Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In no way do I feel that our morals have come to us as a result of god. First off, which god would it have been? To say that the Christian god is responsible for moral development in mankind would imply that the rest of the world would have desended into chaos long ago! "Morality" is not something that is soley Christian/theist based. It is also a constant across cultures: all cultures seem to possess a sense of what is right and just, as well as what is not.
How do people obtain morals? Look up Kernberg. (As one example.) He outlined very clearly delineated stages of moral development. He begins with how morals are internalized in young children, and progesses from there. His life's work was centered around how we all, (irregardless of religious influences,) acquire morals.
I tend to feel that without having internalized certain things as children, one would be all but incapable of comprehending morals at all. Even the belief that morals need be religiously based comes secondary to a person's having the capacity to know right from wrong, what is fair and what is not, very early on. So I believe the psychological framework is established FIRST. From there, if one deems that they will choose their morality based upon a certain religious belief, (or no religious influence/belief) then that is their choice.
But one does NOT need to be a believer in any diety in order to possess morals.
In no way do I feel that our morals have come to us as a result of god. First off, which god would it have been? To say that the Christian god is responsible for moral development in mankind would imply that the rest of the world would have desended into chaos long ago! "Morality" is not something that is soley Christian/theist based. It is also a constant across cultures: all cultures seem to possess a sense of what is right and just, as well as what is not.
How do people obtain morals? Look up Kernberg. (As one example.) He outlined very clearly delineated stages of moral development. He begins with how morals are internalized in young children, and progesses from there. His life's work was centered around how we all, (irregardless of religious influences,) acquire morals.
I tend to feel that without having internalized certain things as children, one would be all but incapable of comprehending morals at all. Even the belief that morals need be religiously based comes secondary to a person's having the capacity to know right from wrong, what is fair and what is not, very early on. So I believe the psychological framework is established FIRST. From there, if one deems that they will choose their morality based upon a certain religious belief, (or no religious influence/belief) then that is their choice.
But one does NOT need to be a believer in any diety in order to possess morals.
You said it much better than I could have June7th. I think we are all imbued with a sense of right and wrong regardless of our environment, bar very few people who seem to be Amoral rather than immoral, but these are extremely rare cases. Children from an early age already show an understanding of a basic moral framework. Religious people do like to believe that without religion the world would collapse or explode under the perversion and immoral behaviour of human beings but this is just a myth.
Human beings are born with a large capacity brain , to analyse behaviour patterns, to introspect and to deeply think about everything under the sun. We also possess the innate ability to empathise with others and are fully able to comprehend the consequences of our actions. We can think and feel and this is the best self guiding tool for a moral "backbone" so to speak. A good moral compass has nothing to do with religion or faith and everything to do with emotional intelligence.
It's very self evident by the Pledge of Allegience (One nation under God)
The original Pledge of Allegiance appeared in 1892 in a Boston publication called "The Youth's Companion" and was entitled "The Pledge to the Flag":
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
You'll notice that no reference to God appears there.
The recitation of the Pledge quickly spread in our nation's schools. In 1923 the wording was altered to:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."
No reference to God in this version either. In 1924 it was slightly altered again, to add two words:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."
The words "one Nation under God" were not added until 1924, under the approval/encouragement of President Eisenhower.
It's not necessary to grow up in with intact family unit to be a moral person either, but many would ague that in many cases, it would certainly help.
When we look at the break down of society now days and the high incidence of divorce, it seems to increase the liklihood that more children will grow up having a poor moral character.
And while it's not easy to define a poor moral character, maybe the term prison would suffice.
That's why the system of public education is important, and having good role models in the form of teachers are important.
At the very least Jesus was a teacher and a great role model for all of mankind.
This only leaves the individual to decide for himself whether He was actually the Messiah or not.
It's always been interesting to me how the same Roman Empire which killed Jesus also become so beholden to Him over the course of history.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions, and all a man had to do to save himself was to deny their belief in Jesus. Yet, their faith was so strong that they wouldn't. These people could have lied, and [their] God would have forgiven them, and their lives would have been spared.
Yet they did not.
This is amazing because it shows that there is such a strong feeling that results from belief that's not easy to describe.
It is as if God was the most important thing in the world, and something worth dying for.
All the wars, including our Civil War, involved people dying for what they believed in.
And every war has a victor who proved to be stronger, just like the Alpha male wolf.
Now whether the stronger is blessed by God or it's just a random coincidence becomes the next question.
Americans don't want to believe that we're stronger by accident, or that the Christianized Western world is stronger by accident. Of course not. We inherited the New World vs. the native Americans, and we have declared and shown our superiority to the world, just as the Alpha male wolf has.
And if all the spaghetti westerns, and the Lone Ranger, or Batman and Superman mean anything to anybody, they all show that good wins over evil. And the best way to insure that good will eventually prevail over evil is to have a higher moral fiber than the bad and evil opponent.
That's where the grace of God and all the related theories enter the picture.
When the American colonies defeated the more powerful King of England against the odds, it was interpreted to signify that "might doesn't make right", but rather that "right makes might".
The Alpha male wolf's power is not based on this same theory though, since they don't truely have morals. They only have genes and lower learning abilities.
Genes are based on science, and not morals. Only humans have morals, and by and large it's pretty universally understood that morality is being God like, and that's what humans are. Like God, but not God, only under God.
The Romans learned and faith is learned.
The real difference is whether the morality/ethics is primarily coming from God, or only secondarily coming from God. The world's highest leaders are perceived as having a primary link to God, while most average people are considered to have only a secondary link to God.
That's why the world's leaders get to decide who lives and who dies. It's a very hierarchical structure, just like the churches have. And just like the wolfs have.
There's a top dog and there's top leaders, and either they answer to God, or they answer to no one.
Democracy makes them answer to the goodness within the vast majority of the people who are voters, but only after the fact.
And if leaders do something really wrong, the people will revolt as the framers intended. So God is ultimately in the people, and religion is the guardian of their morality.
It's always about goodness vs. evil in the end, and who or what interpretes and determines it.
The Bible is probably the most powerful of all determiners of what is good or evil [besides God].
And that's what makes Christianity stronger than all of the world's religions.
So they are not all the same, even though theoretically there is only one God. God is perceived as having his favorites, which can always change of course, but for now, Christ is considered to be King. He's the Alpha and the Omega, and our leaders truely believe it.
If parts of society don't believe in it, then get out of their way, because they are the Alpha males. They've earned the right.
What is is what is.
Buddhism doesn't teach the true and complete picture, nor has any other religion known to man. Atheism has often been associated with communism, because religion is discouraged or outlawed as a competing ideology. And look what happened to the USSR, and how America and the West prospers.
China has never had it so good since America opened the doors of the Bamboo curtain and only now they have tempered their communistic ways.
So there is no denying that the world is about good & evil, and morality. And that largely determines which nations prosper and decline, and who will live and who will die when nations fight the battles between good and evil.
There is a world order, and the belief in God and country are what people fight and die for. And certain truths are considered to be self-evident.
If atheists have a better version of the truth, where evil doesn't exist, then I think that everyone would like to know about it.
But because right makes might, I doubt that version would ever be as powerful or popular as the Christian version of what truth actually is.
I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. However, it is still God that created and instilled these "morals" into us as well as the nature of the dogs.
I agree with this. I think that God instilled basic morals within humans, Christian or non. Yet some Christians make it sound as if someone who doesn't believe in Christ is completely devoid of any morals...but like June said, wouldn't the world have devolved into complete chaos thousands of years ago if this were the case? We must as Christians realize that non-Christians DO have morals, and that God has given us ALL, believers and non, an internal moral compass. I believe that as a Christian you are MORE LIKELY to follow this compass, but not necessarily, and vise-versa for the non-Christian.
If you are a believer who disagrees with me, then what are your reasons for doing so? Do you find that anyone who is "unsaved" is therefore morally corrupt? Why?
I have known too many non-Christians who were better people and more Christ-like than some Christians for this belief to be true.
I agree with this. I think that God instilled basic morals within humans, Christian or non. Yet some Christians make it sound as if someone who doesn't believe in Christ is completely devoid of any morals...but like June said, wouldn't the world have devolved into complete chaos thousands of years ago if this were the case? We must as Christians realize that non-Christians DO have morals, and that God has given us ALL, believers and non, an internal moral compass. I believe that as a Christian you are MORE LIKELY to follow this compass, but not necessarily, and vise-versa for the non-Christian.
If you are a believer who disagrees with me, then what are your reasons for doing so? Do you find that anyone who is "unsaved" is therefore morally corrupt? Why?
I have known too many non-Christians who were better people and more Christ-like than some Christians for this belief to be true.
Exactly, which is way man is without excuse when it comes to knowing right from wrong IMO.
Exactly, which is way man is without excuse when it comes to knowing right from wrong IMO.
Totally agree. But don't most Christians believe that someone doesn't go to hell for doing wrong or right, but for 1 reason--not accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour? So of course man is without excuse when it comes to the knowledge of good and evil, but what about making an informed decision about their eternal destination? No one can claim to know 1st hand what is literally waiting for us on the other side...
It's not that we have a version of morals where evil does not exist. But, doing a real quick check on the internet, you'll find that the most embattled places; the ones with the highest amounts of crime, "martyrism", and what we could consider a "lack of morals" are by and large nations with a very high religious population. I'll help you name a few: U.S. Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Congo, Pakistan and India (Peshawar), Afghanistan, Iran on and on on. Now, let's look at countries that are by and large atheist. Now, I want you to remember something. You linked communism with atheism and I expect you wanted to get a rise out of us by doing so. But, what is the purpose of atheism in a communist society? Why do the leaders enforce it? They enforce it so that the leaders are looked at as GODS. Remember from "Animal Farm" - "Four legs good, two legs bad"?
Anyway, let's look at Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam. I would say China but I don't really think they are so much of a Communist state anymore as much as they were in the past. Are the Cubans, North Koreans, and Vietnamese bad people because they are atheists? Are the literal people themselves committing crimes that we would consider crimes in the States? Other than disregarding the "thought police" or forgetting to bow to the leader are they immoral people? I suppose we probably don't know enough about them because they have been closed off from society for so long now but I don't think they are bad people. Conditioned to a certain mindset of "leader before me" well yes that's the end result of Communism but isn't it oddly familiar how close that is to religion? I often think of Communism as a religion because of it.
Lisa Ling did a fantastic report on North Korea where she imbedded herself with a group of charity eye surgeons on their way to North Korea to do some cornea transplants. If you haven't seen it they play it on the National Geographic Channel A LOT but the thing is: Although Kim Jong Il is never seen in the video they sure do a lot of prayers to him as if he were a god. And, to be honest with you, after such a long period of Communist rule, I couldn't expect the people there to expect much different.
Now, let's take the Iraq and U.S. war. I think what a lot of people here in the States do not understand is the mindset of the typical Middle Eastern person. We are so fast to abhor them as terrorists, stinky cab drivers, and wife beaters. The problem with that is they know this. They understand the dirty looks we give them. They have families back in their home countries and they talk amongst each other. They know they are looked at as second class citizens in our country. So why should we be treated any different in theirs? One of the biggest mistakes we have made as a government is to enter a Middle Eastern country with disrespect for their society. I'm referring to the first Gulf War. Stepping foot in Saudi Arabia was a mistake. Our women GI's did not have to wear the burkha which is a great insult, our troops disregarded the fundamentals of Rammadan, and we were seen as "pigs". What we did when we entered that society was show complete disregard for their way of life, stay when we should have left, and now, we are in another country in the Middle East. Iraq. You have to understand that to them an attack on one Middle Eastern country is an attack on Islam. It's an attack on their way of life and their people. How would you feel if Canada and another superpower were at war? Wouldn't you feel pretty scared it might come here?
Sorry to get off on such a long political tangent but what I am trying to say is that the war in Iraq is not seen as a "war between countries" anymore. It's seen as a holy war. It's been that way since the first roadside bombing. It's an opportunity to kick the American invaders out of the Middle East for good. And, George Bush's "strong Christian faith" does NOT help in the matter. In fact, it probably damages it more than anything. If Bush were atheist would it matter as much? It'd still be bad, we're still invading a country over there and it'd still be viewed the same way and probably being invaded by "heretics" than Christians would be just as insulting to them. But, do I think it would turn into an all out holy war the way it has now? It's hard to say.
The problem we Americans have as a result of our "great faith" is our ignorance towards other countries. Sometimes I hated visiting other countries when I was in the military because you go out with people who get slovenly drunk, make complete fools of themselves, and they are representing our country. They are ambassadors of our nation. Now, I'm all for a good time, but there has to be a limit. Yet, I see Americans all over the streets of Europe and Asia screaming "Love me, I'm American". It's funny, you don't see a Middle Eastern person walking the streets saying "Love me, I'm Middle Eastern". It is our arrogant way of life, due to our Judeo-Christian lifestyle that makes us look that way. I guarantee it!
Well, my belief is that the moral compass in humans is a result of evolution, not that it was put there by any deity.
The thing that separates humans from all other animals is our self-awareness. Ours are the only brains that have this capability (though I think there is a theory that some apes have a rudimentary form of self-awareness).
Self-awareness made it possible for humans to extrapolate OUR reactions and feelings to that of other people. We could take the knowledge of "I feel pain when someone hits me" and extend it to "If I hit someone else, they will feel pain" and from there to "I do not like to feel pain. Pain is an unpleasant thing. It is the same unpleasant thing for someone else as it is for me."
No other animal can do this. No other creature on earth can empathize and sympathize (as far as we know). Empathy and sympathy are foundations of what we call a "moral compass".
People will argue that the reason the human brain can do these things because "God made it happen" but that is impossible to prove.
Totally agree. But don't most Christians believe that someone doesn't go to hell for doing wrong or right, but for 1 reason--not accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour? So of course man is without excuse when it comes to the knowledge of good and evil, but what about making an informed decision about their eternal destination? No one can claim to know 1st hand what is literally waiting for us on the other side...
You are right Jeff....(wow, we are agreeing again)...I kind of went off topic...I was just saying that it's yet another thing that points to the existence of God for those who don't believe in God at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But don't most Christians believe that someone doesn't go to hell for doing wrong or right, but for 1 reason--not accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour? So of course man is without excuse when it comes to the knowledge of good and evil, but what about making an informed decision about their eternal destination? No one can claim to know 1st hand what is literally waiting for us on the other side...
