Morals and the non believer

[Guest]

So I took this from a previous thread of mine that went off topic. Two quotes stand out at me, and are as follows:

If all were for example, agnostics, there would still not be peace in the world. I suggest that it would be even worse than it is now. There would not even be a sense of morals to keep us from killing eachother.

and

Secular law once based on God's law, has become confused and is unrighteous.

In my view, morals are a very subjective thing. It is subjective based on faith systems, and it is subjective based on different societies. I would think that a certain moral code would develop based on the growth and type of society that housed it, and perhaps even vice versa, kind of a chicken and egg type thing.

In response to Veritas's quote above, I would suggest he perhaps might be wrong about that. In the Christian viewpoint, he is after the ultimate reward, wich does not come until after death. In the agnostic but more specifically the atheist viewpoint, there is no afterlife, there is no heaven or hell. There is no eternal punishment but neither is there eternal reward.

That being said, to the agnostic or atheist, the only life there is, is the one he is living in here and now. Because of this, he is more likely to live a moral life within the confines of the society he lives in, as nobody wants to spend your only crack at existance in an 8'x10' jail cell.

Myself, I'm a hard working tax paying citizen of Canada. My criminal record check is clean, I don't do drugs, I haven't had a cigarette in a year and a half, I rarley if ever drink, and the only relationships i've had with women were monagamous and without only carnal intent (meaning for the purpose of a meaningful relationship, which was ended after long term incompatibilities were found). And I live this way without subscribing (at the moment) to any faith system.

There are many of faiths that use an opposite logic. Many believe that as long as they believe in jesus and pray to jesus,for example, that they will be saved, because mankind are inherant sinners and that is why jesus died for them, on the cross. This may or may not be true, and i'm sure a few of you may want to correct me on that matter, but I make the statement from personal observation.

Of course, what I say here isn't true in every case, or in most cases. I'll check that to say that very few people I know well live immoral lives, in my perspective, and I know people of many faiths.

People of many faiths, yes. That is common to where i'm sure most of the people on this board live. In north america, there are many, many people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds, that is the nature of the place we live. Everybody who has a different faith has a different take on things, based on what their faith says. Getting back to Gabby's comment on secular law, it is important in a multicultural society to subscribe to a secular law, to benefit the populous. The secular law can support many of the things that are common to todays society and most faiths, such as thou shalt not kill, steal, etc., and if it is in your faith to kill, too bad!!! Any moral code above and beyond that can be followed and subscribed to by the variouis faiths. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors possesions, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt have no other gods before me, all of these things can and should be carreid out within your faith without affecting anyone else, especially the last one. Coveting and lying are considered immoral by the secular perspective anyways, it just makes good sense in a civilized society.

Being as it is, my final comment is that all religion aside, it is the people who make up our society, and the society should be governed by and for those people. Above and beyond the basic governance are your faith based moral codes, wich have to do with the afterlife and your belief therein. This items are so much higher in importance than earthly concerns they should be held separate and to your own faith.

 

[Veritas]

Curious, I didn't mean that all atheists and agnostics are completely immoral. Some are very moral by todays standards - even by Christian standards. And I think its awesome you have lived the way you have.

But I think it's important to remember that the western world has been built upon the foundations of morals set forth by Christendom and Judaism. I think that even much of the eastern world can trace its morals back to a source that is kindred to Judaism. And more specifically, in North America where many of us live, we are indeed made up mostly of people that share a somewhat common sense of morals.

However, allow me to pick a few of your statements CuriousAgnostic to explain what I was getting at:

In my view, morals are a very subjective thing....and it is subjective based on different societies.

How subjective? Put bluntly, in some societies it is polite to shake your neighbor's hand, in others, it is polite to eat them.

The secular law can support many of the things that are common to today’s society and most faiths, such as thou shalt not kill, steal, etc.

As I said before, present 'secular law' was originally taken from the constructs of Christendom and Judaism, of which the other major faiths of the world share commonality on a few major moral concepts. Now, 'secular law' determines what is 'good' from what it considers normal, and what is normal is determined by finding what is average, which, in turn, is usually based on a certain selection. Personally, I think this is a bad idea.

'Secular law' can easily change because it considers itself subjective in the first place. You may think that it's preposterous for me to say that its possible that secular law may someday condone us eating our neighbors, but if you ultimately believe its all subjective and that we should respect others beliefs no matter what - I'm not far off the mark.

to the agnostic or atheist, the only life there is, is the one he is living in here and now...he is more likely to live a moral life within the confines of the society he lives in, as nobody wants to spend your only crack at existance in an 8'x10' jail cell.

If you lived within a confine of society (or even saw a society) where they considered it 'good and moral' to chop up and burn infants, wouldn't you break the confines of that and go against it even if it put yourself in a 8'x10' jail cell? I bet you would. ;)

...it is important in a multicultural society to subscribe to a secular law, to benefit the populous...(and)...Coveting and lying are considered immoral by the secular perspective anyways, it just makes good sense in a civilized society.

Ah, but you are now appealing to a higher moral law... an absolute moral law that is not subjective. You're not purely agnostic ;)

Also let me quickly address another statement as a side note:

...mankind are inherant sinners...This may or may not be true.

Do you not agree that there is something wrong in the world?

 

[Guest]

Curious, I didn't mean that all atheists and agnostics are completely immoral.

It is a common misconception that certain immoralties are inherant in non belief or any belief other than the judeo/christian concept of morality. Are you supporting that by this comment?

Some are very moral by todays standards - even by Christian standards. And I think its awesome you have lived the way you have.

Thank you, I live by my own personal moral code, wich i've gleaned partially from my parents (who are not religious but call themselves jews... well at least my mom does, my dad is i dunno what, but when me and my dad are at her families jewish gatherings we're kind of the outcasts, we certainly dont' fit in the looks department) and partially from my view of the world and what I personally think is good after seeing what is not.

But I think it's important to remember that the western world has been built upon the foundations of morals set forth by Christendom and Judaism.

Which are also subjective. Checking back in the OT, the commandment "thou shalt not kill" should be better said to be "thou shalt not kill other jews". Ask the Caananites of the OT about that one.

How subjective? Put bluntly, in some societies it is polite to shake your neighbor's hand, in others, it is polite to eat them.

That's partially correct. I think that you will find that with these societies that eat other people, it's not QUITE as simplistic as that. Looking at history most cannabalistic tendancies came from tribes who were barley more than hunter gatherer, and indeed, usually only did so out of desparation. You'll probably also find that within the confines of the society, that kind of behavoir was frowned apon, and usually things like this happened to enemies of the tribe, or the fallen enemies of war. Most human civilizations have an ingrained moral code that is instincitive, and tends to agree with, not be enforced by, holey books. Check that, the holy books tend to agree with ingrained human civilized moralities (these were written and edited and passed down by men, after all).

Now, 'secular law' determines what is 'good' from what it considers normal, and what is normal is determined by finding what is average, which, in turn, is usually based on a certain selection. Personally, I think this is a bad idea.

Secular law determines what is "good" for the benefit of that particular civilzation and how it is set up. A coastal fishing society might have different laws than, say, a plains farming type society. Good moral behavoir at sea might be to keep a light on the bow and stern of your ship in the fog; on the plains it might be to wear highly visible clothing so hunters don't mistake you for prey. Again, basic human moralities will apply for both civilized societies. Don't kill. Stealing is wrong, bad for commerce, and so on.

'Secular law' can easily change because it considers itself subjective in the first place.

And this is good thing. It allows for flexibility on changing conditions. I think that you will find with any congregation of people that can be considered "civilized" the basic core morals will be in place, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong. With secular law, the influx of a multicultural society can be handled and checked, without too many hurt feelings. As i've said before, and this is especially true with multicultralism, a civilization should be ruled by the people, and for the people. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state, and I think that people making the laws while allowing to practise your own faith (within reason, if your faith conflicts with such things as no killing or kidnapping then the secular law prevails). I think this makes for a stronger society, and will CUT DOWN on, not encourage, belief based violence.

If you lived within a confine of society (or even saw a society) where they considered it 'good and moral' to chop up and burn infants,

Yes, there were societies in the past that did that kind of thing. The greek city/state Sparta did that all the time... and they petered out of existance in fairly short order (but leaving really cool stories like the battle of Thermopalaye!). Ultimately a civilization that will stray from the basic HUMAN civilized concepts of civilized morality will not last as long as those that do. If my society (Canada) were to do that, it would not be long before I campaigned for change, or LEFT, but again, Canada is a CIVILIZED society where that does not happen. Societies that perscribe to the ideals you mentioned are never the norm, and always the exception, if you have any inkling of history.

I will check that by saying throughout history, internal moral codes did not usually match external, so even though for example a Friesan soldier will not slay their own babies, they make no qualms about slaying babies and children from other societies, raping, pillaging, plundering. This even made sense from the perspective of eliminating competition for resources; it happens in nature all the time and humans are part of nature. Thankfully we, for the most part, have moved past that kind of behavior with the beginning of a global economy in the last 100 years, and large multinational economies in the last thousand.

Ah, but you are now appealing to a higher moral law... an absolute moral law that is not subjective. You're not purely agnostic

For your benefit. You appeal to your higher moral laws, i'll appeal to my own morals. Again, i'm not Christian, I am agnostic, and my morals are my own.

Do you not agree that there is something wrong in the world?

Don't get me started on another subjective topic ;)

I'd like to add a side note as well. I haven't been here for very long, but it seems to me that christianforums.net contains some of the more intelligent people in the genre, and I enjoy being a part of it.

Thank you for your excellent repsonse so far, and I look forward to your next.

 

[cyberjosh]

Curious,

Sorry to butt in but I just wanted to notify you that I have replied to you in your "Christians and Knowledge" thread. I look forward to your reply there so that we can discuss the topic further. It's a bit long but should be well worth your read in answer to your inquiries.

God Bless,

Josh

 

[Veritas]

Curious wrote:
It is a common misconception that certain immoralties are inherant in non belief or any belief other than the judeo/christian concept of morality. Are you supporting that by this comment?

As you said, you believe morals are subjective. How are you defining immoralities in the first place? How can you claim there can even be a misconception if they are subjective?

You've shown me in some basic terms what you define as moral. Let me go over that, and expand my thoughts about why I find the above statement nonsensical coming from someone who believes morals to be subjective. I pray that I do not offend your intelligence, its not my intent, but I also pray that you might think deeply about these things. I think someone can be smart and at the same time, still be mistaken. I know I've been mistaken about things from time to time.

Let me go back quickly to what you wrote from before:

it is important in a multicultural society to subscribe to a secular law, to benefit the populous...

So, it is moral for you to subscribe to secular law, you believe it benefits the populous. Do you believe your own statement to be subjective or absolute?

...Coveting and lying are considered immoral by the secular perspective anyways, it just makes good sense in a civilized society.

So, It is moral for you to do things that make good sense for a civilized society. Do you believe this statement to be subjective or absolute? Just what is "good sense" anyways and why is it "good"?

Ok, lets move onto what you've just recently wrote:

Most human civilizations have an ingrained moral code that is instincitive, and tends to agree with, not be enforced by, holey books. Check that, the holy books tend to agree with ingrained human civilized moralities (these were written and edited and passed down by men, after all).

I'm assuming it is moral for you to follow what seems to be an ingrained moral code in most civilizations. Do you believe that ingrained moral code is still just subjective or is it absolute?

basic human moralities will apply for both (sea and land) civilized societies. Don't kill. Stealing is wrong, bad for commerce, and so on.

Are those morals listed just subjective?

I think that you will find with any congregation of people that can be considered "civilized" the basic core morals will be in place, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong.

Are these good or bad morals? You also have been alluding to that fact that "civilized" is somehow better. Is it? Or is this really just a subjective belief for you too?

With secular law, the influx of a multicultural society can be handled and checked, without too many hurt feelings.

So hurt feelings are "bad". Do you believe this to be just a subjective statement?

Ultimately a civilization that will stray from the basic HUMAN civilized concepts of civilized morality will not last as long as those that do.

So, we have the basic human civilized concepts we "should" be following and it is "bad" if we do not last long. Is it just subjective that we consider that "bad". Or is this an absolute concept that all should abide by.

If my society (Canada) were to do that, it would not be long before I campaigned for change, or LEFT, but again, Canada is a CIVILIZED society where that does not happen. Societies that perscribe to the ideals you mentioned are never the norm, and always the exception, if you have any inkling of history.

So the norm is 'better' than the exception. And you seem very clear here that civilized society is 'better'. Is this subjective or absolute?

As i've aid before, and this is especially true with multicultralism, a civilization should be ruled by the people, and for the people. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state, and I think that people making the laws while allowing to practise your own faith (within reason, if your faith conflicts with such things as no killing or kidnapping then the secular law prevails). I think this makes for a stronger society, and will CUT DOWN on, not encourage, belief based violence.

How strongly do you believe in separation of church and state? Is that simply subjective to your point of view, or is this something that is absolute and that everyone should follow?

You've said the following:

For your benefit. You appeal to your higher moral laws, i'll appeal to my own morals. Again, i'm not Christian, I am agnostic, and my morals are my own.

How far will you really let others appeal to their own morals because you believe morals to be subjective? Look, I agree with most of the morals that you have, I just want to point out the fact that although you may claim to believe that morals are subjective (and I'm not sure how much you really do), in reality you are holding to a higher set of morals that are above yourself and above others.

So think about what you've said about church and state and especially about belief based violence. Isn't that a moral that is absolute?

This leads us back up to your initial statement and question to me about immorality and non belief.

If your foundation is a purely atheistic or an agnostic stance, everything is indeed subjective and this is more deep-reaching than most realize. The logical outworking from atheism and agnosticism basically leads to non-morality. A lot of concepts that seem so obvious are not really a part of an atheistic or agnostic stance. If you look at them closer you'll find that there are morals that you abide by absolutely and think others should too. I would hope you do. And this is a belief. And it is separate from and a supplement to your agnosticism and is not a logical outworking from agnosticism. We had an atheist that used to come here that held to the 'golden rule'. That's a good start in my opinion, but that too, is not a logical outworking from a purely atheistic stance.

Now, in contradistinction, if your foundation is Jesus Christ's words, you acknowledge an absolute moral law and you can work logically outward from that to determine your morals. The following statement from Jesus is an example of a foundation that I work from:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:44-45

This is the kind of grace I believe the world needs. This is where the violence stops. And it hopes in the eternal.

I could talk a little bit more about certain cultures in history that were the 'exception'; but first I'd like to hear what your thoughts are, and where you stand on "how subjective morals really are". I'm sorry if I was a bit too redundant for you but I wanted to be as clear as possible. I pray that we can continue to shed light and find Truth in this matter.

If you want, I suggest checking out http://www.rzim.org/

In particular check out the RZIM radio ministry. You can listen to it over the net. http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=LMPT

The man who runs the ministry often travels to colleges and in addition to simply fielding questions about the Christian faith he touches upon the subject that I have. In fact, he is the one who brought Truth to me. Interesting, considering he is from a culture (India) that embraces subjectivism much. Obviously, he now lives for Christ. He is an amazing apologist (one who answers) and I think you'd find him very interesting.

 

[Guest]

Curious,

Sorry to butt in but I just wanted to notify you that I have replied to you in your "Christians and Knowledge" thread. I look forward to your reply there so that we can discuss the topic further. It's a bit long but should be well worth your read in answer to your inquiries.

God Bless,

Josh

Sure Josh, I'll have a reply shortly.

Thanks,

 

[Guest]

Not ignoring you veritas, but the clock at work here just started, and i'm certainly looking forward to replying.

Thanks for taking the time!

 

[Guest]

Hi Veritas

Ok, so i spend 45 minutes typing a response, then my computer crashed. I spend 20 minutes doing it again, with the same result. Please forgive me if i make some dumb spelling or grammar mistakes on this one.

As you said, you believe morals are subjective. How are you defining immoralities in the first place? How can you claim there can even be a misconception if they are subjective?

You are correct, there is no misconception. We have different beliefs, and the only misconception would have come if we had the same beliefs. Therefore it is not a misconception, it is a disagreement.

How do I define morality?

My morals are based on a combination of my genetic personality traits, environmental factors (how i was raised, my friends, etc.) and the society I live in today. These things shape what I believe is right and wrong.

Do you believe that ingrained moral code is still just subjective or is it absolute?

If society were to break down, if resources were to become extremely scarce, you morals might shift towards the good of your loved ones at the expense of strangers, in a life or death situation. The human urge to survive becomes very strong indeed when faced with starvation, and you might change your morals to justify your actions.

So, it is moral for you to subscribe to secular law, you believe it benefits the populous. Do you believe your own statement to be subjective or absolute?

I believe secular law benefits the society I live in the best. This is my belief. There are a number of reasons why I believe so. That is another topic. I cannot believe that to be an absolute, I am not any authority, and I am in no position of power, so yes, i believe my opinion to be subjective.

So the norm is 'better' than the exception. And you seem very clear here that civilized society is 'better'. Is this subjective or absolute?

Let me clarify by saying that civilized society is better for "me". It seems selfish but thats the way i think the human mind works. A man in Zimbabwe, for example, doesn't know I exist, and really doesn't care that much of civilization X is a bunch of barbaric baby eaters, as long as it doesn't affect him. If i was the baby being eaten, i might object to that however!

How strongly do you believe in separation of church and state? Is that simply subjective to your point of view, or is this something that is absolute and that everyone should follow?

I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. And yes, this is subjective to my point of view. This is my opinion. But in the country that I live, that has hundreds of different churches, WHICH church is to be given the political power? Which church should be the perscriptive one? What if the power is given to a fundamentalist muslim church, how would YOU feel about that one?

This might be different in a society with a completely homogenous religious belief, not only the same religion but the same flavour of belief.

I also strongly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I feel strongly about freedom of religion. I will check that by saying that I also feel that if that religion intrudes on the freedoms of other religions, then that is an immoral act.

This is one of the reasons I feel that secular law is important, to ensure everybody's rights are maintained, in the selfish me attitudes of the first world country with plentiful resources in which I live. I also feel this is subjective, especially because I know there are religious and other factions out there that would like to see a homogenous people in their society, and feel it would be ok to, for example, put a eugenics program in place.

YOu might guess i'm not a big fan of that kind of programs, but there are people who feel it is there moral obligation to push it, with their belief of what their god wants.

How far will you really let others appeal to their own morals because you believe morals to be subjective?

I didn't realize I had that kind of power? How can I decide for others what they feel is right and wrong? Isn't that kind of like breaking into someones house and taking their shreddies away because you think cheerios is the only proper breakfast cereal?

The logical outworking from atheism and agnosticism basically leads to non-morality. A lot of concepts that seem so obvious are not really a part of an atheistic or agnostic stance.

You pray that you do not insult my intelligence, you agree with my morals, but by your logic i'm either immoral or illogical? I'm afraid i'm going to have to disagree with your above statement, my friend.

I think your wrong there. Agnosticism is a simple "I don't know" statement, and atheism is a "i don't believe" statement. Just because atheists don't perscribe to an ancient text does not automatically lead to immoral behaviour as defined by your texts. It is just as easy for a christian to break his own biblical moral rules smug in the fact that he loves jesus and he will be saved. Not all people are equal, and I can never stress that enough. Nobody is the same.

If you look at them closer you'll find that there are morals that you abide by absolutely and think others should too. I would hope you do. And this is a belief.

That is correct, it is a belief. Beliefs are subjective by their very nature. As a grown man, there are things that I now find immoral that I had no qualms about as a teenager. This is also the nature of man. I'm sure that as I grow older and wiser, i'll find some of the things i do today to be immoral that I would never think of doing. I do not think these things are absolutes.

This is the kind of grace I believe the world needs. This is where the violence stops. And it hopes in the eternal.

I think you'll find that ultimately, your path and my path might be miles apart, but our intended destination is the same. I also abhor violence, hatred and bigotry, but I don't know if any organized religion is the right, or the wrong path. Thats for me to ultimately decide, but I am open to consider ANY idea that has merit.

Thank you for the link, I will definatly check it out.

If this isn't complete and doesn't make sense, I apologize, i've now spent balmost 3 hours and have lost it twice, but I did want to get my thoughts down. You've been gracious to give me detailed replies, I own you nothing less and do not want to leave you hanging.

Until next time -

 

[stranger]

Hi Curiousagnostic,

Here are some figures about world religions.

Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)

from: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa ... nt/xx.html

It's pretty hard to separate religion, morality and law. It's even harder if you count the atheists as yet another faith.

 

[Guest]

Hi Stranger (why does it feel funny when I typed that?? :-D )

It's pretty hard to separate religion, morality and law

It's pretty hard to separate religion and morality, as usually this is where the religious get their morals from.

I do not get my morals from religion.

The law is a differant story. It's quite easy to separate the moral religious laws and the state. If you don't, and have a state run by the religious, then you have a theocracy, which is rather rare nowadays (unless you're a muslim living in the middle east).

It's even harder if you count the atheists as yet another faith.

I can believe that one. Atheism is a lack of faith in any god or organized religion, and the believe that none exist.

Stranger, can please explain why you think that because most of the world has a religion of some sort or other (to varying degrees of belief) it implies that religious morals and all political laws are one and the same?

I don't think they are (except of course religious theocracies).

 

[GMS]

I skimmed over the replies and I do not believe anyone has discussed this particular concept, so, I will. In my circle of Christianity, we believe in a “general grace†that God graciously bestows to the non-believer. This form of grace enables the non-Christian to love their children, spouses and generally live a decent life. This grace is different then “saving graceâ€Â, it is a grace that allows the world to be a little bit better milieu for the believer in each age to live in. Some day, I believe the Lord is going to lift this general grace and we will quickly learn how important this aspect of grace is, it will happen just prior to the Lord Jesus’ return. For the believer we have the opportunity now, to give glory to God that our neighbor is not as bad he could be and in some cases, better behaved then us.
GMS

 

[Solo]

I skimmed over the replies and I do not believe anyone has discussed this particular concept, so, I will. In my circle of Christianity, we believe in a “general grace†that God graciously bestows to the non-believer. This form of grace enables the non-Christian to love their children, spouses and generally live a decent life. This grace is different then “saving graceâ€Â, it is a grace that allows the world to be a little bit better milieu for the believer in each age to live in. Some day, I believe the Lord is going to lift this general grace and we will quickly learn how important this aspect of grace is, it will happen just prior to the Lord Jesus’ return. For the believer we have the opportunity now, to give glory to God that our neighbor is not as bad he could be and in some cases, better behaved then us.
GMS

I would agree. In fact, this life will be the only existence with God that many, many will ever know.

 

[Guest]

For the believer we have the opportunity now, to give glory to God that our neighbor is not as bad he could be and in some cases, better behaved then us.

Firstly, I've never heard of this general grace and I thank you for the opportunity to learn of a new concept.

But why would this allow what you said to happen, "in some cases, better behaved than us.". Wouldn't the saving grace be a higher grace than the general grace? And if us non christians can only love and behave well because of a general grace of god, and you have a higher form of grace, then there should be NO non christian that is better behaved by christian standards than any believing christian?

Or is that fellacious logic?

 

[GMS]

"Saving Grace" are those who have been given ears to hear and eyes to see that Jesus is Saviour and Lord. Unfortunately in respect to an example to the lost, a believer isn't usually delivered instanteously from issues and consequences of sin in this physical realm, though on a spiritual realm they are seen as perfect through Jesus' atoning work on the cross. A prostitute may still have to deal with prostitution, a drug addict with his addiction, a liar with lying, a person with anger problems is still going to have a propensity to sin in this area and the list goes on. Hopefully, as the Christian matures and works through these sin problems, they are better behaved then when they first became a part of the Kingdom of God.
GMS

 

[Guest]

GMS, could you point towards specific scripture in the bible that details "general grace"?

 

[GMS]

THE FRUITS OF COMMON GRACE.
LOUIS BERKHOF
1. The execution of the sentence is stayed. God pronounced the sentence of death on the sinner. Speaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He said. "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Man did eat of it, and the sentence went into execution to a certain extent, but clearly was not fully executed at once. It is due to common grace that God did not at once fully execute the sentence of death on the sinner, and does not do so now, but maintains and prolongs the natural life of man and gives him time for repentance. He does not at once cut short the life of the sinner, but affords him an opportunity to repent, thereby removing all excuse and justifying the coming manifestation of His wrath upon those who persist in sin unto the end. That God acts on this principle is abundantly evident from such passages as Isa. 48:9; Jer. 7:23-25; Luke 13:6-9; Rom. 2:4; 9:22; II Peter 3:9.
2. The restraint of sin. Through the operation of common grace sin is restrained in the lives of individuals and in society. The element of corruption that entered the life of the human race is not permitted, for the present, to accomplish its disintegrating work. Calvin says: "But we ought to consider that, notwithstanding the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it, (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14:3 ff) ." [17] This restraint may be external or internal or both, but does not change the heart. There are passages of Scripture which speak of a striving of the Spirit of God with men which does not lead to repentance, Gen. 6:3; Isa. 63:10; Acts 7:51; of operations of the Spirit that are finally withdrawn, I Sam. 16:14; Heb. 6:4-6; and of the fact that in some cases God finally gives up men to the lusts of their own hearts, Ps. 81:12; Rom. 1:24,26,28. In addition to the preceding passages there are some which are clearly indicative of the fact that God restrains sin in various ways, such as Gen. 20:6; 31:7; Job 1:l2; 2:6; II Kings 19:27,28; Rom. 13:1-4.
3. The preservation of some sense of truth, morality and religion. It is due to common grace that man still retains some sense of the true, the good, and the beautiful, often appreciates these to a rather surprising degree, and reveals a desire for truth, for external morality, and even for certain forms of religion. Paul speaks of Gentiles who "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them," Rom. 2:15, and even says of those who gave free vent to their wicked lives that they knew the truth of God, though they hindered the truth in unrighteousness and exchanged it for a lie, Rom. 1:18-25. To the Athenians, who were devoid of the fear of God, he said, "Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are very religious," Acts 17:22. The Canons of Dort express themselves as follows on this point: "There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God." III-IV. 4.
4. The performance of outward good and civil righteousness. Common grace enables man to perform what is generally called justitia civilis, that is, that which is right in civil or natural affairs, in distinction from that which is right in religious matters, natural good works especially in social relations, works that are outwardly and objectively in harmony with the law of God, though entirely destitute of any spiritual quality....
Reformed theologians generally maintain that the unregenerate can perform natural good, civil good, and outwardly religious good.[18] They call attention to the fact, however, that, while such works of the unregenerate are good from a material point of view, as works which God commanded, they cannot be called good from a formal point of view, since they do not spring from the right motive and do not aim at the right purpose. The Bible repeatedly speaks of works of the unregenerate as good and right, II Kings 10:29, 30; 12:2 (comp. II Chron. 24:17-25); 14:3,14-16,20,27 (comp. II Chron. 25:2); Luke 6:33; Rom. 2:14,15.
5. Many natural blessings. To common grace man further owes all the natural blessings which he receives in the present life. Though he has forfeited all the blessings of God, he receives abundant tokens of the goodness of God from day to day. There are several passages of Scripture from which it appears abundantly that God showers many of His good gifts on all men indiscriminately, that is, upon the good and the bad, the elect and the reprobate, such as: Gen. 17:20 (comp. vs. 18); 39:5; Ps. 145:9,15,16; Matt. 5:44,45; Luke 6:35, 36; Acts 14:16, 17; I Tim. 4:10. And these gifts are intended as blessings, not only for the good but also for the evil. In the light of Scripture the position is untenable that God never blesses the reprobate, though He does give them many gifts which are good in themselves. In Gen. 39:5 we read that "Jehovah blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of Jehovah was upon all that he had in the house and in the field." And in Matt. 5:44, 45 Jesus exhorts His disciples in these words, "Bless those that curse you... that ye may be children of your Father who is in heaven." This can only mean one thing, namely, that God also blesses those who curse Him. Cf. also Luke 6:35, 36; Rom. 2:4.
Hopefully this article helps in what Scripture states in regards to the concept of “common grace or general graceâ€Â. GMS

 

[Veritas]

Hey Curious,

Sorry to hear that your computer crashed. I have to deal with that on mine too. In fact, I usually have to save my half-finished response in notepad because my computer is almost guaranteed to crash every 10 minutes! :o Old laptops apparently shutdown whenever they like. :-?

But I'm glad you read through my posts, and thanks for taking the time to respond so I know where you stand.

Since you did talk about your idea of morality I'll try to contrast what I believe to yours succinctly.

I believe there is an absolute moral law that all mankind should be following. Of course, no one is ultimately forced to follow it. And that, I believe, is because the moral law giver, God, is a loving God. And love is free.

Which is why I'd agree with you that I think the system here in North America is a pretty good one. The government is set up in a way that it reflects that freedom of choice, which I believe is God given.

But as you say, not all governments do or did give people a choice. (Although, ultimately, not even government can force you to believe something. Your heart and mind are always free.) But it is also important to realize that freedom includes a choice, and in that respect, it is limited. If you are in a room with two doors and have the freedom to go through either door, you cannot go through both at the same time. Hopefully, once you get to the end of this post, it will make more sense to you why I've mentioned this to you.

I asked you, "how far will you really let others appeal to their own morals because you believe morals to be subjective?" And you answered:

I didn't realize I had that kind of power?

We do have power. We have power in the Word. Simply speaking against evil has great power. And the Word is incredibly more significant than you may realize. For the world was created by "Word".

...world was without form...void...darkness. Then God said... Genesis 1:2-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made through Him...In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. John 1:1-4

How much greater power we have in "Word" when we actually believe in the Word and have a relationship with Him! Isn't it awesome how all encompassing these concepts are?!

How can I decide for others what they feel is right and wrong?

By knowing yourself that, right and wrong, good and evil, exist. By caring enough about what is evil to speak against it. Being bold enough to stand up for what is good. To be a living testimony of the "Truth".

Isn't that kind of like breaking into someones house and taking their shreddies away because you think cheerios is the only proper breakfast cereal?

That would be profane. And the example you've given is a preference, which is different than a core value. It would not change the basic moral framework of an individual to change their mind on whether cheerios is the only proper breakfast cereal. It would take a change in the moral framework of an individual to decide it is okay to chop up and burn little babies. I hope you can discern between "preference" and "core values", if you can't, that is exactly my concern about the spirit of this age.

Let me clarify by saying that civilized society is better for "me". It seems selfish but thats the way i think the human mind works. A man in Zimbabwe, for example, doesn't know I exist, and really doesn't care that much of civilization X is a bunch of barbaric baby eaters, as long as it doesn't affect him. If i was the baby being eaten, i might object to that however!

That's not how everyone thinks. I for one (and the other believers here) care about people, even if it doesn't affect us in the least. I will care for them even if it means that I will be hurt. That's the risk in love. If you shield your heart from this pain, it will eventually turn to stone.

If society were to break down, if resources were to become extremely scarce, you morals might shift towards the good of your loved ones at the expense of strangers, in a life or death situation. The human urge to survive becomes very strong indeed when faced with starvation, and you might change your morals to justify your actions.

And society will crumble, all eventually do. But, Christ is the bread of life, He gives me living waters, and I will be sustained by His Word....For me to live is Christ, and to die is to gain. He desires to sustain you too.

You pray that you do not insult my intelligence, you agree with my morals, but by your logic i'm either immoral or illogical? I'm afraid i'm going to have to disagree with your above statement, my friend.

I think your wrong there. Agnosticism is a simple "I don't know" statement, and atheism is a "i don't believe" statement. Just because atheists don't perscribe to an ancient text does not automatically lead to immoral behaviour as defined by your texts.

Please look closely at your statement.

If the atheists or agnostics don't prescribe to Scripture, then it would be immoral as defined by Scripture.

If they are moral as defined by Scripture, then they are prescribing to Scripture.

......

Just so you know, I fully endorse your, and everyones religious freedom, but the gospel never allows me to be indifferent to your eternal destiny.

 

[Veritas]

Curious, I wanted to quickly comment on another thing you said too:

CuriousAgnostic wrote:
...Not all people are equal, and I can never stress that enough. Nobody is the same.

I don't know exactly what you mean here, but I get a little concerned when I hear that someone does not believe others to be equal.

We all have equal value. And I hope you can agree with me there. God created us in His image, and we are loved by Him. All people are very important and equal in that respect. We certainly are given different gifts and personalities but that doesn't change our inherent value.

That said, it is our ideas that are NOT equal. Some ideas, some ways of thinking, and some ways of living are better than others.