PDA

View Full Version : Where do they come from?



Blackwater
08-16-2019, 12:58 PM
I had a thought last night. Where do our morals come from? How is it that we've near unanimously in the world, come to agree that it's wrong to rob, rape, murder, etc? How did this come about??? What are your thoughts???

Greg S
08-16-2019, 01:49 PM
Public norms + values = morals. Yea, the system is alittle broke.

redhawk0
08-16-2019, 02:09 PM
It stems back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's inherent to our human nature to distinguish between good and evil. God put that nature in us as we were created in His image. Eating from the Tree opened the eyes of Adam and Eve...and subsequently every human born since.

redhawk

T_McD
08-16-2019, 02:59 PM
I had a thought last night. Where do our morals come from? How is it that we've near unanimously in the world, come to agree that it's wrong to rob, rape, murder, etc? How did this come about??? What are your thoughts???

You answer that question and you have identified God.

augercreek
08-17-2019, 06:12 AM
It stems back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's inherent to our human nature to distinguish between good and evil. God put that nature in us as we were created in His image. Eating from the Tree opened the eyes of Adam and Eve...and subsequently every human born since.

redhawk
I believe this is the correct answer. Even those that have never known of God or Christ have a knowing of what is good or evil so it must be a God given instinct !

Bigslug
08-17-2019, 10:13 AM
At the start, there was probably something akin to laziness in there. We'll have a tendency to simply take what we want until we have to work for it. We also have a tendency to defend what we have which makes work for taker and takee alike. There is something of a nuclear deterrent / Mutually-Assured Destruction effect underlying moral code. "If you don't rob, starve, rape, or murder me, then I won't impale you on a spear. Simmer down a bit and you might find the money, food, and sex will come a little easier to you"

Empathy and conscience both likely grow from parenting and family instincts extended to those outside the immediate tribe.

Mix the two together, add a few generations of stable food supply, and BAM! Morals!

As I alluded to in the "More perspectives from atheists/agnostics" thread, our base programming is to be the "Darwinian Competitor". Depending on your circumstances, being the D.C. might consist of being the hard working suburban parents, devoted to family and society, or it might be consist of being the monsters who steal what they eat and reproduce coercively or irresponsibly. It's depressingly evident that both appear to be valid evolutionary models - almost as if God were beta-testing both systems. It could be depressingly argued that the latter is more effective.

I would therefore tend to question your statement that "we've near unanimously in the world, come to agree that it's wrong to rob, rape, murder, etc?" as there is absolutely no shortage of any of that. Your perspective may come from the fact that those who partake in those acts aren't as likely to be waxing philosophical about it on internet forums or publishing weighty tomes on the subject.

I'm just a sparkly ray of sunshine, aren't I?[smilie=p:

T_McD
08-17-2019, 10:58 AM
As I alluded to in the "More perspectives from atheists/agnostics" thread, our base programming is to be the "Darwinian Competitor". Depending on your circumstances, being the D.C. might consist of being the hard working suburban parents, devoted to family and society, or it might be consist of being the monsters who steal what they eat and reproduce coercively or irresponsibly. It's depressingly evident that both appear to be valid evolutionary models - almost as if God were beta-testing both systems. It could be depressingly argued that the latter is more effective.

I would therefore tend to question your statement that "we've near unanimously in the world, come to agree that it's wrong to rob, rape, murder, etc?" as there is absolutely no shortage of any of that. Your perspective may come from the fact that those who partake in those acts aren't as likely to be waxing philosophical about it on internet forums or publishing weighty tomes on the subject.

I'm just a sparkly ray of sunshine, aren't I?[smilie=p:

I would also add that many beliefs would change if your comfortable life was transformed to a prison life. It is a privilege to wax philosophical.

Thundarstick
08-17-2019, 11:06 AM
"Empathy and conscience both likely grow from parenting and family instincts extended to those outside the immediate tribe."

I wonder where the sociopath fits in here? They are incapable of empathy and seem to be devoid of conscience no matter what society, or family they are part of. They do however, seem to be a percentage of humans who fit this shoe, thusly they must have some societal advantages. Did God make them that way? Do they have a choice but to be that way?

MY morality does come from Christian scripture. As pointed out in other threads, the strongest make the rules. Look at how the rich in this country have made rules to prevent others becoming wealthy, or the vast number of laws whose real purpose is to generate wealth for the powerful.

It appears that all cultures have a form of morality, but, just like proving God's existence, I'm afraid proving just where it comes from, will be relevant to where you are looking from.

Thundarstick
08-17-2019, 03:36 PM
https://youtu.be/tjDa8gRA7TM

Something to think about.

1hole
08-17-2019, 06:30 PM
..... I would therefore tend to question your statement that "we've near unanimously in the world, come to agree that it's wrong to rob, rape, murder, etc?" as there is absolutely no shortage of any of that. ...

I believe you've drawn the wrong message from the pervasive presence of evil as evidence bad people don't see what they do as evil. They know what they do is evil, that's why they try very hard to conceal what they do. From Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot's murderous thugs to Epstein's little girl's and Hillary's "lost" emails, arrogant and slimey people in power, from small thugs to great, often hold other people in contempt. But, in the end, they also do everything in their power to hide what they've done because they KNOW it's wrong!

Der Gebirgsjager
08-17-2019, 08:15 PM
Dennis -- some thoughts:

If one subscribes to a religion such as Christianity that teaches these morals, then one (hopefully!) practices them.

Whether or not the children of those who subscribe to such a religion follow and practice the religion or not, they were raised under that system of beliefs and will likely follow them. Perhaps even indoctrinate their children into them. But without a recognition that our morals come from God, and lacking a belief in God, they will eventually become diluted and cease to exist. After all, without God, what constrains them?

In a nation founded by persons subscribing to those morals the system of government and laws are based upon those morals, and those who do not subscribe to them are made to live according to those moral-encompassing laws or suffer penalties.

Obviously, using Islam as an example, the morals of all religions are not the same as concerns sexual behavior, i.e. child brides, and witnesses to rape. In those societies what we consider perversion is a norm. In certain tribal locations in Africa ritual murder still exists. Morals change with societies and locations.

True, pure evil -- as characterized in a previous post as sociopaths and their behavior, really does exist, as you know from your career experiences. Just like Boaz characterizes Jeff Garrett and Ed Rawlins in "Tumbleweeds", the best solution is to remove these people from society permanently, as rehabilitation is impossible. They definitely lack a conscience, and perhaps lack a soul. I know that we've both met them. Unfortunately, Liberalism in this Country has weakened the practice of our founding fathers to "get a rope!"

The trend to weaken, subvert, pervert and change our traditional system of moral values continues to our eventual destruction as a civilized people.

EDG
08-19-2019, 02:08 AM
Everyone starts framing morals with their own religious biases when morals are much older than any religion.

The values we call morals are nothing more than behavior that enables humans to more easily cooperate and survive. Natural selection favors those that help and care for each other. Natural selection frowns on those that cannot get along with their neighbors, families and friends. If you are deemed no good because of your behavior toward others you may be an outcast doomed to survive on your own with NO community assistance. Human cooperation has been in existence since long before any sort of religion was practiced. To more easily survive man needs to cooperate even if there was NO religion. You see that around the world where the cooperation of family units always exists regardless of any form or lack of religion.

GhostHawk
08-19-2019, 08:57 AM
I think they come from the haves vs the have nots.

If you are a young man, working hard, have a wife, 2 children, a home, some possessions.

And one of the have not's decides to take them from you. Pretty quickly you decide that rape, theft, murder slavery is wrong. And it should be punished, severely.

A young man who works at a trade is not really an equal opponant of one who steals, rapes, kills for a living.

So community's started decideing that morals were a good thing.

Its the old story of the sheep dog vs the wolf. A good sheep dog may look like a sheep, act like a sheep. do nothing to scare the flock. Right up until the moment the wolf appears. Then he is all fangs, barks and defience, protecting the flock.

This world needs more sheepdogs. Too many wolves already, and if things start to break down further and faster you'll see them doing what they do. Steeling from the week and helpless. Raping the young and tender, and killing their protectors. Till a sheepdog shows up.

We can be sheepdogs, but remember, the idea is not to scare the flock. We need to look and act like the sheep until the wolf appears.
I suspect most of us here would make very good sheepdogs.

Sig556r
08-19-2019, 09:18 AM
It takes a village to raise a child...society dictates norms.
The old debate of instinctive vs. learned morals is now a thing of the past.
Sad to say, the rise of liberalism & social activism has eroded even basic biological norm...

dverna
08-19-2019, 11:26 AM
I believe they come from society.

Slavery was acceptable even In the New Testament when Jesus was on earth.

EDG
08-19-2019, 12:26 PM
Slavery existed before the New Testament.
Anyone that has read much about ancient Egypt knows that the Egyptians had slaves thousands of years before Jesus.


I believe they come from society.

Slavery was acceptable even In the New Testament when Jesus was on earth.

EDG
08-19-2019, 12:36 PM
Sheep dogs no.
The earliest forms of cooperation came long before there was society or the larger community.
It comes with the family unit.
Humans do not kill their own families because to do so would would endanger their own chances of survival. It is just part of the process of natural selection. Those humans born without the ability to empathize with others will be avoided by others and their chances of passing on their DNA will be reduced.


I think they come from the haves vs the have nots.

If you are a young man, working hard, have a wife, 2 children, a home, some possessions.

And one of the have not's decides to take them from you. Pretty quickly you decide that rape, theft, murder slavery is wrong. And it should be punished, severely.

A young man who works at a trade is not really an equal opponant of one who steals, rapes, kills for a living.

So community's started decideing that morals were a good thing.

Its the old story of the sheep dog vs the wolf. A good sheep dog may look like a sheep, act like a sheep. do nothing to scare the flock. Right up until the moment the wolf appears. Then he is all fangs, barks and defience, protecting the flock.

This world needs more sheepdogs. Too many wolves already, and if things start to break down further and faster you'll see them doing what they do. Steeling from the week and helpless. Raping the young and tender, and killing their protectors. Till a sheepdog shows up.

We can be sheepdogs, but remember, the idea is not to scare the flock. We need to look and act like the sheep until the wolf appears.
I suspect most of us here would make very good sheepdogs.

Traffer
08-19-2019, 12:50 PM
It is amazing to me how ignorant the "common person" is nowadays. What we call "Western Civilization" has come about by the study and adherence to a book called "The Bible". Society in the "west" FORMED as a CONSEQUENCE of people seeking God in the Bible. You can argue that but you would be wrong.
And in the Bible the chronicle of people who sought God shows that a cycle of "society" is at work. People turn to God and seek him when things get really really bad (instances where people end up eating their own children come to mind). God blesses society when they seek him. They prosper and drift away from God again...until things get really ugly...then the cycle of turning back to God begins again. Psalm 107 is a good example of this. It is only applicable to the "people of God" though. Those who would never turn to God simply perish, like chaff they are blown away into the wind.
The present unraveling of our civilization is another example of people turning away from God.
Personally I don't want to see it get to the point of where mothers cook and eat their own children. But it will. Unless those of us who still believe start to do something about it.

UKShootist
08-19-2019, 01:18 PM
Those humans born without the ability to empathize with others will be avoided by others and their chances of passing on their DNA will be reduced.

It must be said that the Vikings, among others, certainly did not empathise very much at all but they certainly managed to spread their DNA around more than the average. It has been said that one reason the British were so successful in their wars was because in early history the British Isles had been invaded by every ruthless bunch of hooligans that Europe and even parts of Africa and the Middle East could provide and what was on the list of activities? Looting, pillaging, and, yes, rape!

EDG
08-19-2019, 02:23 PM
Why does the Viking practice of rape, looting and pillage not survive today?
Is it possible that their mode of operation was defeated?
Why is it that the Scandinavian countries are such wimpy socialists today?

The British isles were always a mixing pot since the human race was not born there. All peoples in the UK were/are invaders from some place. I was not aware the Brits were so successful anyway. There are more people in the US of British descent than there are in the UK. The largest group of people that speak English as a first language are in the United States. The UK has lost its empire so I would not claim that in the long run it is so successful. It has to be bailed out of 2 world wars....
What was the last sentence of Churchill's speech?

Quote
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

It is not very confidence inspiring if the ultimate remedy is the not your own country but some other country?



It must be said that the Vikings, among others, certainly did not empathise very much at all but they certainly managed to spread their DNA around more than the average. It has been said that one reason the British were so successful in their wars was because in early history the British Isles had been invaded by every ruthless bunch of hooligans that Europe and even parts of Africa and the Middle East could provide and what was on the list of activities? Looting, pillaging, and, yes, rape!

Traffer
08-19-2019, 02:45 PM
It is amazing to me how ignorant the "common person" is nowadays. What we call "Western Civilization" has come about by the study and adherence to a book called "The Bible". Society in the "west" FORMED as a CONSEQUENCE of people seeking God in the Bible. You can argue that but you would be wrong.
And in the Bible the chronicle of people who sought God shows that a cycle of "society" is at work. People turn to God and seek him when things get really really bad (instances where people end up eating their own children come to mind). God blesses society when they seek him. They prosper and drift away from God again...until things get really ugly...then the cycle of turning back to God begins again. Psalm 107 is a good example of this. It is only applicable to the "people of God" though. Those who would never turn to God simply perish, like chaff they are blown away into the wind.
The present unraveling of our civilization is another example of people turning away from God.
Personally I don't want to see it get to the point of where mothers cook and eat their own children. But it will. Unless those of us who still believe start to do something about it.

I guess nobody believes this anymore. Sad

dangitgriff
08-19-2019, 02:55 PM
Our morals ultimately come from the same place God comes from...
Our very humanity.

Traffer
08-19-2019, 04:52 PM
Some (not I) might call that progress. And ought I mention California?



No empire lasts forever. The Romans proved that. But, for a while, the UK could say that the sun never sets on the British Empire. I'm not certain that any other nation has ever been able to make that claim. But, of course, you were not aware of that.



Oh please, not that old saw again. Do you consider that a rearguard prepared to fight to the last man is 'bailed out' by a relief force? I will never impugn in any way the valour of those American service men who fought like lions and died bravely doing their duty. But, your politicians, that's another matter. We knew you would be along when they had squeezed the last drop of money they could from us. It was inevitable. And before you reply you might consider that if the UK had merged with the Germans, as Hitler had hoped, then with our navy and their army, plus a bit better timing from the Japanese in respect of the US navy's aircraft carriers and it's likely that the USA would have ended up a subject nation of some God-awful Axis partnership. Please do not judge the last two world wars by Hollywood's productions. The British were there, and did quite a bit of fighting.

I might ask what success the USA had with wars after 1945. Korea? Hmmmm.... still not exactly settled. Vietnam? I just plain shouldn't mention that one. A real asskicking by men in sandals with clapped out guns. And bringing peace to the Middle East? And, in all those disagreements, the USA actively sought the support of the UK. I sometimes wonder why if we were so useless. But, all that is for another thread I think.



Churchill was merely stating the obvious. I suspect that in different circumstances he might have said the same about the Russians who were the real force behind the final defeat of Germany. My ego is not so weak that I cannot recognise that a richer neighbour with far more resources is likely to be a useful ally? We fought one of the world's best military forces to a standstill while we waited for your politicians to recognise facts and your businessmen to recognise a good moneymaker. The USA suffered, IIRC, a few shell fired at a couple of coastal towns a few times. And we paid back every penny of the war debt to America ( The last payment in 2006 IIRC.)

But, for all that, I am fond of the USA and Americans in general, even the Donald.

I wish I could have experienced the glory years of Great Britain. I can glean some from the old movies and it looked truly wonderful (as long as you spoke English and had a enough money). But alas they went the way of all the godless. Now Britain isn't worth a flush of the toilet. (And the US isn't far behind)

dangitgriff
08-19-2019, 08:48 PM
When the BBC harassed Benny Hill to literally clean up his telly act or else, I knew it was bound to get worse...
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190820/32d4835cc3045b486f076023f8b46a46.jpg

1hole
08-20-2019, 11:03 AM
A majority of England's monied classes had long run most of their world-wide colonies like cash cows for themselves. Most of them didn't want a war in 1914, therefore the British army was in a weak state and unprepared for a large scale war.

When circumstances pushed war on them they had to rapidly recruit, train and equip a vast army, just as we did. "Instant" armies, large or small, live or die based on the courage and determination of the new solders.

The Brits, like us in both World Wars, put good men on the ground where they fought very well under very bad conditions. Many in both country's armies were led by some bad officers - at all levels - but good men paid the price for leadership stupidity and held.

I despise bottom feeding politicians everywhere but respectfully salute the ground pounders, swabies and airmen of all countries.

JBinMN
08-20-2019, 11:32 AM
The topic lost direction from "Deep Theological Discussion", & went geopolitical, or the like, is what I am thinking...

Some might enjoy reading this article:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/where-does-morality-come-from_b_1982110

Others may not...

Traffer
08-20-2019, 12:43 PM
The topic lost direction from "Deep Theological Discussion", & went geopolitical, or the like, is what I am thinking...

Some might enjoy reading this article:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/where-does-morality-come-from_b_1982110

Others may not...

I did enjoy reading it. Thank you very much. I would have loved to discuss this with the author. But since he is not available I will propose a couple of observations here:
In the article the author proposes this as a fact: "We view every human as a recipient of the gift of reason".
Indeed I believe reason is an extremely important fundamental "gift".
I would propose though, that much of the recent social chaos or disintegration is due to a very stark lack of reason on the part of a segment of society.
One only needs to read a few articles of news lately to see it. Insanity! Deceit, hatred... unbridled EMOTIONAL lack of reason in modern society.
Like the author, I believe that the ability to reason is a gift.
But not all have it. Some have opted to ignore reason and REPLACE it with knee jerk emotional reaction, devoid of reason.
There are some "truths" that I believe are universal, that many, probably MOST, would disagree with.
One of the most ignored principal of theism is ... "Fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom".
I contend that if one would look objectively at our "modern society" from the perspective of say, "angels" it is easy to see that the great brunt of woes and self inflicted wounds we suffer are from a corporate lack of the "Fear of God" which does prove that it is indeed the "beginning of human wisdom".
Now as you said.
Some will enjoy reading this, others not so much.

dtknowles
08-20-2019, 10:14 PM
I had a thought last night. Where do our morals come from? How is it that we've near unanimously in the world, come to agree that it's wrong to rob, rape, murder, etc? How did this come about??? What are your thoughts???

I hold that some truths are self-evident and it seems in this the founding fathers of this country and ancient philosophers agreed.

I like to start with:

All humans are created equal.

Then add the seven deadly sins

and to not seem so totally negative I would add the seven cardinal virtues

I would not use the 10 commandments as their wording is problematic and the first 4 have nothing to do with morals.

Morals come from logic. Ask what makes society and the universe, all society not just special groups a better place.

"it's wrong to rob, rape, murder," because it causes harm, makes society worse not better.

Tim

1hole
08-21-2019, 12:16 PM
Don't make slavery as we know it a factor in a Godly life because slavery under the Hebrews was vastly different from the chattel slavery of others. Most Hebrew slavery was actually indentured servitude, like working off a debt like poor emigrants used to do to get here.

Hebrew "slaves" could not be abused, they had designated provisions and protections. They also had a specific end time (max seven years) UNLESS they chose to remain under the care of their masters and many of them did. (Seems that dependable food and shelter was a strong attractant, like the bought and paid for voting slaves of the Democrat Party today!)

Smoke4320
08-21-2019, 12:21 PM
I hold that some truths are self-evident and it seems in this the founding fathers of this country and ancient philosophers agreed.

I like to start with:

All humans are created equal.

Then add the seven deadly sins

and to not seem so totally negative I would add the seven cardinal virtues

I would not use the 10 commandments as their wording is problematic and the first 4 have nothing to do with morals.

Morals come from logic. Ask what makes society and the universe, all society not just special groups a better place.

"it's wrong to rob, rape, murder," because it causes harm, makes society worse not better.

Tim

Pretty good summation there

dangitgriff
08-21-2019, 02:11 PM
Post #23 is where the buck stops.

Bigslug
08-22-2019, 09:12 AM
I believe you've drawn the wrong message from the pervasive presence of evil as evidence bad people don't see what they do as evil. They know what they do is evil, that's why they try very hard to conceal what they do. From Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot's murderous thugs to Epstein's little girl's and Hillary's "lost" emails, arrogant and slimey people in power, from small thugs to great, often hold other people in contempt. But, in the end, they also do everything in their power to hide what they've done because they KNOW it's wrong!

There's an exchange in James Clavell's Shogun in which an English sea captain is explaining the ongoing European Protestant revolts against the Catholic authority with a Japanese warlord. The warlord tells the captain that "there are no 'mitigating circumstances' when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord". The captain's response: "Unless you win" which gave the warlord a good chuckle and forced him to concede the point.

So no, I don't really agree with you that folks do everything in their power to hide what they do because they "know" it's wrong. . .they START to hide what they do because their ENEMIES think it's wrong and it has become apparent that they are about to lose. The Nazis were proud to make home movies of their early activities so they could show the grandkids how they served to sweep away the evils of the past and make the world Uncle Adolph's envisioned "better place". We know the exact date that Anne Frank died in a concentration camp because they were such nuts for detailed filing of their activities - if they were just trying to murder six million people and hide the fact, we'd have no idea when or even where she went. The mania to sweep it all under the rug didn't really even start until '43 when North Africa and Stalingrad showed them things might not keep going their way.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are now viewed as "Men of Vision" only because they won. How would they and their doctrines be seen today if they had lost and the U.S.A. was still a British territory? Probably not much different than how we see Hitler and his policies today.

So as to the O.P.'s question of where morals come from. . .there's certainly a component of not only stating your point, but the real legacy is in making it stick.

1hole
08-22-2019, 12:33 PM
... I don't really agree with you that folks do everything in their power to hide what they do because they "know" it's wrong. . .they START to hide what they do because their ENEMIES think it's wrong and it has become apparent that they are about to lose. The Nazis were proud to make home movies of their early activities so they could show the grandkids how they served to sweep away the evils of the past and make the world Uncle Adolph's envisioned "better place". ... The mania to sweep it all under the rug didn't really even start until '43 when North Africa and Stalingrad showed them things might not keep going their way.

Hitler and his policies today.

So as to the O.P.'s question of where morals come from. . .there's certainly a component of not only stating your point, but the real legacy is in making it stick.

Don't confuse the fact that the NAZIs expected to win and so be unaccountable with their certain knowledge that what they were doing was morally wrong.

Bigslug
08-22-2019, 10:13 PM
Don't confuse the fact that the NAZIs expected to win and so be unaccountable with their certain knowledge that what they were doing was morally wrong.

True believers are strange folk. Case in point the friendly neighborhood ISIS chaps who will cut your head off with a dull spatula in the name of their religious code, secure in the knowledge that what they are doing is morally RIGHT. Hold the right "magnet" (anti-semitism, liberalism, etc...) next to a moral compass, it'll point damnear any direction you like.

Blackwater
08-26-2019, 06:24 PM
Why does the Viking practice of rape, looting and pillage not survive today?
Is it possible that their mode of operation was defeated?
Why is it that the Scandinavian countries are such wimpy socialists today?

The British isles were always a mixing pot since the human race was not born there. All peoples in the UK were/are invaders from some place. I was not aware the Brits were so successful anyway. There are more people in the US of British descent than there are in the UK. The largest group of people that speak English as a first language are in the United States. The UK has lost its empire so I would not claim that in the long run it is so successful. It has to be bailed out of 2 world wars....
What was the last sentence of Churchill's speech?

Quote
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

It is not very confidence inspiring if the ultimate remedy is the not your own country but some other country?

Didja' know, EDG, that when the Vikings accepted Christianity, their behavior changed radically? They'd still defend themselves quite ably, but sought less and less the conquest of others, which relieved a LOT of folks. So your version stops short of owning up to what Christianity did for the Vikings. Ain't it funny how that works?

Blackwater
08-26-2019, 06:38 PM
There's an exchange in James Clavell's Shogun in which an English sea captain is explaining the ongoing European Protestant revolts against the Catholic authority with a Japanese warlord. The warlord tells the captain that "there are no 'mitigating circumstances' when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord". The captain's response: "Unless you win" which gave the warlord a good chuckle and forced him to concede the point.

So no, I don't really agree with you that folks do everything in their power to hide what they do because they "know" it's wrong. . .they START to hide what they do because their ENEMIES think it's wrong and it has become apparent that they are about to lose. The Nazis were proud to make home movies of their early activities so they could show the grandkids how they served to sweep away the evils of the past and make the world Uncle Adolph's envisioned "better place". We know the exact date that Anne Frank died in a concentration camp because they were such nuts for detailed filing of their activities - if they were just trying to murder six million people and hide the fact, we'd have no idea when or even where she went. The mania to sweep it all under the rug didn't really even start until '43 when North Africa and Stalingrad showed them things might not keep going their way.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are now viewed as "Men of Vision" only because they won. How would they and their doctrines be seen today if they had lost and the U.S.A. was still a British territory? Probably not much different than how we see Hitler and his policies today.

So as to the O.P.'s question of where morals come from. . .there's certainly a component of not only stating your point, but the real legacy is in making it stick.

Gee whiz, Slug! I've had my ration of nihlistic cynicism already today! Don't need any more! But of course, you're always ready with a good dose of good ol' nihlistic cynicism, as usual. I hope you have some reason for your attitude. It'd be such a shame to simply choose it among so many other, obviously superior attitudes!

Blackwater
08-26-2019, 06:45 PM
ULtimately, folks, I believe, and come just short of being able to say "know," that morals almost always come from our relationship with whatever "Higher Power" we or they recognize in our lives. And there's a component of what's good for us, long term, certainly. I believe that's part of the reason, though, that God gives our morals to us - to help us keep ourselves whole and prosperous. After all, God DOES want us to be that way! But I wondered what others thought, and now I know a little more about that than I did berfore. Always good to learn. A few posts are just more spewing of nihlistic cynicism, but that seems to be inevitable on this board. What a waste of what could have been good, human effort and breath.

big bore 99
08-26-2019, 06:47 PM
I believe they come from the first rule book- The 10 Commandments.

Blackwater
08-27-2019, 06:37 PM
Not all campaigns are evil. Did not God directly command Israel to attack other lands? If He did that, then it's very clear that He doesn't disapprove of ALL wars and skirmishes. Only one who seeks to destroy legitimate Christian belief could so consistently come up with such "interpretations" of the things written and discussed here.

Bigslug
08-28-2019, 01:33 AM
Gee whiz, Slug! I've had my ration of nihlistic cynicism already today! Don't need any more! But of course, you're always ready with a good dose of good ol' nihlistic cynicism, as usual. I hope you have some reason for your attitude. It'd be such a shame to simply choose it among so many other, obviously superior attitudes!

I wasn't aware that detached, objective observation of history without judging through the lens of my own position was an "attitude". Many would call that "healthy"

Bigslug
08-30-2019, 12:11 PM
ULtimately, folks, I believe, and come just short of being able to say "know," that morals almost always come from our relationship with whatever "Higher Power" we or they recognize in our lives. And there's a component of what's good for us, long term, certainly. I believe that's part of the reason, though, that God gives our morals to us - to help us keep ourselves whole and prosperous. After all, God DOES want us to be that way! But I wondered what others thought, and now I know a little more about that than I did berfore. Always good to learn. A few posts are just more spewing of nihlistic cynicism, but that seems to be inevitable on this board. What a waste of what could have been good, human effort and breath.

The thing you need to realize about us "Nihilistic Cynicists" is that on the way to deciding that there probably isn't any ultimate point to many things, we spend a lot of time asking what the actual point IS.

In the case of what the point was for the origin of moral code, review post #6 (me) and post #12 (EDG). The point was that we do what we need to survive and that interactions with others have consequences. Not getting stomped into the mud by your fellow man requires adopting a certain set of behaviors. Not having your children get stomped into the mud by your fellow man requires imparting the rules for that set of behaviors. The smart adult figures out what is required by the situation and modifies his behavior, but his children are brainwashed into that behavior by whatever convincing fiction he decides to tell them (such as "because God said so"). So at it's core, morals could be said to come from various combinations of laziness, fear, and lack of physical prowess.

An example of the flip side of that might be Ghenghis Khan - certainly not lazy, didn't have cause to be afraid of much, and was able to take what he wanted to the extent that it's estimated that 1 in 200 men alive today (1 in 10 in Mongolia) are his descendant. When you're enough of a bad, bad donkey that you don't NEED to get along with your fellow man, you don't NEED to play by the significantly more touchy-feely rules that the rest of us do. Ghengis certainly qualified as a successful Darwinian Competitor. Most of us are conditioned to not instantly flock to his behavioral banner - we INSTINCTIVELY do, but since we don't all have Ghengis' magic combination of "herd bull" attributes, we don't typically act on those instincts for fear of the stomped-into-the-mud reasons mentioned above.

So here's a riddle for the framework of your Christian ethos: Ghengis Khan had his set of morals that kept him unquestionably "whole and prosperous". Is that the way God wanted him to be, and did he fulfill God's mandate? My point is that he managed to do quite well for himself on a code of being a ruthless tyrant and probably went to bed at night feeling quite good about it. For the rest of us, remaining whole and prosperous requires a very different behavior set that typically does NOT lead to 10% of the local population having your DNA a thousand years later. Given that, how do your reconcile the two? Does God want the lion or the sheep? I suspect you decide which you are by how frequently you find yourself covered in mud.

JBinMN
08-30-2019, 09:09 PM
I am not participating so much, but I am interested in the discourse.

Blackwater
09-06-2019, 10:49 PM
The thing you need to realize about us "Nihilistic Cynicists" is that on the way to deciding that there probably isn't any ultimate point to many things, we spend a lot of time asking what the actual point IS.

In the case of what the point was for the origin of moral code, review post #6 (me) and post #12 (EDG). The point was that we do what we need to survive and that interactions with others have consequences. Not getting stomped into the mud by your fellow man requires adopting a certain set of behaviors. Not having your children get stomped into the mud by your fellow man requires imparting the rules for that set of behaviors. The smart adult figures out what is required by the situation and modifies his behavior, but his children are brainwashed into that behavior by whatever convincing fiction he decides to tell them (such as "because God said so"). So at it's core, morals could be said to come from various combinations of laziness, fear, and lack of physical prowess.

An example of the flip side of that might be Ghenghis Khan - certainly not lazy, didn't have cause to be afraid of much, and was able to take what he wanted to the extent that it's estimated that 1 in 200 men alive today (1 in 10 in Mongolia) are his descendant. When you're enough of a bad, bad donkey that you don't NEED to get along with your fellow man, you don't NEED to play by the significantly more touchy-feely rules that the rest of us do. Ghengis certainly qualified as a successful Darwinian Competitor. Most of us are conditioned to not instantly flock to his behavioral banner - we INSTINCTIVELY do, but since we don't all have Ghengis' magic combination of "herd bull" attributes, we don't typically act on those instincts for fear of the stomped-into-the-mud reasons mentioned above.

So here's a riddle for the framework of your Christian ethos: Ghengis Khan had his set of morals that kept him unquestionably "whole and prosperous". Is that the way God wanted him to be, and did he fulfill God's mandate? My point is that he managed to do quite well for himself on a code of being a ruthless tyrant and probably went to bed at night feeling quite good about it. For the rest of us, remaining whole and prosperous requires a very different behavior set that typically does NOT lead to 10% of the local population having your DNA a thousand years later. Given that, how do your reconcile the two? Does God want the lion or the sheep? I suspect you decide which you are by how frequently you find yourself covered in mud.

Whew! That's the longest defense of the "survival of the fittest" that I've seen in quite a while! But you've missed the point entirely, and haven't really answered the question I asked. What I want to know is where you believe morals originate from, and it seems self-evident that you think it comes from the survival instinct. But what it takes to survive varies according to when you live and where. And yet, morals seem to be nearly universal. It's my belief that all real morals come from God, and that we innately know right from wrong. I believe that when God breathed the breath of life into us, He instilled within us certain knowledges that He fully intended that we be endowed with.

So you stick to your survivalist beliefs. I'll stick with my God. One day, we'll both know who "won" this little debate.

EDG
09-07-2019, 12:22 AM
Stick with your god if you want but people all have morals because they all want to survive.
Your god has NOTHING to do with it.
The pre-Columbian Aztecs had morals of some sort to fit their own culture but it is guaranteed that they never heard of you Christian god. Like wise for the Incas, the Inuits and most of Africa at that time.
In fact all human had some sort of behavior patterns that helped them survive long before there was a bible. Modern man has been around about 100,000 years give or take a few and the bible is only recent artifact of man's imagination. Give it another 100,000 years and it will be long forgotten like the religion of the ancient Eqyptians. I think defending a particular religion is more of an ego trip than any exercise in critical thought and logic. People just cannot stand the notion of devoting their thoughts to a dead end faith for nothing at all. After all you can or will look very foolish spending all that time, energy and thought for essentially zero gain. And religion does exist for gain. If there was nothing to gain you would not believe or pay attention to your imaginary friend - who wants to strike you dead if you deny he exists.
So where the tenets taught by a particular religion help a people survive that religion is really nothing more than another survival technique.
Religions do not always work. Ask the Aztecs. Some thing in the belief system of Easter Islanders drove them to waste their labor and natural resources on the large stone monoliths. They also had wars between the long ears and the short ears and the population nearly collapsed and disappeared. Their morals did not work out so well. Neither do Christian's morals.



Whew! That's the longest defense of the "survival of the fittest" that I've seen in quite a while! But you've missed the point entirely, and haven't really answered the question I asked. What I want to know is where you believe morals originate from, and it seems self-evident that you think it comes from the survival instinct. But what it takes to survive varies according to when you live and where. And yet, morals seem to be nearly universal. It's my belief that all real morals come from God, and that we innately know right from wrong. I believe that when God breathed the breath of life into us, He instilled within us certain knowledges that He fully intended that we be endowed with.

So you stick to your survivalist beliefs. I'll stick with my God. One day, we'll both know who "won" this little debate.

T_McD
09-13-2019, 05:48 PM
But what it takes to survive varies according to when you live and where. And yet, morals seem to be nearly universal. It's my belief that all real morals come from God, and that we innately know right from wrong.

While I would say this country is undoubtedly born of Christian morals (and still heavily influenced by them today), that cannot be said of many places.

Rwanda, 1930s Germany, China, damn near everywhere in the Middle East do not subscribe to your moral compass. In fact the list would likely be shorter if we identified those places that do share our morals.

Char-Gar
09-20-2019, 11:46 AM
In Law School, back in the day, numerous discussions were held, both in and out of class, about whether or not there was "natural law". Whether that was a moral code woven into creation itself. Our founders thought there was, and they wrote it into the Declaration of Independence and the Constition. The founders were heavly influenced by the writting of John Locke. Our entire legal system and Rule of Law was shapped by this dynamic.

E. Stanley Jones in his Christian writtings "The Way", stated that God created the world to operate in certain moral ways, which are inculcated in the Christian faith. To go against these morals, is to rub the furr of Universe in the wrong direction. If you followed the Christian "way" you get results, if you don't, you get consequences.

I have yet to find myself in disagreement with either the Founders or E. Stanley Jones.

T_McD
09-20-2019, 11:58 AM
In Law School, back in the day, numerous discussions were held, both in and out of class, about whether or not there was "natural law". Whether that was a moral code woven into creation itself. Our founders thought there was, and they wrote it into the Declaration of Independence and the Constition. The founders were heavly influenced by the writting of John Locke. Our entire legal system and Rule of Law was shapped by this dynamic.

E. Stanley Jones in his Christian writtings "The Way", stated that God created the world to operate in certain moral ways, which are inculcated in the Christian faith. To go against these morals, is to rub the furr of Universe in the wrong direction. If you followed the Christian "way" you get results, if you don't, you get consequences.

I have yet to find myself in disagreement with either the Founders or E. Stanley Jones.

I can agree that it’s easier in this country if you follow a certain moral compass. To extend that to the rest of the world seems a bit naive to me. The ability to be bribed is what keeps officials alive is some parts of the world. Smuggling is the best job available in others.

Char-Gar
09-20-2019, 02:04 PM
I can agree that it’s easier in this country if you follow a certain moral compass. To extend that to the rest of the world seems a bit naive to me. The ability to be bribed is what keeps officials alive is some parts of the world. Smuggling is the best job available in others.

There is the thing called "sin" that accounts for your illustrations. Sin is alive all over the world and thrives in this country as well. Having "natural law" does not mean that people follow it wholesale. That is why humankind needed a Savior.

However that is Christian thinking and so no need to tell me it is BS, because I can intuit your response. You are not a Christian, so Christian thinking means nothing to you.

Der Gebirgsjager
09-20-2019, 02:57 PM
I read through all the posts since my last one, and two thoughts come to mind:

I don't believe at all that "reason" is something we're all gifted with. I think that reason is not in-born, but that it is learned. Start with the old thing about "Johnny-- don't touch the stove. It's hot. You'll get burned." But, Johnny touches the stove, and gets burned. If Johnny is a bright boy he'll not only learn (1) not to touch a hot stove, but (2) to heed warnings given, and even (3) to assess the danger offered by other objects. Johnny gets an allowance weekly, and is warned by his parents not to spend all his money for foolish things as something will probably come along that the really wants or needs. Financial disaster follows, but Johnny learns to budget his income, so that later in life he will be able to make his car payments and pay the rent. I think that "reason" is actually an accumulation of experience, applied by some with more success in life than by others. "Reason" is learned, not given. The prisons are full of people who never learned to reason. Classes on "Reasoning" and "Logic" are offered by many universities, just as are classes on mathematics. If we all had the gift of reason there would be no need to study it further, even as if we were born knowing the answer to 2+2 we wouldn't need to take math. What we are gifted with is the ability to learn. Again, some more so than others.

Secondly, the Vikings. They may well have been influenced in their later behavior by the adoption of Christianity. I used to be a bit interested in them, but it is really hard to get a comprehensive handle on their history. They were tribes that made much of their living by raiding. Eventually, after having read many times that the reason for their disappearance as a raiding people was clouded by the obscurity of time and a lack of them keeping a detailed written history, I read and article that offered the viewpoint that originally they were "have nots". When they discovered that the peoples living to their south possessed things that they wanted like livestock and various commodities they decided to take it. They quit raiding and began to live a more settled life when they got it. I find that to be very humorous, but there may be some truth to it. After all, when you don't have "stuff" and want "stuff", and then you get the "stuff", why continue to risk your lives on long sea voyages and mortal combat?

So, jerking myself back to the original thrust of the thread, where do morals come from? Obviously they have to be learned. You can debate all you desire about whether they were learned by the giving of the 10 Commandments or through survival of the fittest, but either way, they were learned. Personally, I believe in God, and I believe that God created the Universe and everything in it, and that it operates within certain laws and principles He established. To some extent I do believe that things are altered by survival of the fittest, in that some things have disappeared, various species, but I see nothing new that probably wasn't here from the beginning. I think morals were with us from the beginning, (God did not approve of Cain killing Abel, and assessed a penalty) but they were perverted and ignored (just like today) until God looked and saw nothing but wickedness and evil. Hence the great flood and a new beginning. But it can not be said that no law or morals existed prior to the flood. For example, the Israelites were commanded to make sacrifices on certain days which usually involved lambs as being clean animals. But Noah, who preceded the Israelites, was commanded to take two of every animal onto the ark, but more of the clean animals that were suitable for sacrifice. Therefore, it's not really much of a stretch to draw the conclusion that the sacrificial laws existed before the flood, as did a set of laws and morals of which God approved, When the pre-flood people turned their backs on the laws and morals he destroyed them. Following the flood he again presented them through Moses, making it very clear what the penalties would be were they agreed to and then not followed. The Israelites agreed to follow them, later turned away and suffered the consequences. With the first coming of Christ, the basic laws and morals did not change, but a way was provided to avoid the penalty. If you do not believe in God or the Holy Bible you can not comprehend this. If you do not believe that laws and morals are "right", meaning proper and non-evil, but that they exist only because of the fear of mutually assured destruction through death and violence, then you are an adherent to an evil system and a participant thereof. How much better to do the right thing because, as Char-Gar said, it is part of the order of things the Creator built into the Universe, and which he has repeatedly tried to explain to us.

Blackwater
10-01-2019, 04:08 PM
Stick with your god if you want but people all have morals because they all want to survive.
Your god has NOTHING to do with it.


Wow! That's an awfully blanketed statement, isn't it??? Who appointed you as the final arbiter of the reasons things happen in this world? Who are you to instruct me, when it's you who turns away from so many well established "facts," just because you WANT to disbelieve???

Disbelieve if you wish. Not even God will deny you that right. But to declare God doesn't exist ..... well, that's a stretch in the big majority's understanding of the universe and beyond. And you can preach your deceit until a very hot spot freezes over, and you won't affect a single Christian's belief. We're inpervious to your nihlistic cynicism, and your grandiose declarations that you "KNOW" things you can't possibly know. But what is it that drives a man, normally equipped mentally, to assume such a hateful posture towards Christ? What could you possibly gain from that? THis seems to deny your position that survival is man's greatest and possibly only real motivation, doesn't it?

1hole
10-02-2019, 01:04 PM
..... your grandiose declarations that you "KNOW" things you can't possibly know.[quote]

EDG claims to follow "science", saying science has supposedly declared there is no God but that's not true. Science, as such, cannot and has not said anything of the sort but a lot of spiritually "iggerant" scientists have. However, even Albert Einstein recognised that creation is too well ordered to be accidental.

It takes massive audacity - and a lot of smug conceit - for anyone to proclaim that things they know nothing about do not, ip so facto, exist. Real scientists aren't that foolish ... and a lot of very real scientists are Christians. (Perhaps EDG could send them his list of science books that could properly explain why he's sure all of them are wrong?)

[quote] ... what is it that drives a man, normally equipped mentally, to assume such a hateful posture towards Christ? What could you possibly gain from that? THis seems to deny your position that survival is man's greatest and possibly only real motivation, doesn't it?

Now that question IS indeed a puzzle. I often wonder why a few insistent pagans strive to poop on other people's dinner plate. It's spiritually repugnant on one level but it also gets amusing to watch; what do they hope to accomplish? And, already knowing they won't change a thing, why do they continue striving to do it?

Note: It's been said that one way of defining foolishness is to keep doing something the same way over and over while hoping for a different result eventually. Does anyone here think that's a good scientific method for our persistent critics???