Obedience = Morality?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have noticed a lot of Christians (and even more Muslims) equating morality to obedience to God.

Is there something in the Christian worldview that discourages Christians from having a sense of right and wrong independent of obedience to God? Can Christians here see right and wrong a separate concept from obeying authority?

Can you see how empathy can be a basis of morality? Or is that not relevant?

When I see a Christian ask "If you truly don't believe in God, why don't you go killing and raping?" I truly wonder about, and indeed fear the questioner. If they lost their faith in God would they really start doing these things? Do these individuals really have no moral compass of their own besides obedience to authority?

Finally, I don't claim that all Christians think this way. But a lot seem to and I want to know why.

[Artie]

I think the real definition of ‘good’ is more Godlike and is seated in our emotions, our empathy, and our will, to seek someone else’s welfare, even if we are not travelling that well ourselves. This really is good, and is so contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis.

Actually, the behavior "seeking someone else's welfare" evolved simply because people who organized themselves in groups and helped each other improved everybody's chances of survival including their own.

[Jashwell]

I think the real definition of ‘good’ is more Godlike and is seated in our emotions, our empathy, and our will, to seek someone else’s welfare, even if we are not travelling that well ourselves. This really is good, and is so contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis.

Is it meaningless to say God is ultimately good? (God is like God)
Why ought we do what is more godlike?


"is seated in our emotions, our empathy, and our will, to seek someone else’s welfare, even if we are not travelling that well ourselves. "

In no way whatsoever does this undermine the idea that morality emerged by evolution.

[heavensgate]

I would see

I think the real definition of ‘good’ is more Godlike and is seated in our emotions, our empathy, and our will, to seek someone else’s welfare, even if we are not travelling that well ourselves. This really is good, and is so contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis.

Actually, the behavior "seeking someone else's welfare" evolved simply because people who organized themselves in groups and helped each other improved everybody's chances of survival including their own.

The whole written history of man is written in terms of 'dominion' not social cohesion. From the Babylonians, Egyptians, Akkadians to Hitler the story has been astonishingly the same. Dominate, not cooperate. The theory sounds good but has no basis in what we know.
Is there any info from where we swung down from the trees and became a more loving society like us moderns? Is this something you are able to measure?
We in the west actually have the luxury of sitting down and talking about these things.
Most in the world don't.

[heavensgate]

I think the real definition of ‘good’ is more Godlike and is seated in our emotions, our empathy, and our will, to seek someone else’s welfare, even if we are not travelling that well ourselves. This really is good, and is so contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis.

Is it meaningless to say God is ultimately good? (God is like God)
Why ought we do what is more godlike?


"is seated in our emotions, our empathy, and our will, to seek someone else’s welfare, even if we are not travelling that well ourselves. "

In no way whatsoever does this undermine the idea that morality emerged by evolution.

There is a goodness that emerges from the will, empathy towards others that may cost us something. That is what I call Godlike. The good that Artie speaks of is more seated in good to you if it means good to me, purely pragmatic, and we certainly do not evolution n for that.

[Artie]

The whole written history of man is written in terms of 'dominion' not social cohesion. From the Babylonians, Egyptians, Akkadians to Hitler the story has been astonishingly the same. Dominate, not cooperate. The theory sounds good but has no basis in what we know.

What happened to Nazi Germany and Hitler when they tried to "dominate" and not "cooperate" with other countries? Other countries "cooperated" to eliminate the threat to them all. Nazi Germany is gone. These other countries are still here. That is what we know. Cooperation works. There are two and half million people in US prisons. "Dominating" wasn't too successful for them was it?

[Artie]

There is a goodness that emerges from the will, empathy towards others that may cost us something.

It just evolved naturally. Even vervet monkeys call out to warn the flock when they see a dangerous predator, even though they draw attention to themselves and endanger themselves by doing it. Just instinctive behavior.

[heavensgate]

There is a goodness that emerges from the will, empathy towards others that may cost us something.

It just evolved naturally. Even vervet monkeys call out to warn the flock when they see a dangerous predator, even though they draw attention to themselves and endanger themselves by doing it. Just instinctive behavior.

Really if you were true to that believe we could say instead of "I love you" to our kids or wife/husband boy/girl friend perhaps in an evolutionary sense one should rather say “the reason I feel this overwhelming admiration for you is because the familiarity I have with you, the desire to pass on my genes to the next generation, the chemical transfer and interpretation of those traits are transposed into transmission through the synapses within the brain to give me this sense of ‘what I call love’ in the hope that you will also keep the tribe healthy and cohesive in the transmission of your genes also.�. Evolution devalues key aspects of what makes us human.

[Goat]

There is a goodness that emerges from the will, empathy towards others that may cost us something.

It just evolved naturally. Even vervet monkeys call out to warn the flock when they see a dangerous predator, even though they draw attention to themselves and endanger themselves by doing it. Just instinctive behavior.

Really if you were true to that believe we could say instead of "I love you" to our kids or wife/husband boy/girl friend perhaps in an evolutionary sense one should rather say “the reason I feel this overwhelming admiration for you is because the familiarity I have with you, the desire to pass on my genes to the next generation, the chemical transfer and interpretation of those traits are transposed into transmission through the synapses within the brain to give me this sense of ‘what I call love’ in the hope that you will also keep the tribe healthy and cohesive in the transmission of your genes also.�. Evolution devalues key aspects of what makes us human.

I don't see how understanding the mechanism behind an emotion devalues the emotion. That seems to be an irrational claim.

[Artie]

I don't see how understanding the mechanism behind an emotion devalues the emotion. That seems to be an irrational claim.

Like saying that having two arms would be of more value to us if they were given to us by a god than if they're a result of evolution.

[bluethread]

I think the real definition of ‘good’ is more Godlike and is seated in our emotions, our empathy, and our will, to seek someone else’s welfare, even if we are not travelling that well ourselves. This really is good, and is so contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis.

This approach is very dangerous, because it implies that we are to be like a deity. Though we were created in Adonai's image, the idea of becoming like Adonai is was the first temptation. We are not to be godlike, we are to be as we were created to be. I think the better argument is that of an owner's manual and a demonstrator model.