explore, to discover, to measure, etc. enables us to discover and understand them.

 

.

 

 

And again I will ask who or what put those laws in to being? The fact that we can discover them is not the question but where did they come from in the first place is the question. Complex laws just happened? How much faith does that take........? Why did they happen and for what purpose?

[Jenny in Atl]

I have a question to pose... what if man disappeared from Earth and all other living things were left. If what I'm hearing is true... the animals, insects, viruses, germs, etc would all kill each other after having wild s*x with each other and nothing would be left. Is this right? Or would life on Earth continue w/o us just fine? Just interested in what folks think.

[nmoira]

 

And again I will ask who or what put those laws in to being? The fact that we can discover them is not the question but where did they come from in the first place is the question. Complex laws just happened? How much faith does that take........? Why did they happen and for what purpose?

But the question revolves around morality and belief in God. It sounds like you supprot the position that one can be moral without believing in god since there exist (for whatever reason) conditions conducive to the development of moral systems. While it's not the case I would make, I still thank you. :)

[PariSarah]

In classic Christian theology, animals have an "animal" soul but not a rational one. They have biological urges and instincts which they are unable to deny or reflect on. Animals can't be immoral (according to classic theology, anyway) because they are amoral--they are outside the realm of moral vs. immoral. They cannot reflect on the reasons for which they do things, therefore they cannot evaluate the morality of what they do.

 

Common confusion, esp. since "amoral" has come to mean "immoral" in common parlance.

[nmoira]

 

Please share with me animals that are amoral. Are all of them, insects too or just certain species. I'm really wondering.

I would think most animals are amoral (as opposed to immoral). Perhaps some higher order animals like dolphins or some primates might have a consciousness that can encompasses a sense of morality. Amoral simply means not concerned or aware of the state of being good or bad.

[Jenny in Atl]

In classic Christian theology, animals have an "animal" soul but not a rational one. They have biological urges and instincts which they are unable to deny or reflect on. Animals can't be immoral (according to classic theology, anyway) because they are amoral--they are outside the realm of moral vs. immoral. They cannot reflect on the reasons for which they do things, therefore they cannot evaluate the morality of what they do.

 

Common confusion, esp. since "amoral" has come to mean "immoral" in common parlance.

Either way, I would rather spend most of my time around animals than most humans. Thank you for educating me on the difference. :D

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I have a question to pose... what if man disappeared from Earth and all other living things were left. If what I'm hearing is true... the animals, insects, viruses, germs, etc would all kill each other after having wild s*x with each other and nothing would be left. Is this right? Or would life on Earth continue w/o us just fine? Just interested in what folks think.

 

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

 

But to answer your question, I think life could continue on without us. In fact, in a sense, I think that we are extraneous (is that the right word). It goes back to the question of origins. Are we a special creation and does all life support our existence?

[Jenny in Atl]

I would think most animals are amoral (as opposed to immoral). Perhaps some higher order animals like dolphins or some primates might have a consciousness that can encompasses a sense of morality. Amoral simply means not concerned or aware of the state of being good or bad.

 

Again, if you spend a good bit of time with animals, I think you will see why I disagree whether they don't know right from wrong. Yes, their focus is on survival, but I think most life forms are far more intelligent than humans believe they are.

[Jenny in Atl]

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

 

But to answer your question, I think life could continue on without us. In fact, in a sense, I think that we are extraneous (is that the right word). It goes back to the question of origins. Are we a special creation and does all life support our existence?

 

Well, if they have no moral code, they don't have any understanding or right vs. wrong. What keeps them for just killing each other for the fun of it? Must be that God instilled some sort of code for them?

[RebeccaC]

But the question revolves around morality and belief in God. It sounds like you supprot the position that one can be moral without believing in god since there exist (for whatever reason) conditions conducive to the development of moral systems. While it's not the case I would make, I still thank you. :)

 

Well the question is from a wrong premise, belief has nothing to do with it. There are absolutes.....laws.... whether one believes in then or not. Belief has nothing to do with it. There were a few folks in the 60s who took LSD and believed that they could fly and jumped off of sky scrapers, however the law of gravity was still in effect and their belief that gravity would not work on them was not relevant, they died. This question that Phred is asking is off because belief really has nothing to do with it.

 

That written you are welcome :)

[mcconnellboys]

And as an anthropology major, I must respectfully disagree. Many animals have taken an evolutionary path that causes them to rely on society for survival, and I do see morals inherent in these societies, but they are still not the same as they are for humans. Human societies, whether large and complex or very small and primitive, still contain individuals who display many of the same moral principles. Individuals who, for whatever reason, disassociate themselves from most of the rest of humanity still display not only these sorts of principles, but are also often even more keenly aware of their import. There is no record of which I'm aware that would indicate that the moral ideals which humans seem to possess, and which they have possessed in the same form since the dawn of recorded history, evolved in humans over time. Cro-magnon man seems to have had every appearance of possessing the same sorts of moral principles which modern man possesses when he first burst upon the scene in Europe.

 

I don't really see any more benefit in treating others with kindness as a means of survival than in seizing absolute power as a total dictator. Many, many dictators around the world have survived until the natural end of their lives without showing a whit of human kindness to their own subjects.

 

For Cro-Magnon man, those who survived and procreated were the strongest, the most powerful - not the kindest. That has been true when one examines at least the upper classes of society for all of recorded history. And for the largest majority of societies in the world, it is the right of the father, or head of the household, to give at least his daughters if not also his sons in marriage to whomever he pleases, and for whatever reason. Love has very little to do with any of it, even today.

 

I could go on with a multitude of other examples, but I need to go make paper flowers, so suffice it to say that I think you have missed the mark in suggesting that kindness makes the world go round. I wish you were correct, but I'm afraid you are not. And there's no evidence to suggest that kindness has evolved over time, any more than any other moral principle.

[nmoira]

 

Again, if you spend a good bit of time with animals, I think you will see why I disagree whether they don't know right from wrong. Yes, their focus is on survival, but I think most life forms are far more intelligent than humans believe they are.

Well, I'm not sure I want to go there, and I know I'm not qualified to go there. I think it might hinge on the definitions of right vs wrong and natural or unnatural or instinct vs freewill. This is a whole other discussion. :)

[Peek a Boo]

I'm w/ PariSarah and Karenciavo on this one.

 

Yes, *I* require the guidance of God to be a moral person.

 

Yes, many atheists are deemed Very Moral people.

 

What makes one a Christian is not determined by how moral they are ;)

[nmoira]

Well the question is from a wrong premise, belief has nothing to do with it. There are absolutes.....laws.... whether one believes in then or not. Belief has nothing to do with it. There were a few folks in the 60s who took LSD and believed that they could fly and jumped off of sky scrapers, however the law of gravity was still in effect and their belief that gravity would not work on them was not relevant, they died. This question Phred is asking is off because belief really has nothing to do with it.

 

That written you are welcome :)

Well, the question was the result (I think) of a statement, or perhaps a general sentiment, on another thread that one cannot have a moral framework without belief in God. The exact quote was:

 

But, if you don't believe in God then you have no standard to go by. You are making up rules and opinions solely on what you think or how you feel about the issue.

[RebeccaC]

Well, the question was the result (I think) of a statement, or perhaps a general sentiment, on another thread that one cannot have a moral framework without belief in God. The exact quote was "But, if you don't believe in God then you have no standard to go by. You are making up rules and opinions solely on what you think or how you feel about the issue."

 

Well the quote from the other thread is based on a wrong premise because belief has nothing to do with it. There are absolutes whether one choses to find them or not, believe in them or not.

[Phred]

Well the question is from a wrong premise, belief has nothing to do with it. There are absolutes.....laws.... whether one believes in then or not. Belief has nothing to do with it. There were a few folks in the 60s who took LSD and believed that they could fly and jumped off of sky scrapers, however the law of gravity was still in effect and their belief that gravity would not work on them was not relevant, they died. This question that Phred is asking is off because belief really has nothing to do with it.

 

That written you are welcome :)

What would those absolutes be?

[Jenny in Atl]

What makes one a Christian is not determined by how moral they are ;)

 

This has always bothered me... sin all you like as long as in the end you access Jesus as your personal savor. It matters not whether you are a good person, that you live a respectful life. I know I'm being over simplistic, but still.

[RebeccaC]

What would those absolutes be?

 

 

Well Phred you found it with out God or any gods leading you to it,

 

I would bet that I determine right and wrong the same way Christians do. For example... I try to not harm others. I don't steal because that would harm others. If I walk into a store and take a magazine that ultimately takes food out of someone else's mouth. I don't need God to tell me it's wrong and neither does anyone else.

 

It is my argument that this absolute.....law (I try to not harm others) is imprinted on the human psyche. We do not need God to tell us and in that you are right :)

 

I do not believe, have faith in God so that He can tell what right and wrong is. That has already been imprinted on my heart....soul.....psyche..... or whatever label you want to apply. I just get to chose if I will follow the imprinted law or if I will break it. Whether I believe in the law or the creator of the law is beside the point.

[Mekanamom]

Well, I'm not sure I want to go there, and I know I'm not qualified to go ther. I think it might hinge on the definitions of right vs wrong and natural or unnatural or instinct vs freewill. This is a whole other discussion. :)

 

Yeah, I'm totally not qualified to go there either. But I think it's a very very interesting topic! I think animals have their own code of conduct- But I certainly can't apply human moral codes to other species without anthropromorphising.

 

I do believe that other animals are far more intelligent than we sometimes assume. Try and communicate with a horse in human terms and then try and communicate with one in horse terms. ;) I really can't say whether they have morals, but I have seen them being both kind and mean to each other as well as other animals. Is being kind to another member of a species a moral act? What about being kind to a member of a different species?

 

Of course I can only interpret their behavior through my own human eyes. Most likely what I see as "being kind" is not the same thing for a horse.

[muffinmom]

Something is moral if it agrees with God's character. It is immoral if it goes against His character.

 

The reason why any of us can feel we can determine right and wrong on our own, IMO, is because we have all been created in the image of God and have an innate sense when things are right and wrong--we have some of Him in us. Some things we pretty much all agree on--it's not OK to kill me, for example--other things are not so obvious. And our wanderings away from God (sin, which is just a word that means going against God's character) make everything more muddled and less clear, so we all argue and fight over what WE think. We can't agree, so we choose to be gods over our own lives--that is when chaos happens.

 

We have stirrings of His will (such as the knowledge that there IS right and wrong), but He put those stirrings in us so that we would seek Him. And we need to seek Him--not our own opinions, not our own desires, not our own will--if we are to have peace in our lives. We only have peace when we are in tune with Him.

 

So...how to know God's character? Read about Him in the Scriptures, pray to Him, asking Him to reveal His character to you. He will not hide Himself from you.

 

Grace and peace to you, Phred.

[kim in ks]

While I believe that Christians and non-Christians, basically all-people, are equally capable of making moral decisions of all kinds, I believe in a higher morality--the morality of God.

 

I do not think that I, nor anyone, can obtain that level of wisdom and understanding without outside guidance. I know that Christians do immoral things--I am one of them. I know that many atheists do good and moral things--members of my family.

 

But I believe that all of mankind needs the influence and presence of God to be perfectly moral.

 

I am really amazed at the negative impact that the Christian church has had upon many people. I think I am a Christian today, because my relationship is with God and isn't based upon the actions of men. I don't expect any man or woman to be "good". I go to church because the bible says to. But I do not like everyone at church. I am not friends with everyone at church.

 

As I see it, Christians are part of one church body. But just like human bodies have arm pits that reek, so does the church body. I just don't have a problem with the hypocrisy of the church or the condemnation of the church that people perceive and which may really be there. People are people, the only good one is God. God is the reason I am a Christian, not the church which is made up of people.

 

 

AMEN!! AMEN!!

KIM

[Audrey]

I voted no, but it would be a clearer question had you not used the capitalized God, which implies the Judeo-Christian deity. Simply the word 'deity' would have made the question more encompassing and have opened some more room for those not of any any Judeo-Cristian tradition to express their views in terms of morality relative to their deity's code.

 

Either way, I still would have answered no as I believe there are no deities, hence irrelevant to discussions of morals.

[Phred]

Well Phred you found it with out God or any gods leading you to it,

 

It is my argument that this absolute.....law (I try to not harm others) is imprinted on the human psyche. We do not need God to tell us and in that you are right :)

 

I do not believe, have faith in God so that He can tell what right and wrong is. That has already been imprinted on my heart....soul.....psyche..... or whatever label you want to apply. I just get to chose if I will follow the imprinted law or if I will break it. Whether I believe in the law or the creator of the law is beside the point.

But Rebecca... that isn't an absolute. Absolute means that everyone knows this from the time they can think and abides by it all the time. We, as a people, don't... we don't know it from birth and we don't follow it. So I guess I have to say that the word "absolute" must be reserved for things that are indeed "absolute". There simply is no "imprinted law". All people don't reach the conclusion because it's imprinted, most people reach the same conclusion because it's the logical conclusion for self preservation.

[Jenny in Atl]

I think it boils down to ease. It's easier to have a guide (a God) to believe in that will make it all better if you just follow his rules. You don't have to really think for yourself; it's all been decided for you. It's his plan. Sure you have freewill, you can choose not to follow the plan but it's so much more "safe" and uncomplicated to just cover yourself in the blanket of faith, knowing somewhere out there, He is taking care of you.

 

What I don't understand is why those with certain faiths are so afraid of those w/o faith or of a different faith. Why do they feel driven to "witness" to those of different beliefs. I know, it's part of the rule bk... to spread the Good News. But does one fail, fall short of God's expectations if they don't bring others to the light?

 

:lurk5:

[RebeccaC]

But Rebecca... that isn't an absolute. Absolute means that everyone knows this from the time they can think and abides by it all the time. We, as a people, don't... we don't know it from birth and we don't follow it. So I guess I have to say that the word "absolute" must be reserved for things that are indeed "absolute". There simply is no "imprinted law". All people don't reach the conclusion because it's imprinted, most people reach the same conclusion because it's the logical conclusion for self preservation.

 

 

Phred does every one know from the time we are born that gravity is a law....no we learn it when we fall down and usually we do not apply a label, definition to it we just know. Does our knowing or not knowing mean that gravity is not working? It does not matter how one reaches the conclusion that gravity works because it does whether one knows it is a law or not. Whether one has the IQ to understand that it works or not. It is a law and it applies. It is the same with moral absolutes they apply no matter how one reaches the knowledge of them or not.

 

Again your premise of what an absolute is is wrong. "An absolute is made by everyone abiding by it or even consciously knowing it." If your definition of what makes an absolute is correct then we create the absolute. Do we create the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, or..... no we discover them, find ways to suspend them for a period of time if we can. These laws, absolutes are already in place whether we know about them or not. An absolute is set by some force outside of mankind. The question then is what or who is that force.

[Robin Hood]

What makes one a Christian is not determined by how moral they are ;)

 

:iagree: Thanks Peek, I always loose sight of that in discussions like this. I find it so hard to articulate my thoughts so I enjoyed how PariSarah and a few others put things, yet, what you said it about as simple, yet profound, as one can get.

[muffinmom]

I think it boils down to ease. It's easier to have a guide (a God) to believe in that will make it all better if you just follow his rules. You don't have to really think for yourself; it's all been decided for you. It's his plan. Sure you have freewill, you can choose not to follow the plan but it's so much more "safe" and uncomplicated to just cover yourself in the blanket of faith, knowing somewhere out there, He is taking care of you.

 

What I don't understand is why those with certain faiths are so afraid of those w/o faith or of a different faith. Why do they feel driven to "witness" to those of different beliefs. I know, it's part of the rule bk... to spread the Good News. But does one fail, fall short of God's expectations if they don't bring others to the light?

 

:lurk5:

I would argue that is MUCH easier to live by my own desires. MUCH easier. When I live by my own desires, I don't have to think at all.

 

Faith a blanket? No, in fact, it's the most dangerous experience I've ever had. And as my faith goes deeper, it feels more and more uncomfortable.

 

As for failing to bring people to the Light? Not our job. Our job is to witness to the Light--to the fact that the Light is there. (Some Christians have tried to take on the job of the Holy Spirit--it's His job to bring people to the Light--and for that, I apologize on behalf of all Christians worldwide.)

[Parabola]

Gravity, thermodynamics, etc are external.

 

Do no harm mentality is internal.

 

We, humans, have no say in how the universe works. We're itty bitty teeny tiny little specks in the cosmos. Isn't that a beautiful thought? And so freeing.....

 

Anyway, I guess my point is no we don't know from birth that gravity is a law, thats why we kept throwing our food on the floor. But it doesn't matter that we don't know because its still there and there's notta darn thing we can do about it in any significant way. Its absolute.

 

How we treat other people, how we decide what our morals are, is a decision, or a conclusion, or a teaching we recieve. And what we decide, conclude or teach or learn varies significantly. It cannot possibly be absolute, its subject to interpretation. And it often changes throughout ones lifetime, and thats just in the individual. Its malleable.

 

And humans are animals, lets not forget. We meet all the criteria. :D

[RebeccaC]

 

How we treat other people, how we decide what our morals are, is a decision, or a conclusion, or a teaching we receive. And what we decide, conclude or teach or learn varies significantly. It cannot possibly be absolute, its subject to interpretation. And it often changes throughout ones lifetime, and thats just in the individual. Its malleable.

 

And humans are animals, lets not forget. We meet all the criteria. :D

 

 

I could counter that no we are not always taught but learn by making mistakes, similar to falling and learning gravity. I call Jimmy a name and he stops playing with me could lead one to the self discovery that harming others is not right, therfore I will try my best not to harm others. The idea not to harm others does not need to be explicitly taught any more than gravity does. It can be learned through observation, trail and error, otherwise known as the school of hard knocks. We treat others badly and we pay a price just like we pay a price when we throw our food on the floor.

[Phred]

Phred does every one know from the time we are born that gravity is a law....no we learn it when we fall down and usually we do not apply a label, definition to it we just know. Does our knowing or not knowing mean that gravity is not working? It does not matter how one reaches the conclusion that gravity works because it does whether one knows it is a law or not. Whether one has the IQ to understand that it works or not. It is a law and it applies. It is the same with moral absolutes they apply no matter how one reaches the knowledge of them or not.

 

Again your premise of what an absolute is is wrong. "An absolute is made by everyone abiding by it or even consciously knowing it." If your definition of what makes an absolute is correct then we create the absolute. Do we create the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, or..... no we discover them, find ways to suspend them for a period of time if we can. These laws, absolutes are already in place whether we know about them or not. An absolute is set by some force outside of mankind. The question then is what or who is that force.

What is an absolute... I fall back on definitions.

 

Absolute: something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control.

 

Gravity is beyond our control... our morality is not. Your comparison to natural laws is not accurate. But, if you wish to continue this line of thought, please, provide evidence that this "imprint" exists. Where is it and what imprints it? If you think it's imprinted upon a "soul" please provide evidence that a soul exists. You can't just throw out random terms and ideas that have no substantiation outside philosophy and religion. These things you believe are nice but to me they simply don't exist.

 

[RebeccaC]

What is an absolute... I fall back on definitions.

 

Absolute: something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control.

 

Gravity is beyond our control... our morality is not. Your comparison to natural laws is not accurate. But, if you wish to continue this line of thought, please, provide evidence that this "imprint" exists. Where is it and what imprints it? If you think it's imprinted upon a "soul" please provide evidence that a soul exists. You can't just throw out random terms and ideas that have no substantiation outside philosophy and religion. These things you believe are nice but to me they simply don't exist.

 

 

 

Then Phred why do no harm?