There are no differences between tribal and non-tribal babies so far as moral issues are concerned. All human beings are born with an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments. All cultures have the same moral foundation - honoring parents, murdering, adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting. The reason morality is universal is because it is instinctive. Children who are not raised in noraml situations know it by instinct. For example, feral children know the difference between right and wrong.

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php

Paul wrote about non-Jews who obeyed the law, no doubt referring to the last six commandments, by following their natural instincts. The last six commandments are part of the human DNA. They are written in our hearts and we know them naturally.

Romans
2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Mike, the web site you cited seems to me to be making my case.

quote:

---

Gesell summed up Kamala's progress, saying that at the age of 16, after nine years in the care of the orphanage, she still had the mind of a three and a half year old.

---

This is bringing out the importance of learning to human beings. There's very little human beings do not learn how to do.

I don't see how you've presented any evidence whatsoever that morality is not learned. Was there something from the web site in particular you had in mind?

Allow me to present a specific example. Is bearing one's breasts in public (for a woman, of course) immoral? For someone in our culture, it would be, wouldn't it? The tribal girl baby raised non-tribally would have learned this (but exposing an ankle is OK) but a non-tribal baby raised tribally would have learned that exposing one's breasts is fine (but ankles must be guarded).

I have given you a specific example to counter your theory. Can you present a specific example in favor? What is a specific example of morality which is not learned? (by specific, I mean an actual act)

Tom, the feral children knew that it was wrong to lie and steal. Their animal foster parents didn't teach them, they knew it instinctively.

Going topless is not adultery. There is nothing immoral about it in those cultures where it is normal and acceptable.

Romans 2:13-15 makes it abundantly clear that Gentiles who follow their conscience naturally obeyed the law.

Mike, is it your position that all moral issues are known from birth, and that only intellectual ones are learned afterwards? And that these intellectual ones do not have to do with character?

I'm asking these questions by way of clarification, to see if I have understood your position correctly.

Yes, as I understand the differences between moral and mental matters, we know the moral ones from birth, but the mental (biblical) ones we must learn later on in life. As far as character development is concerned, the intellectual matters we do not know about cannot affect it.

For example, there isn't a diet reform character trait. However, there is a trait related to gluttony, which does not necessarily require knowledge of diet reform.

Character development is related to the choices we make, the habits we form, in relation to our conscience and convictions.

Let's consider sexual morals for a moment. Does one know from birth that monogamy is moral? Does one know from birth that one should be married before having sex?

How do you know which matters are moral and which ones aren't?

Given the 10 commandments is "the moral law", doens't it follow that anything the law condemns is be definition immoral?

Yes, the moral law accommodates morality. Anything we do that violates the law of God constitutes immorality. In cultures where incest or polygamy are not considered immoral God winks at their ignorance. Such ignorance does not affect character development. Character is the result of deliberate choices - not accident or ignorance.

Yes, children know from birth that it is morally right to be faithful to the person or persons they call spouse. We instinctively know it is wrong to cheat on our spouse.

Mike, thank you for your response, but you answered different questions than I was asking.

I asked, "Does one know from birth that monogamy is moral?" You answered that in certain cultures where polygamy or incest is practiced that God winks at ignorance, and these things are not considered immoral. Then a bit later you write that we instinctively know that it is wrong to cheat on one's spouse. These two ideas are in conflict with one another, unless by "one's spouse" you mean any of one's spouses (spice?) or a sibling. I still don't know the answer to the question I asked, which is if we know from birth that monogamy is moral. I'm guessing, based on what you wrote, that the answer is no.

I asked, "Does one know from birth that one should be married before having sex?" You didn't answer this.

I asked, "How do you know which matters are moral and which ones aren't?" You didn't answer this.

I asked, "Given the 10 commandments is "the moral law", doesn't it follow that anything the law condemns is be definition immoral?" You answered that the moral law "accomodates morality". Is this really what you meant? "Accomodate" means "to oblige". What do you mean by saying that the 10 Commandments accommodates morality? This makes no sense to me.

Old Tom: I still don't know the answer to the question I asked, which is if we know from birth that monogamy is moral. I'm guessing, based on what you wrote, that the answer is no.

Mike:We know from birth that it is wrong to commit adultery, to cheat on our spouse[s]. I am not promoting polygamy.

Tom:I'm not suggesting you are promoting polygamy. What I was asking if we know from birth that monogamy is moral. It seems to me that your answer to this question is no, we don't know this from birth.

Old Tom: I asked, "Does one know from birth that one should be married before having sex?"

Mike:Yes. Marriage is not the same in all cultures. In some cultures having sex is getting married (i.e., Isaac and Rebekah [Gen 24:67]).

Tom:All cultures recognize the difference between sex and marriage. Isaac and Rebekah were not married because they had sex. This is an aside to our conversation, but a point worth noting.

Old Tom: I asked, "How do you know which matters are moral and which ones aren't?"

Mike:It all depends on whether we obey or disobey our conscience and convictions.

Tom:But what if our conscience and convictions tell us to disobey the law? This is where your whole theory falls apart, it seems to me. No one has a conscience or convictions which are totally in line with the law of God. It's only a matter of degree how much one is off from another. The only chance we have to be even remotely close is if we are raised in an godly home with knowledge of the Scriptures. You seem to have in mind some minimum standard -- a least common denominator of morality if you will. But this least common denominator will vary from culture to culture and from home to home within that culture, and from person to person within that home.

Mike: To obey is moral, to disobey is immoral.

Tom: This is circular reasoning. The law defines morality, not one's conscience. One is judged according to what one knows, but ignorance does not turn an immoral act into a moral one. This is the point you keep stumbling on, IMO.

Mike: Immoral means more than sexual perversion. It means going against anything we know instinctively to be morally right as defined by the last six commandments (and the first four if we know about them).

Tom: Once again, what we know instinctively to be morally right is a moving target, depending on a number of factors. But morality is perfectly defined by God's law; it's not a moving target.

Old Tom: What do you mean by saying that the 10 Commandments accommodate morality?

Mike:They account for morality. They make allowance for, provide for, take into consideration, etc. Morality is defined by the law.

Tom:I still don't know what you're saying here. On the one hand you say is makes allowance for, provides for, takes into consideration etc. This is one thought. Then you have another thought, which is it accounts for and defines morality.

I agree with you that morality is defined by the law. But this is a totally different idea than that morality is accomoadated by the law, or that the law makes allowances for morality.

Even according to your own concept of the atonement what you're saying doesn't appear to me to make sense, because if the law makes allowances for disobedience, then, by your way of thinking, Christ would not have had to die. It is because the law does NOT accomodate that Christ had to die.

So it appears to me you are presenting two conflicting thoughts. Either the law accomodates morality, or it defines morality. It can't do both. At least I don't see how. Perhaps you could flesh this out a bit more.