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.

[heavensgate]

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.

I see quite a bit of difference between morality and obedience. One is that obedience may be right at a given point, like we should not run red lights, but obedience to an immoral agent is not a moral thing to do ( see Bonhoeffer and Hitler).
If I ever meet Christians as you state above I will be afraid too. We all have a similar compass to begin with, but this can be influenced by what we accept, our morals can be eroded, that is true for all.
To be fair, there may be a number of Christians that cannot reconcile the ' goodness we all bear as the image of God' and the clear inconsistency with those militantly against God. In this, our societies in the west in particular are undergoing a realignment of priorities to 'the personal rights' of an individual from the good of and rights for all.
So we are going to get statements like you quote, it may be from those that are perhaps too heavenly minded to be any earthly good, or maybe from those that are at a loss to describe in words what they are feeling.
Either way, I don't personally know of anyone who has said that, and I have been a Christian for thirty five years, so I am not sure how common this is.

[Overcomer]

heavensgate wrote:

We all have a similar compass to begin with, but this can be influenced by what we accept, our morals can be eroded, that is true for all.

You are quite right, hg. We are made in God's image. That means that all people have a sense of right and wrong built into them. Paul makes note of this in Rom. 2:14 which reads: "Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it."

However, that sense has been warped by sin so we are unable to distinguish right from wrong in every case and, even more importantly, we are not able to do what is right in our own power. It is the power of the Holy Spirit that fills believers which enables Christians to both differentiate between right and wrong and to do what is right in God's eyes.

Jolly Penguin wrote:

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

Islam is a legalistic religion. It's all about earning one's salvation by perfectly obeying the following so-called Five Pillars:

•Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;

•Establishment of the daily prayers;

•Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;

•Self-purification through fasting; and

•The pilgrimage to Mecca for those who are able.

The Muslim hopes that his good deeds will outweigh his bad in the eyes of Allah, but has no idea whether he will enter Paradise -- unless he dies battling infidels. That's the only sure way in the Muslim mindset. Hence, the volunteers to be suicide bombers, etc. It's all a pack of lies.

Unfortunately, there are also some Christian churches that are legalistic. They, too, teach that obedience is necessary for salvation, that they have to do something to earn it. This is NOT what the Bible teaches. Eph. 2:8, 9 read: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

Only those Christian churches that teach God's grace and the reality that salvation is a gift to those who accept it in faith are correct.

I also think that some people fail to recognize the fact that, as Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it, God didn't send Jesus to make bad men good. He sent Jesus to make dead people alive. We are all born dead in our sins. This means our spirits are dead. When we accept Christ as our Saviour, he brings our dead spirits alive in him -- hence, the description of Christians as born-again.

A lot of atheists will say that they are good people and can be good apart from God. The reality is that they are comparing themselves with people who they see as evil, people such as serial killers and rapists. Because they are kind to children, give money to charity and obey the laws of the land, they think they are good.

But they aren't because we are all born with sin natures and we cannot change them on our own no matter how much we try, no matter how many good deeds we do (in our own minds at least). And that's why Christ had to come -- to atone for our sins and give us HIS righteousness (which he had because he was both God and man) in exchange for our unrighteousness.

As a Christian, I want to obey God because I love him and want to please him. I don't obey him out of fear or to earn a place in heaven. He has given me that as a gift. Nor do I obey him to make him love me. He already does that -- perfectly and constantly. And he showed that love, not just to me, but to all of humanity, by sending Jesus Christ.

[bluethread]

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

Empathy can be a basis for morality, but at it's root it is no more than emotionalism based on projection. In isolation of all other factors. one can not really know what another person is experiencing, what value that individual places on that experience and if what one's actions in response to presumptions regarding those two are desired by that individual. We presume that others experience things as we do. We also presume that others share our values.

These threads show that this is indeed not true. For example, one of the primary arguments for acceptance of homosexual behavior is that someone without such desires can not make judgments because they lack empathy. Yet at the same time another primary argument is that one's heterosexual desires should make one more empathetic to homosexual behavior, because both involve a lover and a beloved. So, you see empathy and lack of empathy can both be used to argue for any given moral position. That is without even looking at intensity of one's experience and differences in preferred response. Morality is a complicated admixture of emotion, reason and belief. Attempting to validate one's morality based on one factor is a fool's errand.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 3 by Overcomer]

As a Christian, I want to obey God because I love him and want to please him. I don't obey him out of fear or to earn a place in heaven. He has given me that as a gift. Nor do I obey him to make him love me. He already does that -- perfectly and constantly. And he showed that love, not just to me, but to all of humanity, by sending Jesus Christ.

Same, I spend next to no time thinking about heaven, or hell for that matter. It has everything to do with relationship, I have a godmother that is a Lesbian and converted to Christ many years ago, purely through findiNg a relationship with. Christ. She never seems to speak of obedience though, she changed her behaviour because she felt she needed to be true.

[PhiloKGB]

We are made in God's image. That means that all people have a sense of right and wrong built into them. Paul makes note of this in Rom. 2:14 which reads: "Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it."

However, that sense has been warped by sin so we are unable to distinguish right from wrong in every case and, even more importantly, we are not able to do what is right in our own power. It is the power of the Holy Spirit that fills believers which enables Christians to both differentiate between right and wrong and to do what is right in God's eyes.

Why would a person who has an inbuilt sense of right and wrong choose to sin?

[Jolly_Penguin]

[Replying to post 3 by Overcomer]

But they aren't because we are all born with sin natures and we cannot change them on our own no matter how much we try, no matter how many good deeds we do (in our own minds at least). And that's why Christ had to come -- to atone for our sins and give us HIS righteousness (which he had because he was both God and man) in exchange for our unrighteousness.

So even if you never do bad deeds or have malicious thoughts, you have a sin nature so are not good? You are by default bad, no matter what? And you need Jesus to fix that?

As a Christian, I want to obey God because I love him and want to please him. I don't obey him out of fear or to earn a place in heaven. He has given me that as a gift. Nor do I obey him to make him love me. He already does that -- perfectly and constantly. And he showed that love, not just to me, but to all of humanity, by sending Jesus Christ.

But my question is do you see a difference between obeying him, and doing good? Do you see these as separate concepts, that I presume in your case you see as happening to line up (assuming you see God as good).

Can you say that God is good because he measures up to an external concept of good, or do you say God is good because he says so and has authority over what "good" means?

I often hear the latter, and it makes me think that the Christian thinks "Good" is whatever God says it is, and therefore is identical with obedience to his commands. The ultimate in authoritarianism basically.

I see this throughout the bible, as its most repeated theme from what I can tell. From the garden of eden (Them being punished for disobeying God, before they eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, so they can't know it was bad to disobey) to Abraham and Isaac story (pitting morality directly against obedience from what I can tell) to the ten commandments being half about obedience (including the first commandment).

I do see Muslims taking it a lot further. I think their central tenet is to surrender and become a slave to Allah (as they have put it to me). I have not seen Christians put it quite like that, but I do see a similar theme.

When looking at issues such as homosexuality or blood tranfusions (for JWs) or abortion, etc, sometimes I see reasoned argument going to senses of empathy and justice, but other times I see simple appeals to authority. Why take X position? Because God says so. Stuff like that.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 6 by PhiloKGB]

Why would a person who has an inbuilt sense of right and wrong choose to sin?

It is the sense of both right and wrong. I could say that we don't always do what is right either, even though it is within our capacity to do so. It is not just about sin for sins sake, it is also about our will to do good. Where you have free will, it can go either way. It seems the saints among us are so rare that they are revered. And this is probably only right to reinforce the good. Most of us do not have that capacity, even though we are good. But you must admit, it is this tension between good and evil where we experience most of our emotions, and if that is the case, it means we are permanently bound to that nature. We can see the potential for both extremes within ourselves. Even though we are essentially good, when we may have a bad day or are the recipient of road rage, we can see welling up this latent evil that must be controlled. I don't think I am speaking out of school to say that what you experience is exactly what Christians experience in that regard and is the same as for the atheists. There is no pretence here. We know what we are.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to Jolly_Penguin]

But my question is do you see a difference between obeying him, and doing good? Do you see these as separate concepts, that I presume in your case you see as happening to line up (assuming you see God as good).

I see it more like obeying God in the sense of a child to a parent. And what parent does not praise his child for doing well. They are separate concepts I believe, because good is good because it essentially is measured by the benefit to another. Obedience can be as you say later in a strict toe the line idea as in Islam, or it can be obedience for the common good as say a soldier in the military, or it can be following a leader because that leader is “worthy’ to be followed. A good business person knows that you only exercise true leadership in the capacity that the followers will allow you to lead. True leaders have their credentials out front and people will listen.

Can you say that God is good because he measures up to an external concept of good, or do you say God is good because he says so and has authority over what "good" means?

It’s a bit of a hard one because where I say the ‘universe is beautiful’ another will say no it’s not.
Paul said it well where “good works no ill to his neighbour� and we all know that we all hate being stolen from, and none of us that have survived the ordeal, enjoy being killed. So there is a practical ‘good’. I think this is part of the created order and comes from God Himself.
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.

I often hear the latter, and it makes me think that the Christian thinks "Good" is whatever God says it is, and therefore is identical with obedience to his commands. The ultimate in authoritarianism basically.

I get what you are saying. But like I said before, as a creature with limited knowledge, is it not wise to follow one who has greater? I think Christianity is not at all authoritarian. When Christians ‘obey’ if you like, it from the will that they do so. Not such a bad idea to subject the ‘self’ to the Eternal Self.
As TS Elliott penned….�he is no fool that loses what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose�. But that is not meant in the context of self-serving. It is meant in the context of one living and responding to God according to the purpose for which we are created.

I see this throughout the bible, as its most repeated theme from what I can tell. From the garden of eden (Them being punished for disobeying God, before they eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, so they can't know it was bad to disobey) to Abraham and Isaac story (pitting morality directly against obedience from what I can tell) to the ten commandments being half about obedience (including the first commandment).

I cannot see in Genesis Adam and Eve being punished for something they did not already know. In fact when God said “do not eat because when you do you will die� is much more like a responsible parent warning their children of the dangers and the realities of life. The fact that they did eat they ate also of the consequences of that act. There is something in the human psyche (whether original or adopted I don’t know) where we seek independence from God. Christianity is merely a reversal of the trend. But it takes will.

Abraham? It really needs a reading of Abrahams 40 years before the Isaac incident to get any understanding of the story at all. Perhaps that can be another thread, but in brief, Abraham had 40 years of seeming constant dialog with God. He was promised a child from a barren wife Sarah, and He got the child. Actually as Paul said the child came from someone twice dead. Dead because of the ability of a 70 year old woman conceiving in the first place and dead because she had always been unable to conceive. This is just one of the things that happened to Abraham. Also Isaacs obedience as a strapping youth is not to be outshone by his father’s faith. Isaac willingly subjected himself as well.
There is too much here to discuss here (same with 10 commandments).

I do see Muslims taking it a lot further. I think their central tenet is to surrender and become a slave to Allah (as they have put it to me). I have not seen Christians put it quite like that, but I do see a similar theme.

I see no similarity. There is no freedom of will in Islam, therefore, FAITH, is an entirely different concept all together.

When looking at issues such as homosexuality or blood tranfusions (for JWs) or abortion, etc, sometimes I see reasoned argument going to senses of empathy and justice, but other times I see simple appeals to authority. Why take X position? Because God says so. Stuff like that.

Blood transfusion is not a problem with Christians. Why would it? Christ gave His own blood for us, why could we not do the same to those in need?
Homosexuality and abortion are different in that one is life taking; the other life terminating (in a natural sense) there is a great deal of sense in opposing both from an ethical point of view. It all has to do with purpose. So it is not a mere case of Christians giving voice against either of those practices because “God said so� (even though that is still reasonable), there is a lot to back up the trustworthiness of those views. Again, other threads address (or don’t) these arguments.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by Jolly_Penguin]

[qutoe]Is there something in the Christian worldview that discourages Christians from having a sense of right and wrong independent of obedience to God?[/quote] From my experience, the 'christian world view' is, at best a buzz phrase. The christian world view is (or should be) god's world view, based on their bible. And the bible says god says 'it's my way or the highway (to hell). So, christians should be following god's will which equates to god's morals. Which is to say, questionable at best.

If they lost their faith in God would they really start doing these things?

Excellent question. But I don't think faith has any real bearing on the question. We see 'christians' doing these things and more while they claim to be christians.

Do these individuals really have no moral compass of their own besides obedience to authority?

I would like to think they do, but sometimes I wonder. Seems many let 'god' do the thinking for them, so why not allow god to be 'their moral compass' as well?

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

Surely this is true. Most of the christians I know do not think this way. However, the why....?
IMO, it's because they are needy &/or lazy. They need someone to tell them what to do and how to do it. They are too lazy to be their own person and want to hide behind something 'untouchable'. Which is to say, they enjoy being 'jerks' to other people.
Again, from my experience.