New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
God’s Gal posted an excellent question in the comments yesterday:
I have a question for any non-believer on this site, and I really do want to know this…I’m not being flip here… Do any of you, or any athiest believe in sin? I mean crossing the boundaries on moral issues? I’m not sure where to look up definitions of words for you anymore, I guess the dictionary doesn’t count according to former posts…but I’m just curious. And, how do you know the difference between good and bad…in your opinion?
So far one atheist, ash, has responded:
@GG1, i believe in right + wrong, but not sin as that tends to be a religious thing, and often about absolutism. last time i answered this question it took about a month, so i’ll direct you to that convo…any more questions, feel free :d
Can we have government without faith?
ps, i join in at July 11 - the thread may sound political, but we mostly talk about ethics.
I’d love to hear what other atheists have to say. Christians, feel free to join in the discussion. Everyone please be respectful of others even if their moral boundaries doesn’t make sense to you.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Loading ...
I’ve mentioned this before but the religious concepts of sin are far too broad to be of any value. Specifically the Seven Deadly Sins where it is perfectly possible to take each one and pull positive moral values from each. I have due pride in my achievements, I engage in lustful activities with The Hildy, I rest after a hard day at work, I grow angry when I see injustice and work to correct it where I can, etc. None of these are “bad” things. It is only the extremes that can be bad but then aren’t the extremes of any human behaviour undesirable?
I think that people learn their morals and ethics from their parents and early teachers and most importantly their peers. I don’t belief that this has anything to do with your religion. A parent places boundaries on their child’s behaviour. Some activities will be praised (tidying your room, doing well at school, being kind, being truthful, etc) and some will be punished (biting schoolmates, stealing, eating too many sweets, etc). These boundaries are reinforced at school by teachers and by the child’s peer group and subconsciously by the behaviour of everyone that the child interacts with.
Religion is simply another factor is developing the morality of a child.
There is also a natural inclination of a person to perform certain acts. A kleptomaniac, for example, is driven to steal. They do not “sin” as such because they suffer from a mental illness. Of course society must punish people who break the law, to do otherwise would be equivalent to decriminalising undesirable behaviour and that could encourage it. Society therefore places moral and ethical limits of behaviour where a person’s own natural and learned responses are inadequate.
I hope that this answers the question.
Actually I have something to add: I find the assumption that a person of faith has a higher moral standard than one who chooses not to belief in a deity a little strange and ever so slightly offensive.
Take, for example, my own life compared to my friend. I choose to live with my children and with their mother, The Hildy. We have never been married yet I provide for them in every way that a husband would. An old friend of deep religious conviction once told me that I was wrong not to marry The Hildy. We are happy as we are, the children are happy, we are comfortable and want for few things. Yet he told me that I was in the wrong.
This same friend has two children who he sees two or three times a year. He is divorced and has remarried, despite telling me that God didn’t recognise divorce. He also lived with his wife before they were married despite telling me that “living in sin” was wrong. He has now effectively abandoned his first wife and his children. I find this morally repugnant.
Relationships break down. Often no-one is to blame. You need to work at a relationship to keep it going. I know that I am not the man I was 15 years ago when we started seeing each other and The Hildy isn’t the woman she was either. We have changed and grown together and brought four children into the world together. We raise them to have moral standards and to question things that they think are wrong so that they can make their own decisions when they reach adulthood.
I would consider myself to be a moral man and yet my religious friend thinks that I am in the wrong. I think he’s a prat who shows the moral courage of a hungry mouse when it comes to caring for people who relied on him. I think that he is a hypocrite who changes his morals to suit his desires. I don’t preach at him though because, when all is said and done, it is his choice how he should act. If he chooses to take a 2000 year old book to base his life on and then fails to adhere to it then that is up to him.
I choose to make my own moral decisions based on what works best for me. I think that I am happier as a result.
Cor! Two really long responses. If only I’d broken it down into smaller chunks I’d be wizzing up the top commentator’s board in no time.
/:)
Hoverfrog, even if you had, it’s a loooong way to the top! Hint: the counts might restart October 1, so get ready to hit the big-time then
What in the world does the existence or non-existence of God have to do with ethics ?
Simple answer: The ethic of reciprocity.
If I became convinced a God existed, it wouldn’t have any impact on my ethical opinions. God would just be another sentient being with an opinion.
We can’t all be as prolific as Gods Gal. Maybe I’ll get lucky and she’ll have a really painful hangnail for a few days to let me catch up.
A better question might be, “Where do Christians get their morals?”
A good read of deuteronomy convince me that at least Christian Funamentalists can not get tehir morals from the OT bible.
The books say you can beat your slaves, sell your daughter to slavery, and stone children to death swear at parents.
Further more the god of the OT killed all inhabitants of the world (short of Noah, etc) but did not say anthing when Lots (?) daughters got him drunk and had sex with him.
Seems to me Christians get their morals the same place Atheists do. If Christians can pick through the bible and cherry pick what is moral and immoral and live by that when their holy book describe severals things contrary then it should be easy to believe that atheists can do the same thing (but without needing a book).
The only contrasting point to make is when Christians used the bible to validate a false belief.
Morals!!!
The age old question!
When a theist asks:
“Well if you don’t believe in God where do you get your concepts of right and wrong from?!”
I really don’t like how the question is framed because it suggests that without God we’d be barbarians. I don’t think that gives humanity enough credit.
Permit me to make an analogy.
Consider animals for a moment. Specifically wolves. Wolves don’t run around willy-nilly killing each other. Do they?
Why is that?
Wolves are a gregarious and social animal. They live in packs. They raise their young together. They cooperate in the hunt. You could argue that wolves are one of the more successful animals on the planet. That is until we humans took a bit of a dislike to them and made them rather scarce!
Could not their behavior be considered moral?
Was there a lupine version of Moses who ‘revealed’ to them a set of behaviors that would allow them to succeed?
I doubt it!
Isn’t more likely that there were wolves who had more antisocial tendencies. But because of the nature of competitiveness survival those wolves would have surely died young living less or no off-spring.
Now in order to make that same analogy of humans you have to accept that we were here much longer than 6000 years.
But if you accept that humanity has evolved from other life forms it stands to reason that humanity would have had to come to terms with the requirements of survival.
What makes humans special is our capacity to reason and to figure things out.
At some point some of our ancestors would have realized that it is much better to work together to protect our young. To cooperate in the hunt. It is better to value each member of the extended tribe rather than to kill them. Later on we figured out how to do agriculture, domesticate animals (including our buddy the wolf). All possible because we learned something about cooperation.
Is it not possible that what we have put on a pedestal as morals were simply methods of survival?
Is it not further possible that morals evolve over time?
So my answer is I get my morals from those who came before me and I add to them.
Morals need not be some ‘magic’ set of rules handed to us from a Deity.
Robert
OK, well SOME of us are just getting up….I try to lay off the comments a little…..and allow ya to catch up..:-s
But right now I have to get ready for work, great discussion and will be back later to get involved in this one and yesterdays….:-\”
You’re right Hov, you really could have broken things up a bit more….
Just think how far you could have gone…;))
God’s Gal, I think you’re taking a risk by sleeping (and working); who knows who might get obsessed with commenting while you’re asleep or at work and knock you off first place?
I call myself a humanist, a position I summarise by “reason and compassion”. Another person wrote this on a comment on my blog, as I was switching labels (from Christian, btw):
From here I digress, and sketch a little bit of background info on “where I come from”…
For the record, I’m a weird one. I was somewhat of a “victim” of fundamentalist memes, a naturalist in my concious mind, but my unconscious mind was infected with fundamentalism. It resulted in a search for good religion, good faith, a search for Jesus. I finally found what made sense, in some “liberal theology”. I discovered the “historic Jesus”. And that Jesus helped me out of faith, now I’m effectively happily an atheist.
Luke 9 v 49-50 (NIV):
49″Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
50″Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
I’m an atheist, kinda “in Jesus’ name”. Does that send me to hell? I don’t think so. (Apart from the fact that I don’t think hell exists in a physical sense.) I don’t think God expects of me to believe iffy claims. (For example, I don’t think God expects of me to believe Mary was a virgin, for one example.)
@Hugo
Wow!!! Your journey must have been an interesting one!!!
Robert
So many well-considered comments! I don’t think I have much to add. My moral compass always has seemed to be derived from humanist values rather than the religion my mother tried to give me. There’s “A day without God” coming up on which the proponents suggest having just this sort of discussion. Also, the book Parenting Beyond Belief deals entirely with raising good, moral kids without using the concepts of sin and fear of God.
Hehe, it was… It gave me perspective and made me rather humble. I recently wrote a >2000 word post attempting to describe my journey. Don’t know how accurate it really is, words and hindsight are unreliable.
http://thinktoomuch.net/2007/09/15/in-too-deep/
Oh, and someone asked, in a previous post, why atheists want to convince others of their lack of belief… hehe, in my case, I could say because Jesus told me to share my hope, to share what he had done for me…
The final step was incredibly liberating, I didn’t think coming out of the closet could make that much of a difference. I now know it was the only way to finally rid my mind of the evils of some of those infectious memes… (and here I don’t mean Christianity in general, I mean a very specific, “bad” version of it, so no need to get offended. 
)
Curses! If only I’d thought to leave shorter comments.
It doesn’t take a thousands-of-years-old book to tell people what’s right and wrong. Most people can instinctively figure out that, say, stoning one’s daughter, is a very bad thing to do. I agree with hoverfrog that “the assumption that a person of faith has a higher moral standard than one who chooses not to belief in a deity [is] a little strange and ever so slightly offensive,” but not just offensive to me as a humanist, but to humanity as a whole. Other animals on this earth do what is best for their species’ benefit and survival instinctively, why is it that humans are the only ones who feel we need a god to tell us to do the same? Are we that special, or that pathetic?
That various versions of the ten commandments and the golden rule exist in nearly every religion (every religion I’ve come across, anyway) suggests to me that the idea that hurting others is bad is not a special idea revealed by a special god to a special people, but an idea easily and universally understood by everyone regardless of deific preference. You have some bad eggs, of course, who get a kick out of the pain of others, but they are not specific to any one religion. There are good people and there are bad people. Simple as that. I like to think that most are good.
To sum up: I think morality (for the vast vast majority of people) is a matter of instinct.
Actually, turning this around, how do theists determine moral boundaries? I mean you don’t get more unequivocal than “Thou shalt not kill” and yet some states in North America have a death penalty, self defence is a legal defence for killing another person and you even have it written into your constitution that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” presumably to defend yourselves.
Now, which is right? The laws of your nation or the laws of god? I mean some of the laws in the bible are pretty weird. Deuteronomy is full of some strange laws.
Sara, my thoughts on the matter are more that our morals are determined more by nurturing good behaviour rather than nature giving us instinct to deal with things. Then again I’m more inclined to think that the majority of people are not good.
Your Hovness: WOOT! I don’t get what you mean by saying the religious concept of sin is far too broad to be of value…the only deadly sin, is denial of God until your last breath….I just don’t agree reading through you entry on this with you. Punishing for too many sweets????pshaw! LOL
If you could explain something to me, I don’t believe in degrees of sin…meaning everyone does and I think it is man who has said one is greater than the other. It’s man who has said well, let’s be a little lenient because they’ve had it rough, or so-called mental illness that made them do it….why is ok, for man to say what is right or wrong, and put boundaries there, but not God? Why would people feel it’s ok to submit to mans authority and not God? If people understand that there are limits, why would they bawlk at a God whose limits are to enhance our life and not condemn it? Of course I will submit to man’s law, it is required of me not to go 80 mph in a posted 35 mph zone….I’ll never do it again, I promise….but I also find that when I submit to the things that God tells me to submit to, I see more clearly, I understand and have a fuller life. I am in no way saying that I have a higher moral standard than you, I don’t believe I’ve said that, and if I’ve implied it I apologize. The ONLY difference between you and I, is that my God took my fupahs to the cross with Him, and for one to pay such a high price that I may have an abundant life (which I do) is not something I take lightly nor am I willing to ignore it. On the contrary, it drives me to my knees to worship Him, I don’t know of any friend who would do that for me, much less someone that I hated.
Great idea, hoverFrog! hehe.
@Sara, yes, all (most?) religions have basic morality. The “emerging church” or “liberal religious” perspective on that, would be that everyone has some idea of God, that there is only one God. If Allah and Yahweh differ, it’s just our impressions of the same God that differs, and no-one of us are completely correct, or completely incorrect. We all have one piece of the puzzle.
From my humanistic, naturalistic perspective, I ponder: “can we call the ‘ultimate morality’ that we strive towards, ‘God’, where the Christians just personify said abstract notion of ‘God’?”
GG, I’ve taught my kids not to be gluttons which is where the sweet reference came from. Not because I want to spoil their fun but because my additional 25 to nearly 30 years on them has granted me the wisdom to know that it’ll spoil their dinner and make them sick and I want them to get some vitamins into them once in while.
I’m sorry but you wanted me to explain something but I got lost. We have man made laws that change and adapt over time. For example, slavery was considered OK a few hundred years ago. Now it is a terrible crime. Marital rape was not even a crime until fairly recently. Homosexuality was a hanging offence in England (although only for men), now we have gay marriages.
Biblical law does not change, Sharia law does not chance. Society changes around these old rules. Why? I think that these old laws may have worked for old societies but we know so much more now and no longer need them.
Unfortunately I find very wide moral issues on both sides, and there really are many people with tight moral standards on both sides…
Don’t we all have a sense of right and wrong? And it is ultimately our choice to choose. The Ultimate sin in my belief system is rejecting God to my last breath. But do we really know when the last breath is?
I should have made one line comments, I will never catch the rest of you! Love ya all anyway! :d/
@Hover-you are listed under two names you wise frog! or you would have passed Tam!
I know I need to grow up and not think about that right now…just couldn’t help it!:d
Christ followers do have fun…I have a blast most every day!
Hover: As a parent, wanting to save your kids from pain, why is it so hard to understand the same concept with God? One who knows what is to come, and what’s best for your life to be the richest it possibly can be…it would be like your children telling you, I don’t care about what you know, I’m not going to believe you or do what you say, I’m downing this back of Snickers anyway! Then, you wouldn’t be allowed to punish them either because that would make you a mean, horrific parent that didn’t really give them free will in the first place? Doesn’t make sense to me. It’s ok for man to make laws and bounderies, but not God?:-?
Society becomes more and more liberal in their way of thinking all the time. Does that make it right? Not at all. To me, abortion is murder, every bit as much as a full grown human….but it is accepted more than adult death. Many other issues are compromised along with morality in general, which I feel is one of the main reasons these times are so messed up to begin with. Lack of bounderies…
I know the difference between good and bad by attempting not to harm people needlessly, and by attempting to alleviate needless harm for other people.
I think my moral code is at base this: It’s good to be good. It’s bad to be bad. And try not to be an asshole about stuff.
Siamang: But how do you know what’s good and bad?
GG, good question for Siamang.
Siamang
Who told you in the first place harming people was bad and alleviating harm was good? Would you say you just know instinctively?
I’m just curious - I find this all so fascinating
Looks like I’m late to the party. I skipped over the other comments so I could give my own “untainted” answer, cause I know there are probably some great answers above.
I don’t believe in “sin.” Sin, in my view, has little relation to morality. Sin is not doing wrong, per se. Sin is simply disobedience to Yahweh (YHWH). If YHWH commands you to kill babies, then NOT killing babies is sin according to the Bible (see the book of Joshua).
Right and wrong OTOH are decided by one’s principles of ethics as applied to each unique circumstance or situation. For instance, giving lodging to a homeless man may be an act of mercy, or aiding and abetting a criminal. It depends on the situation. Lying may be wrong or may save lives depending on to whom you are lying and for what reason. Do you lie to the SS when they come looking for hidden Jews? Of course! In that circumstance telling the truth would be WRONG.
The number one and most basic principle is…(and I know what y’all are gonna say)…
“Do not do to others that which you would not have done to you.”
As I’ve stated it, it’s the Buddhist version which predates Christianity and probably Judaic writings. Either way, it’s a great idea. There are other considerations of course. But, this covers the overwhelming majority of daily interaction. If I find that I’m being unfair to someone or causing them harm by my own lack of consideration, then I’m doing something wrong. Hurting people when it’s avoidable is wrong. Helping people when there’s no harm to anyone else is a good thing. There are many reasons to prefer good over bad and right over wrong that have nothing to do with a god. In fact, I think the idea of god probably evolved from the recognition of the practicality of empathy.
The difficulty is when dilemmas arise wherein you cannot avoid hurting one person or another either way. Or, where you don’t know what loong range effect your present actions will have. These are dilemmas that must be taken on a case by case basis. But, the important thing is to minimize the injury to others as much as one can help it - both long term and short term.
Beyond guiding principles there’s really no set of rules that can cover any and every situation. I don’t accept the 10 commandments. The first 4 are meaningless, and the last 6 are not good in every single circumstance. I can provide examples if anyone is interested - some of which would be right out of the Bible, where breaking the commands was honored by god.
Hi Polly! InWorship just addressed alot of this in a good entry, #97 on yesterdays blog….minus the last sentence…:-w
But, I’ll be back in a bit to comment on this, if the phones ever quite ringing!!
Polly: Real quick, there is evil in the world. Whether anyone wants to call it sin, that’s fine, there is evil in the world. I believe tho that evil is not forever, but it exists now and God has a plan to deal with it. Mankind believes in justice, because why? It was given to us when we were created. It didn’t just happen. These long analytical things are just so contradictory to one another…you can explain your self in circles, but it really is very simple. The facts of who God is and will always be are never changing..
Hey it’s been interesting reading here today. Here is one thought.
hoverfrog says:
Biblical law? Maybe you mean Levitical or Mosaic law from the Old Testament? I am assuming this. If their is a Biblical law, it is Love God and Love Others. This would be in a sense the “Christian Law”. Levitical and Mosaic law are not a standard for Christian living, Jesus is. Those laws were created for a Jewish society at a specific time of their existence, so it would make sense that many of them don’t apply now.
Sorry, I hit enter…
I meant to also to say that many of the laws from the Old testament are still in use today and of great value. Like, do not murder. Of course these kind of laws make sense because they go along with “Love God, Love Others”.
I have actually recently had a conversation with a believer concerning this very question. It ended up being a rather lengthy email exchange that I eventually posted as blog entry (with Faithfool’s permission, of course). Here is the full post
http://skeptigator.com/2007/07/15/on-what-basis-do-you-decide-what-is-good/
If you don’t have time to read the whole email exchange I can boil down my answer to my closing comments from the post sited above
Skeptigator: Rational thinking to me is seeing something and believing in it. Reality to me is God. I know Him, and He knows me, better than any human I might add…it’s comforting for me to know that. There is nothing blind about my faith, as I have stated, I know who I believe in, and trust. Where does human reason come from?
@GG, I always have the option of taking the sweets away. Why doesn’t God come down and remove all the weapons from humanity to stop us killing each other? You’d probably say that it’s part of God’s plan and that we have free will. I’d say it’s because there is no God.
On the question of ethics isn’t an omnipotent and omniscient being under an obligation to minimise harm to other beings just as we are under a moral obligation to minimise the harm to our world and animals who live upon it?
On the subject of abortion I find myself torn. On the one hand I believe that life is precious and should not be wasted but on the other there are always circumstances that complicate a life changing decision that should be taken into account.
@inWorship, OT law was not cancelled out by the New Testament:
Matthew 5:17-20
If everyone life according to the Golden Rule then we wouldn’t need laws. Ah, wishful thinking!
Hi Hov: Because He has not done it yet, done not mean He won’t. It will happen, and when Russia comes from the North down to Iran/Iraq, you’ll know it’s getting close.
On the ethic question, He is under no obligation to do anything, but yes that is His desire, but how is He suppose to do that when people don’t believe He exists, nor will listen to Him. How would you do it with your own children if that were the case?
On abortion, my point was not about circumstance, it was about the fact that it was murder, regardless.
I just re-read this and it sounds short, just wanted to put in a short note that I am not upset if it sounds that way, it’s 4:25 and I’m waiting for that first cup of~o);)
GG, it wouldn’t matter to me if my children denied my existence, I would still do everything in my power to protect them. I’d expect the same from any parent.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about abortion. I don’t think that it is as clear cut as you imagine. For a start you need to determine when a foetus becomes a person rather than a collection of cells. Additionally there is the whole argument that a foetus can be aborted to save the life of the mother or when it is not viable. It is a huge discussion and certainly off topic here. I will say that I lean towards pro-life but see too many grey areas to be committed to that camp.
If your children deny your protection, and existence, all the power in the world will still not protect them.
Again, I’m not speaking circumstance, if it were not a person, it would not be called abortion.
GG, it wouldn’t matter. I’d still protect them. I don’t place conditions on my love.
Hov, It wouldn’t matter, the point is your wouldn’t be able to protect them. Reading through Tam’s post yesterday, I’m just feeling, what’s the point of all this? I guess the Bible is right…again, and I’m just not up for the chasing of the dog-tail today..
This is such a huge issue.
All religions claim to be originators of one moral code or another.
I find it interesting that all of them are VERY similar. There may be differences with regard to ritual, but the CODE of human conduct is consistent.
Most purport that these morals were given to man through divine revelation. The implication being that we couldn’t have possibly figured this out on our own, we are too deviant and sinful.
Why am I the only one who finds this condescending and insulting? ~X(
As a materialist/scientist I believe that humanity evolved from lower life forms. This is the point of departure for you, Gods Gal and her fellow theists, you don’t agree with me on this point.
To your mind God created man in his current form. If that’s the case then perhaps God would have had to provide a moral code because Adam wouldn’t had any experience at all at morals!
To my mind though, what we elevate to MORALS started as simple practices that allowed survival.
As our methods of thought and our societies became for nuanced and complicated our moral codes naturally had to become more sophisticated.
The very fact that we don’t stone people for picking up sticks on the sabbath is testament to the evolution of our morals. If they didn’t we’d be executing people for going to Walmart on Sunday.
So when a theist asks me ‘where from my morals come?’. I’m not troubled because I view them as adaption that allowed humanity to survive.
Robert
The God vs Google one? You can’t stop commenting, you’re queen of the commenters. See how much you’ve contributed. We may disagree but there is enough common ground to form a pretty decent dialogue. Although I think that we’re at loggerheads on this particular topic. Shall we call it a day and move on to something else.
Maybe you could share more recipes? *wonders if anyone else will understand the reference*
Robert, you could argue that executing people for going to walmart on any day of the week wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
@hoverFrog
Believe me NO ONE is more critical of Walmart’s business practices than I am! I find their whole enterprise reprehensible.
It’s getting harder and harder to avoid going to Walmart or a competing ‘big box’ store as they have made the alternatives more hard to find! I will go to Target before Walmart though.
I find it amusing how Walmart will remove a less profitable book from their shelves because it doesn’t line up with their ‘values’ but when the new Harry Potter novel came out this past July, they had racks of them right by the entrance.
I guess their principles don’t matter when it conflicts with them making larger amounts of CASH!
Robert
Robert, I never thought we’d agree on anything…. I would so much rather go to Target than Walmart any day!:))
@Tam
:O Indeed!!!
Here’s the million dollar question!
What are your feelings on NASCAR?
R
Walmart has even invaded my own Sceptred Isle in the form of Asda. I think that they actually sell everything except the things that you need.
Oh for a traditional farm shop.
I’m guesing that Target is another supermarket?
@hoverFrog
You could say that…
and horror of horrors they are French owned!!!:O
But hey I am half French…Quebec French…does that even count anymore as FRENCH?
Oh well!
@Robert…Should I feel anything about NASCAR?
@Hov, the difference between Target and Walmart…Double wide trailer - Single wide trailer!
Take no offense anybody - I was raised a single wide girl <):)
@Tam
My feeling is that the very existence of NASCAR (and Paris Hilton for that matter) is one of the BEST arguments AGAINST a the existence of a loving and just GOD….or at the very least FOR the existence of SATAN!
That had me in stitches for 5 minutes, Tam!=))
I’m going to remember that one!
R
@Robert, re: NASCAR I’m not touching that one! Re: Paris Hilton - This is where I must disagree with you - it proves that God has a sense of humor;))
Thank you! I like my trailer analogy. It’s a gift!;)
Robert, French eh? c’est la vie.
Tam, I’m afraid you lost me on the trailer comment. Trailers seem to be an American peculiarity that doesn’t translate well….although Canadians seem to understand it.
Don’t even talk about Paris Bleedin’ Hilton. The woman’s clearly much cleverer that she makes out (how could she not be?). If there is a Satan then it would look and act like her….or possibly like a televangelist.
Hover - I never said the law was dead. It is just a part of the journey, not the standard for the journey.
I will get back to you on this, i gotta run for now.
‘ And, how do you know the difference between good and bad…in your opinion?’
Perhaps we don’t.
Christians do lots of things that they say are good, but we atheists think are really immoral.
Perhaps if we read the Bible more we would find out that things we think are immoral, and avoid doing, are actually good things to do.
Can you give me some examples Steve of what we do that is immoral?
My humble opinion is that we evolved as social animals.
Any member that treats, or is perceived to treat, the group, or an influential member of the group, poorly, runs the risk of ostracization or mortal combat.
Typically both run a high risk of ceasing to take oxygen.
It would seem to me that we are genetically pre-disposed to be nice to each other and to help each other when in need.
Shaun
I must admit I posted my last message without reading previous comments.
So I apologize if I am repeating other commenters.
But I will add, any behavior which challenges the group or the leader is in my opinion aberrant.
This is not necesarily bad.
It gives us leaders.
This is why our leaders have fortitude.
But also it does not justify all aberrant behavior.
If you cannot co-exist within the rules of the group and cannot win its leadership ,then you are on your own.
(i.e. dead )
So it would stand to reason that natural selection would incline a person to feel good when they are feeling most appreciated by the group and somewhat depressed when scowled upon.
For this reason, we get strong leaders, not only moral and immoral but also amoral (which I think was the point of discussion)
Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa,
Leaders
George W. Bush, Jerry Fallwell
Leaders
I am willing to believe that a great leader at the time of the prophets told his persecuters to:
” Take my life, not that of my countrymen, I will go in their place”
But I am also willing to believe that those were the words of a great political leader, not….
I can think of one thing that I find immoral about certain Christians behaviour and that is the treatment of homosexuals. I say certain Christians because the attitude is by no means universal nor is it limited to religious groups. I do think that persecution of homosexuals originates with religion though.
Hi, just perusing here. Thought I’d add my 2 cents. Wondering if you’re asking where atheists’ morals “come from,” or how we personally define them…?
We do what comes naturally to us to benefit the human race. Kindness to others, helping, love, friendship, etc. etc. That’s all I will say.
Stacy
Hov: Any human being who treats another cruely for any reason is immoral in my book. As far as homosexuality goes, I consider it highly immoral in itself. But, It’s NOT the people, it’s what they are doing. But then that stems I suppose from my belief that we did not evolve from animals and shouldn’t act as such. How can someone find the act of homosexuality moral?
God’s Gal: How can someone find the act of homosexuality moral?
I’m wondering how people can find it immoral, except that they believe God thinks it’s immoral.
Why is it immoral for two consenting adults to do something together? Who is being hurt by that?
So anything is acceptable and moral as long as there is consent? Wow, no bounderies is pretty scary. If one consenting adult asks another consenting adult to shoot him in the head, does it make it moral then? Again, it’s not the person it is the act that I feel is wrong…
GG, if someone were dying a slow and painful death and asked for help to end that pain (your shot to the head) would you consider the killing immoral? There is no right or wrong answer, I’m just interested.
On the subject of homosexuality I’m with Helen. What two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their bedroom (or any other room for that matter) is no concern of mine. Why should I dictate how they act because I might find their actions not to my liking?
God’s Gal - I don’t understand who is being hurt; that’s the issue for me. If someone isn’t being hurt why is it immoral?
If someone asks to be shot in the head, I would say they are not in their right mind so that shouldn’t count as ‘consent’ anyway.
On what basis do you determine homosexuality to be immoral? Certainly nothing in the New Testament. I surely hope not Leviticus 18:22.
What a slippery slope that would be. To accept 18:22 and reject the admonition to not where a garment made of differing threads or sowing 2 different kinds of seeds in a field or the dietary restrictions in 20?
Just wondering what criteria you use that would prevent you from being a moral relativist?
Hov: No, I would make sure they were comfortable, but trust God to make that decision.
As for the other topic, knowing that God is the authority in my life, and His Word, I’m not going to continue this debate as it would be pointless. Except to say:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
It is not something He condones as “ok”, and quite frankly, it hurts me and others who don’t believe in that kind of behavior.
God’s Gal, we needn’t discuss it anymore - but I don’t understand how it hurts you.
Helen, did you just slap GG’s hand with a ruler? You needn’t respond…:*
I’m soooo confused…seriously, I don’t understand how the behavior of two people with each other hurts other people. Is me saying I don’t understand something a slap on the hand to someone else? I don’t get that either - like I said I’m soooo confused!
Helen, I thought it was pretty funny that you told GG “we needn’t discuss it anymore.” then to go right on continuing your thoughts on the matter. I saw it as…”Now, now GG - that’s enough from you on the issue, but yet I have more to say…” I found the contradiction quite humorous.:d Unless I read into it wrong - if so…oops!b-(
Tam, thanks - now I get what you meant…actually when I wrote “we needn’t discuss it anymore” that was me saying “ok” to GG saying “I’m not going to continue the debate because it would be pointless”. It wasn’t me saying “that’s enough from you” but rather “if you don’t want to discuss it anymore (for whatever reason) I respect that”
Does that help you see it wasn’t meant as a slap on the hand? I hope so!
Hey I AM full of contradictions so that IS a fair comment but in this case I wasn’t intending a contradiction…:)
Got it Helen…you meant to say “I” needn’t discuss it anymore. That does make more sense:)
I’d quite like to discuss it more if anyone wants to join in. That is unless it makes anyone uncomfortable?
For one thing I believe that a person does not choose who they are attracted to any more than they choose what sort of food they like the flavour of.
Tam, no, I didn’t mean that - I meant, if GG doesn’t want to discuss it anymore I’m fine with her not discussing anymore - I respect her wishes on that.
She didn’t ask me not to discuss it (unless I misunderstood) - she was commenting on her desire not to, I thought. (But maybe I did misunderstand)
I was responding to her desire not to, not telling her not to (albeit politely). It’s up to her…
*sigh* I don’t know if I’m helping…the point is, did I tell or recommend or suggest GG stop discussing something? Sort of, but not on my own initiative - all I was doing is responding to her already stated desire not to discuss it anymore and saying “fine with me!” Which I thought was a polite thing to do so I was confused when it was interpreted as a slap on the wrist.
No offense Tam…online communication can be weird and confusing at times can’t it?
Round 4b-( LOL kidding….
I don’t mind discussing Hov, it’s what we do. I’ve been running errands for work all day, not avoiding…I promise. The only reason I said it was not worth discussing is because we are soooooo oposite ends of the spectrum here…I love you guys, you should know that by now…but like I said before in an earlier post, it’s like a dog chasing it’s tail at times.
Helen, I have come to respect you a great deal, I hope you know that, and I consider you a friend. I am a person, (you can verify with Tam if you like), I can be put in many different situations with many different kinds of people, and truly care for them regardless, so in no way do I want you to think I am someone who judges someone else because of their lifestyle. There is something inside of me, maybe because of my intense love of the Lord, and belief in His word, that goes against everything i believe when I see a homosexual couple. God has made it very clear how He feels about it, and because our Spirits match, it feels the same to me. it’s the only way I can explain it. The part of me, that binds me to Him, the eternal part, is hurt because of the grief it obviously causes Him….it’s not how He created us to be. It’s clear in the scripture I gave earlier…He refers to it as vile. That’s pretty clear. I am not one who accepts things becasue the general populace deems it ok. i go off of God’s word, and who He says I am in Him. There is no deviation from that for me. Now, that being said, as I have stated before, i believe that man has put degrees on evil, or what we call sin. They say one sin is greater than the next, and I don’t believe that to be scriptural. All sin grieves the heart of God, and He’s the only one who can remove it. So whether someone is a drunk who beats their kid, a homosexual, a theif, a murderer, liar, I can love the person still, but what they are doing effects me in a huge way. Does that make sense? I have to go again for a bit, but I’ll be back….
hoverFrog, I agree but I actually think, even if people did choose who they were attracted to, so what? Why is it wrong for (sane) consenting adults to do what we’re talking about and why does it hurt other people any more than if I go to a movie with a friend? We both did what we wanted; how are others hurt? We didn’t make them go.
I thought about this a lot as I tried to figure out whether my belief system made any sense. When I thought it through, it made no sense to me that the behavior of other consenting adults with each other had anything to do with me. Who was I to enforce some rule of mine on them and say “No, you can’t do that - it’s wrong!” Any more than they have the right to come and tell me they don’t like it if I am intimate with my husband - it hurts them somehow and they think it’s wrong so I should stop.
I don’t see the difference.
If GG meant “please don’t anyone discuss this” not “I have nothing else to say” then I misunderstood; I would like to discuss it because I think it’s very relevant because it’s all about moral boundaries. It’s one of the moral boundary issues over which people disagree a lot.
We’re in agreement, Helen. I don’t know if the hang ups on sex are down to culture or religion. There is so little in the bible about it that it hardly seems to be a major issue and yet many cultures are openly hostile to homosexuals.
One of the best things about being on line is that anyone who doesn’t wish to join in has the option not to.
Hey I just found GG’s comment in moderation…I wrote mine before I saw that.
God’s Gal, the part I didn’t understand was when I thought you meant, they are doing something hurtful to you personally. I couldn’t see how.
If what you’re saying is “I believe they are hurting God and I am grieved on God’s behalf” then I understand where you’re coming from. But I still wouldn’t say they hurt you - I wouldn’t put it like that - because that is confusing and makes it sound like they did something bad to you which I don’t think they did.
If I had a belief that my best female friend’s husband was physically abusing her then I would be very upset about it but I wouldn’t equate that with “he is hurting me” because I am not my best friend.
I care about this because I don’t think it’s fair of Christians to say to people they believe are sinning in what they do with each other (whatever that is) “you are hurting me because you are hurting God”.
Maybe I read too much into the “they are hurting me” comment.
Thanks Helen - interesting how one can be interpreted isn’t it?
Now because I happen to put my belief in Gods word, the bible, Jesus had said let no man separate what God has joined together. Referencing that God joined man and woman together. The bible also says anything less than that is defiling. One of the purposes of man and woman joined together is to reproduce. Kind of hard for 2 men or 2 women to make them some babies @-)
Tam, yes, I am familiar with the Bible-believing Christian position…I was one for 17 years…
Is it immoral for a husband and wife who are physically unable to conceive to have sex?
Helen, funny…NO…it is not immoral for a man and woman to have sex. It is not immoral that some men and women couples cannot conceive either…although it is very unfortunate. Being so familiar with bible I’m shocked you would even ask that question.
Hey Helen, tam has a comment in moderation
Tam, Helen is saying that if the bible says that the purpose of sex is to produce children then sex that does not produce children must therefore be immoral. This included gay sex, sex past the menopause, sex when one or both (or more) partners are infertile, oral sex, sex with contraceptives, oh the list goes on. She is just using semantics to invalidate your argument.
I think that the bible is largely silent on how people should conduct themselves in the bedroom. There are few passages that have bee latched onto by some churches but it’s hardly a sexual help manual….mind you, the Kama Sutra is about the same age as the bible and it has some excellent recipes too.
Hov, The bible is not largely silent on sexual issues. It speaks to what is natural and unnatural (contrary to design). And lets remember too that it is speaking of the act not the person.
Sex that could produce children that for one reason or another (whether medically or by choice) doesn’t; is not immoral and the bible does not suggest that. That line of questioning is just silly, imo.
And I understood perfectly Helen’s logic behind her questioning.
This, is yet another, issue we could go round and round on. Your objection is not with me, it is with God. So all I can do is direct you There. :)>- You see me as wrong - and I’m OK with that - it doesn’t change my beliefs. It changes nothing now and in the long run. :)>-
i’m in moderation:((
You’re out of moderation!
thanks Helen!;)
Helen, what I was trying to get across is that God has set bounderies, it is not natural, nor was it His intent for sexual relations to happen between same sexes. It’s very clear in His word. Like I stated before, God is in me, you should know that from previous teachings, so things that grieve His heart, greive mine. Not the person, the sin. Doesn’t matter who consents to what for me, it’s Sodam and Gomorha all over again.
Hi God’s Gal - I understand all the part about you caring about what God cares about.
It doesn’t seem right to me to say that people who do whatever they do are ‘hurting you’, as if they were actually doing something harmful to you. But maybe you never meant that they were hurting you in that sense.
If one of my children did something I didn’t approve of, I might be upset/grieved/whatever - but I don’t think it would be right for me to say “You hurt me!” as if they actually did something harmful to ME. When it wasn’t directed at me at all.
I don’t know if I am making any sense…
Ya, you are….but when your children do you something, do they hurt you physically, or your heart? When people do things like that it hurts my heart…and hurt is hurt…whether physical or emotional….it’s still hurting you. If your kids were to do something really awful after you spent so long trying to teach them the right way, you can’t tell me it wouldn’t effect you, or others who love them as well. So yes, when people do things like that, it hurts me in that respect…did that make sense?
Hi God’s Gal, I think it makes sense…
What I’m thinking is - it wouldn’t be right for me to say to my children “You hurt ME” if what they did wasn’t actually towards me. Even though I would be upset and wish they hadn’t done it.
The reason I even care about this is, if I was trying to persuade someone what they are doing is wrong, I think it would overly complicate things and not quite be correct, or fair to them, to get my own emotions all mixed up in it as if they were doing it to me.
I’m definitely not saying it doesn’t affect me but I feel uncomfortable sort of ‘blaming’ them for me being affected. If it’s wrong it’s wrong but I’d like to keep my personal feelings out of why it’s wrong, if you see what I mean. Otherwise it’s too easy to make it all about me, but from a Christian point of view I am supposed to have died to myself, right - so it shouldn’t be at all about me. And I still want to live as unselfish a life as I would try to if I was still a Christian.
I’m not blaming anyone, I’m simply trying to convey that others actions can cause you pain. Your children, when they do something that you know is wrong and have to suffer the consequences, it causes you pain….emotional, heartfelt pain.
ok…I thought “they hurt me” was about blame. I apologize for taking all these comments to find out that it wasn’t! Thanks for being patient, God’s Gal
Tam, when I said “largely silent” I meant that there are few passages related to sex. There’s a couple on not coupling with beasts (I mean Duh!), some vague comments about not having sex with the same gender and very little else. It’s hardly the eleventh commandment.
Anyway, the idea that God’s children can cause him pain through their actions is reasonable and certainly mirrors how parents can view the actions our own children. However children do things all the time that parents disapprove of. I’m not about to throw a hissy fit and kick them out when they won’t tidy their rooms. Nor would I condemn them if they chose to live a lifestyle that I personally found distasteful. That would be irresponsible parenting on my part.
I know this has already been discussed earlier but as for Christians having a “higher” standard of morality, I think there is more to it than just the particular statement. I am fully capable in believing that morals and ethics have been developed through nature over thousands and thousands of years. I can also accept that people of various belief systems have their own developed morals and ethics. However, I believe that in the Christian faith, there is a command to go further. To not just love your family, friends, nice strangers, or even just those in need but to also love the “scumbags” of the world. Basically, the guy who is married to your best friend and then cheats on her with someone else is the type of person that Christians are expected to love (not the action itself but the individual) Non-Christians I believe have the option to completely blowing this guy but Christians would be expected to let someone like him into their homes and give them the nicest bed and the good china. We do this (or at least try to) because that is EXACTLY what God has done for us. The world (past, present and future)gave/give/will continue to give Him the middle finger and He still gave up his Son for us.
Do Christians fall short in this area? Of course. I believe that so many terrible things have happened in the name of Jesus, with people so corrupted in their own desires that they only use Jesus as an excuse and with others so confused that they misunderstood Jesus’s message for a sort of manifest destiny. In some ways, Christians as a whole have deviated from Jesus. However, we are now making positive steps and there are people out there who want to go back to the church in Acts. Sadly no one really hears about these movements because it is not controversial enough for the media. But that just my belief.
@Hugo
If half of what Jesus said was about him being the Son of God and putting your faith in him for eternal life, how can you define your belief as following Christ and an atheist?