Goodness atheists and religious people

[AndrewF]

The point is Martin, that you love because you are loved. If you had never been loved you would not know how to love anyone.
As a Christian the biggest truth is that we know we are loved by God, and the result of that knowledge is that we can love in return - indeed we should be filled with love for others and therefore want to do things which will be to their greater good where we can.
If you love someone you want to do things which will please them rather than making them sad, so we would also want to please God, but that is almost secondary if you are so full of love that you want to do the good thing anyway.
This is the theory at least! The trouble is that, being human, we none of us live up to this ideal and certainly not all the time - but that does not mean the principle is false...

[Martin]

I'm not convinced that because Christians believe that God loves them, that this makes them love - oh yes I think it helps to have been loved by others, but ISTM that Love is something humans do innately.  I'm therefore also not really convinced that Christians Love more than Non-Christians - if they do, then it's possible that people who want to Love are naturally drawn towards institutions and mindsets that promote Love.

I suppose we could say that Love causes Love to grow, and if we believe that God is Love then saying that Love causes Love to grow is the same as saying that God causes Love to grow.   The problem is that many Christians see God as an external character, a personality who does 'his' loving from the outside, and that adds in all sorts of complications that clearly don't hold true.  If we simply stick with a God who actually IS Love, then whether an atheist Loves or a Christian Loves, it makes no difference because both Loves are God.

[Jan]

Understanding what love is - we probably learn part of this through experience, and part through something that is there inate already, perhaps instinct (parent loving a child for example - though sometimes this might not be there). The loving & caring thing can depend on each person individually - regardless of their beliefs (IMO).

Regarding God - God being within each of us. Christians know this (1 John 4:7, 1 John 4:8) - but some might think it only applies to Christians - when really it applies to the whole lot of us (IMO)

[saundthorp]

It probably seems a bit of a parodox that an atheist can do good deeds as well as a Christian. This can be explained because Christians claim that God is the source of all goodness.
When God created humanity he left what is called His divine imprint on us all. All societies have a natural goodness which was instilled in us by God and this can come out and has come out throughout the ages.
God's divine imprint gave us the capacity to develop a certain level of morality, but this morality was very crude and rudimentary compared to what Christ revealed to us during His time on earth.
This divine imprint is sometimes called The Natural Law. That is the basic principles of right and wrong are known to every human being even if those principles are distorted by human sinfulness. The Natural Law was instilled in us by God, since we are His creation. The Natural Law as Christians understand it has no real meaning without God.

[tranchiebabe]

Saundy that is the cop out position!

[saundthorp]

Saundy that is the cop out position!

Of course it isn't. From a Christian's point of view it is a reasonable position to say that since God created us He is the source of the goodness that is in us. It is said mankind was created in the image of God therefore we will share some of the characteristics of God.

[AndyHB]

I'm not convinced that because Christians believe that God loves them, that this makes them love - oh yes I think it helps to have been loved by others, but ISTM that Love is something humans do innately.

I think that this is slightly overstating things, Martin.  Having taught in a variety of places, and worked with a variety of adults, I would suggest that without the 'have been loved by others' (and that doesn't necessarily have to be parents) someone finds it very hard to love someone other than themselves.

[JJ]

Those sort of people that you mention Andy, they don't love themselves either.

[Martin]

Of course it isn't. From a Christian's point of view it is a reasonable position to say that since God created us He is the source of the goodness that is in us. It is said mankind was created in the image of God therefore we will share some of the characteristics of God.

It would really only be a reasonable position if humans were created by God as they are now, rather than having evolved to be as we are. Chimpanzees, for example, show the ability to do caring things, admittedly in much more rudimentary form - but that's what you'd expect.  Humans exhibit a more developed form of this, having greater ability to put themselves in another's place and imagine how it must feel to be them, but they are not completely unique in this, just more highly developed.  The idea, therefore, that humanity was somehow chosen above the animals, by an external entity, God, to bear 'his' divine imprint, is brought into question. As a proposal, it doesn't really fit many of the facts, and it is certainly superfluous as an explanation for the existence of Love. It's rather like saying we have legs because God has legs. We can show why we have evolved legs, and we have no evidence to show that there is an external God with legs.

[saundthorp]

Of course it isn't. From a Christian's point of view it is a reasonable position to say that since God created us He is the source of the goodness that is in us. It is said mankind was created in the image of God therefore we will share some of the characteristics of God.

It would really only be a reasonable position if humans were created by God as they are now, rather than having evolved to be as we are. Chimpanzees, for example, show the ability to do caring things, admittedly in much more rudimentary form - but that's what you'd expect.  Humans exhibit a more developed form of this, having greater ability to put themselves in another's place and imagine how it must feel to be them, but they are not completely unique in this, just more highly developed.  The idea, therefore, that humanity was somehow chosen above the animals, by an external entity, God, to bear 'his' divine imprint, is brought into question. As a proposal, it doesn't really fit many of the facts, and it is certainly superfluous as an explanation for the existence of Love. It's rather like saying we have legs because God has legs. We can show why we have evolved legs, and we have no evidence to show that there is an external God with legs.

I take it from your post you don't attach any importance to the human race. As I see it you think we are just another creature who happen to inhabit this planet.
I look at it in a completely different way. I don't buy into the theory that man evolved from another creature like the ape or the monkey. Personally I think man was a completely different species brought into being by God. Yes, evolution has taken place but all within the confines of that unique species.
I think man is the summit of God's creation. Mankind is clearly distinguished from other living creatures. The most profound difference being, man possesses an immortal soul. Another important difference, man is a person, which means that because of his understanding and will he can decide for or against love, whether to commit right or wrong.
You say "Chimpanzees, for example, show the ability to do caring things, admittedly in much more rudimentary form".
That could be explained as purely instinctive behaviour. Man has the ability to decide whether or not to do caring things, which I don't think animals can.
There is another theory about man's origins. He did evolve from another creature such as an ape, but at some point in the evolutionary process God endowed him with an immortal soul, which had a profound change on his character and behaviour. I prefere the unique species approach.

[Jan]

My understanding is that every living thing has a soul or is part of a soul group. I also believe in evolution - both the physical kind, that our bodies evolved from other creatures (apes etc) and our bodies are continuing to evolve and adapt - and the spiritual kind of evolving as we progress and learn.

Man has the ability to decide whether or not to do caring things, which I don't think animals can.

I would disagree with this comment. I see animals caring for one another and showing care to humans - even protecting humans. Is this just instinct? If so then how come it can change depending on what mood the animals are in? Animals can have mood swings as humans do also (with the menagerie we have - I can tell you that it is noticeable  )

[Martin]

I take it from your post you don't attach any importance to the human race. As I see it you think we are just another creature who happen to inhabit this planet.

LOL just because I know that we evolved doesn't mean I attach less importance to the human race than you do.  I could argue that I attach more importance than you do, since I believe Love is the most important thing in the world and I believe it is an innate characteristic of humans (and to some extent other creatures), not something injected into us by an external God, but something that naturally arises between us.  As far as you're concerned humankind is only important because God made it important. As far as I'm concerned humankind is important of its own sake.  But we don't need to argue who thinks humankind is more important do we?  It's peripheral to the discussion at hand.  You made a statement that yours is a reasonable stance,  and I think your next sentence shows that it is not....

I look at it in a completely different way. I don't buy into the theory that man evolved from another creature like the ape or the monkey. Personally I think man was a completely different species brought into being by God. Yes, evolution has taken place but all within the confines of that unique species.

Which [hu]man?  Homo Sapeins, Homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, homo australopithecus or any of the other species that romed this earth in the last million or so years?  There's a mountain of evidence to show that humankind wasn't a single species creation of God's!  you may not 'buy into' it, but that shows your argument to be unreasonable.

Chimpanzees obviously make decisions.

[AndyHB]

Those sort of people that you mention Andy, they don't love themselves either.

True, though they like to think that they do!!

[saundthorp]

I take it from your post you don't attach any importance to the human race. As I see it you think we are just another creature who happen to inhabit this planet.

LOL just because I know that we evolved doesn't mean I attach less importance to the human race than you do.  I could argue that I attach more importance than you do, since I believe Love is the most important thing in the world and I believe it is an innate characteristic of humans (and to some extent other creatures), not something injected into us by an external God, but something that naturally arises between us.  As far as you're concerned humankind is only important because God made it important. As far as I'm concerned humankind is important of its own sake.  But we don't need to argue who thinks humankind is more important do we?  It's peripheral to the discussion at hand.  You made a statement that yours is a reasonable stance,  and I think your next sentence shows that it is not....

I look at it in a completely different way. I don't buy into the theory that man evolved from another creature like the ape or the monkey. Personally I think man was a completely different species brought into being by God. Yes, evolution has taken place but all within the confines of that unique species.

Which [hu]man?  Homo Sapeins, Homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, homo australopithecus or any of the other species that romed this earth in the last million or so years?  There's a mountain of evidence to show that humankind wasn't a single species creation of God's!  you may not 'buy into' it, but that shows your argument to be unreasonable.

Chimpanzees obviously make decisions.

Martin,
I don't know why you are using expressions like, "unreasonable" in this discussion. We have different opinions that is all, unless of course you consider anyone who has a different opinion to you is being unreasonable.

Chimpanzees obviously make decisions.

I don't think it is obvious at all. It could all be down to instintive behaviour, put there by God as a survival strategy.
Humans and animals differ in as much that human being posses a part of them that survives death, the part we call the soul. Animals may well have a part of them that survives after death, but God has chosen not revealed it to us.
Humans and animals may well share certain characteristics and abilities but one ability animals do not posses is to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. They have no moral awareness as we humans have. Animals may well indulge in what appear to us to be human behavior, but I would say they are just following their instincts.

[Jan]

I don't think it is obvious at all. It could all be down to instintive behaviour, put there by God as a survival strategy.
Humans and animals differ in as much that human being posses a part of them that survives death, the part we call the soul. Animals may well have a part of them that survives after death, but God has chosen not revealed it to us.
Humans and animals may well share certain characteristics and abilities but one ability animals do not posses is to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. They have no moral awareness as we humans have. Animals may well indulge in what appear to us to be human behavior, but I would say they are just following their instincts.

Would disagree that it is just instinct Saundy. A new topic has been started
here discussing this.

How do you know that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong or that they have no moral awareness?