Morality Is Written On Our Hearts

“I will put My Law within them, and on their hearts will I write it; and I will be their God, and they will be My people” – Jeremiah 31:33-34
All human beings have an innate sense of right and wrong, an innate sense of the way they ought to behave. This sense is called the natural, moral law. It is God’s law of right vs. wrong literally written on our hearts, woven into the very fabric of who we are.
Despite all that, believers choose to follow their “good book” instead
’nuff said
MAL
Advertisements
    • shawntheatheist
    • December 3rd, 2014

    Lol. I have come to expect them to not make sense. When they actually do is when I take pause.

    • LOL It still takes my breath when I realize how illogical believers are.

      • Interesting – what makes Christian belief around morality so illogical? I am curious to know what you mean. Stu

  1. Lol, you apparently haven’t read the book stuartgrayuk!

  2. Interesting observation there. Who did the handwriting on the heart?

    • Evolution

      • And here I thought that it took intelligence to pick up the quill.

        My bad.

        • Your presupposition that there was a quill in this allegory kind of falls flat

          • Ok mylife-

            Let’s just stay with ‘finger,’ forget the quill 😉

            Morality is written on our heart, you said, obviously there is the ‘master writer.’

            I’m going with He who created the heart, wrote the code.

            • Exactly. If everything is an “accident” then there is no morality except individual preference. Going along with that ludicrous idea, if I felt killing somebody’s mother was ok in my book then it wouldn’t be wrong because it would be RIGHT TO ME. But because there is absolute morality wrong is wrong and nobody will dispute it.

              • You’ve made a mistake there. That somebody would say it is wrong and the courts/law of the land will see that their claim is just. This is how we came to know murder is wrong. Even before Moses wrote it down, the code of Hammurabi adjudicated an eye for an eye. Murder and theft were wrong.

                As individuals we have an idea of right and wrong, and as a society we choose laws to enforce the rules we feel as a group gain us the most. No deity is needed for that. You don’t even need objective morality for that. The assertion that it is needed is absurd and stands in contradiction of the clear evidence otherwise. Your logic is flawed beyond repair.

                • So… if I would be prosecuted for it then could i kill somebody you love deeply? Think carefully.

                  • You’re barking up the wrong tree. There is nothing but the human law of the land that says what is punishable. You can kill whomever you want, you’ll be caught and executed or maybe not make it to the safety of police protection. My views on morality don’t alter just because someone I know is involved. If yours do then you have a problem. Of course, if you tried to kill someone I love, in defence, I can stab you in the face with a pitch fork and set your dying body alight. Still want to kill someone I love? That is one of the most messed up questions I have heard in a long time.

                    • Look, I dont mean to offend. I’m sorry if I have. I guess I was trying to get across that even if it wasn’t against the law it would still be wrong so absolute morality is a fact. Again I apologize.

                    • Absolute morality does not exist. Slavers had to be convinced it is wrong. Cannibals have to be convinced it is wrong. Sending the old and frail off to the forest to die is not right either, but some tribes did it. Ethics change with time and circumstances. Killing babies and pregnant women is not right but YHWH ordered it be done. Taking young virgin girls as (sex)slaves and killing all their kin is okay according to YHWH. Where is the objective morality in that?

                      Would you kill babies and pregnant women for your deity? How about your own son?

                    • Ok I will try to answer best I can one by one.

                      First regarding the slaves and the like. Yes, people WILL DO WRONG, but that doesn’t refute morality. It is possible for a person to in a sense “singe” their conscience by neglecting it or rebelling against it long enough.

                      Secondly, I assume you’re talking about when the Jews were ordered to kill civilizations in the old testament. First you have to understand that when God tells His people to destroy a nation that it will always be a pagan nation. They were exceedingly wicked. Sacrificing babies to made up gods and a lot of sexual immorality including homosexuality. So God told His people that the land of Canaan was given to them so they must rid the land of its wickedness before inhabiting it or it will spread to them as well. He uses that as a graphic image of how deadly sin is in our lives. If we want to be more righteous and live like Christ we must treat the sin in our lives violently if we must. That doesn’t mean we hurt people today. It’s metaphorical. I hope that answers them a little perhaps.

                    • Did you really just justify genocide by god’s chosen people as moral when god could simply have spoken them into non-being? YHWH ordered them to commit great harm to others, to murder and steal.

                      So you believe in divine command. Anything the deity commands is morally good. And for not believing in such a monster he threatens us with eternal torment. If morality is objective then your deity is bound to live by it. If he does not then he is not moral. If morality is only what your god says is morally good then it is not objective for it is subject to the whimsies of a deity.

                    • I understand there are things that are hard to understand about God and what He does, but His ways are not our ways as The Bible says. I heard this saying once and never forgot it and it goes for believers and non-believers alike. “Don’t forsake the things you do understand because of what you don’t understand.” We may never understand His and His ways fully, but we can understand The Gospel. That is that we are sinners, violators of God’s ten commandments, yet God made a way for redemption for us that we may be saved through Him. Sometimes we overcomplicate things. Please just read the book of John and see Jesus for who He is, not who your parents tried to throw down your throat or not the Jesus some people claim “look like.” But see Him fir who He really is. He really is Good and really loves you. Seek Him out yourself.

                • At the end of the day Mylife, you have to aks yourself: HOW do you determine absolutely right from wrong, if everybody’s opinion is valid? In other words, HOW did it come to be that Right was determined when WRong had an equal case?

                  Conscience is a strong teacher, and you must admit something so intricate and flawless as a conscience had a designer.

                  If then two consciences collide as to what is just, then a higher law must inevitably rule, and this is where man falls short.

                  Goes back to ur point about ‘the writing on the conscience.’ I say there was a hand involved, and the evidence suggests it. God was! Hi is! He will ever be.

                  • There is no absolute right and wrong, I do not delineate. Right is determined by trial and error. Empathy and a sense of fair play is evident even in 3 year old humans. From this we develop laws to ensure some modicum of fairness across the society. Yes, it is that simple.

                    Who said consciousness is flawless. Perhaps you should spend some time with serial killers. Clearly you’ve not thought that through.

                    In the early days, might made right till groups formed to change that. Agrarian society had groups, laws were made and enforced by force of the majority. Kings and priests made the laws and the sheep enforced them. There is absolutely no need to assert the magic of an invisible deity to explain this. Doing so ignores the basic facts and understanding of human existence.

                    You should spend some time with sociology books.

                    • @mylife-

                      Tkx but you are missing a critical distinction. Consciousness and conscience are not twins.

                      This changes completely, (or it should) what you just said here.

                      A man could be conscious or barely alive, without using his conscience. Sociology should agree. There is a higher point, perhaps you will see it.

                    • Please demonstrate or link to those who can demonstrate a difference without regaling us with religious diatribes.

                    • @mylife

                      Really?

                      Then I suggest you take the time to study the matter and understand the vital difference.

                      What does ‘religion’ have to do with the difference of the two words? Zero, zip, nada, nula.

                      As far as east is from the west is the difference. You used a word to describe my point which I did not, which obviously changes the argument.

                      Its a worthy study. You will appreciate it more if you do the work. I’m not being argumentative with ya, believe me.

                    • you wrote: Consciousness and conscience are not twins.

                      I do not believe this and have reason to not believe it. I did ask you to point out the vital difference or link to someone who can. Where is the link?

                    • Ok, I’ll make it simple. Start with the ‘Webster unabridged dictionary.

                    • Really? That says nothing about how they are different. Two aspects of the same gray matter. I asked for a demonstration of the difference.

                      Perhaps this helps. Consciousness allows empathy, and empathy allows conscience. one is the other, the two entwined, inseparable.

                    • Here is one that is short, but helpful.

                      As to ur last paragraph, yes, the first part would be true, the second one no.

                      It is interesting as I said- enjoy

                      http://www.dailywritingtips.com/conscience-vs-conscious/

                    • One can be conscientious in their evil doings. One cannot have conscience without consciousness. It is a byproduct of the other. Do you mean to tell me that a person can have a conscience without consciousness?

                    • ——‘Conscience and conscious can be distinguished because the former word is qualitative — people have various degrees of moral strength — while conscious, as its antonym, unconscious, indicates, is quantitative: You’re either one or the other, whether the word is used as a noun or an adjective.’———–

                      As I said up top, conscience is the great divide which separates man from the animal; this post here agrees.

                      As to your last question, sure a person can have a conscience without being alert. Its just not being used at the moment.

                    • Oh, you found a random post on the internet that agrees with you… wow! It must be right.

                      Please provide evidence for your last statement.

  3. Nice one! Thanks for a little inspiration.

    • LOL, glad you liked it.

  4. There are so many things I love about you. SS…

    • Thank you. Happy holidays to yourself and those around you. I enjoy your writing too 😉

  5. SS, I was taking a shit earlier… yeah too much information… l looked down at my knees, they were red. I guess I have become old.
    That kinda sucks.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: