Is our moral compass f***ed up?

Triathlon Forum
64

Will you drop the sanctimonious belief that non-Christians have no moral compass? I, as a non-Christian, will not have an extramarital affair (yes, I am married) because would be a hurtful thing to do, among many other reasons.

I not accussing so much as I am “asking”. I know non-Christians have morals, to infer otherwise is on you, not me. I’m asking where do “non-Christians” get their morals, as it is quite evident where Christians get theirs. I was in fact, asking where non-Christians get their morals. I was asking who was the person (people) that said for non-christians extra martital affairs were not tolerated and why.

I was under the impression that Christians or Followers of God, etc were among the first to decide what things were “right” or “wrong” absed upon what they were told by God (the God Law) as I put it. I base this on many references to behavior of non-believers in the Bible. I don’t think we are born with necessarily “moral instinct”.

That’s all I was getting at. I was “asking”, not telling.

I have repeatedly stated where I thought marriage cam eform and asked others if they know better than I to say so. You guys seem to skim over that part and pick and choose which comments to respond to or which comments to base my tone on. Again, that is not on me, that’s you. I have repeatedly asked “where does marriage come from” because it seems to me to be a Christian thing that others have imitated.

I realise there are civilization that are older than Christianity, so I asked the question, along with my opinion.

65

That’s all I was getting at. I was “asking”, not telling.

Here’s what you said: “…but there’s nothing preventing non-Christians from having more than one wife, extramarital affairs, etc. In other words, there is no “God Law” that tells you not to do this.”

Is this what you call “asking”? A tip-off to me that a question is being asked is the presence of a question mark. The above is two assertions.

Do you really believe that “right and wrong” are the inventions of the early Christians, or even the Hebrews? How do you think the great civilizations of Africa and Asia and the New World managed to get by for millenia without the Word of God ™?

I do apologize for my attitude. I get very angry over the arrogance of religious people who are so sure of the “rightness” of their religion and beliefs, and thus the “wrongness” of others who do not subscribe to their beliefs. Not to mention their belief that their religion and culture is the center of the world and the flower of civilization (there were many great societies, with laws, long before Christianity.)

Q: What’s the difference among religion, belief, and cult?

A: My religion, your belief, his cult.

Ken Lehner

66

Man, I completely understand what you’re saying. The mistake is on my part of mis-using terminology. I am saying Christians, but I am meaning “followers of God”. Obviously, to be Christian, you have to have Christ, which came along much later. That is my fault.

I edited out a long post so that this thing ends. I can’t do this. what started out as something I could do “5 minutes here” and “5 mintes there” is turning into something that is taking up too much time. That was fine when I was home with my injured son, but now thast we’re back into our routine, prolonged time “here” takes away from more important things “there”. I have crossed the “line” and need to reel myself back in a bit.

On a message board is not a good media for this discussion. I need to show some restraint and not let myself get involved into discussions where in the end you’re still going to believe what you believe, and I’m still going to believe what I believe, and we both just wasted time we’ll never have back. I should know better.

Take care, man. have a nice weekend. RyanB.

67

klehner wrote:

Will you drop the sanctimonious belief that non-Christians have no moral compass? I, as a non-Christian, will not have an extramarital affair (yes, I am married) because would be a hurtful thing to do, among many other reasons.

To which, TripleThreat responded:

I not accussing so much as I am “asking”. I know non-Christians have morals, to infer otherwise is on you, not me. I’m asking where do “non-Christians” get their morals, as it is quite evident where Christians get theirs. I was in fact, asking where non-Christians get their morals. I was asking who was the person (people) that said for non-christians extra martital affairs were not tolerated and why.

I was under the impression that Christians or Followers of God, etc were among the first to decide what things were “right” or “wrong” absed upon what they were told by God (the God Law) as I put it. I base this on many references to behavior of non-believers in the Bible. I don’t think we are born with necessarily “moral instinct”.

This is the whole root of this discussion. Where do our “morals” come from? If you ascribe to the idea that there is no God (Creator, Supreme Being, etc.) then your morals are either invented by you, yourself or are the result of society. If the former, then why do most everyone seem to have the same general moral compass? If the latter, where did “society” come up with what is acceptable?

The other argument is that our morals are ingraned in our hearts and minds by our Creator. Have a look at Ecclesiastes 3:9-14:

9 What does the worker gain from his toil? 10 I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. 12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil-this is the gift of God. 14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.

What is the “burden”? What is “eternity”? The burden is to do what is pleasing to God so we can spend eternity with Him.

And so we can see in the New Testament, Look at Romans 2:13-16:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

(Note that the “law” IS the Bible, specifically the Old Testament.)

The key concept here is in verses 14 and 15 which clearly indicate that the “requirements of the law are written on their hearts.” My contention is that every human being’s moral code is instilled by God, whether you believe in God or not. You don’t have to believe in gravity for it’s laws to still apply to you.

The Christian view is that the Bible is the infallable word of God, written by men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Therefore, it is against our God given moral code to condone the practice of homosexuality. Someone mentioned in a previous post that we, as Christians are to “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” So while we are to condemn the practice of homosexuality, we are to love homosexuals. (Please refrain from any juvenile comments on the last phrase. :^) )

So, why shouldn’t the government recognize the union of two homosexuals? Why shouldn’t the government recognize the union of a father and daughter? “But that’s not the same” you say. Where on the continuum (sp?) do you draw the line.

In our age of “cultural relativism”, society’s view of what is acceptable has seriously blurred the lines of what is morally OK. Everyone knows in their hearts what is right and wrong. We can all make the excuse that “everyone is doing it” or “it’s not as bad as _____ (fill in the blank)” but deep down, our “moral compass” points to the truth. You know when you’re doing something wrong but rationalize it using relative terms. See the thread on performance enhancing drugs, for example. (Everyone else is doing it so I must to stay competitive). Have a look at just about anyone’s tax return. (At least I’m not hiding millions of dollars.) Moral slippage is still moral slippage, no matter how small. (Like reading slowtwitch instead of working…)

OK, I’ll climb down off the pulpit now.

One last thing… For such a controversial subject, I must commend everyone on their civility and lack of insult slinging on this topic. I expected it to degrade into a flame war but it has become a very lively discussion.

Enough of this, I’m going for a bike ride.

  • Ken Velarde
68

I am saying Christians, but I am meaning “followers of God”.

OK, that would explain a lot, but I’m not sure exactly what “followers of God” means. Jews and Christians? Muslims? Budhists? Pagans? The caveman who looked up at the Sun and worshipped it?

How did marriage start? I’m not an anthropologist so I don’t know. I’m not sure anyone does. It may have been a religious ceremony from the beginning. But then again, in really primitive times I bet all societal rules had a religious overtone.

You said marriage seemed to you be a Christian (which I’m taking to mean “religious”) thing. I think marriage has always had a practical, legal, and/or political aspect as well.

69

This is where I tend to over-explain. I won’t this time. I have mentioned the Bible many times. So, I assumed that when I (me, Ryan Bemont) say “God” (or Followers of God), that people assume I mean God from The Holy Bible.

70

OK, but I can tell you quite certainly that the institution of marriage is NOT a Christian or Judeo/Christian institution. The ancient Greek worshipped many gods, but also had marriage (check out the link I posted earlier). Civilizations older than the Hebrews of the Old Testament has marriage. And so on…

So although I can’t tell you exactly when/where marriage originated (is there one correct answer for this?) I can say if it seems to you to be a Christian or Judeo/Christian institution I think you’re going to have to re-evaluate your assumption there.

71

Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Therefore, it is against our God given moral code to condone the practice of homosexuality.

Ken, do you believe it is against our God-given moral code to eat pork?

So, why shouldn’t the government recognize the union of two homosexuals? Why shouldn’t the government recognize the union of a father and daughter? “But that’s not the same” you say. Where on the continuum (sp?) do you draw the line.

I think many very reasonable people will not consider Father-daughter marriage on any “continium” from marriage between two committed, consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex.

Hope you had a good ride.

72

My contention is that every human being’s moral code is instilled by God, whether you believe in God or not. You don’t have to believe in gravity for it’s laws to still apply to you.

Why can’t it be a matter of evolution? As we developed over millions of years, early humanoids probably realized that hanging out in groups had tremendous benefits (see chimpanzees, zebras, antelope, etc.) Troublemakers (those without “morals”) were either killed or taught how to act properly with a group of other humans. Those who were genetically predestined to be a-holes and break the rules of the group didn’t get to advance and were eliminated.

As our big brains got bigger, these rules for forming large groups got more complex. As a result, we were able to form bigger groups (villages, cities, city states, etc.) In an effort to understand, or make understood the things we couldn’t understand, we formed religions to help us explain the imponderables like creation, why does the sun race across the sky, how is thunder made…

Oh, and through it all homosexuality has always existed. And was much more accepted in many ancient cultures.

Religion (whether it be Greek Mythology, animism, mayan, Inca, etc.) was absolutely pivotal to keeping these large groups of people together without them killing each other. In order to bring up new humans into these societies, we figured out that a group of two people (at the time a man and a woman) was by most accounts the best way to go. Birth, being another mysterious phenomena, took on religious meaning and therefore, marriage helped to demystify the event. In addition, marriage gave ownership of man and woman to one-another, in effect marking territory and saying “back off he or she is mine.” This is another pivotal construct of building a sustainable society.

But now we know where thunder comes from, our religions are more “advanced” and have evolved to accept the advances we have made with our big brains. (I would imagine all but the most ardent Biblical literalist will concede that the earth and mankind was not formed in seven days.) Therefore, why can’t the concept of marriage evolve as well? There have been those in this thread who warn of impending doom, should gays be given the right to marry, and even a couple posters who felt that this could lead to “fathers marrying daughters.” If we can accept that millions of years of evolution has coded the majority of us to realize that inbreeding and pedophilia is wrong, how could acceptance of two consenting adults’ love for each other cave in the genetic fiber of our “morality”? Marriage, like transportation, religion, and life itself should be an ever-evolving concept that meets the needs of the society it serves.

73

Why can’t it be a matter of evolution?
Because evolution is a bigger load of hoey that cultural relativism! See my post in the “Another Poll” thread.

74

Your arguments are specious. One fundamental underpinning of laws is (or should be) the regulation of behavior that impacts other people; all the silly examples you provide are outlawed because of this, independent of your or anyone else’s religious beliefs. This is one of the “absolutes” you mention, and it doesn’t have anything to do with religion.

I didn’t have time to get into some deep philosophic discussion, nor do I now (I wish I did, I love this stuff), but couple of quick counter-points:
My argument was intentionally brief and incomplete, but was hardly specious.
Shoulds and shouldn’ts do not determine reality, and calling the German nation of the 1930’s a silly example undermines your position, not mine.
Obviously, killing Jews, Gypsies, etc., was not outlawed, but a fully endorsed act of the state. This State (and its society) was/is, in your argument, from where laws and the morals behind them come from.

There are plenty of examples in the 20th century of states that were founded on atheistic principles. They have a wonderful track record. While were at it, there are also some charming nations founded on such life giving principles as Wahabi Islam and the breath of fresh air known as Sharia law.
The freedoms we here in the US enjoy, including the freedom to be Wahabis, atheists, or goat worshipers, are a direct result of the Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles this nation was founded on. I thank God for that. You can thank whomever.

75

Ken, do you believe it is against our God-given moral code to eat pork?

No, there is and never was anything immoral about eating pork. True, the Old Testament law (the Levitical Laws) forbid eating anything that was “unclean”. If you have the time, read through the first 5 books of the Old Testament. Here “the Law” is laid out. You’ll note that there are many, many dos and don’ts spelled out. Far more than any person could possibly keep. You broke the law, you made a sacrifice. Some of the laws make no sense, especially in today’s society. Ok, so why were they there?

The complexity of Levitical laws made the people understand that they could not possible live up to them all and that the goal was to be as obedient as possible. Since God is just, violating the law meant restitution. Along comes Jesus. In Luke 22:20, Jesus makes reference to the “new covenant.” This is the forgiveness of sins through His shed blood, abolishing the Levitical laws.

I think many very reasonable people will not consider Father-daughter marriage on any “continium” from marriage between two committed, consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex.

Why should I care if the state of Massachusetts makes gay marriage legal? I’ll get blasted for this, but it comes down to tolerance. Give me a little leeway here. So now, marriage between a same-sex couple that I know to be morally wrong is now legal. I still don’t like it but it’s the law. As more and more homosexuals get married, it becomes more and more tolerable. While deep down I still know it’s wrong, I’ve learned to tolerate it. Now, something a little worse on the moral scale comes along and that becomes legal because it seems a little less wrong than it used to because we’ve developed a tolerance to the whole gay marriage thing.

Here’s another example. When I was in high-school, we had to watch this ridiculous film in driver’s ed. It shows the horrors of traffic accidents with lots of blood and broken windshields. People were shocked and uncomfortable with scenes like that. Now, we see video of bull dozers plowing bodies into mass graves and those scenes of bloody traffic accidents don’t seem so bad. That’s because of tolerance.

The state of Mass. passed a gay marriage law and George W. Bush publicly says he’s against it. Maybe that’s politically motivated but I’d bet it is not. In an election year it will probably cost him more votes than it would win him. In the end, he can stand before God and be confident that he stood up for his Christian beliefs.

(Yes, I know he could not get a constitutional amendment about marriage so please feel no need to enlighten me.)

Enough on this for tonight.

  • Ken Velarde
76

So, you believe that your English translation of the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Are you a “young Earther”, believing that the Earth is only some 5000 years old? Do you believe that the Flood occurred as described?

If you’ve ever been to a good museum, like the Smithsonian, you may have seen the fossil history of the horse. From the first known horse fossil to the current horse, the record shows a continuing evolution of traits: the more recent, the larger the horse, the more specialized the foot (see http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/relatives10.htm),
in a clear, continuous flow. Check out http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/fhc.htm for a description of this evolution. Let me know why evolution is not the best explanation of what happened.

Next lesson: the fossil history of the whale.

Ken Lehner

77

Next lesson: the fossil history of the whale.

I got that National Geographic also. Here’s what bothers me. A few years ago NG ran a cover story and had like a 10 page article about a reptile fossil that had feathers. This was THE proof for evolution. Done deal. Signed, sealed, and delivered.

Later it was found to be a hoax (still a pretty hot topic on the internet), and NG ran a one paragraph announcement in the back of the book. Doesn’t seem to be much “unbias” on either side.

78

Nice, factual reply. Next time, actually address the issue.

Ken Lehner

79

Wow! What I’m reading is totally amazing. Just when I think a person has come up with all the right answers someone comes up with an even better question. If any of us have a screwed moral compass in they eyes of another does it matter if we’re are religious, gay, or anything else for that matter? These debates on right or wrong based on religous beliefs has me troubled though. And to be honest I’m not sure how to account for my view on the matter. To be sure I think marriage is a religous ceremony when it takes place in a church (which is not to say one can not have a religous ceremony outside of one) and the whole religous leader leading it reading from a bible…etc etc. I haven’t the foggiest where it all got started (marriage and ceremonies and the like) but a marriage with the above criteria (give or take a few…damn my indifference) are, by and large, religous based. That said for government to step in and say that someone whould be allowed to be married in a church (or of religous ceremony for those of other faiths) because it is constitutional is a load of crap. The same with a religous group of any sort trying to bend a law to suit their beliefs is totally wrong. Say I create my own religion and part of my faith lets me shoot people who try to run over cyclists (hey, all for that). Should the government allow that as an excuseable reason to shoot willy nilly everyone who opposes your religion…don’t think so. Nor do I think if a religion says we won’t marry gays…do I think the government has a right to say they have to. You know what…this thread has me far too confused.

Yeah we are living in a pretty messed up society (and we don’t have to look too far beyond the front page of the local newspaper to see that). How do we fix it? Who knows. What one person thinks is fair for all is bound to be taken out of context by, or not apply to, at least one other person. Thereby throwing the whole, well intended, plan out the window. What I want to know is where it all started to spiral out of control. Yeah, there have been messed up people for as long as there have been people…but how on earth did we get them into office and allow them to change laws. Is it ever going to get better? Are the smart getting smarter and the dumb getting dumber? Rich richer/poor poorer? Should any of it be allowed or should those in a lesser position get off their ass and do something about it?

It’s a dog eat dog world out there and too many dogs are looking out for themselves (not to imply looking out for yourself is a bad thing). At some point in time we stopped giving a damn what happened to anyone else but ourselves and I really think that was the beginning of the end. Yes we are all independant beings capable of living all by ourselves. And some of the time I really think there are people that need to stay that way. But when was the last time we really cared about the other guy? If we did, we wouldn’t be having debates on right or wrong or drafting…then again…maybe we would. You’ve all given me way too much to think about and now my brain hurts. I’m climbing on the trainer and sweating it out of my system. Thanks the lot of you…however right or wrong you may be to one another.

Kent

80

Thanks you for making my point

Along comes Jesus. In Luke 22:20, Jesus makes reference to the “new covenant.” This is the forgiveness of sins through His shed blood, abolishing the Levitical laws.<

So the dietary laws were abolished, but not the prohibition of homosexuality? Sorry, if you want to use the Bible as your guide, you don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the "law’ you get to keep and which ones to throw out.

marriage between a same-sex couple that I know to be morally wrong

Just I’m sure there were plenty of white folks who KNEW that blacks were genetically inferior and allowing them meaningful intereaction with white society would be wrong.

And by the way, I have read the first 5 books of the Bible and pork is specifically prohibited

Deut 14:8 Also the pig is ritually impure to you; though it has divided hooves,14 it does not chew the cud. You may not eat their meat or even touch their remains

81

Jhc Point well made…

">marriage between a same-sex couple that I know to be morally wrong

Just I’m sure there were plenty of white folks who KNEW that blacks were genetically inferior and allowing them meaningful intereaction with white society would be wrong."

It’s truely unfortunate that some use the bits and pieces of christian writings to justify what is simply wrong and hurtful to a group that doesn’t conform to a biased and sanctimonious defininition of what is “moral”. In short, prejudice sees what it pleases and can not see what is in plain sight. Or, as A. Stevenson said, “Ignorance is stubborn and prejudice is hard.” This is specially true when the ideas of prejudice are defined in complex terms of religion and emotion instead of simplier terms of logic and thoughtfulness.

Joe Moya