My views on objective morality

[abaris]

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.

In a nutshell why I have less of a problem with Catholics. And because of one man in Rome calling the shots instead of thousands of self appointed pseudo prophets.

But, excuse me if I get this back on track. The book(s) are exactly the reason why I don't subscribe to objective morality. You can also add the church to the list, since it's a perfect example of changing dogmas throughout the centuries.

[bennyboy]

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.

And HIS priests come before HIS altarboys?

Look, if the Church means the Catholic institution headed by the pope, there as as many inconsistencies and shortcoming to turn away a non-Christian as the book itself. Part of it is the logical inconsistency of positions over the years, and part of it is the very real evil that is done by, and protected by, the church today. If this is the best institution that God can offer mankind, then what a weak God He is, indeed.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

But if the bible is sub-standard, and by necessity subject to cherry picking for it to relevant or useful in today's society, what possible reason would anyone have for accepting it is as the word of God?  I mean, this is HIS book.  It shouldn't need an editor.  

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.

But who wrote HIS book? Not the Pope himself, no that was God, right? Or was it? If it was your god, then how can you believe it's best to put a mortal dude in a dress above God's own words? If it wasn't God, then why bother with that book at all - how do you know if any of it is any good?

It does seem that Catholics put a lot of blind faith in one man, as if he were an incarnation of God himself, and this observation is more than anything else what inspired the great schism which was known as the Protestant Reformation.

[Mystic]

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.

But who wrote HIS book? Not the Pope himself, no that was God, right? Or was it? If it was your god, then how can you believe it's best to put a mortal dude in a dress above God's own words? If it wasn't God, then why bother with that book at all - how do you know if any of it is any good?

You bring a good point.  I would like to see a good proper answer to this.

I've heard from some Christians that God is not the author but that scripture is inspired by God. That it's also not infallible but fallible. 

I just don't get why from this perspective, God would not reveal more books or if he would end the books, would make sure it's protected from corruption.

Of course, it would be important for infallible interpreters of the book to safeguard it from misinterpretation, but in case people follow their desires, then the book should be written in a way that it safeguards it's own verses and God would be able to do that. 

Also, while an infallible representative of God is to be followed absolutely,  it still follows people during and after his time can attribute many falsehoods to that person.

The book of God would be a way for God to make sure that many of the vital important things are not corrupted but remain in safeguarded due to the book.

It would also be a way for humans to know those who God appointed even if people deviated from those he appointed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you think that you're in a different boat?

[LadyForCamus]

But if the bible is sub-standard, and by necessity subject to cherry picking for it to relevant or useful in today's society, what possible reason would anyone have for accepting it is as the word of God?  I mean, this is HIS book.  It shouldn't need an editor.  

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.

But without the book, would there have ever been a church at all?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that there would have been.  It's not as if they ever really cared about the book..their first order of business was to edit and anthologize what would -be- "the book". Asserting primacy from the outset. A borrowed ladder, discarded as soon as humanly possible. What they needed was the appearance of legitimacy, not the contents.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wouldn't get to caught up with the word subjective and objective.

If you go and read the thread title, you will see that that is the entire basis of the conversation. If you don't want to discuss objective morals, then why are you in this thread at all?

That's the end of our conversation. Goodbye.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.

Hardly a moral exemplar.

By the way, are you ever going to answer the questions I asked upthread?

[Jenny A]

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.

But without the book, would there have ever been a church at all?

Yes, actually there might. There really wasn't a Bible when Paul was writing, and not for some time after that. But there were Christians. So Christianity predates the Bible. Actually, it predates the OT, which like the NT, existed as a few of many scriptures before being chosen as the official scriptures. Some of both the not officially chosen of Jewish and Christian scripture remain, others are lost.

The church was the last authority until it choose the Bible as the last authority. And in the case of some sects the church remained the last authority. Catholicism is one such sect.