The source of moral obligation

[RedPonyDriver]

SteveVW said:

"So I believe if you follow Jesus then you will have certain results but not just physically and mentally but spiritually as well."

I would beg to differ...the happiest people I know are not Christians, but the non-theists. They accept that this life is all there is, and the legacy they leave is how they are remembered by those around them. They strive to make sure that legacy is a good one. I once held that same idea...then became a Christian. However, I find Christianity lacking in so many ways...there's so much emphasis on the eternal that the current is almost ignored.

Everything breaks down over time...it's entropy. Things wear out, break down, and eventually cease to be. People, animals, houses, cars, factories, everything.

No matter what my current belief as far as the eternal goes, the one thing I cannot and will not get away from is the intrinsic value of every human being on the earth. This is why it pains me to see those who profess to believe in the God-Man who said to "love one another as I have loved you" profess such hatefulness against those who need help.

 

[stevevw]

SteveVW said:

"So I believe if you follow Jesus then you will have certain results but not just physically and mentally but spiritually as well."

I would beg to differ...the happiest people I know are not Christians, but the non-theists. They accept that this life is all there is, and the legacy they leave is how they are remembered by those around them. They strive to make sure that legacy is a good one. I once held that same idea...then became a Christian. However, I find Christianity lacking in so many ways...there's so much emphasis on the eternal that the current is almost ignored.

Everything breaks down over time...it's entropy. Things wear out, break down, and eventually cease to be. People, animals, houses, cars, factories, everything.

No matter what my current belief as far as the eternal goes, the one thing I cannot and will not get away from is the intrinsic value of every human being on the earth. This is why it pains me to see those who profess to believe in the God-Man who said to "love one another as I have loved you" profess such hatefulness against those who need help.

OK, I'm not sure where you are coming from. You speak like you are against Christians. When you say people showing hate against others are you saying thats a result of people loving others as themselves. I dont understand what you are getting at.

Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love others as you love yourself. He even gave many examples and the good Samaritan was one of them. This is what many Christians try to practice like the salvation army. Christians get a great inner joy and satisfaction from helping others and doing what pleases God which is something that goes beyond money and fame of this world. To feel guilt free and a child of God can give great comfort and happiness. Jesus also said that heaven is within you. So being saved and being a Christian doesn't mean we are not having a life here in this world. In fact salvation gives you a better life now as well as eternal life with God. Jesus said I have come to give life in its abundance. That means a full and enriched life.

So being a Christian also means we have good lives on earth and live a full and rich life here. It just may not be the same as worldly ideas of trying to make yourself the main thing and promoting yourself all the time. What about all those on this earth who have ended up with nothing or are in poverty or disabled. How do they have a great life on this earth. For many like this the only hope they have is that God will make things better for them in the next. The majority of people on earth suffer so life in this world is pretty much a nightmare or a unhappy.

 

[Freodin]

It's a legitimate criticism.

I wonder how many atheists, for instance, have actually read authors like Rowan Williams or Cynthia Bourgeault, for instance, when they talk about what Christians supposedly believe or don't believe. Most atheists here are taking their cue from a small branch of conservative Protestantism and assuming that is the de-facto Christian belief. It isn't.

I have to admit that I never even heard of Rowan Williams or Cynthia Bourgeault.

But the problem remains: when you cite these authors as someone who say something about what Christians do or don't believe, you are only partially correct. These are authors who say something about what Christians like them believe or don't believe. When atheists talk about this "small branch of conservative Protestantism"... they talk about what Christians like these people believe or don't believe.

Most atheists do not assume that this is THE de-facto Christian belief. Most atheists are quite aware (and I wonder if you are) that there isn't THE de-facto Christian belief. There are tons of Christian beliefs out there.

 

[bhsmte]

I have to admit that I never even heard of Rowan Williams or Cynthia Bourgeault.

But the problem remains: when you cite these authors as someone who say something about what Christians do or don't believe, you are only partially correct. These are authors who say something about what Christians like them believe or don't believe. When atheists talk about this "small branch of conservative Protestantism"... they talk about what Christians like these people believe or don't believe.

Most atheists do not assume that this is THE de-facto Christian belief. Most atheists are quite aware (and I wonder if you are) that there isn't THE de-facto Christian belief. There are tons of Christian beliefs out there.

Indeed, which is why I stated in a previous post, there is a brand of Christianity for just about anyone; ranging from very conservative to very liberal.

Which ever brand one clings to, also determines what Christian authors they tend to cling to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Indeed, which is why I stated in a previous post, there is a brand of Christianity for just about anyone; ranging from very conservative to very liberal.

Which ever brand one clings to, also determines what Christian authors they tend to cling to.

...that's not always the case, bhsmte.

 

[bhsmte]

...that's not always the case, bhsmte.

I believe it is the dominant factor.

 

[variant]

It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting... now days Christianity is unknown to many people, or only known through stereotypes and cliches. So the fact a lot of people don't turn to it for answers is not an indictment of Christianity per se.

We as unbelievers can only deal with the religion in front of us.

Constantly I am told that there is some perfect brand of Christianity that never seems to present itself.

I know plenty of Christians I like quite a lot, good examples of people in fact, the problem is that they aren't particularly distinct from the good examples of people I know that are Atheists.

Why am I better off turning to a religion for answers that produces so many bad people from so many bad interpretations?

I just don't think Christianity is metaphysically correct, and I by no means think it carries superior moral truth as threads like these seem to insinuate.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

We as unbelievers can only deal with the religion in front of us.

Constantly I am told that there is some perfect brand of Christianity that never seems to present itself.

I know plenty of Christians I like quite a lot, good examples of people in fact, the problem is that they aren't particularly distinct from the good examples of people I know that are Atheists.

I just don't think Christianity is metaphysically correct, and I by no means think it carries superior moral truth as threads like these seem to insinuate.

While I consider myself a Christian...I have yet to find this so-called perfect version of it. And, yes, the thing that rubs me the wrong way is the supposition that those who are not Christians are lacking somehow in morality. That is blatantly false...and in actuality, most of the non-theists I know are objectively more moral than most Christians I know. Their beliefs/values seem to have more logic than the Christians.

 

[variant]

While I consider myself a Christian...I have yet to find this so-called perfect version of it. And, yes, the thing that rubs me the wrong way is the supposition that those who are not Christians are lacking somehow in morality. That is blatantly false...and in actuality, most of the non-theists I know are objectively more moral than most Christians I know. Their beliefs/values seem to have more logic than the Christians.

I find that the required thought process of working out the reasons for morals to be quite helpful in developing a strong moral foundation for ones actions.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I find that the required thought process of working out the reasons for morals to be quite helpful in developing a strong moral foundation for ones actions.

I start with the "do unto others..." because it makes sense. There is an intrinsic value in every person. The rest of my beliefs/opinions/political stands follow from that. Doesn't win me a lot of friends in the "Christian Community" but that's ok...I don't have to twist myself into knots to keep a consistent moral belief. I found that conservative doublethink quite tiring and confusing.

 

[variant]

I start with the "do unto others..." because it makes sense. There is an intrinsic value in every person. The rest of my beliefs/opinions/political stands follow from that. Doesn't win me a lot of friends in the "Christian Community" but that's ok...I don't have to twist myself into knots to keep a consistent moral belief. I found that conservative doublethink quite tiring and confusing.

Right, the basic idea behind the golden rule is that you are consistent between your desired treatment and the valuation of others the same way as you value yourself (since we're all people).

Most people if they think a little about it, can derive quite a few principles from the joining of rational consistency and basic empathy.

Moral obligations therefore arise based upon who we are (what our core values about ourselves are) and how well we can put our selves in each others shoes as we think.

Ironically, often when the believers decide to set themselves apart, and act as if they are a special class of moral actors (with their own very special instructions from the almighty) in order to demean the rest of us, they are taking a step down the path of harming the very foundations of morality.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Right, the basic idea behind the golden rule is that you are consistent between your desired treatment and the valuation of others the same way as you value yourself (since we're all people).

Most people if they think a little about it, can derive quite a few principles from the joining of rational consistency and basic empathy.

Moral obligations therefore arise based upon who we are (what our core values about ourselves are) and how well we can put our selves in each others shoes as we think.

Ironically, often when the believers decide to set themselves apart, and act as if they are a special class of moral actors (with their own very special instructions from the almighty) in order to demean the rest of us, they are taking a step down the path of harming the very foundations of morality.

I lack the ability to feel that someone is less valued due to race, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, employment (or lack thereof) or other factors. Each person has an intrinsic value, and as a Christian, it is within the belief that all are created in the image and likeness of their creator. That tells me that God is black, white, brown, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, atheist, rich, poor, gay, straight, rich, poor. Unfortunately, Christians have created God in THEIR own image...white, straight, conservative, legalistic.

I have no problem pointing out inconsistencies in that particular belief system...and that tends to get me into big trouble...but maybe it's because I see the world differently as a Hispanic woman.

 

[stevevw]

I think the basic idea of Jesus that we should love others as we love ourselves is something that anyone can have regardless of religion or not. Jesus said anyone that gives someone a drink when they are thirsty is giving me a drink. So you dont have to belong to a religion or church to do that. If your heart goes out to another and you have compassion and do this then you are living the truth of what Jesus said was the greatest commandment that covers all the commandments of God. This supersedes any good deeds that people may try to present themselves to the world with and try to show that they are good and great in the eyes of man like the pharisees.

Thats why Jesus said many who claim to be first now will be last. They may look the part but their hearts are not in it. Jesus was all about the state of a persons heart and their true inner motives. If someone loves others as they love themselves then they are moved to help others. They will not worry about personal status and what this world regards as looking good in the eyes of others. They will be moved to help others no matter what their lifestyle or background is. Jesus emphasizes love as the main thing we must have. God loved us that He gave His only Son that we may have life. This is the one thing we must have and practice otherwise all else is nothing.

1 Corinthians 13: 1 to 13
1If I speak in the tongueshttp://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/13.htm#footnotes of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,b but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[Neogaia777]

The source of moral obligation comes from "Love", Agape Love, for Christians, atheists and all walks of life, "Love"

God Bless!

 

[Eudaimonist]

The source of moral obligation comes from "Love", Agape Love, for Christians, atheists and all walks of life, "Love"

I can see how agape love can be a motivation to act morally, but I don't see how it can be a source of moral obligation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Neogaia777]

I can see how agape love can be a motivation to act morally, but I don't see how it can be a source of moral obligation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Having a clearly identified "source" (Love) is motivation to act morally.

People who love, love can become the source of moral obligation..

God Bless!

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the basic idea of Jesus that we should love others as we love ourselves is something that anyone can have regardless of religion or not.

Another word for that is "empathy".

"Empathy is the capacity to share or recognize emotions experienced by another sentient or fictional being. One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience accurate compassion."
Empathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many philosophers view empathy as one of the basic foundations of morality. Once you know what type of emotional effect your actions will have on others, you are responsible for those actions.

Also, people who lack empathy due to mental illness are not held to the same standard as people who do not have mental illness. Even our justice system recognizes empathy as a source of morality.

 

[stevevw]

Another word for that is "empathy".

"Empathy is the capacity to share or recognize emotions experienced by another sentient or fictional being. One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience accurate compassion."
Empathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many philosophers view empathy as one of the basic foundations of morality. Once you know what type of emotional effect your actions will have on others, you are responsible for those actions.

Also, people who lack empathy due to mental illness are not held to the same standard as people who do not have mental illness. Even our justice system recognizes empathy as a source of morality.

yes empathy has similar qualities to loving others as yourself or do unto others as you would have them do to you. But I think there is a quality beyond that with what Christ was talking about. If you look at what He did and what many of His followers did they actually sacrificed themselves as well for others. Empathy maybe just putting yourself in anothers shoes emotionally and mentally. But what Christ was talking about was actually being willing to get into those shoes as well. Plus he talked about loving your enemies which I think is harder to do and there is a quality beyond empathy I think. Many people find that harder to do nowadays and that's why we see so much conflict.

I believe we can also feel a lack of empathy. We can also have an evil side to us. Its not necessarily because to a mental illness. We have an evil nature that is selfish and seeks to do harm to others for self gain or even pleasure. But mainly hate can be driving forces and the sin of pride, lust, envy and greed.
John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

So said the terrorists who flew into the Twin Towers.

I think that it would be more in the spirit of Jesus to lay down his life for his enemies as well.

In any case, the missing element here is self-love, and I don't mean in an evil sense that involves the desire to mistreat others. Love of others without love of one's own life is flawed. That just becomes a death wish.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stevevw]

So said the terrorists who flew into the Twin Towers.

I think that it would be more in the spirit of Jesus to lay down his life for his enemies as well.

In any case, the missing element here is self-love, and I don't mean in an evil sense that involves the desire to mistreat others. Love of others without love of one's own life is flawed. That just becomes a death wish.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But then you are twisting the meaning around and changing it from what Jesus was saying. Christs did lay down his life for all including the ones who Crucified Him. As He said on the cross forgive them Father for they know not what they do. It was for His enemies, the Jews, the Gentiles, slave , free, black and white, sinner and saint. In fact He laid His life down for sinners and He took the rap so that we could have a pardon for our sins. So Jesus took on the sins of the world as an innocent man. If thats not dying for your enemies I dont know what is. So you dont even know the message of what Jesus stood for in the first place and to aline it with the terrorist of 9/11 is way off the mark.