Why do some christians think that morals come from god?

[Joshua260]

As man evolved, he needed to get along socially in his environment to help survival. Going around killing others because you can, ends up getting you killed, when someone comes for revenge. Not all too good for survival, in the long run.

Personal psychological satisfaction also plays a role in being moral.

"If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering." Charles Darwin.

Apparently, Darwin himself thought that we could have just as easily evolved with a different set of morals.

As is often the case when discussing morals with atheists, they often confuse the evolution of morals within mankind, which no one denies, with the discussion about whether or not there are objective moral values and duties. So if Hitler had won the war and had brainwashed the rest of the world into thinking that anti-semitism was acceptable, would it then be ok, morally? Or was Slavery wrong, even back during the antebellum years when the world thought it was an acceptable practice? Or go back to the Darwin quote...is the act of an unmarried woman killing her brothers or daughters an objectively wrong thing to do, even if we had evolved to think it acceptable?

 

[bhsmte]

"If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering." Charles Darwin.

Apparently, Darwin himself thought that we could have just as easily evolved with a different set of morals.

As is often the case when discussing morals with atheists, they often confuse the evolution of morals within mankind, which no one denies, with the discussion about whether or not there are objective moral values and duties. So if Hitler had won the war and had brainwashed the rest of the world into thinking that anti-semitism was acceptable, would it then be ok, morally? Or was Slavery wrong, even back during the antebellum years when the world thought it was an acceptable practice? Or go back to the Darwin quote...is the act of an unmarried woman killing her brothers or daughters an objectively wrong thing to do, even if we had evolved to think it acceptable?

I don't quite get the point of what you are saying.

The evolution of morality involves what is best to survive and with man, it is to get along socially. With bees, they didn't evolve under the same conditions as humans, so the comparison is a bit moot, because the forces of the environment are key.

 

[Joshua260]

I don't quite get the point of what you are saying.

The evolution of morality involves what is best to survive and with man, it is to get along socially. With bees, they didn't evolve under the same conditions as humans, so the comparison is a bit moot, because the forces of the environment are key.

What I'm saying is that the evolution of morality within the race of mankind is a different subject than whether or not there are objective moral values and duties. The former is about how our moral compass has changed over time, and the latter is about what are the true objective moral values and duties. For example, through much of our history, we thought slavery was acceptable, but even while we held that opinion about that practice, we were wrong. If I think slavery is okay and you think it's wrong, the objective moral value associated with that practice is still negative. The moral value of slavery has always been negative, no matter what my personal opinion about it is.

 

[mandyangel]

God provides morals for us to value and follow. I think morals without God makes no sense.

 

[bhsmte]

God provides morals for us to value and follow. I think morals without God makes no sense.

Is it your position then, that if one does not believe in your God, they have no means to live a moral life?

 

[mandyangel]

Is it your position then, that if one does not believe in your God, they have no means to live a moral life?

No, I'm sorry that is not my position. Its just that for me in my life--- I would feel moral-less without God.

 

[Angelquill]

If there is a God, as we believe, then He was around from the very beginning. He created mankind, and gave him morals and ethics.
Just because you don't believe in Him doesn't mean anything one way or the other so far as morals and ethics are concerned...they are a part of your make up because God created you that way.
No one is saying that you must believe in God to have morality, any more than my little dog has to believe in genetics to be cute. He's that way because he was bred to be that way. You have a moral code because you were created that way.

 

[Angelquill]

As the great Darwin himself points out, evolution could have turned out some other type of mankind, with a very different morality.
However, that is not the way God planned it....
You are not a bee, you are a human being.

 

[bhsmte]

If there is a God, as we believe, then He was around from the very beginning. He created mankind, and gave him morals and ethics.
Just because you don't believe in Him doesn't mean anything one way or the other so far as morals and ethics are concerned...they are a part of your make up because God created you that way.
No one is saying that you must believe in God to have morality, any more than my little dog has to believe in genetics to be cute. He's that way because he was bred to be that way. You have a moral code because you were created that way.

Ok.

Although i dont agree with your opinion, i do respect it.

 

[Angelquill]

Don't misunderstand me.
We will not automatically be "good people"...as I mentioned before, children must be taught. However, just like the ability to learn the alphabet is there, so is morality. And, like reading, that innate ability must be nurtured.
Of course, atheists have the ability to lead good, moral lives, at least by human standards. They were created by the very same God. That they don't believe in Him doesn't change a thing.
As I learned long ago, in 6th grade math class....a fact doesn't need you to agree with it to be a fact. (I was never much good in math class....and I still can't balance a check book)

 

[Angelquill]

Ok.

Although i dont agree with your opinion, i do respect it.

And I also respect your opinion, although I cannot agree with it.
May I also add that I, and my cute little Shih Tzu, Raggedy Andy, appreciate your courtesy very much...

Of course, he appreciates anything that makes me chuckle

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

This question has always puzzled me:

Why do some christians think that morals come from god?

The premise is this :

Every Law requires a Law Giver or Prescriber
There IS a Moral Law written on our hearts
Therefore, there is a Moral Law Provider.

We all have this innate knowledge of knowing we ought to do good, we ought to behave correctly, and we know the fundamental difference between right from wrong and evil from good. We all know that crimes such as rape, incest, and murder are absolute crimes that are wrong ALL the time in every situation and anywhere in the world. Further, we know the good that we should do . Additionally, our moral conscience is a manifestation of Gods Moral Absolute Law that he wrote on our very fiber, and we can prove this by watching our reaction when we are morally violated ; we never just blow it off and instead we are upset,annoyed it happened, and demand an explanation from the Offender. If there were no absolute moral laws then our reaction wouldn't be what it always is when we are violated. Secondly, notice that we all try to hide what weve done wrong ? We do this because we know that we have absolutely violated a moral law otherwise why try to hid it (?) . Thirdly, if there were no moral law then we couldn't know the difference between right and wrong and the actions of a Mother Theresa and a Hitler would have no ultimate difference . We cant call something absolutely and objectively wrong like Hitlers Halocaust , unless we have something better and best to compare it with. We DO have this better and best...and its because we are comparing it to a standard above and beyond Man . We are comparing it to the actual nature and character of God himself who is infinite in morality , ethics, and righteousness.

The challenge for the atheist is to show how objective absolute morals can come from Materials since that's what the atheist worldview starts with when considering origins . Atheist may act moral , but they cant really objectively justify acting that way apart from a Moral Law Provider . They wont (and cant) admit a Moral Law Provider (viz. God) for they would then cease to be professed Atheists.

The bottom line is : GOd in his love and concern for us, didn't want us to act like a bunch of Forest Animals without a moral compass and just acting on instinct and random urges...instead he fashioned Humanity with a great tool of civil oughtness thru moral oughtness . The problem is that he also gave us a free Will so we wouldn't be like Robots ; he had hoped that we would NOT suppress the Moral Law / our Moral Conscience so we could act any old way we desired . But, a great portion of humanity did and are thus reprobate minded willfully . Only a real inward change can alter that and it comes thru a genuine Born Again nature that God infuses into us once we trust and love his Son, Jesus Christ who paid for the penalty of violating Gods Moral Law (which we all have) . The free gift of God is total forgivness of our many accumulated sins (moral violations) which were against others AND God....and all we need do is receive the adequate finished atoning sacrifice that the Son of God did for us on the cross. He made a way and paid the price. He gave us grace which is something that we get but don't deserve upon making Christ King of our life and removing SELF from the throne. Please see my signature below. Regardsl

 

[workmx]

The premise is this :

Every Law requires a Law Giver or Prescriber
There IS a Moral Law written on our hearts
Therefore, there is a Moral Law Provider.

We all have this innate knowledge of knowing we ought to do good, we ought to behave correctly, and we know the fundamental difference between right from wrong and evil from good. We all know that crimes such as rape, incest, and murder are absolute crimes that are wrong ALL the time in every situation and anywhere in the world. Further, we know the good that we should do . Additionally, our moral conscience is a manifestation of Gods Moral Absolute Law that he wrote on our very fiber, and we can prove this by watching our reaction when we are morally violated ; we never just blow it off and instead we are upset,annoyed it happened, and demand an explanation from the Offender. If there were no absolute moral laws then our reaction wouldn't be what it always is when we are violated. Secondly, notice that we all try to hide what weve done wrong ? We do this because we know that we have absolutely violated a moral law otherwise why try to hid it (?) . Thirdly, if there were no moral law then we couldn't know the difference between right and wrong and the actions of a Mother Theresa and a Hitler would have no ultimate difference . We cant call something absolutely and objectively wrong like Hitlers Halocaust , unless we have something better and best to compare it with. We DO have this better and best...and its because we are comparing it to a standard above and beyond Man . We are comparing it to the actual nature and character of God himself who is infinite in morality , ethics, and righteousness.

The challenge for the atheist is to show how objective absolute morals can come from Materials since that's what the atheist worldview starts with when considering origins . Atheist may act moral , but they cant really objectively justify acting that way apart from a Moral Law Provider . They wont (and cant) admit a Moral Law Provider (viz. God) for they would then cease to be professed Atheists.

The bottom line is : GOd in his love and concern for us, didn't want us to act like a bunch of Forest Animals without a moral compass and just acting on instinct and random urges...instead he fashioned Humanity with a great tool of civil oughtness thru moral oughtness . The problem is that he also gave us a free Will so we wouldn't be like Robots ; he had hoped that we would NOT suppress the Moral Law / our Moral Conscience so we could act any old way we desired . But, a great portion of humanity did and are thus reprobate minded willfully . Only a real inward change can alter that and it comes thru a genuine Born Again nature that God infuses into us once we trust and love his Son, Jesus Christ who paid for the penalty of violating Gods Moral Law (which we all have) . The free gift of God is total forgivness of our many accumulated sins (moral violations) which were against others AND God....and all we need do is receive the adequate finished atoning sacrifice that the Son of God did for us on the cross. He made a way and paid the price. He gave us grace which is something that we get but don't deserve upon making Christ King of our life and removing SELF from the throne. Please see my signature below. Regardsl

Very interesting.

1. Every Law requires a Law Giver or Prescriber

Why? How do you know this?

2. There IS a Moral Law written on our hearts

Our heart is just a pump for blood isn't it? What do you mean by this?

3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Provider.

Even if I grant the premises, which I do not: which if the thousands of gods that we now know about is the "moral law giver"?

I am guessing that it must be one with universal coverage of the entire universe.

Which means that it not the christian god or jesus (king of the jews), as they had coverage that was limited to certain parts of the Middle East.

Maybe a pantheistic god is the moral law giver.

In which case, I suggest that you submit to Amaterasu.

You seem to know a lot about atheists: are you one? Or did you ask an atheist about this topic...?

Or did you just make all that up?

 

[dcalling]

Very interesting.
1. Every Law requires a Law Giver or Prescriber
Why? How do you know this?

It is like a computer program, the programmer decides everything.

2. There IS a Moral Law written on our hearts

Our heart is just a pump for blood isn't it? What do you mean by this?

The fruit of knowledge Adm and Eve eats, I think it is a literal for the DNA of moral knowledge went in. I remember a long time ago I saw a program on NBC or CBS about kids, and they were amazed that very young kids seems to know what they should/should not do.

3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Provider.

Even if I grant the premises, which I do not: which if the thousands of gods that we now know about is the "moral law giver"?

I am guesing that it must be one with universal coverage of the entire universe.

Which means that it not the christian god or jesus (king of the jews), as they had coverage that was limited to certain parts of the Middle East.

Maybe a pantheistic god is the moral law giver.

In which case, I suggest that you submit to Amaterasu.

You seem to know a lot about atheists: are you one? Or did you ask an atheist about this topic...?

Or did you just make all that up?

I was for a long time an atheist. Took me a long time to became a Christian, and I see big change in myself as well.

 

[workmx]

I was for a long time an atheist. Took me a long time to became a Christian, and I see big change in myself as well.

I hear this claim a fair bit.

But I have met no atheist who has become a theist.

How do you define atheism?

By what metric were you an atheist?

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Very interesting.

1. Every Law requires a Law Giver or Prescriber

Why? How do you know this?

2. There IS a Moral Law written on our hearts

Our heart is just a pump for blood isn't it? What do you mean by this?

3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Provider.

Even if I grant the premises, which I do not: which if the thousands of gods that we now know about is the "moral law giver"?

I am guessing that it must be one with universal coverage of the entire universe.

Which means that it not the christian god or jesus (king of the jews), as they had coverage that was limited to certain parts of the Middle East.

Maybe a pantheistic god is the moral law giver.

In which case, I suggest that you submit to Amaterasu.

You seem to know a lot about atheists: are you one? Or did you ask an atheist about this topic...?

Or did you just make all that up?

Some of your retorts are just plain silly. But ill answer them quickly :

1. Do you think that a speed limit law was provided by a Law Giver ? How about a Rape law ? Or do u think these just came about randomly ?

2. There is a heart that pumps blood then there is the heart of a Person which is the center place for Ones Being sometimes called a Soul or consciousness. That heart of a person is your inner self...the REAL self which nobody sees , it is apart from the physical , and it consists of your Mind, will, emotions, desires, convictions, and moral oughtness.

3. We may have heard of gods upon gods...but there is only One singular Creator (First Cause) for our highly personal intelligent based creation. If you have more than one Creator then there must be a First Cause Creator who made other ones.

4. Pantheism can be disproved . Be careful next time you cut a blade of grass or youll wipe out God. Theism can be scientifically proven based on modern scientific evidence and is so strong that countless agnostic scientists have and are changing to theism. VERY notable ones at that. Whats your excuse for not wanting a personal theistic Creator to exist for our personal intelligent information-infused Creation ? Freedom of lifestyle choices or some other ??

5. I know a lot about people who want to be Atheists because I was a professed One for about 10 adult years before I had to stop the charade of desiring to be my own god . I have also interacted with countless professed atheists and know their MO well.

6. I didn't make anything up. I operate from reality and I regret if it runs counter to your apriori-philosophical commitment to 'atheism' and humanism which requires so much faith that no logical rational person can become a real one .

 

[aiki]

As man evolved, he needed to get along socially in his environment to help survival. Going around killing others because you can, ends up getting you killed, when someone comes for revenge. Not all too good for survival, in the long run.

It works well enough for lions, grizzly bears, and chimpanzees. They kill each other all the time. And they survive. Mind you, it's the strongest, the fittest, that survive under these circumstances, which is arguably most beneficial to the survival of the species. One could contend, then, that the social "getting along" that you seem to think is vital to survival is actually a detriment to the strength and health of the species if it happens at the expense of the necessary culling of the weak. In fact, it was this sort of survival-of-the-fittest thinking that led to the Übermensch idea of the Third Reich. I don't see, then, that you're just-so story about the evolution of human morality holds much water.

Personal psychological satisfaction also plays a role in being moral.

Sure it does. But this, I think, is how God has made us to respond to doing what is morally right.

As Joshua260 has noted, humans all possess a fundamental and innate morality distinct from what has evolved in a particular culture. In every culture, betrayal is condemned; in every culture, torturing babies for fun is regarded as evil; all people in all times have considered murder and rape immoral, and so on. But, as Joshua260 has explained, these things are objectively immoral if they are morally wrong even when a particular culture has embraced them as acceptable. The Nazis, for instance, had persuaded themselves that the murder of Jews and other "undesirables" was morally okay but did that make the gas ovens of Auschwitz truly morally acceptable? No, of course not. Even many of the Nazis themselves finally admitted as much. And in this we see that there are, in fact, objective moral values and duties. The question that arises naturally from this fact is "Where do such objective moral values and duties come from?", which is a question separate from how various cultures may have shifted in their moral stance over time. As I have pointed out, your idea of social co-operation as the source of human objective morality has some prominent problems. For my money, a Creator-God, a Moral Law Giver, makes much more sense.

Selah.

 

[dcalling]

I hear this claim a fair bit.

But I have met no atheist who has become a theist.

How do you define atheism?

By what metric were you an atheist?

You got to be kidding me. I have met many and some are pastors now

Ever sine I was young I was taught there is nothing supernatural, no God. Everything can be explained by science (or almost everything, since we can't observe anything accurately), be objective. I have always hold evolution as truth (did doubt it once when I was young and watching the animal world, but that doubt was quickly quenched by my uncle).

My first serious breach from atheist starts after I got interested in computers in high school. After read the whole book on CPUs, and with the books "abrupt" ending (seems abrupt to me since I didn't understand how it worked), it took me several days to realize that is all to a CPU, very primitive, just a stepper. And it took me doubt how it can form intelligence with such things. It can't even create a truly random number.... If you ever worked on programs you might understand what I am talking about.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

You got to be kidding me. I have met many and some are pastors now

Ever sine I was young I was taught there is nothing supernatural, no God. Everything can be explained by science (or almost everything, since we can't observe anything accurately), be objective. I have always hold evolution as truth (did doubt it once when I was young and watching the animal world, but that doubt was quickly quenched by my uncle).

My first serious breach from atheist starts after I got interested in computers in high school. After read the whole book on CPUs, and with the books "abrupt" ending (seems abrupt to me since I didn't understand how it worked), it took me several days to realize that is all to a CPU, very primitive, just a stepper. And it took me doubt how it can form intelligence with such things. It can't even create a truly random number.... If you ever worked on programs you might understand what I am talking about.

One only need look at DNA and the messages that are found in the development of the complexity of the cell...and that should be proof enough that there is a Life Giver and Life Orchestrator...for, how do you get informational messages with deliberate specified complexity from things like Materials or Chance ? The trouble is, the Critic of Christianity isn't on a truth seeking quest because that person doesn't want anything to be an affront to his apriori-commitment to atheism -- as one very notable Evolutionist said : ' for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door' (Prof. Lewontin of Yale Univ) . In fact, it is imperative that such a person not consider the vast evidences of intelligent design in ANY of the modern sciences whether it be micro-biology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, archeology, the human anatomy, the sun/earth relationship , et al. The repercussions to a personal Creator existing based on the creation effects, are just too intimidating . That's where I was once in my 10 adult years of 'atheism' ... but praise God he had patience with my pride, arrogance, and rebellion and encouraged me be more concerned with the actual truth and then to go where it led. Now I see so much clearer now and enjoy the truth about our reality instead of trying to make excuses about it.

No what I mean ?

 

[workmx]

You got to be kidding me. I have met many and some are pastors now

Ever sine I was young I was taught there is nothing supernatural, no God. Everything can be explained by science (or almost everything, since we can't observe anything accurately), be objective. I have always hold evolution as truth (did doubt it once when I was young and watching the animal world, but that doubt was quickly quenched by my uncle).

My first serious breach from atheist starts after I got interested in computers in high school. After read the whole book on CPUs, and with the books "abrupt" ending (seems abrupt to me since I didn't understand how it worked), it took me several days to realize that is all to a CPU, very primitive, just a stepper. And it took me doubt how it can form intelligence with such things. It can't even create a truly random number.... If you ever worked on programs you might understand what I am talking about.

Forgive me for not being a programer.

Forgive me for not understanding what you said.

Forgive me for thinking that you did not answer the question.

You say someone told you a thing.

Then you doubted that thing.

How does that make you a former atheist?

Atheism (AFAIK) is an active rejection of the claim that gods exist.

If you did not investigate and then reject that claim, how could you have been an atheist?

So, your claim to have been an atheist is illogical.

Seems more like a meme than a reality.