Where does morality come from?

[eleos1954]

"Morality" is a human system meant to explain, extrapolate and control human behaviour.

If it did indeed "come from God"... it would be an abject failure.

Morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

The principles set forth by God are the moral standards mankind was originally created to live by. However, God created mankind with freewill and we chose/choose otherwise. Mankind is unable to achieve Gods' moral standards without relying on God

and so ...

the result is what we see and experience now .... and yes ... most living by man-made principle/standards (of which each sets for themselves) rather than those as set forth by God.

God is not the failure ... we are.

 

[Freodin]

Morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

The principles set forth by God are the moral standards mankind was originally created to live by. However, God created mankind with freewill and we chose/choose otherwise. Mankind is unable to achieve Gods' moral standards without relying on God

and so ...

the result is what we see and experience now .... and yes ... most living by man-made principle/standards (of which each sets for themselves) rather than those as set forth by God.

God is not the failure ... we are.

So either God desired a creation that fails... and thus isn't a failure at all... or God didn't desire a creation that fails... and didn't get it.

But there's a much more blatant problem in this reasoning. Humans may or may not have free will... that's a very old philosophical question... but I no one has ever denied that humans are fallible.
And the "free will" defence for moral failures only works for infallible beings.

 

[eleos1954]

So either God desired a creation that fails... and thus isn't a failure at all... or God didn't desire a creation that fails... and didn't get it.

But there's a much more blatant problem in this reasoning. Humans may or may not have free will... that's a very old philosophical question... but I no one has ever denied that humans are fallible.
And the "free will" defence for moral failures only works for infallible beings.

No ... it's based on love ... one can not have true love without free choice ... that is ... one can not force one to love another ... God knows this .... we know this. So one can choose to believe in and love God or not.

 

[Freodin]

No ... it's based on love ... one can not have true love without free choice ... that is ... one can not force one to love another ... God knows this .... we know this. So one can choose to believe in and love God or not.

Well, I would disagree... but this is irrelevant. It doesn't respond to my point at all.

As I said: regardless of whether humans do or do not have "free will"... if they don't have infallibility as well, "free will" is not a valid excuse for moral failures.

 

[quatona]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

Not being a believer in your God, I must say that I haven´t seen many good attempts at doing this.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

Satan has his own morality. He does whatever he wants and does what is right in his own eyes. When man does what it right in man's eyes only, they are being Satanians.... little versions of Satan.

 

[com7fy8]

telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

First, I suggest we get what can help us, ourselves, about this.

One thing is how God our Father knows what is best for us. So, He has rules about what is a no-no so we do not go in the opposite direction. And He knows what things we would be doing in an evil spirit > "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2).

While people are doing wrong things > we can tell we are being deeply degraded emotionally and spiritually and in our thinking and feelings. I can tell, right away, how I am losing something as soon as I get started in even thinking of doing something wrong. We Christian people have the ability to sense inside ourselves, as well as to know.

And we need to understand things which the Bible says, about what is for love and what is anti-love. There are things which are wrong, but the Ten Commandments do not directly name these things. And we need to understand how they are wrong in comparison with how love will have us be in our character and what love will have us doing.

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

So, this shows also how unforgiveness is wrong, even though the Ten Commandments and a lot of church and religious teaching on morals might not say a word about forgiving.

And you can feed on Philippians 2:13-16 >

Arguing and complaining can indeed be anti-love, and have us deeply degraded by Satan's spirit which is so anti-love, anti-peace, degrading us from kindness and gentleness and being humble and resting in Jesus.

So, as we grow in Jesus and our knowledge of God's word, our moral standards become deeper than being only about our outward behavior.

So . . . this I would say needs to be in your background, while you are talking with an atheist. So . . . what do you say to the person?

You might say God is your Father, and He knows what is best for you. And you have experienced how better off you are, now that you go by Biblical standards. And note how our desires need to be right, not only our actions, since Jesus cares about our heart and not only what we are showing.

And so, of course, this can bring up if it is ok to have preferences for a wrong thing even if we don't do it. Well, the heart needs to have God's preferences; and so why ever would we want to excuse less????

And I would say stay with this, and do not try to argue or use some other sort of logic. Stay with God being our hope. And since God is so more than we humans are, we need how God reaches us and proves Himself in us.

There are many things humans try, in order to prove or disprove God; and if they have not worked it is because they don't work

God is quiet, not silent; so we need to be still and submissive to Him in His peace, so we can know Him and share with Him and do His will. But many are deeply suffering, and they are desperate to feel some pleasure to make them feel alive, happy, successful, important, and in control. But this is seeking physical pleasure, instead of seeking God for Himself; and so ones can totally miss God because their attention is on pleasures and how they are feeling.

And inside themselves their anger and frustration and demanding what they want is keeping them noisy, instead of quiet.

And Jesus understands this, and Jesus cares about us; so Jesus calls to "all" who are deeply in trouble >

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)

Jesus cares about us, and He knows what our problem is; He does not try to debate and argue with us, but He simply tells us He cares about us and knows what we need, and only Jesus is able to do all that we need.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

This is correct.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking

Why would someone ask what morality is and where it comes from? How did this debate arise? That might help figure out what sort of strategy is appropriate.

On the more practical side, I guess ask them for how they answer the question and probe any inconsistencies. And if they get flummoxed, you swoop in and say "Your answer falls apart under examination, therefore my answer is the only possible correct answer."

It's not valid, but I've seen it often enough.

 

[Freodin]

This is correct.



Why would someone ask what morality is and where it comes from? How did this debate arise?

Usually, it is initiated by the Christian / theist side. It is part of the so-called "moral argument for God": the assertion that morals exist, morals can only come from God and thus the existence of God is proven.

As we can see here, any other response is simply not accepted.

(But you already knew all that, didn't you? )

 

[Acts2:38]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

If you watch them bit by bit, the Warren-Flew debate covers this point and then some. More specifically though, Warren (debater for God) covers your particular question when he uses the Nazi trials and the judge that presided over the trials for the "morality" bit. Although, out of the several videos, I forgot which video covered that aspect, all of them though are quite devastating to Atheism.

Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God

 

[Tanj]

We Christian people have the ability to sense inside ourselves, as well as to know.

If only that were true. Sadly, all of the evidence says the opposite.

 

[com7fy8]

We Christian people have the ability to sense inside ourselves, as well as to know.

If only that were true. Sadly, all of the evidence says the opposite.

I say we can sense, in context with >

While people are doing wrong things > we can tell we are being deeply degraded emotionally and spiritually and in our thinking and feelings. I can tell, right away, how I am losing something as soon as I get started in even thinking of doing something wrong.

Among other things, we have >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

So, a basic rule of Christianity is we need to sense and submit to how our Heavenly Father is personally ruling each of us in our hearts, with His own peace.

God is quiet . . . not silent. But if we disobey His peace, and instead go along with all the noisy stuff, of lusts and hate and frustration and criticizing and accusing and blaming others . . . this is not quiet and gentle and humble stuff; and so we can miss out on how we could be personally sharing with God and submitting to how He takes care of us and guides us in His peace.

And so, for Christians, we have the morality and ethics of how it is good to so stay with God.

Now, of course, you could be speaking about ones who claim to be Christians but they are not following Jesus in His peace. And in case we are not being quiet in God's love, we can not experience the evidence of how He is and shares with us.

Our ethics, then, are not about only copy-catting rules, but in us we need to submit to what God has us doing, in the personal ruling of His peace. But God does have ethics and morals which speak to the level of ones who do not experience Him. This is so they can have some idea of which way to go and not to go. And yes we do need to have rules so we can help our children not to go the wrong way.

But in case someone is blind, yes the person can say he or she has seen no evidence of there being light. Darkness indeed is not evidence of the existence of light. Even so, ones who are blind can benefit somehow from sunshine, even if they don't see it. But saying there is no light because there is darkness is not going to change what is true.

And, likewise, even if ones do not experience God, still they somehow do benefit from Him. Rules can help to resist evil so anyone can benefit from how there is not as much wrong as there could be. Ones can even have some sort of a satisfying life, even without God, because of how evil has not been allowed to ruin them as much as it could have, by now.

 

[loveofourlord]

A simular thing I've been thinking about is, how do you show morality to a muslim or hindu and such, they agree already it comes from god, they just disagree as to what gods morality is, you might be able to convince a atheist with the argument of it comes from god, but how do you with a different concept of god.

 

[quatona]

A simular thing I've been thinking about is, how do you show morality to a muslim or hindu and such, they agree already it comes from god, they just disagree as to what gods morality is, you might be able to convince a atheist with the argument of it comes from god, but how do you with a different concept of god.

Good point. It seems to me, though, that even within Christianity this is a problem.

 

[loveofourlord]

Good point. It seems to me, though, that even within Christianity this is a problem.

I think ultimatly you would have to use the very same principle they complain that atheists use, which is use reason to explain why you think X is wrong, or right. A muslim who thinks stoning woman is right won't buy, "god thinks it's wrong." without convincing him his idea of god is wrong.

 

[quatona]

I think ultimatly you would have to use the very same principle they complain that atheists use, which is use reason to explain why you think X is wrong, or right. A muslim who thinks stoning woman is right won't buy, "god thinks it's wrong." without convincing him his idea of god is wrong.

Again, the same would go for two Christians who disagree on this question.
But yeah, reasoning is always a good idea. However, it always requires at least some common ground.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

How do you reconcile this with the evolution of the Church's morality over history?

• The church has, over time, sponsored wars of aggression (crusades), persecuted and murdered individuals (Inquisition and witch trials) and now finds itself to be a largely pacifist organisation.
• The C of E has gone through a number of reforms in recent years from female bishops to the rights of gay parishioners and is currently debating the reception of trans Christians in the flock.
• In the US, although the evangelical right is particularly impassioned on abortion now, just 50 years ago it was a network of US churches and Synagogues providing information and access to safe abortions through the Clergy consultation service.
• The change in the Church's views on divorce speaks for itself.

Is this the Christian understanding of God's morality that is updating or is God's morality updating?

 

[zippy2006]

How do you reconcile this with the evolution of the Church's morality over history?

• The church has, over time, sponsored wars of aggression (crusades), persecuted and murdered individuals (Inquisition and witch trials) and now finds itself to be a largely pacifist organisation.
• The C of E has gone through a number of reforms in recent years from female bishops to the rights of gay parishioners and is currently debating the reception of trans Christians in the flock.
• In the US, although the evangelical right is particularly impassioned on abortion now, just 50 years ago it was a network of US churches and Synagogues providing information and access to safe abortions through the Clergy consultation service.
• The change in the Church's views on divorce speaks for itself.

Is this the Christian understanding of God's morality that is updating or is God's morality updating?

You seem to be committing a number of equivocations here. For example, you say that Evangelicals oppose abortion and some synagogues endorsed it 50 years ago. There is nothing problematic in that apart from a different religious interpretation of abortion among different groups. Of course Anglicanism has moved quite far over the years, but the poster you responded to is not Anglican.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

You seem to be committing a number of equivocations here. For example, you say that Evangelicals oppose abortion and some synagogues endorsed it 50 years ago. There is nothing problematic in that apart from a different religious interpretation of abortion among different groups. Of course Anglicanism has moved quite far over the years, but the poster you responded to is not Anglican.

Yeah to be fair I was being pretty broad brush - on the CCS though it was Churches not just Synagogues with estimates of it involving 3000 clergy members over 38 states - wrong to assume it's the same churches, but still quite a marked shift from prevailing Christian opinion now. Your point on different religious opinions presents a different problem - if morality is God sourced, why is it so maleable to the point where different Churches would take such different stances?

I think my point still stands though, the morality of today's Christian is unlikely to be anything like that of Christians after Constantine. It's been influenced by capitalism, consumerism, nationalism, individualism and a whole lot of other isms too.

 

[zippy2006]

Your point on different religious opinions presents a different problem - if morality is God sourced, why is it so maleable to the point where different Churches would take such different stances?

Perhaps not all churches are listening to God.

I think my point still stands though, the morality of today's Christian is unlikely to be anything like that of Christians after Constantine. It's been influenced by capitalism, consumerism, nationalism, individualism and a whole lot of other isms too.

I'm not so sure. You're basically saying that the morality of one era can never be the same as that of another era. What are some of the concrete differences between a 4th century and 21st century Christian morality? Of course there are societal differences that shape citizens in different ways, but morality is presumed to be something that transcends societal differences. For example, the introduction of IVF required a moral analysis that applied scripture and tradition to a new problem. The Catholic tradition has literally dealt explicitly with capitalism, consumerism, nationalism, individualism, and various technological advances. Continuity of morality with a past age requires a living tradition, but it is certainly not impossible.