Why do some christians think that morals come from god?

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

First of all, I can't go back a couple hundred years ago and tell American slave owners that slavery is immoral.

Just as you can't go back a few thousand years ago and tell middle eastern people that the Biblically sanctioned slavery they partook in is immoral.
No offense, but that's irrelevant. The point was that even if your could, an atheist who believes that slavery is wrong would not have any moral ground on which to stand when confronting an antebellum era slave owner. On what ground could he declare to him that slavery was wrong, even during that time when all the world believed it was acceptable?

By today's standards slavery is wholly considered immoral (in advanced cultures) ... a few thousand years ago, slavery wasn't considered wholly immoral.

This is evidence for subjective morality, not for objective morality.

If morals were objective, then morals would not fluctuate in the way that they do fluctuate.
You drifted back into the discussion about man's fluctuating "moral compass" which I don't think any Christian denies.

I thought we were coming to an understanding, but I was unfortunately mistaken. Would you mind then if I posed the question to you and see what you think? I just want to clarify in my mind what your position actually is.

Are the practices of raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism definitely "wrong" no matter what any human being may think, living or dead, past or present?
 
Upvote 0

Lenny3

Junior Member
Aug 4, 2014
61
1
✟15,190.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Are the practices of raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism definitely "wrong" no matter what any human being may think, living or dead, past or present?

I personally think so, but I derive my stance on these things on the world and society around me. Are you saying the Bible is immoral?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I read it. Hawking does not deny the existence of black holes, he simply extends our knowlewdge of them.
If you read my posts, you will see all I said is black holes are not a certainty. You seems to think that any don't acknoledge black holes are uneducated somewhat.

Wow - that was a cheap shot!
Okay.
No religion is all about faith: pretending to have knowledge of something that is unknowable.

Not pretending, assuming.

That is another strawman.

If you cannot deal honestly with the topic, please stop posting.

Let's review:

You said that "absolute morality was insrted in our souls".

I ask you to prove it.

You could not.

So, I gave you a tool to prove it.

And again you could not.

So, at this point your claim is totally without basis - kindly withdraw it.

And admit you are in error.

That is my thought, and I am only presenting you evidences of it. What error should I admit? Unless you can prove otherwise.

BTW, MP3s can be measured in bytes too. :doh:

Just saying.
I said that because you are so interested in weights lol, even for law?
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I personally think so, but I derive my stance on these things on the world and society around me. Are you saying the Bible is immoral?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

As I said, if you want to talk about OT issues of this sort (good questions I think, but in this thread we're talking about whether or not there are objective moral values and duties), I would prefer you start a separate thread.

So getting back to the subject, you seem to have agreed with me that "the practices of raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism are definitely "wrong" no matter what any human being may think, living or dead, past or present", but then you add that you derive your stance from "the world and society around me". This sounds to me like you contradicted yourself. On one hand, you claim that these things are definitely wrong no matter what anybody thinks, and then on the other hand you say that you only think they are wrong because that's what the society around you thinks. Did you miss the phrases "definitely" and "no matter what any human being may think"?

I'm trying to understand you...I guess maybe you lack the convictions that these acts are really wrong, which seems to me to be quite obvious that they are wrong. I really do not mean to be offensive to you here. I think most everyone would declare that raping little girls has always been and will ever be wrong. So, I'm just trying to understand you and certainly do not mean to offend. So for me, if I saw a little girl getting raped, I would not hesitate to declare that she was being wronged, and I wouldn't have to take a poll from the society around me. Would you have to depend on a societal poll to tell you that it was wrong for the little girl to be raped? Is your conviction that this is a moral wrong that questionable?

I really don't mean to be offensive to you, so if you don't want to respond, that's ok. Have a good nite.
 
Upvote 0

Lenny3

Junior Member
Aug 4, 2014
61
1
✟15,190.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
As I said, if you want to talk about OT issues of this sort (good questions I think, but in this thread we're talking about whether or not there are objective moral values and duties), I would prefer you start a separate thread.

So getting back to the subject, you seem to have agreed with me that "the practices of raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism are definitely "wrong" no matter what any human being may think, living or dead, past or present", but then you add that you derive your stance from "the world and society around me". This sounds to me like you contradicted yourself. On one hand, you claim that these things are definitely wrong no matter what anybody thinks, and then on the other hand you say that you only think they are wrong because that's what the society around you thinks. Did you miss the phrases "definitely" and "no matter what any human being may think"?

I'm trying to understand you...I guess maybe you lack the convictions that these acts are really wrong, which seems to me to be quite obvious that they are wrong. I really do not mean to be offensive to you here. I think most everyone would declare that raping little girls has always been and will ever be wrong. So, I'm just trying to understand you and certainly do not mean to offend. So for me, if I saw a little girl getting raped, I would not hesitate to declare that she was being wronged, and I wouldn't have to take a poll from the society around me. Would you have to depend on a societal poll to tell you that it was wrong for the little girl to be raped? Is your conviction that this is a moral wrong that questionable?

I really don't mean to be offensive to you, so if you don't want to respond, that's ok. Have a good nite.


I certainly don't have to resort to the Old Testament for the Biblical support of slavery:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

Everything you have said flies in the face of the argument for objective morality. Both you and I think slavery is bad for the same reason; because the society we were brought up in teaches us it's bad.

If you had been brought up in the middle east 2-3000 years ago in a privileged household, you may not have had the same view on slavery. (Reference the Bible)

Now, instead of doing mental gymnastics on the subject, just try to think about it without rose colored glasses.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I certainly don't have to resort to the Old Testament for the Biblical support of slavery:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
I'd be interested in knowing why that would be thought to be "support for" or an endorsement of slavery. It sounds like advice given to slaves.

Everything you have said flies in the face of the argument for objective morality. Both you and I think slavery is bad for the same reason; because the society we were brought up in teaches us it's bad.

If you had been brought up in the middle east 2-3000 years ago in a privileged household, you may not have had the same view on slavery. (Reference the Bible)

Now, instead of doing mental gymnastics on the subject, just try to think about it without rose colored glasses.

All right. The reason Christians look to God as the author of morality is because they believe morals are inherently absolute. That is the question of the thread, I believe.
 
Upvote 0

Lenny3

Junior Member
Aug 4, 2014
61
1
✟15,190.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I'd be interested in knowing why that would be thought to be "support for" or an endorsement of slavery. It sounds like advice given to slaves.
Yeah you're right, telling slaves to serve their owners as they would serve Christ is in no way support for slavery ... :scratch:

All right. The reason Christians look to God as the author of morality is because they believe morals are inherently absolute. That is the question of the thread, I believe.
Yeah, and morals are obviously not inherently absolute. All you need is a layman's knowledge of history to see that.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yeah you're right, telling slaves to serve their owners as they would serve Christ is in no way support for slavery ... :scratch:
I realize that you are reading it as approval, but it doesn't say that. Think it through. We often give advice ourselves to people in difficult situations and do not consider it approval of their misfortunes, etc. if we do so and/or do not include words to the effect of "Yeh. That's wrong! I condemn it absolutely, lest anyone get the wrong impression!"

Consider, for instance, that Christ did not call for a revolution against Caesar, even though there was much more that was unjust about the Roman system than just slavery. When he said "give unto Caesar what which is Caesar's" you would be asking him why he "approved of" dictatorship and extortion masquerading as taxation, I assume.

Yeah, and morals are obviously not inherently absolute. All you need is a layman's knowledge of history to see that.
Having quite a bit more than a layman's knowledge of history myself, I consider that to be simplistic. But if it's your POV, fine.

The question asked why Christians look to a God in this matter, and the answer is that they DO consider morals to be absolute in nature. If we are to stick to the topic, that's all that needs to be said.
 
Upvote 0

Ariston

Newbie
Nov 1, 2013
399
21
39
✟8,209.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry Lenny, you can't have it both ways. Moral absolutes do not exist if morality is contingent upon societal consensus. So we are all still waiting. Which is it: is it absolutely wrong to rape children for or is it just your opinion - no more binding than the diabolical pervert who believes that is good? Also, see Red Herring Fallacy. The Bible is not what is at issue on this thread. Although it could be noted in passing that your Biblical proof-texting, in your case rests on, I must say, a sort of credulous, uniformed, prejudice that isn't quite on par with most psudo-scholarship that I have come across. That is of course since its no scholarship at all. Of course mere quotations without the elucidation of context and interpretation do not serve to benefit the critic even if it has the advantage of presenting the reader with a superficial difficulty. I among many Christians who study the Bible on the other hand, are not quite as interested in propaganda via proof-texting to further an agenda (apparently that the Biblical God is immoral). "No quotation" is more beneficial than a quotation without context by which the reader is misled into ignorance. Further, if morality is determined by society, then in what sense is God immoral? Which societies code serves at the standard and why? The moment you say that morality is relative, is simultaneously the moment when you lose your argument that there is something morally deficient about the character of God. Of course if society determines morality, in which case morality is relative, you lose your argument against God being immoral.

A Repost of Theism, Morality, And the Atheistic Problem Ethics

The reason that Christians think morals come from God in some sense is because Christians think that it is more likely that that moral duties and obligations are objective rather than subjective. That is to say, if this statement is true: "it is wrong in all places and at all times for a person to harm little children for fun" or "one ought not to torture Jews" are true propositions constituting knowledge regardless of the sadist or sociopath who thinks otherwise, then it follows that objective moral duties and obligations exists, and thus there is a deficiency within the naturalist or physicalist worldview where such propositions would be utterly unintelligible.

There are two obvious reasons why such statements above would not be true on naturalism or physicalism (Western atheism). If physicalism is true, then determinism is true (or at least free will could not exist), and thus there can be no moral obligations since the notion of "ought" (for example: we ought to be kind to children rather than cruel) implies that we can. The other reason is that no moral proposition would ever rise beyond subjectivity. The notions of fairness, honesty, kindness, ect. would be no more a matter of my opinion than the other mans opinion that we ought to be unjust, treacherous, cruel, ect. Morality is entirely reduced to relativity or personal opinion. Another way of putting this might cut to the point: If it is true that we a just an accidental byproduct of nature, doomed within a relatively short period to annihilation, then there would certainly be no objective moral duties since 1. my actions are entirely the result of heredity and environmental factors alone in which case I could not be responsible for them and 2. even if I were responsible for them there would exist no reason why I ought to behave in any particular way. There is no moral standard that I am obliged or ought to live up to rather than the one that I determine. And the one that I determine has no basis for being superior to that of the next person. If God does not exist, we would have no responsibility to do anything and are justified in doing anything.

It is common then for the disbeliever in God who once to maintain the truth of the proposition: "It is morally wrong to harm a child for fun" for example, to say that morality is determined on the basis of whether our actions either cause harm to someone, which is immoral, or promote a greater well-being which is moral. But what cannot be provided is a reason why one is obliged to promote the well-being of another person since the moral theory itself would be based solely on that persons preferential ideology. There would be no reason to think that on such a basis his moral teachings would spontaneously become objective and binding on everyone else.

Of course it is morally wrong at all places and at all times to abuse a child. But if this is true in any objective sense and we have a moral duty to prevent such an atrocity, then where atheism possess poor explanatory power (we can call this the atheistic problem of ethics), the objectivity of moral duty is deeply coherent in a world where there exists an omni-benevolent being who wants us to behave in a particular fashion. Of course the atheist could just bite the bullet and maintain that objective morality does not really exist and that his belief that we ought to be kind to children rather than torture them is just a matter of his personal taste - no more valid or binding then the values of a pervert who enjoys molesting children. But in any case, perhaps you can see why Christians think that morality is objective and must be grounded in a higher Standard that we are aware of.

On a final note, there is a general confusion at this point between the question of where objective values come from or how we obtain them and the question of whether they are subjective or objective. I have only emphasized that objective moral duties exist (persons ought to be just for example), this being believed I might add, quite incoherently by our poor atheist friends. I was not attempting to make the point that we do not develop them partly or largely through societal factors and heredity but only that, if God did not exist, they would not be objective and binding. If they are binding as person's hold a priori, its of little consequence how we came to hold them for my present purposes. Of course, it can be noted that one society is morally superior to say Nazi morality in which case we are aware of an objective standard by which we are judging the two. That it to say, its of little importance that there has existed some variation between societies, provided that we can acknowledge morally superior societies. As moral obligations are apparently binding, and a person should believe what is apparently true unless they have strong evidence to the contrary, it is, so it seems philosophically proper to acknowledge the relationship between objective moral duties and theism, and the deficiency of an atheistic worldview.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I certainly don't have to resort to the Old Testament for the Biblical support of slavery:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
Slavery in the bible is NOT the same as slavery in the antebellum era. It's a common misunderstanding, which atheists often use to attack the bible. If you want to talk about that, please start a separate thread instead of trying to sidetrack from this thread's OP topic.

Everything you have said flies in the face of the argument for objective morality. Both you and I think slavery is bad for the same reason; because the society we were brought up in teaches us it's bad.
I disagree. Some practices are very clearly understood by most everyone to have a negative moral value, such as raping little girls. Possibly, the only ones who might disagree with that most obvious negative moral value are pedophiles. The most productive question then is, why do some people declare that some practices are not necessarily morally wrong, while many others see those same practices as most obviously morally wrong?

If you had been brought up in the middle east 2-3000 years ago in a privileged household, you may not have had the same view on slavery. (Reference the Bible)
Unfortunately, you're misled thinking that the slavery referred to in the bible is even remotely comparable to what was called slavery in the antebellum era. Rather than arguing about this any further, I highly recommend that you read the book "Is God a Moral Monster?", which deals with this question as well as other difficult-to-understand biblical issues.

But back to the subject at hand...as I said, the more productive question is: why do some people say that a certain practice is not necessarily wrong, when it's perfectly obvious to the rest of us? Is their morality more evolved than ours, or are they just justifying what they would like to be morally acceptable?
 
Upvote 0

Lenny3

Junior Member
Aug 4, 2014
61
1
✟15,190.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Slavery in the bible is NOT the same as slavery in the antebellum era. It's a common misunderstanding, which atheists often use to attack the bible. If you want to talk about that, please start a separate thread instead of trying to sidetrack from this thread's OP topic.
First of all, no ... slavery is slavery. You can't say that just because the Bible sanctioned it, it was different than slavery in America. And I'm not sidetracking. I'm using a book that I know you're familiar with to illustrate that morals are subjective dependent on the society you are in.

I disagree. Some practices are very clearly understood by most everyone to have a negative moral value, such as raping little girls. Possibly, the only ones who might disagree with that most obvious negative moral value are pedophiles. The most productive question then is, why do some people declare that some practices are not necessarily morally wrong, while many others see those same practices as most obviously morally wrong?
I think that raping any young person (male or female) is morally wrong. I know that it has been accepted in early histroy though ... which goes back to my conclusion that morals are subjective.

Unfortunately, you're misled thinking that the slavery referred to in the bible is even remotely comparable to what was called slavery in the antebellum era. Rather than arguing about this any further, I highly recommend that you read the book "Is God a Moral Monster?", which deals with this question as well as other difficult-to-understand biblical issues.
You're moving the goal posts.

But back to the subject at hand...as I said, the more productive question is: why do some people say that a certain practice is not necessarily wrong, when it's perfectly obvious to the rest of us? Is their morality more evolved than ours, or are they just justifying what they would like to be morally acceptable?
This is a good question, and I don't have a good answer for it. I look at it this way: I was brought up in a religious household by very loving parents. They were very moral people (as far as I can tell) but were no more moral than my family and I are (secular household). I did not derive my morals from a God, but rather my own personal judgment.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
69
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This question has always puzzled me:

Why do some christians think that morals come from god?

:confused::confused::confused:

Because absolute Morals (or any other kind of NON-material trait) cant come from Materials, a Force, or Nothing at all.

How does NON material personality/traits (Consciousness) come from Materials or a non personal Force or from Nothing ?
 
Upvote 0

Ariston

Newbie
Nov 1, 2013
399
21
39
✟8,209.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@Frank Zappa

Abion asked,

"Are the practices of raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism definitely "wrong" no matter what any human being may think, living or dead, past or present?"

to which you replied,

"I personally think so, but I derive my stance on these things on the world and society around me. Are you saying the Bible is immoral?" (italics added)

So you seem to be saying that it is actually wrong and that its a matter of societal opinion. Maybe we should broaden the discussion to include our views on square circles and married bachelors. Its apparently unintelligible to try and have it both ways but I can understand the dilemma. It appears that since that post, you are trying to emphasize that morality is relative in which case you would reject that, "the practices of raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism definitely "wrong" no matter what any human being may think, living or dead, past or present..." which is to deflect from your earlier assertion that, "I personally think so" - that is to say, that you claimed to agree with the statement that some things are wrong regardless of time and place. That was the nonsense I was responding to.

Then after, I responded directly to your position as you expressed it, you wrote rather angrily,

"Obviously reading comprehension is not your forte. Please read what I actually posted instead of fellating your own pseudo-intellectual ego by putting words in my mouth."

Forgive me for taking you seriously. Reading comprehension is apparently not the difficulty since my previous post was directly addressing your above noted incoherent quotations. Perhaps its memory retention that is not your forte or maybe you could just try making sense. Clearly I did not put any words in your mouth since I quoted you! Perhaps the dodging concerning objective morality, the affirming of whatever is presently convenient to your case, reveals that tactics are merely a cloak for hiding under a mere disinclination to think the present issue through to a conclusion. Perhaps you could at least attempt to respond to the "Atheistic problem of Ethics" that I put forth instead of just complain that you don't like that I disclosed your fallacious reasoning. I really do not want to go back and forth on this so I will leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lenny3

Junior Member
Aug 4, 2014
61
1
✟15,190.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It can't work both ways, hypocrite?

Stop making fabrications out of what you think my intentions are. I've only said that morals are subjective and not objective. I've seen nothing to dissuade my stance. So either try harder or dance better.

Edit: And please stop editing your posts. It's disingenuous.

Edit: Edit: I realize my own hypocrisy within this post.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It can't work both ways, hypocrite?

Stop making fabrications out of what you think my intentions are. I've only said that morals are subjective and not objective. I've seen nothing to dissuade my stance. So either try harder or dance better.

Edit: And please stop editing your posts. It's disingenuous.

Edit: Edit: I realize my own hypocrisy within this post.

Like your 2 edits, that is funny.

I would say that any action of "Love your neighbor as yourself" account for good moral, and this one is objective.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ariston

Newbie
Nov 1, 2013
399
21
39
✟8,209.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What's disingenuous about editing my post? And since morality is relative, what's wrong with be disingenuous? I suppose you mean that its wrong for you to be disingenuous unless your appealing to an objective standard which seems to be the case. That is to say, you seem to be saying that I ought not to be disingenuous. I agree. So I guess you are back to your previous dilemma of trying to have it both ways.
 
Upvote 0