Morality

[blackribbon]

Can you have morality or be a "moral person" without God?

Morality requires a definition of what is "good" and what is "bad". So without a God to set those standards, then what is "good" can be defined as "what is good for me" or "what makes me happy"...without any reference to how it affects someone else.

 

[miss-a]

I think what happens when folks who do not know God attempt to live a moral life is that they pick and choose, often from God's standards that they are familiar with from one source or another, the moral standards that seem to fit in their lives. Most unsaved people have no desire to murder, and some unsaved folks might even want to save their sexuality until marriage. But these same folks might think it's just fine to cheat on their taxes because they don't like the way the government is spending their money. It's kind of a "take what you like and leave the rest" proposition for them. And whatever it is that they like and choose to do, the big problem is they are alone making the decisions, and seeking to find peace in them, and they never will, because we can only find peace in letting Jesus take the wheel. As long as any of us hold onto it, saved or unsaved, we're an accident waiting to happen.

 

[MorkandMindy]

'Morality' means how people treat other people. It goes on all over the World, in places Jesus has never been heard of and was going on long before Jesus was ever heard of.

As of being the basis of morality, consider a hypothetical extreme case where a group of people decided murder was fine and all killed each other, or at least down to where there was only one individual, who survived but then couldn't breed. Well they wouldn't last very long. Survival is the absolute required to prove which moral codes work and which don't.

 

[blackribbon]

But what is it? There has to be something to measure again to have morality. Islam believes that it is okay to destroy everything that isn't Islamic. If that is their measure, does that make what happened on 9/11 in New York City an act of morality?

Is morality really relative?

 

[MorkandMindy]

If you knew ten people in your church had died of starvation over the past week you might feel like doing something about it.

If those ten people had been among a tribe in Africa waiting to get into a refugee camp because there was now a drought in the area where they had lived for the past 20 years and owing to national boundaries they are no longer permitted to migrate, then would you care as much?

How absolute is Christian morality?

 

[MorkandMindy]

I think what happens when folks who do not know God attempt to live a moral life is that they pick and choose, often from God's standards that they are familiar with from one source or another, ...

Christians pick and choose, this is what I found living as a Christian (or not, you decide) among Christians is they just don't devour the scriptures and read them and think about them day and night as though they are of great value.

I considered them to be inerrant but at the very least to be valuable and I read them more than anyone else I knew apart from the Pastor did. The Christians invariably said they should read the Bible more but didn't. Some used the Daily Light and read an introduction and then a little tiny bit of scripture and that was it for the day even if they had nothing else to do. If I had the time I would read an entire book and I memorised Isaiah 1 to 6 and various other chunks.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
So without a God to set those standards, then what is "good" can be defined as "what is good for me" or "what makes me happy"...without any reference to how it affects someone else.

The word 'morality' actually means how people treat other people so the OP is wrong by definition.

 

[MorkandMindy]

But what is it? There has to be something to measure again to have morality. Islam believes that it is okay to destroy everything that isn't Islamic. If that is their measure, does that make what happened on 9/11 in New York City an act of morality?

Is morality really relative?

Joshua 6
20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

Joshua 8
23 But they took the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua.
24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day – all the people of Ai.


Joshua 10
27 At sunset Joshua gave the order and they took them down from the poles and threw them into the cave where they had been hiding. At the mouth of the cave they placed large rocks, which are there to this day.


28 That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.
29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. 30 The Lord also gave that city and its king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.
31 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. 32 The Lord gave Lachish into Israel’s hands, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army – until no survivors were left.
34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.
36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.
38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned round and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.
40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.

 

[blackribbon]

If you knew ten people in your church had died of starvation over the past week you might feel like doing something about it.

If those ten people had been among a tribe in Africa waiting to get into a refugee camp because there was now a drought in the area where they had lived for the past 20 years and owing to national boundaries they are no longer permitted to migrate, then would you care as much?

How absolute is Christian morality?

You actually make some interesting assumptions. My church (and I have participated) has raised well over a million dollars and is physically is sending people to Kenya and the Pokot people (a million people) to build water wells. We will not stop until the whole tribe has access to clean fresh water. I believe that a well cost about $20,000 (these are difficult wells to dig and require a geology team and major equipment to accomplish) and we have financed many.

In addition, when I get my nursing license, I hope to take my children on a medical mission trip to Africa ... because we do care when a person dies in Africa. I have a classmate who is from Kenya and hope that I can go with her sometimes because by having a native speaker along with us would mean we could accomplish so much more.

This world is small. Africa isn't any further away than New York City in my opinion....and I speak online to a friend in South Africa almost daily...(a bit jealous as they move into summer as I am starting to freeze).

 

[blackribbon]

The word 'morality' actually means how people treat other people so the OP is wrong by definition.

I don't know what dictionary you are using but no, that is not what "morality" means. It is the determination of what is "good" versus what is "wrong". And to do this...a standard must be determined to define "good" or "bad" because they don't have an absolute definitions.

mo·ral·i·ty

noun \mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\ : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior
: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

To me, most non-believers that follow a type of being moral believe that they should not kill or harm someone, that they should "do the right thing" everytime. Have integrity, like doing what's right when no one is looking. To not steal, or lie, or take advantage of someone else. To help people when they can and be curteous and kind to everyone.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Can you have morality or be a "moral person" without God?

Morality requires a definition of what is "good" and what is "bad". So without a God to set those standards, then what is "good" can be defined as "what is good for me" or "what makes me happy"...without any reference to how it affects someone else.

The answer is YES, people can practice morality and ethics by denying God and his existence ; its just that they cant justify it . If they believe in a Materialism Universe (atheism) ...then they would be hard pressed to explain how such NON-material entities such as moral oughtness, abstract thinking, reason, rationale, etc... can come about from material and raw chemicals. A persons moral conscience can only be derived from a like Moral Conscience of much higher level...that is....an ABSOLUTE Moral Conscious or Standard to which everything can be measured against (whether consciously or subconsiously) . Otherwise, its just Ones subjective opinion ,which makes Hitler not objectively wrong in ridding his society of what he considered to be lesser valueable People , since he truly believed it was a good and noble thing he was doing for the betterment of his World.

In fact, without God and his infinite absolute characteristics, we could not determine what is really truth from false , because TRUTH is : fidelity to the original . Real truth cant come from the first molecule of the Universe because truth isnt congruent with mass or how much something weighs...rather....truth is based on non material entity which conforms to reality . This is the problem for the Atheist., and it makes his worldview look quite irrational compared to a Theistic Worldview. There cant be such things as logic, reason, rationale, et al...in a Non theistic worldview , therefore, the Atheist must borrow from Theism to try and make his point.

Lastly, we KNOW absolute moral laws/truths exist not only by looking at Gods very nature, character, and person....but we see it playing out everytime when we are morally violated by Another ; when that happens, we feel absolutely and immensely slighted instead of being impartial to what occured to us. In addition, if there werent prescribed absolute moral laws (given by God to us) , then we wouldnt have any reason to HIDE a misdeed we committed ; we hide the fact of the wrongdoing because we KNOW it IS really wrong and we dont want Others to find out about the misdeed . Again, the Atheist cant rebut this reality and while he can say there 'are no moral absolute laws'.... his very reactions to when he is violated or when he tries to hide an immoral act.... is proof positive that he intrinsically knows these absolute moral laws (which no amount of materials can prescribe on our being --- thats something that our Creator lovingly designed us with in hopes we would not suppress our Moral Conscience , but to embrace it) .

Finally, there are scientific studies that have been conducted which shows the moral degradation of a society primarily by people groups that not want to ascribe to Absolute Moral Laws . Its the automatic fallout of desiring to suppress God and the Moral Conscience given to every man, woman, and child.

 

[dayhiker]

Years ago I studied a book that systematically studied the different views of morality.they often overlap but they aren't fully compatable. I forget the details now. But love, law etc. it wasn't obvious to me that a person could only live by one of them. Most people see tousle terminology from multiple systems.
The one that has worked best for me is to love people as I love myself. If one considers God as a person then it's easy to get to loving God as well.
So a person can love and many do who don't put much faith in God. The problem these people have in my mind is not morality, but how does one please God when they don't even give accent to God.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Can you have morality or be a "moral person" without God?

Morality requires a definition of what is "good" and what is "bad". So without a God to set those standards, then what is "good" can be defined as "what is good for me" or "what makes me happy"...without any reference to how it affects someone else.

I guess morality could refer to the way a person treats themselves but it usually refers to the way they treat others, and wikipedia takes that meaning exclusively.



I certainly wouldn't be happy if people based their morality on the Bible or on a desire to be more like God (YWHW):

I do not regard flooding the planet as the best way to deal with the giants, or evil desires. I'm not sure killing the first born just to impress the Egyptians is very considerate, and to take just a tiny bit of Biblical history:

36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.

 

[blackribbon]

Years ago I studied a book that systematically studied the different views of morality.they often overlap but they aren't fully compatable. I forget the details now. But love, law etc. it wasn't obvious to me that a person could only live by one of them. Most people see tousle terminology from multiple systems.
The one that has worked best for me is to love people as I love myself. If one considers God as a person then it's easy to get to loving God as well.
So a person can love and many do who don't put much faith in God. The problem these people have in my mind is not morality, but how does one please God when they don't even give accent to God.

"Love" can't even define morality...because where does pediphile activity work into here...many adults who molest children truly think they "love" the child...the proof is American Society of Man Boy Love. So the definition of what is "acceptable" or moral behavior needs a standard from somewhere...or else it would be have to be okay for a 40 year old man to have relations with a 6 year old boy or girl..as long as he "loved" them.

 

[dayhiker]

There is a problem with this view of love in my opinion. Love isn't getting what I want but its to add to the life of the other. Paul wrote love doesn't hurt your neighbour. So love learns about the other person and seeks to give them what is good for them. While I'm not sure 18 year olds should be punished for sex with 17 year olds, I think the young person should have gone thru puberty and desire sex as a minimum for it to be a loving act. Part of loving is to honor ones boundaries. So a person has to be old enough to know what their boundaries are and verbalize them. So the ASMBL doesn't fit the love test in my mind.

 

[blackribbon]

But that is my point...without a standard like Christianity to base what is "moral", then morality is what ever you think it is...

 

[blackribbon]

How can an atheist be "moral"?...because without God, morality becomes whatever you want it to be...

 

[iambren]

I believe there are a LOT of moral people in the world........who will go to hell when they die.

 

[Faith In God]

Can you have morality or be a "moral person" without God?

Morality requires a definition of what is "good" and what is "bad". So without a God to set those standards, then what is "good" can be defined as "what is good for me" or "what makes me happy"...without any reference to how it affects someone else.

Romans 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Non-believers have a conscience. Society and culture imbues upon its people morals and values. There is no culture on earth that says that killing is okay. Rape and incest, child pornography and cannibalism are universal evils for the vast majority of cultures, regardless of their belief in the God of the Bible.

It's what I call "Societal morality." Paul says in his letters that the governments of the world have laws to do good. In general, if it hurts someone else, it is evil. That's the humanist, social morality that exists without God. It's not a bad place to start with right and wrong.

I believe there is a more innate morality, but society can easily destroy it through culture and nurturing of it out. Bad families and the like. So I leave it at societal morality.