Where do morals fit in?

Liberals don't have a majority, notice that? The Liberals do not have a mandate from the people to govern, that is a very important concept in our parliamentary system. Every vote they loose is a non-confidence vote, they've lost many, but refuse to let go of power. Hardly a shining example of moral aptitude.
 
How about this, marriage in the old days was all about having kids, and passing down what u know and what u own. But in todays world alot of people get married and choose to not have kids, they rather focus on their carears. Marriage is less about union between "god", and wanting to raise a family and more about legal rights entitled to 2 adults.
There was a time when people being married was about raising a family and more about passing down wealth. But u don't need to be married to raise a family. Society is evolving, good or bad. Is it moraly right?

I know liberals don't have a majority gov., but I think most people are for same sex marriage. If same sex marriages was such a big deal to people liberals wouldn't have goten as many seats as they did.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Montrez, YOUR morality comes from YOUR God.

You said yourself that you knew right and wrong before you became a Christian, so obviously morality can exist sans deity.

My question, that everyone seems to be sidestepping is this: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE NONTHEISTS CANNOT HAVE MORALS? Do you believe that I, as an atheist, am devoid of morality because I don't subscribe to your God?

What specific morals do you believe that Christianity has offered the world that is unique to Christianity? I have already shown that the Golden Rule was NOT a Christian invention. The 10 commandments maybe? Sorry, similar tenets have also existed before Christianity. So what is it that Christianity expouses that is unique? To me, God is a "do as I say, not as I do" deity. Why? Just take a look at the OT.
Click to expand...

Oh DV, I never said you couldn't have morals! I am sorry if I infered that! Weather you subcribe to tmy veiws does not mean you do not have morals. I will not quote the ten commandments, or the greatest commandent, which is unqiue to Christiainty.

As I stated before, You can have morals, your morals are pretty much universal as you have just said. I believe that other religions and beliefs are spin offs of The one True God. What you are devoid of is the Grace extended by the Lord God. You can choose to believe you are saved my Grace or not.

Moral, DV, I do not think there are many here who would say your are immoral. Not me at least. but Morality does not save.
 
You can be a Good, Moral person, I know many moral unsaved people. Salvation comes for the Grace of God. I am no better a person for being Christian, unless I practice those guidelines for my life.

Dv and I exist at the same time, share probably the same morals, our beliefs are different. we may have different views,

(Forgive me if I am wrong here) but most men, any two men, Love their wives and children. Want them to be safe, are not out to cheat their neighbor. Want a good standing in sociality.

Many folks for different “”Religious backgrounds want the same things.

We as Christian do not feel we are better than you! Because I am saved I am not laughing behind you back, going “”BURN< BURN< BURN > HEATHEN< BURN!

No , were not like that, and I apologize if anyone was that way to you!!

Unfortunately there are so sick twisted indivual out there and they are missing the point. I am to love the believer and non-believe alike.

Times Change; Habits and ideas adapt. Marriage is and was a good thing, to raise children, to untie families and so forth. No a days, people are increasing self centered and think a lot about themselves. That is not a good thing, BUT That is a different debate.

I believe the morality of the world is the same because it came from the same source, GOD. Could I be wrong? Maybe. I doubt it. But then I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and that Our Father the LORD create everything.
 
I'm saying it's not about having the same morals. There is such thing as lowering your morals so you numb yourself from something, for example people who are addicted to pornography eventually numb themselves to a point where they don't think about it, they either ignore it or think it's ok after a certain point.
 
Montrez, why is my outline of the origin of morality unacceptable? (end of page 1, and page 2)
 
Last edited:
Mr.Bill said:
Montrez, why is my outline of the origin of morality unacceptable? (end of page 1, and page 2)
Click to expand...

Is this what you are talking about??

Mr.Bill said:
Essentially I am in agreement. I believe that our moral system is part of human nature, ingrained into our very being. That is why I believe our moral systems across the globe are fundamentally the same. You are taking it one step further and saying that God gave us all the same morals, but as I do not believe in a God, the point is moot.
Click to expand...

If it is you are in my opinion half right. Being bible believing Christian I can agree that Right and wrong is part of us as Humans.

Spirit
Soul
Flesh

We understand fundamentality not to throw Billy off the roof of the school,, kill him and steal his marbles! We know this is wrong. Because you do not believe in God does not nullify the Fact that I believe morality comes From God. Our Basic nature knows right from wrong. The point being moot to you for not believing in God. That’s is well and good for you, but it strengthens my conviction in the Lord and Savoir Jesus Christ.

I guess if we have the basic blue print for morality, it was by design. I happen to believe in designer God
 
No..sorry, I've actually moved away from that concept of morality because of this thread. And what a big deal that is, eh? Online conversations changing the way I think about something as big as morality. Doesn't happen often. But it IS possible! ; )

But no, I was referring to my posts after that.

Originally Posted by Jericho_falls
So, the reasoning is: with no external influence one would not develop morals.

I think then we can all then conclude something external exists, no? Look at the logic:
1) without external influence man would not develop morals
2) man currently has and passes on morals
3) the origin of morals must therefore be external

Plainly put, morals could never have developed if man were an animal. Where would they come from? How and why would homo sapien ever repress his own instincts of survival for a "higher code" which essentially is counter-survival. It would not happen. If once there were no morals then man has essentially been in a "box" and thus our current morals must have come from an external source. If there has always been morals then man is not an animal. If man is not an animal, he is something else: a creation made in the image of God.
Click to expand...


Not exactly. I've been thinking about it, and I think there's more truth to Eon and DV's point of view than I've been allowing. Morals could easily be complete human constructs.

Let's take a look at your logic:

1) without external influence man would not develop morals
2) man currently has and passes on morals
3) the origin of morals must therefore be external

I've no problem with your second premise, but let's assess your first. First of all, that's not what Eon and DV are saying. True, a single human living by himself in the wilderness would probably not develop his own code of ethics. But that's not how humans live, is it? Humans are communal creatures. We like to live in groups. If you think about it, all of our typical moral codes involve interaction with other people. Without other people, morality does not have appeal.

But when humans live in groups it is an entirely different story. As systems of governments rise in popularity and complexity, so do moral codes. In order for society to be functional, certain rules need to be laid down. If people in a community ran around killing and stealing and raping, there would not be much appeal for community. Humans gathered together for the first time thousands of years ago for symbotic relationships. Humans could survive better and have a higher standard of living if they worked together with fellow members of their species. Thus, humans wanted to make their communities work.

Moral codes arose from the logical conclusions that certain activities (like killing and stealing) would be detrimental to society. These customs were then passed on to newborn children so that they could learn the ways of the world, and when they grew up and had children, the process repeats itself. So you see, this would be a perfectly feasible way for morality to have originated in internally. God does not have a role.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Jericho_falls
I disagree with your conclusion about morals being means of survival. Morals are fundamentally rooted in wrong and right, righteousness and wickedness. I would ask how the following commandments implement survival:
1) You shall have no other God's before me.
2) You shall not make any graven image.
3) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3) You shall honor the sabbath.

These are rooted in our relationship with God, not with man. Also, I fail to see how these commandments relate to survival:
1) Do not commit adultry (that is: no sex with another's spouse, no sex outside of marriage).
2) Do not lie (lying even to your enemies).

These commands are rooted in what is "right" to do and what is "wrong," or what is "appropraite." THing also like modesty, chastity, piety, and sobriety are not rooted in survival. I believe your efforts to explain morals by evolution is a good attempt but falls short.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't fall short. It just wasn't taken out to its full extent.

You are mistaking that morality and the 10 commandments are synonymous, when they are not. Morality came first, primarily as a means of survival, both physical and social survival. It was later merged with spirituality, likely because the two are both intanglibles. This is why the 10 commandments, which was created, as you know, many years after the origin of species, contains references to both morality and spirituality.

The four commandments you mentioned as being spiritual (Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, ect.) are all means to sustain the Christian faith. They are not "morals" so much as they are cultural customs. The other two you mentioned (Do not lie and Do not commit adultery) may not at first seem like they deal with survival, but in fact they do. I mentioned social survival before. That is what they deal with. If everyone in a society lied and commited adultery, the society would have difficulty in functioning at full efficiency. If everyone lied, you could not trust anyone, including the government, and so all governments would be inherently unstable. If everyone commited adultery, there would be an inadequate family structure.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Genesis1315
But again my question stands.

For example, how can one know that it is wrong to lie if it is not previously set that lying is wrong by a law?
Click to expand...


Lying is one that is difficult to be handled by a law, though the law does make an attempt, as you can be persecuted by giving false testimony. But you are right--someone probably would not learn that lying is wrong from the law. And yet, most all people do know that lying is wrong, so where does it come from?

This is how I would explain it. A child is raised by his or her parents as is taught certain moral lessons once he or she comes of age (say, 2 or 3). One of these lessons will likely deal with why it is wrong to lie. The child will also learn from interaction with his or her peers that lying is discouraged, as the basic moral principle of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" holds true in all moral circumstances. But I believe your question deals more with the origin of the moral lesson of lying. For it had to begin somewhere.

I would explain that by saying again that most all of these morals are just logical conclusions of the most efficient way to interact with others. If everyone lied, communities would be less trusting of each other and so they would not function as efficiently. They would not survive, or have as high a standard of living. As people came to realize this, they began to indocrinate their children and their peers with the custom, passing it on from generation to generation. It was never a law, and yet it was widely known. It was not inherent, but our keen intelligence allowed us to realize the social solution. Lying was declared "wrong."
Click to expand...

Why is this approach to morality incorrect?
 
Last edited:
No comment yet from anyone on the FACT that supposedly "Christian" morals were postulated long before they appeared in the Bible?
 
Many of the morals held by Christians to be Christian have been around a lot longer than that - however morals are subjective to the culture that spawns them and the time that we are in.

There is no such thing as Universal morals.
 
mmm... christian morals vs. "normal" morals...






mmm... tasty and pointless

give me some differences.
 
What are christian morals again.
I thought there were human morals and christian rules/beliefs.
 
mmm... bump. i'm waiting for something to go on before I can continue my point. Hurry up before i forget! :p
 
Eon said:
Many of the morals held by Christians to be Christian have been around a lot longer than that - however morals are subjective to the culture that spawns them and the time that we are in.

There is no such thing as Universal morals.
Click to expand...


I would think, not to kill, not to steal are univeral morals, meaning that they transend, all forms of goverment and religions ( By religions, I mean the majors ones) There is a basic encoding for good and evil in humans. Seeing how this is a christain site and we as bible believing christains, believe God created us, We would natuarlly figure, God is a big part of that.

You can disagree with that. But there are Morals that transend all walks of life
 
MontrezAnthony said:
I would think, not to kill, not to steal are univeral morals, meaning that they transend, all forms of goverment and religions ( By religions, I mean the majors ones) There is a basic encoding for good and evil in humans. Seeing how this is a christain site and we as bible believing christains, believe God created us, We would natuarlly figure, God is a big part of that.

You can disagree with that. But there are Morals that transend all walks of life
Click to expand...


Yea.... you would think that this site is about as slanted to Christ and God as Fox is slanted to Republicans.... BURN :eek: :D :eek: :D ;)
 
Many cultures venerate the taking of life - with cause - especially from criminal classes or hereditary enemies. But - yes - there do seem to be a number of life rules that are the glue that binds civilisation.
 
Or those core morals (killing, stealing, etc.) are universal worldwide because human intellect is universal worldwide, and morals are essentially logical conclusions.

Why is this unnacceptable? Sure, you believe that God is the reason for the phenomenon, but do you have a reason why this ISN'T the case?
 
Would someone mind explaining what moral tenet is postulated in the Bible that was not first postulated by another religion/civilization?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top