The Evolution of Morality

[bhsmte]

The morality behind Hitler being allowed in heaven at all is that all sin to God is sin. A little lie to millions dying by someone's hand. So one act of sin is only by degrees and all have the same end. I am guilty in that I am not holy enough to stand in the presence of God. We can only stand in the presence of God covered by Jesus. It is due to God having mercy on me and my sins as it is on someone like Hitler. Mercy isn't mercy if it isn't for everyone, even if we ourselves feel mercy to good for some. Forgiveness is true forgiveness or it isn't forgiveness at all.

Therefore, you feel it is moral for Hitler to make it into heaven, where another person who has led a much better life does not? Simple yes or no will do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

IYO, one can live an immoral life, only to recant on his death bed, and all is forgiven? Doe this sound moral to you?

Does it to you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is why international studies have show as people age and get closer to death, they tend to increase their belief in God.

They get a little scared and want to cover their bases.

They determined that they got a little scared and wanted to cover their bases?

 

[HitchSlap]

Does it to you?

Not to me.

 

[bhsmte]

They determined that they got a little scared and wanted to cover their bases?

That is what I deduct from it yes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think for yourself? You have literally posted this site to me at least a dozen times.

It is just a few pieces of evidence demonstrating that life evolved. You pretend as if this evidence doesn't exist. Why else would you ask me for empirical evidence that humans have evolved?

Source for the sequences that allow for morality?

Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome : Article : Nature

Where? And please refrain from posting your link. Put your argument in your own words using your own thoughts.

I will quote your own words back to you:

"Do you think for yourself?"--Oncedeceived

So?

Our brains are part of the human body, and it is the brain that is responsible for making judgements of morality.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

No TFY, we've discussed this before. Babies go to Heaven.

It's good to know that's what you think. I do know there are many Christians who do not believe this.

But I know I go to Hell if I don't become a lickspittle to Jesus. This is actually the reason I became an atheist.

God will let Hitler into heaven so long as he is a lickspittle. I've led a very moral life on the whole, yet I go to Hell because I won't be a lickspittle.

If I met someone in real life who chose their friends based on how much they sucked up to them, even if the people were pedophiles and mass murders, I would find them absolutely disgusting, and have nothing to do with them. I suspect you would react the same.

Yet I am expected to worship a god who does this. I find that god to be a despicable disgusting excuse for a human being, let alone a god. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone with the faintest hint of moral values would follow someone like that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is your opinion, as the Bible says no such thing.

Deuteronomy 1:39

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Matthew 18:3

And said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.



Matthew 19:13-14

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”



2 Samuel 12:22-23

He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”



16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”




These support the belief.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's good to know that's what you think. I do know there are many Christians who do not believe this.

But I know I go to Hell if I don't become a lickspittle to Jesus. This is actually the reason I became an atheist.

God will let Hitler into heaven so long as he is a lickspittle. I've led a very moral life on the whole, yet I go to Hell because I won't be a lickspittle.

If I met someone in real life who chose their friends based on how much they sucked up to them, even if the people were pedophiles and mass murders, I would find them absolutely disgusting, and have nothing to do with them. I suspect you would react the same.

Yet I am expected to worship a god who does this. I find that god to be a despicable disgusting excuse for a human being, let alone a god. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone with the faintest hint of moral values would follow someone like that.

Well that is your choice. It is a choice after all. IF mercy is something that you reject then I am sure you are ready to take the consequences. I wish it wasn't the case but that is what free choice is all about.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Well that is your choice. It is a choice after all. IF mercy is something that you reject then I am sure you are ready to take the consequences. I wish it wasn't the case but that is what free choice is all about.

What does that have to do with mercy? That makes no sense.

Hitler goes to heaven, but I go to Hell and have the flesh burnt from my flesh for eternity because I won't be a lickspittle?

God will only have mercy if I'm a lickspittle? That's not mercy, and He can go to Hell.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Do you think for yourself?...

Hey! No using the name in vain!

 

[Oncedeceived]

When you act, your own brain is determining whether your actions are justified or not. When your actions are external, society will also make a determination of whether your actions were morally acceptable or not and that may or may not agree with your own perception of the same.

How does society make that determination?

So if society says that all homosexuals for instance are immoral and decide that they are not worthy to live is that acceptable even if you may not agree with that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Given that 25-50% of pregnancies naturally abort in the first few months, it would seem that Heaven would be dominated by people that were never even born.

Yep.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good is better than bad by definition. You do know how the English language works, don't you? You have twisted yourself into such illogical knots that you can't even use the simplest words correctly.

The words themselves have no meaning without our defining them. Good is just a word and so is bad. However, you are claiming that good is only subjective and so is bad. So how do we determine what is really good or bad and according to whom? You see by having morality be subjective, it looses its value. What is good for you might not be for me and vice versa.

Yes, just like beauty, good smelling, creative, artistic, etc. These are all value judgements that we assign to things. Morality is no different.

Yes, and good smelling to you might smell unpleasant to me, something that I consider artistic may seem just stupid to you. IF morality is in the same category then good is only what you think it is and it has no bearing on what I think it is.

Why are behaviors inexplicable?

No.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Therefore, you feel it is moral for Hitler to make it into heaven, where another person who has led a much better life does not? Simple yes or no will do.

Yes or no will not do because it is not as simple as that. First if God created the universe like is claimed, then He is apparently extremely powerful and intelligent. If you can create a universe and life forms like we see in the world then we can allow that He knows what He is doing. It also gives Him the right to do as He wishes. If He wishes for His people to love Him, He must give them the freedom to that. With freedom comes responsibility. Choices come with that freedom. He made a way to show our love to a God that is not seen. He showed us love by allowing our freedom even though it came with a cost, but the cost came with mercy and forgiveness for the asking. Now is it moral to allow forgiveness for everyone or just those who we decide should have it?

Now for my personal opinion. I want everyone to go to heaven. Everyone. Now is it more moral for God to not allow Hitler to ask forgiveness and accept His mercy through Christ? What if we put a different look on it. Is it moral for God to not allow the millions of women that have aborted their young into heaven? They have killed their young. So would you have them be barred from heaven too? Are they more moral than Hitler? How are we to judge?

Mercy is mercy, forgiveness is forgiveness and if God is all merciful then we must allow that it is moral to allow a truly repented person no matter what they have done to receive it or mercy like morality means nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is what I deduct from it yes.

I would like to read the study myself to see if I conclude the same.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not to me.

I wrote this in another post.

Yes or no will not do because it is not as simple as that. First if God created the universe like is claimed, then He is apparently extremely powerful and intelligent. If you can create a universe and life forms like we see in the world then we can allow that He knows what He is doing. It also gives Him the right to do as He wishes. If He wishes for His people to love Him, He must give them the freedom to that. With freedom comes responsibility. Choices come with that freedom. He made a way to show our love to a God that is not seen. He showed us love by allowing our freedom even though it came with a cost, but the cost came with mercy and forgiveness for the asking. Now is it moral to allow forgiveness for everyone or just those who we decide should have it?

Now for my personal opinion. I want everyone to go to heaven. Everyone. Now is it more moral for God to not allow Hitler to ask forgiveness and accept His mercy through Christ? What if we put a different look on it. Is it moral for God to not allow the millions of women that have aborted their young into heaven? They have killed their young. So would you have them be barred from heaven too? Are they more moral than Hitler? How are we to judge?

Mercy is mercy, forgiveness is forgiveness and if God is all merciful then we must allow that it is moral to allow a truly repented person no matter what they have done to receive it or mercy like morality means nothing.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

If you can create a universe and life forms like we see in the world then we can allow that He knows what He is doing.

No it doesn't. "He" could be a grade 7 student doing an experiment for the science fair. "He" could be a distrubed grade 7 student at that.

Mercy is mercy, forgiveness is forgiveness and if God is all merciful then we must allow that it is moral to allow a truly repented person no matter what they have done to receive it or mercy like morality means nothing.

But no mercy unless we are lickspittles? Surely you can see how that sounds more like a sociopath than an all-knowing all-loving god?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is just a few pieces of evidence demonstrating that life evolved. You pretend as if this evidence doesn't exist. Why else would you ask me for empirical evidence that humans have evolved?

I asked specifically what empirical evidence you had that morality evolved.

Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome : Article : Nature

Read some of it. No mention of morality being sequenced in there anywhere but will hold comment until I finish.

I will quote your own words back to you:

"Do you think for yourself?"--Oncedeceived

I am not the one that continually sites information from one single site to answer all questions.

Our brains are part of the human body, and it is the brain that is responsible for making judgements of morality.

You are using a circular argument here. Evolution is responsible for the brain so the brain is responsible for morality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once wrote:

Disagreement in an area of ignorance is not rational. To disagree with something, you have to understand it first. It seems you are just learning how morality is proposed to have evolved, and that Soph has less understanding than you do. I've seen you in this thread and others work to gain understanding - which is really good especially given how rare that can be on the internet. You are a considerate and patient person.

There are many people with a lot of understanding - indeed, whole degrees, lifetimes of research, and so on. In fact, there are several whole journals publishing peer-reviewed research every month in this area. There are hundreds or more people actively doing research in this area every day. Now, with that in mind, you can imagine how arrogant it sounds for someone who doesn't even understand what they are proposing to come along and "disagree", out of a position of ignorance, heck, you won't even both to listen to a book on audio that someone else made for us. Yet you still "disagree". That does't seem very Christ-like to me.

For you to determine that I am arguing in ignorance can come off being pretty arrogant. You have provided a book to read to support your position, however, if this research could be shown to provide evidence for morality being an evolved trait I am sure you would be the first to provide that source. If you do indeed have a source that provides empirical evidence for the evolution of morality then I would like to see it. I mean you chastise me for being unChrist-like but you my fellow brother in Christ have not given me reason to believe that you think that God created at all.

By our moral code. More to the point, you can see how they wouldn't have a place (it's not me deciding anything). They would break a law, murder or maim someone, and our human made laws and courts would removed them from society and put them in prison.

Objective morals exist, the moral code exists, what we are disagreeing with is how these are created. If they were just evolved traits, then we don't have a right to claim something is right or wrong. Evolved traits are just what they are, they are not right or wrong. We can't know if they are good or bad they are just what we are born with. So someone that rapes for instance is just the way he is and we can't judge his behavior as bad, at best we can say he is just not as evolved as he should be. Someone who steals, just is wired that way and shouldn't be considered bad because what could he do but steal. We must ask, why should we not steal if our families can't buy food? Did evolution not begin in our need to survive? We need to survive today, if we don't have food and no way to get it do we steal? IF we do are we wrong? If we are, why are we wrong today but in past generations it was good to steal to survive. If we have no way to provide shelter so if we force our way into someone's house and take it so that we are not at risk in the elements, is this wrong today? If it is, what makes it so? If survival is in our genes what makes it wrong for that to be the motive behind our behavior today or tomorrow?

It's not subjective. It's clear what is right and wrong. I still don't understand why you think that I'm saying morality is subjective.

Papias

That is not what is being presented here.