(March 1, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(February 29, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Kitan Wrote: My objective morality is better than your objective morality.

objectivity for the atheist
2 + 2 = 4 because when 2 is added to 2 the result is 4. If we don' wamt to get 4, then we don't add 2 + 2.

Objectivity for theist

2 + 2 = 4 because god said so. and on those occasions when god says 2 + 2 = 5, who are we to argue with divine judgment? If anyone says otherwise it's either because they are not really theists or they are misinterpreting my holy book.

Right, and why stop at 5? When it comes to God, 2 + 2 can equal pretty much anything any Christian prefers it to equal. And then they call it "objective". Funny joke, guys!

(February 29, 2016 at 8:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you are referring to when God literally talks to people in the Old Testament, I don't believe that ever happened. I believe Jesus is God, and I believe in what He taught us about morality - doing good for others as we want them to do for us, loving others as ourselves, and forgiving our enemies, etc. I believe that is the basis for all morality

::bold mine:: CL, I think you've just demonstrated that your morality is subjective without even realizing it in the paragraph above. You have interpreted the scripture in a fashion that feels right to you. Because there is no unchallenged consensus amongst Christians on how to interpret the OT, the individual is left ultimately responsible for drawing their own conclusions (and boy, don't so many things get lost in translation?). Completely subjective.

(February 25, 2016 at 9:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 25, 2016 at 7:49 pm)KUSA Wrote: It is an interesting issue to discuss. Could you please answer this?

What are some examples of what you consider immoral? This should be based on your beliefs as a Christian.

Rape, theft, killing of an innocent person, adultery, slavery.... to name a few.

In the OT god orders killing of innocents, and slavery. If you consider forced marriage rape, he requires rape as well. He condones slavery, orders it in case of a few conquests. There are a few clever thief stories involving the patriarchs as well (birthrights, blessings, cattle or was goats). Adultery is punished by killing off the offspring. Jesus condones slavery. In what way are these Christian values?

The ten commandments include envy twice, reverence of god three times and honoring your parents once. They don't include: rape, slavery, child neglect, battery, or abortion. And no, there is no place in the Bible even hinting that abortion is murder or suggesting that parents should be good parents. You don't find these things in the sermon on the mount either. Or in Paul. There is however, an assumption that parents will be good parents.

(March 1, 2016 at 4:52 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Jesus condones slavery.  In what way are these Christian values?  

She already said to put more stock in what her church tells her than the actual books. I only want to point out that Paul condones slavery even more than Jesus.

Quote:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

And we both know that the church took away more from Paul than from Jesus. There are numerous apologetics trying to argue away what Paul said. Pretty much using Drippy's narrative, so I guess, he took it from there. Slaves are said to have been much better off than most free men, according to them. True for the portion being considered house slaves. Untrue for the masses working the fields. Untrue well into the 19th century and the Americas.

(March 1, 2016 at 3:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 29, 2016 at 8:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you are referring to when God literally talks to people in the Old Testament, I don't believe that ever happened. I believe Jesus is God, and I believe in what He taught us about morality - doing good for others as we want them to do for us, loving others as ourselves, and forgiving our enemies, etc. I believe that is the basis for all morality

::bold mine::  CL, I think you've just demonstrated that your morality is subjective without even realizing it in the paragraph above.  You have interpreted the scripture in a fashion that feels right to you.  Because there is no unchallenged consensus amongst Christians on how to interpret the OT, the individual is left ultimately responsible for drawing their own conclusions (and boy, don't so many things get lost in translation?).  Completely subjective.  

To play devil's advocate here (snerk), CL never said that everyone has the same moral sense.  She believes there are "right" morals out there somewhere which people might, if they try, discover.

This isn't that different than anything else in life.  Your perception of my desk might be subtly (or even quite) different than mine.  However, we might both believe there is probably something unerlying our perceptions which is objectively real.

Even without regard to whether God exists, I can see how this might be the case.  If we see instincts not as possessions of a person, but rather see a person as an expression of genetic material, then those behaviors which best express the tendencies (I avoid saying intent or purpose) of the DNA could be objective.

(March 1, 2016 at 7:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 1, 2016 at 3:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: ::bold mine::  CL, I think you've just demonstrated that your morality is subjective without even realizing it in the paragraph above.  You have interpreted the scripture in a fashion that feels right to you.  Because there is no unchallenged consensus amongst Christians on how to interpret the OT, the individual is left ultimately responsible for drawing their own conclusions (and boy, don't so many things get lost in translation?).  Completely subjective.  

To play devil's advocate here (snerk), CL never said that everyone has the same moral sense.  She believes there are "right" morals out there somewhere which people might, if they try, discover.

This isn't that different than anything else in life.  Your perception of my desk might be subtly (or even quite) different than mine.  However, we might both believe there is probably something unerlying our perceptions which is objectively real.

Even without regard to whether God exists, I can see how this might be the case.  If we see instincts not as possessions of a person, but rather see a person as an expression of genetic material, then those behaviors which best express the tendencies (I avoid saying intent or purpose) of the DNA could be objective.

Hmm...okay, I see your point. So, we could consider each individual's genetically expressed tendencies as objective for that specific person? So...quite literally I could say "my objective morality could kick your objective morality's ass!" and it sounds reasonable. [emoji39] Of course, this still leaves us with the problem of every single person on the planet having a different genetically objective moral sense.

Or, in the context of an objective moral code from God (like the desk example), if it is up to us humans to "discover" this transcendent moral code for ourselves, how do we know when we have actually done so?

And to take it a step further back, do these moral truths exist independent of any human perception or agency, (like the laws of logic)? If so, how? And in what form? Only in god's mind perhaps?

*head explodes*

(March 1, 2016 at 7:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 1, 2016 at 3:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: ::bold mine::  CL, I think you've just demonstrated that your morality is subjective without even realizing it in the paragraph above.  You have interpreted the scripture in a fashion that feels right to you.  Because there is no unchallenged consensus amongst Christians on how to interpret the OT, the individual is left ultimately responsible for drawing their own conclusions (and boy, don't so many things get lost in translation?).  Completely subjective.  

To play devil's advocate here (snerk), CL never said that everyone has the same moral sense.  She believes there are "right" morals out there somewhere which people might, if they try, discover.

This isn't that different than anything else in life.  Your perception of my desk might be subtly (or even quite) different than mine.  However, we might both believe there is probably something unerlying our perceptions which is objectively real.

Even without regard to whether God exists, I can see how this might be the case.  If we see instincts not as possessions of a person, but rather see a person as an expression of genetic material, then those behaviors which best express the tendencies (I avoid saying intent or purpose) of the DNA could be objective.

Your own DNA expresses itself in your own behavior, according to your own DNA-influenced values. My own DNA expresses itself in my own behavior, according to my own DNA-influenced values. This defines the subjective - we don't all share the same DNA, therefore we don't have anything objective between us. It is only because we happen to be of the same species, and one which is by necessity sociable that there are enough values traits which we share in common, upon which we base our legal systems (when they aren't hijacked by some strong-arm sociopath such as Kim Jong Ill), and this still barely begins to express our divergent moral values.

(March 1, 2016 at 9:10 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(March 1, 2016 at 7:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: To play devil's advocate here (snerk), CL never said that everyone has the same moral sense.  She believes there are "right" morals out there somewhere which people might, if they try, discover.

This isn't that different than anything else in life.  Your perception of my desk might be subtly (or even quite) different than mine.  However, we might both believe there is probably something unerlying our perceptions which is objectively real.

Even without regard to whether God exists, I can see how this might be the case.  If we see instincts not as possessions of a person, but rather see a person as an expression of genetic material, then those behaviors which best express the tendencies (I avoid saying intent or purpose) of the DNA could be objective.

Your own DNA expresses itself in your own behavior, according to your own DNA-influenced values. My own DNA expresses itself in my own behavior, according to my own DNA-influenced values. This defines the subjective - we don't all share the same DNA, therefore we don't have anything objective between us.

Thank you, Hanks. This is exactly what I meant, except I did a cave man's job of explaining it, lol. [emoji1][emoji106]

(March 1, 2016 at 8:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Hmm...okay, I see your point.  So, we could consider each individual's genetically expressed tendencies as objective for that specific person?  

I'm not sure I'd call individual differences morality. So while we each have our individual mores, I'd say that morality is more about cultural or species norms.

There are certain behaviors that are clearly mediated by instinct and for the most part are uniform across culture and time. A mother not taking care of her baby, for example, would be seen as immoral in probably every culture-- or it would be a short-lived culture, indeed. Even though some mothers in fact do not take care of babies, or some cultures have cases in which particular babies are discarded cruelly, I'd say that child-rearing rules might be said to represent an objective morality.

Not to mention that DNA's expression is greatly affected by the environment.

In the context of behavior, that too imposes some subjectivity on the process.