Moral beliefs

[Doulos Iesou]

Well incest negatively impacts us on a genetic level. Children born of incest (in any species) have a much higher rate of defects that reduce their ability to survive. We have evolved to be off-put by incest because it damages our species genetically.

This "natural disgust" is also why we revile corpses of our own species more than those of others.

Would you hold that a moral virtue is "right" if it is something gained via evolution?

 

[digging]

The bible itself tells us there is another source of information about God.

.Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

This vs is loaded with some very strong spiritual points. I personally believe because of God's attributes being expressed through the natural world people can still come to see the power of good things through creation. We are part of nature and we 'feel' the power of good things within our our hearts and minds, but the reason for this is because it all was created this way. Clean water tastes great, polluted water tastes terrible, the morality is built in we just have the ability to choose to drink the polluted water if we decide to against what our sense of taste and smell tells us.

Digging

 

[Deborah13]

Sometimes I wish I could just give a "like" to a post...

digging, you expressed my thoughts and stated them well.

 

[ObjMoVa]

Would you hold that a moral virtue is "right" if it is something gained via evolution?

I hold that our moral beliefs hold purpose. The rejection of incest as a means of reproduction serves the purpose of protecting our potential offspring from defects. I hold that they maintain this purpose, even without the backing of divine word.

I'm trying to hit on the difference between:

A) Incest is bad because God has told us this.

and

B) Incest is bad because it does us harm. Also God tells us this.

In my view (B) we can see that incest is bad because of its effects. We don't need the word of God to tell us this, even if His word does agree.

 

[ObjMoVa]

I wonder why one would want to go around "go around God (who would be the "middle man")"? What would be the purpose for doing that?

God tells us that it's wrong to commit adultery.

If God is telling us this because adultery is damaging to families and thus weakens humanity, then we can say that Adultery is wrong because it damages family. God is commanding us not to commit this act due to a reason. I'm claiming that you can appeal to that reason for why we should do that thing, and thus you don't need the word of God to see why we should/shouldn't do that thing.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I hold that our moral beliefs hold purpose. The rejection of incest as a means of reproduction serves the purpose of protecting our potential offspring from defects. I hold that they maintain this purpose, even without the backing of divine word.

I'm trying to hit on the difference between:

A) Incest is bad because God has told us this.

and

B) Incest is bad because it does us harm. Also God tells us this.

In my view (B) we can see that incest is bad because of its effects. We don't need the word of God to tell us this, even if His word does agree.

Fair answer, I reject Divine Command Theory and accept that there are other means for discovering what is right and wrong.

I suppose you are highly influenced by Sam Harris' "Moral Landscape" given that you use the Jain religion in your signature.

I actually would not disagree with a lot of what he said, and would support it so far as arguing against moral relativists and subjectivists. I think it would be a strong objection to Divine Command theory, but that is not the only meta-ethical system that Christians have historically supported.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

God tells us that it's wrong to commit adultery.

If God is telling us this because adultery is damaging to families and thus weakens humanity, then we can say that Adultery is wrong because it damages family. God is commanding us not to commit this act due to a reason. I'm claiming that you can appeal to that reason for why we should do that thing, and thus you don't need the word of God to see why we should/shouldn't do that thing.

I would agree with this objection against Divine Command Theory, if God simply arbitrarily commanded that which was good or bad then he could not be good in any meaningful sense. It is only if we grant that he commanded these things for a reason that he could be considered good, and therefore Divine Command Theory is refuted by such an argument.

 

[Deborah13]

I hold that our moral beliefs hold purpose. The rejection of incest as a means of reproduction serves the purpose of protecting our potential offspring from defects. I hold that they maintain this purpose, even without the backing of divine word.

I'm trying to hit on the difference between:

A) Incest is bad because God has told us this.

and

B) Incest is bad because it does us harm. Also God tells us this.

In my view (B) we can see that incest is bad because of its effects. We don't need the word of God to tell us this, even if His word does agree.

I think in a previous post you mentioned other species and incest. I would say that in the beginning man had very little understanding of defects being caused by incest. In God's desire to protect man from his own folly, He taught man that by outlawing it among the Hebrew people. God knew the dangers, man did not.
Animals do not. They will and do commit incest. They do not have that extra moral guidance from their Creator. People can communicate with their Creator, other species do not have this ability.

 

[ObjMoVa]

You see, man doesn't have to be aware of the negative impacts of incest for natural selection to make it revolting to us. As you look at the natural world you can see that as animals get more complex, they become less and less likely to engage in in-breeding. If animals did not have a inclination against incest, male animals would be much more efficient if they just propagated with their offspring. Why do animals travel so far to find different mates? Because diversifying your genes helps prevent the defects that result from incest.

Also many Christian monarchs were quite concerned with the purity of their family and did engage in incest to keep it that way. Adam and eve were of the same blood.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You see, man doesn't have to be aware of the negative impacts of incest for natural selection to make it revolting to us. As you look at the natural world you can see that as animals get more complex, they become less and less likely to engage in in-breeding. If animals did not have a inclination against incest, male animals would be much more efficient if they just propagated with their offspring. Why do animals travel so far to find different mates? Because diversifying your genes helps prevent the defects that result from incest.

Also many Christian monarchs were quite concerned with the purity of their family and did engage in incest to keep it that way. Adam and eve were of the same blood. I would put forth that there is more support for incest IN Christianity than there is outside of it.

This is where the moderators should jump in, as this is against the ToS.

This is a discussion about Moral Beliefs, and whether or not morality can be determined or even possible without a God. This is not the place to put down Christianity in the way you just did.

I happen to disagree with your conclusion, but I will not respond so as to not encourage behavior against the ToS.

 

[turnorburn]

That's what atheists do Doulos lesou

tob

 

[ObjMoVa]

I have changed my statement to comply. Sorry, again I'm trying not to break the rules while still being open and fair to all sides. thanks for the heads up Doulos.

 

[digging]

ObjMoVa,

I just want to point something out within the Christian world at times there is a difference between church going Christians and spiritual Christians they are not always the same things. I am against many many things that institutional Christianity promotes. I would argue it is unfair to judge the bible by the actions of some church going Christians.

Digging

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I have changed my statement to comply. Sorry, again I'm trying not to break the rules while still being open and fair to all sides. thanks for the heads up Doulos.

No problem, I didn't mean to be confrontational in any way. I am more than willing to discuss this within the bounds of the ToS, I don't usually discuss Atheism vs. Christianity here because of that as it greatly restricts the discussion. That is of course due to the purpose of this site.

Being a former atheist myself though I can respect the process, and I don't understand why so many Christians have to be so vile and antagonistic towards those who disagree with us.

I view it as a lack of confidence in what they believe when people respond that way, or that they're just angry people.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You see, man doesn't have to be aware of the negative impacts of incest for natural selection to make it revolting to us. As you look at the natural world you can see that as animals get more complex, they become less and less likely to engage in in-breeding. If animals did not have a inclination against incest, male animals would be much more efficient if they just propagated with their offspring. Why do animals travel so far to find different mates? Because diversifying your genes helps prevent the defects that result from incest.

I have no problem with this.

Also many Christian monarchs were quite concerned with the purity of their family and did engage in incest to keep it that way.

I would say this is an unfair generalization. Just because person who is a Christian participates in a certain behavior does not mean that it is 1) Right and/or 2) Acceptable to other Christians.

I think you would agree that it would be wrong for me to generalize that all atheists are murderous off of the fact that many atheist dictators happened to exterminate huge populations.

Adam and eve were of the same blood.

I would say this is only an objection for people who interpret Genesis extremely literally.

 

[WIP]

When I was young, I did not know God, nor did I seek Him. I was not raised with religion. But that does not change the fact that when I was young, I already knew that murder was wrong. I did not need a Bible to tell me these things. To me, theses things are what you might say self evident. At family gatherings growing up I would listen to my relatives complain about the Blacks and the Jews. I saw their spite and hatred, it was evident to me, and I knew I did not want to grow up and carry that kind of hatred around with me. But the Bible did not teach me these things, nor did I learn them from a church sermon. I was born with them, and to me they are self evident.

Exactly!

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I didn't say that we know right from wrong because it is written in the Bible. I said we know it only because God created us and instilled these understandings within His creation. My view is that we did not evolve these understandings because I do not believe it is possible to evolve intelligence, knowledge, understanding, free will, self awareness, etc.

 

[WIP]

ObjMoVa, your rationalization betrays your honesty of learning; it appears to come straight from books promoting atheism. You claim to not believe in God but state: "God said that murder is evil, therefore murder is evil."

Planting doubt seems to be the mainstay of ungodliness. Satan used it right off as he asked, "Hath God said?"

You also say, "We're working really hard to re-draw the line on homosexuality." Yeah, that's a wonderful thing to brag on. You seem to have definite opinions of what sin should be if any.

You seem to be drawing your accusations of God from the ministration of death, and in context there is no satisfaction, nor will be. You like the majority attempt to confuse grace and law, and without being born of God have no way to understand Him though led word by word, and concept by concept. The same sacrifice at the cross was made for you ObjMoVa as it was for me. It is free, provides freedom from sin, and eternal life. Haven't you fought the battle of attempting to be good when we know by nature there are none righteous. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

May you be blessed in Christ Jesus, ​

I would like to take the bold point a step further and say that it is us sinful humans that are trying really hard to re-draw the line, not God. God's view is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

 

[WIP]

I hold that our moral beliefs hold purpose. The rejection of incest as a means of reproduction serves the purpose of protecting our potential offspring from defects. I hold that they maintain this purpose, even without the backing of divine word.

I'm trying to hit on the difference between:

A) Incest is bad because God has told us this.

and

B) Incest is bad because it does us harm. Also God tells us this.

In my view (B) we can see that incest is bad because of its effects. We don't need the word of God to tell us this, even if His word does agree.

I highly doubt where the decision came from. As early as Leviticus 18 God put it in writing for us that incest was wrong among other things. I don't believe it was until later that mankind pieced together the parallel between incest and genetic mutations.

Leviticus 18:
6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.
7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.
9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.
11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister.
12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative.
13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative.
14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness.
17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity.
18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
19 “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.
20 And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make yourself unclean with her.

 

[Jamsie]

ObjMoVa - But isn't re-drawing the line key to our moral growth as a society?

I would ask if that line (morality) necessitates “growth” or brought to it’s proper place? Put another way does morality change over time or does what was morally dismissed (in general) in the past retain it’s rightful place/line? (I think that the re-drawing of lines can sometimes be detrimental to society)

I would suggest that re-drawing the line in the right ways is clearly useful, and even necessary, for living in the modern world.

However, the “right ways” could not only be useful and necessary but have been “right” all along, as I think the Sermon on the Mount clearly posited in many respects. So the perspective from human inclinations throughout history one could argue that they were quite often contradictory to God’s morality. (Differentiating God to human from human to human) One may consider the implications of “No True Scotsman” but a standard is in place irrespective of one’s belief claims and the associated actions from which some judgement can be made. (westboro baptist as an example or from the other perspective – my great, great grandmother as a committed abolitionist )


If God created this value and established it within us either it was placed on a whim, that is God simply wanted murder to be evil, or there was a reason behind that decision.

Why would it be a “whim”? Can you conceive of a world, other than our own at times, where all of the moral standards are flipped? If I may ask a few questions:


Do you believe that some objective moral standard is necessary?

or Perhaps better stated – Do you believe that morality requires a basis/foundation?

Do you believe conceptually in conscience as a moral guide? (Jiminy Cricket)


*Sorry, but the question somewhat reminds me of the Rodgers and Hammerstein song from Cinderella -
Do I love you because you're beautiful,Or are you beautiful because I love you?

I mean absolutely no mockery, and I'm very sorry if it seemed as though that was my intention.

I did not take that as your intention and I think the thought processes that your posts have evoked are quite worthwhile. As WIP noted we do approach such discussions with a bias/predisposition, and I for one freely confess not to have all of the answers, then again does anyone. Hopefully we can all gain from such discussion though often any ultimate conclusion will remain elusive.

 

[Jamsie]

ObjMoVa - Well incest negatively impacts us on a genetic level. Children born of incest (in any species) have a much higher rate of defects that reduce their ability to survive. We have evolved to be off-put by incest because it damages our species genetically.

As an aside I recall a discussion on a “Freethinker” forum where a number of “Evolutionists” argued that homosexuality was abhorrent behavior and unnatural selection. If such was normative humanity would be extinct. Further aren’t there any number of chosen behaviors that can dramatically effect birth defects.