New religion

[Carnavon]

Maybe just ask a question that has import for the matter at hand, or make your question less generic?

You have answered the question.

[Epimethean]

No, but you have, and that is what you wanted, which suits a fundamentalist.

Let me add this: I consider you to be either a pure liar or incapable of knowing the truth. Anything I say to you will therefore be filtered through either a faulty moral sieve or misread. Following Grotius on this, you would never need truth from me, because you are incapable of assessing it honestly.

[DeistPaladin]

(1) There is no objective measure of morality, as this depends on individual choice and convictions.

I'd first like to know what you mean by "objective measure of morality" and what you think this would be like. Perhaps I'm wrong here but what distinguishes objective from subjective is whether the quality of something is measurable independent of a being's personal feelings, tastes or judgment.

Things like mass, velocity or temperature are measurable in an objective sense. These things can be mathematically measured by instruments and expressed in agreed upon units of measure like degrees with temperature.

So if morality is objective, does this mean we might be able to measure moral action in degrees or some other unit of measure? Does this mean we can plug numbers into a spreadsheet and determine with precision the most moral course of action?

Now you may laugh at this but there was one attempt that I know of at such a system. Jeremy Bentham attempted to articulate a system by which we could measure the pleasure in the universe generated by an action vs. the pain it generated. Actions could be determined to be moral or immoral accordingly. The obvious problem is how does one mathematically measure such qualities?

(If you do set a standard -as per your definition- why is that true?)

Fair question. I came by my three rules thinking about why I reacted the way I did to certain things. When I found myself saying "that's not right", I asked myself why it wasn't. The three rules were not things I created by rather born of a way to explain and predict what would or wouldn't be right. I found they seem to more-or-less cover all the bases.

Now, I admit even my rules require some subjective evaluation. Are some lies morally justifiable? What are the rights of others and how can they be weighed against the needs of the community?

My current view is that morality is subjective, as understood by our very use of the term "moral judgment" and qualitative assessments as "good" or "bad". These are terms not often used when calculating objective measurements.

Let me be clear that morality being "subjective" is not to say "anything goes". We still can make logical arguments as to why we feel that something is moral or immoral and refine our understanding and moral judgment in this way.

Subjective evaluations are still evaluations.

The existence or lack thereof of a god is further a separate issue from whether morality is objectively or subjectively measured. If morality is indeed objective, then units of measurements can be discovered even if God does not exist. If morality is subjective, then what God feels about a certain action is still a subjective evaluation from a being's point of view, regardless of how powerful, wise or benevolent that being may be.

This is one reason why GodWillsIt is unsatisfying to our understanding of moral issues. This is not objective morality but surrendering subjective judgment to another being.

It gets even shakier when you consider that, from my view, deferring to "God" is like deferring to an imaginary friend. This is another reason why GodWillsIt is unsatisfying an answer and doesn't advance our understanding of morality. You may say "my God says slavery is wrong" but a Christian southern plantation owner before the Civil War felt his imaginary friend said slavery is OK.

It seems to me that everyone's imaginary friend tells them what they want to believe anyway.

(2) We are becoming more “moral”.
It would seem to me that the first two arguments cannot both be true for to make a judgement you need a standard.

You make a valid point. If we are to say that we're becoming more moral, we must first believe that such things like war crimes, aggressive warfare, sexual harassment at work, slavery, and other issues we've so far discusses are "bad" things. I'm perfectly comfortable evaluating them as "bad" and therefore coming to my conclusion that things are "better" now. How about you?

OK, let's take an issue you might feel more comfortable debating. Our society is now less hostile toward homosexuality then in previous generations. I evaluate this as "getting better". Bullying people, driving them to suicide, forcing them to be what they are not, destroying their happiness, infringing on their rights, and other problems created by a homophobic society are all what I would call "bad".

How about your view? Can you explain to me why love is evil when the body parts are similar? Can you explain to me why tolerating people with similar body parts doing things to each other is such a horrible evil as to justify the evils I articulated above?

You see, this is how we advance our understanding of morality. We debate the issue in a rational fashion.

Yet you judge previous moral standards although they were the ones that were considered appropriate at the time (their preferences) and thus we cannot judge them as it was “agreed” that they were right. How can you now judge them. If you do, you assume that there is an ultimate right and wrong that is slowly being “revealed”. Where does this standard originate?

Let me put to rest now this idea you and others have that I think that morality is determined by majority rules. I don't believe that and have never said otherwise.

I've said before that the existence of God doesn't make much difference in our discussion of morality. If it turns out that God has given me this conscience by which we evaluate "right and wrong", what then? Does that make our conscience any better or worse than if it were simply the product of our evolution as community beings that depend on each other to survive and therefore we developed said conscience as the means for survival?

But let's suppose that you're right and there is a god who is watching over us now, who prescribes our moral behavior and judges us by how we adhere to it. How has God determined this code of morality?

If God has invented the code as a celestial lawgiver, that things are good because God commands them, this is not objective morality by definition. This is a being inventing arbitrary laws.

If God has determined the proper code, as a celestial judge, and things are commanded by God because they are good, then morality exists outside of and independent to God. That which is "right" or "wrong" would continue to be so regardless of whether God changes his mind, goes away to another universe or turns out never to have existed at all.

This is called "Euthephro's Dilemma". Sophisticated Christian apologists try to escape it by babbling that "the essence of moral goodness is bound into the very nature of God". In addition to the problem of WTF does that even mean and how have they managed to determine this, this is begging the question. They define God as "good" and that's how they know God is good.

This is just one reason why religion is neither necessary nor helpful to understand morality.

[Carnavon]

I'd first like to know what you mean by "objective measure of morality" and what you think this would be like. Perhaps I'm wrong here but what distinguishes objective from subjective is whether the quality of something is measurable independent of a being's personal feelings, tastes or judgment.

Things like mass, velocity or temperature are measurable in an objective sense. These things can be mathematically measured by instruments and expressed in agreed upon units of measure like degrees with temperature.

So if morality is objective, does this mean we might be able to measure moral action in degrees or some other unit of measure? Does this mean we can plug numbers into a spreadsheet and determine with precision the most moral course of action?

Now you may laugh at this but there was one attempt that I know of at such a system. Jeremy Bentham attempted to articulate a system by which we could measure the pleasure in the universe generated by an action vs. the pain it generated. Actions could be determined to be moral or immoral accordingly. The obvious problem is how does one mathematically measure such qualities?

What I mean with objective measure of morality is some standard independent of our subjective judgement of issues. As an example, the Bible acts as an objective measure for me – which is independent of what I regard as “proper. This is also independent of what others think.
Some of the issues that “modern man” has an issue with is for instance the “husband/wife”relationship. The Bible states that the husband is the head of the wife. Now this does not go down too well with many. From my perspective -taking the relevant verses into consideration, it is a wonderful relationship where the husband accepts responsibility for his wife and serves her as Jesus came to serve. (Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.)
There have been many that regard this as justification for treating their wives as “slaves” and not showing respect. This may happen when there is selective reading of verses and not interpretation based on wider understanding of relevant topics- and I would like to suggest also an improper spirit.
Seeing that the issue of slaves were raised, and a topic of a recent a sermon at our church, the following will be guidelines for employer/employee relationships.
Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:
Col 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

(If you do set a standard -as per your definition- why is that true?)-

Fair question. I came by my three rules thinking about why I reacted the way I did to certain things. When I found myself saying "that's not right", I asked myself why it wasn't. The three rules were not things I created by rather born of a way to explain and predict what would or wouldn't be right. I found they seem to more-or-less cover all the bases.

Now, I admit even my rules require some subjective evaluation. Are some lies morally justifiable? What are the rights of others and how can they be weighed against the needs of the community?

My current view is that morality is subjective, as understood by our very use of the term "moral judgment" and qualitative assessments as "good" or "bad". These are terms not often used when calculating objective measurements.

Let me be clear that morality being "subjective" is not to say "anything goes". We still can make logical arguments as to why we feel that something is moral or immoral and refine our understanding and moral judgment in this way.

Subjective evaluations are still evaluations.

You seem to be a level-headed type of person and I would consider that your judgements will be fair. But the question could be then “How can you judge others by your standards as they are not accepted as "universally applicable” or use your criteria to judge what should generally be accepted as morally right? This is the predicament.
It is now accepted that children may be aborted – and this has the result that babies which are born live (botched abortion) apparently sometimes live as long as a full shift without any attention being paid to them, is “legal” but really immoral. Please have a look at some of the footage available on what happens during an abortion and tell me if you think that is morally acceptable.

The existence or lack thereof of a god is further a separate issue from whether morality is objectively or subjectively measured. If morality is indeed objective, then units of measurements can be discovered even if God does not exist. If morality is subjective, then what God feels about a certain action is still a subjective evaluation from a being's point of view, regardless of how powerful, wise or benevolent that being may be.

This is one reason why GodWillsIt is unsatisfying to our understanding of moral issues. This is not objective morality but surrendering subjective judgment to another being.

I agree that you “surrender” your judgment on issues to another “person”. I think you hit the nail on the head. We want to do it “our way”, whatever that means- and who’s way is it? We do not accept that which God has proclaimed. It is much like the owner of a car deciding to what pressure he should inflate his tires, without reference to the guidelines of the manufacturer.

It gets even shakier when you consider that, from my view, deferring to "God" is like deferring to an imaginary friend. This is another reason why GodWillsIt is unsatisfying an answer and doesn't advance our understanding of morality. You may say "my God says slavery is wrong" but a Christian southern plantation owner before the Civil War felt his imaginary friend said slavery is OK.

The question is really not what he may think of it, the question is what does the Bible say?
The Bible does not address the issue of slavery as either right or wrong, but it does give very clear guidelines on how we should treat others (including those who work for us). I was reading on Joseph this morning. Although his “master” was not a man of God, Joseph acted in such a manner that his “owner” could trust him with everything. You will know that even at this time when slavery does not exist in a legal sense, your “free” employees seldom show the same commitment towards your business. Trade unions and the Industrial Relations Acts in various countries exist because of the way many employers treat their “free” employees.

We are becoming more “moral”.
It would seem to me that the first two arguments cannot both be true for to make a judgement you need a standard.

You make a valid point. If we are to say that we're becoming more moral, we must first believe that such things like war crimes, aggressive warfare, sexual harassment at work, slavery, and other issues we've so far discusses are "bad" things. I'm perfectly comfortable evaluating them as "bad" and therefore coming to my conclusion that things are "better" now. How about you?

OK, let's take an issue you might feel more comfortable debating. Our society is now less hostile toward homosexuality then in previous generations. I evaluate this as "getting better". Bullying people, driving them to suicide, forcing them to be what they are not, destroying their happiness, infringing on their rights, and other problems created by a homophobic society are all what I would call "bad".

How about your view? Can you explain to me why love is evil when the body parts are similar? Can you explain to me why tolerating people with similar body parts doing things to each other is such a horrible evil as to justify the evils I articulated above?

You see, this is how we advance our understanding of morality. We debate the issue in a rational fashion.

I am sorry to drag this aspect into the discussion again. Better suggests a standard. If the standard is not universally accepted, it is only “better” for those that ascribe to that standard and in itself has no meaning.
War crimes: they are continuously in the news despite conventions as early as 1899 and other agreements for centuries before that. As we agreed, legislation or codes do not actually necessarily have a positive effect. As you have indicated before, it may have a negative effect. War crimes continue unabated. A recent example is the Libyan war, with claims of war crimes in the Yemeni Uprising, The Syrian uprising and I am sure most of the others as well. Definitely not proof of us “getting better”. I would suggest the contrary position as there were claims of war crimes on all of the ones I have checked- and that is during 2011 only!
Aggressive warfare is daily in the news. How many wars in 2011? Seven? With 12 ongoing. Compare with +- 68 for the 1000 years from the year 1 to 999. I do not know when warfare was preferred over peace.
Sexual harassment at work. In my many years of employment I only experienced one occasion when there was a case of such harassment and it was never condoned. To the contrary, the guy was not welcome in any conversation. To suggest that it is now better because there is “legislation” could actually indicate that it seems to be on the increase as legislation is required. If there is not continuous transgression, there would hardly be a need for such legislation? Stats also seem to indicate that there is an increase in sexual harassment. (SHRM)
I would submit that sexual harassment, wherever it takes place, is unacceptable. The Bible has reference to dealing with others:
1Ti 5:2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
On slavery, it is evident that the cruelty often associated with slavery was a travesty of justice. It seems to me that the problem was not so much the slavery issue as the treatment of slaves. The issue is thus the treatment of people and clear guidelines are given in this respect in the Bible.
Interesting to note the concern that people had for their “slaves/servants”. See Math 8:6 as an example. I could not find any indication in the Bible of a slave being spoken of in a derogatory manner because of his/her social standing/position. To the contrary, Paul describe himself as a servant, and hardly a title to be despised. (Rom 1:1)
Homosexuality
It is not relevant to the discussion, but the few homosexuals I have known were really nice people and I enjoyed their company.
That they are treated with disrespect and that it has driven some to extreme measures is very, very sad. People treating them disrespectful have a self-righteous attitude in that they condemn others when they themselves are sinners. There is no justification for mistreating others.
Why is homosexual behaviour accepted as fine? On what basis? If you believe in evolution, it seems to me that nature has worked out a really great method to ensure the survival of the specie- which is jeopardized by homosexual behaviour.
If you are a Christian, the Bible is clear that it is a sin. Any sinner is welcome in the house of the Lord. If it was not the case, nobody would be allowed. We are saved by grace, and it is not our good works that make us “acceptable” to God. To consider yourself “acceptable” based on your “performance” is totally removed from the truth.

Yet you judge previous moral standards although they were the ones that were considered appropriate at the time (their preferences) and thus we cannot judge them as it was “agreed” that they were right. How can you now judge them. If you do, you assume that there is an ultimate right and wrong that is is slowly being “revealed”. Where does this standard originate?:)

Let me put to rest now this idea you and others have that I think that morality is determined by majority rules. I don't believe that and have never said otherwise.

I've said before that the existence of God doesn't make much difference in our discussion of morality. If it turns out that God has given me this conscience by which we evaluate "right and wrong", what then? Does that make our conscience any better or worse than if it were simply the product of our evolution as community beings that depend on each other to survive and therefore we developed said conscience as the means for survival?

But let's suppose that you're right and there is a god who is watching over us now, who prescribes our moral behavior and judges us by how we adhere to it. How has God determined this code of morality?

If God has invented the code as a celestial lawgiver, that things are good because God commands them, this is not objective morality by definition. This is a being inventing arbitrary laws.

If God has determined the proper code, as a celestial judge, and things are commanded by God because they are good, then morality exists outside of and independent to God. That which is "right" or "wrong" would continue to be so regardless of whether God changes his mind, goes away to another universe or turns out never to have existed at all.

This is called "Euthephro's Dilemma". Sophisticated Christian apologists try to escape it by babbling that "the essence of moral goodness is bound into the very nature of God". In addition to the problem of WTF does that even mean and how have they managed to determine this, this is begging the question. They define God as "good" and that's how they know God is good.

This is just one reason why religion is neither necessary nor helpful to understand morality.

What is the principle then to decide what is right and wrong? Is man the eventual judge as you seem to suggest? Knowing mankind, you will forgive me for really having my doubts at the outcome. None of the aspects that you have put forward as being “better” has a rational basis for deciding it is better. You have failed to produce any rationale. Even having a standard is no reason for accepting that as the proper standard. If human judgment was the eventual criterium, it has shown itself to have poor prognoses as it keeps changing. God’s law does not change and does not have to. We just don't like it and especially not being told.

We all know what is better as we have been given a conscience. We want peace, honesty, integrity, love for our neighbour. These are the things that the Bible teaches. The problem now is that we wish to do that which is contrary to God’s commands.

On the issue of better or worse, makes me think of the comment I heard that once upon a time contracts were closed with the shake of a hand as there was trust and integrity. Nowadays not even a contract drawn up by a professional is always adequate protection. You would have experienced that in your business as well.

Just one last comment. Even if you accepted all of my arguments, nobody would have gained anything. None of us. The issue is not the argument. The issue is Jesus Christ, who was by all accounts having all his faculties, and claiming to be the Son of God and equal to God, laying down his life so you could have eternal life in fulfillment of the prophecy :
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
God has shown his love towards you in a remarkable way. He has paid the price for your transgressions, however serious it may be.

[The Grand Nudger]

What I mean with objective measure of morality is some standard independent of our subjective judgement of issues. As an example, the Bible acts as an objective measure for me – which is independent of what I regard as “proper. This is also independent of what others think.
Some of the issues that “modern man” has an issue with is for instance the “husband/wife”relationship. The Bible states that the husband is the head of the wife. Now this does not go down too well with many. From my perspective -taking the relevant verses into consideration, it is a wonderful relationship where the husband accepts responsibility for his wife and serves her as Jesus came to serve. (Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.)
There have been many that regard this as justification for treating their wives as “slaves” and not showing respect. This may happen when there is selective reading of verses and not interpretation based on wider understanding of relevant topics- and I would like to suggest also an improper spirit.
Seeing that the issue of slaves were raised, and a topic of a recent a sermon at our church, the following will be guidelines for employer/employee relationships.
Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:
Col 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Attributing something to god doesn't make it objective, nor does attributing something to the bible make it objective. Your next bit here has alot to say about this actually. Your interpretations of these passages (and the entirety of the bible) are equally selective, and subjective. If one religious shitwit says his book says he can beat his wife and another says the same book tells him he can't, neither of you anything to offer as to why I should take either of you seriously. Employers aren't masters, employees aren't servants. Long story short, you probably shouldn't be using fairy tales as an ultimate authority with regards to how you live your life. Are you actually incapable of figuring this shit out on your own? Did you need a book to tell you not to stick a knife in the guy next to you...seriously?

“How can you judge others by your standards as they are not accepted as "universally applicable” or use your criteria to judge what should generally be accepted as morally right? This is the predicament.
It is now accepted that children may be aborted – and this has the result that babies which are born live (botched abortion) apparently sometimes live as long as a full shift without any attention being paid to them, is “legal” but really immoral. Please have a look at some of the footage available on what happens during an abortion and tell me if you think that is morally acceptable.

Simple, we do it all the time, it's called citizenship and law. Nice going by the way, working in a talking point about abortion.

I agree that you “surrender” your judgment on issues to another “person”. I think you hit the nail on the head. We want to do it “our way”, whatever that means- and who’s way is it? We do not accept that which God has proclaimed. It is much like the owner of a car deciding to what pressure he should inflate his tires, without reference to the guidelines of the manufacturer.

Oh, so we should do it your way? God proclaims nothing. Your god doesn't exist. You're the one doing the proclaiming.

What is the principle then to decide what is right and wrong? Is man the eventual judge as you seem to suggest? Knowing mankind, you will forgive me for really having my doubts at the outcome. None of the aspects that you have put forward as being “better” has a rational basis for deciding it is better. You have failed to produce any rationale. Even having a standard is no reason for accepting that as the proper standard. If human judgment was the eventual criterium, it has shown itself to have poor prognoses as it keeps changing. God’s law does not change and does not have to. We just don't like it and especially not being told.

See anything else on this rock contemplating good and evil? We're not just the "eventual judge" we're the only judge, because we're the only thing here that this concept has any meaning for whatsoever (as far as we can tell). That we aren't very good at it is obvious, but why would we be? We're still human beings, evil or no, which is to say, still animals. So we fall short of not being complete savages...unsurprising.

We all know what is better as we have been given a conscience. We want peace, honesty, integrity, love for our neighbour. These are the things that the Bible teaches. The problem now is that we wish to do that which is contrary to God’s commands.

To bad that's not all the bible teaches eh? You'd almost have an argument if it weren't for all the garbage you've conveniently left out. Oh, by the way, god commands nothing. It's a fairy tale making commands. I'm wondering why you would comply with the demands of a fairy tale. Maybe you should let down your hair (rapunzel) or give me your firstborn in return for gold (rumplestiltskin). Sounds ridiculous? Sure as hell does.

On the issue of better or worse, makes me think of the comment I heard that once upon a time contracts were closed with the shake of a hand as there was trust and integrity. Nowadays not even a contract drawn up by a professional is always adequate protection. You would have experienced that in your business as well.

Contracts made by a shake of the hand were broken as often as contracts made by documentation. To suggest otherwise is naivety in the highest degree.

Just one last comment. Even if you accepted all of my arguments, nobody would have gained anything. None of us. The issue is not the argument. The issue is Jesus Christ, who was by all accounts having all his faculties, and claiming to be the Son of God and equal to God, laying down his life so you could have eternal life in fulfillment of the prophecy :
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
God has shown his love towards you in a remarkable way. He has paid the price for your transgressions, however serious it may be.

Fairy tales, and sanctimonious shit. I don't accept a human sacrifice, or a scapegoat to be tortured for the things I do, good or bad. So you can take this "sacrifice" and shove it up your ass. It's the sickest thing that I can possibly imagine. Tell you what, go ahead and send me to hell and send jesus back to earth, he got shafted and it's not going to be on account of me, thanks.

[DeistPaladin]

What I mean with objective measure of morality is some standard independent of our subjective judgement of issues.

This definition does not conform to the dictionary definition of "objective", which is a measure independent of ANY subjective judgment. This is why GodWillsIt is not, by definition, objective. No matter how powerful, wise or benevolent the being in question may be, if that being exorcises judgment to make rules, it is a subjective set of rules, based on that being's perspective.

Using your definition, I could just as easily say that North Koreans have an objective standard of morality based on the whims of their "Dear Leader", whom they regard as a god. Followers of other religions could make similar claims. The followers of Bin Laden thought it was morally correct to kill "infidels" because they thought it was the "Will of Allah". There are many examples in history of Christians who've committed atrocities and even today there are Christian terrorists (see the Hutaree movement).

Now you may say these were not True Christians and they acted contrary to scripture. The problem is that neither Jesus nor Allah ever come down from Heaven to explain their will. It's always filtered through religious priest-type characters who have their own agenda.

Some of the issues that “modern man” has an issue with is for instance the “husband/wife”relationship. The Bible states that the husband is the head of the wife. Now this does not go down too well with many.

Myself included, not just in my rejection of inequality but also as a matter of personal preference. My wife is a headstrong passionate woman. We fight sometimes but in truth I prefer it this way and I suspect she does as well.

Seeing that the issue of slaves were raised, and a topic of a recent a sermon at our church, the following will be guidelines for employer/employee relationships.

Would I be right in assuming that the passage that speaks of beating your slave to death is OK as long as he doesn't die right away was not mentioned? Exodus 21:21

“How can you judge others by your standards as they are not accepted as "universally applicable” or use your criteria to judge what should generally be accepted as morally right? This is the predicament.

Only in the Christian mind. Much of these "philosophical arguments" of apologetics seem to revolve around finding a problem that doesn't actually exist and then offering "GodDidIt, GodWantsIt, GodWillsIt" as the solution.

Morality is a matter of empathy. We identify with the suffering of others, the very nature of compassion. The "social contract", as summed up by Jesus and others before him, is to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. How can you pardon the existence of slavery when you would not be a slave yourself?

It is now accepted that children may be aborted

It is actually not accepted that "children" be aborted, though it was in the OT (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

What is accepted now is that a 1st trimester fetus may be aborted. Since the brain doesn't form until roughly week 21, a 1st trimester fetus is not another conscious being but a collection of cells.

Late term abortions are not on demand, as conservatives suggest, but only available when the woman's health is at risk. You can't just walk into an abortion clinic after week 21 and say you've changed your mind and want an abortion. Your life must be at risk.

The issue is thus the treatment of people and clear guidelines are given in this respect in the Bible.

The Bible can be used to justify any belief. Jesus is a liberal, a conservative, a capitalist, a socialist, black, white, straight, gay or anything else you want him to be. This is why there are thousands of denominations of Christianity, each one thinking they got it right.

Why is homosexual behaviour accepted as fine? On what basis? If you believe in evolution, it seems to me that nature has worked out a really great method to ensure the survival of the specie- which is jeopardized by homosexual behaviour.

Evolution is about communities, not individuals. Homosexual couples may not reproduce themselves but can be effective godparents to children orphaned in a community. Research has shown that gay couples are every bit as effective at parenting as their heterosexual counterparts and in nature we see same sex animal couples raising orphaned young.

Also, evolution is not about morality, though I do believe that morality is its own reward in the long run.

As for why homosexuality should be accepted but not predatory sexual behaviors like rape or child molestation again comes back to the social contract. Someone who's not gay might still fight for the rights of gays because they would not wish to be abused themselves. This is distinguished from predatory behaviors where there is a victim.

God’s law does not change and does not have to.

One word: Shellfish.

Leviticus 11:10

The issue is Jesus Christ, who was by all accounts having all his faculties, and claiming to be the Son of God and equal to God, laying down his life so you could have eternal life in fulfillment of the prophecy

And this is the biggest problem I have with Christian morality. What are the three classic steps again?

1. Admit you're not perfect
2. Repent what you've done wrong
3. Believe that Yahweh sent his own son who was also himself down to earth to bleed upon a cross as the only means by which he could convince himself to forgive you because human sacrifice makes everything better because... because... well, that part is never explained.

You had me. You had me. You lost me.

[Carnavon]

Attributing something to god doesn't make it objective, nor does attributing something to the bible make it objective. Your next bit here has alot to say about this actually. Your interpretations of these passages (and the entirety of the bible) are equally selective, and subjective. If one religious shitwit says his book says he can beat his wife and another says the same book tells him he can't, neither of you anything to offer as to why I should take either of you seriously. Employers aren't masters, employees aren't servants. Long story short, you probably shouldn't be using fairy tales as an ultimate authority with regards to how you live your life. Are you actually incapable of figuring this shit out on your own? Did you need a book to tell you not to stick a knife in the guy next to you...seriously?

The argument was about one person accepting this and the other that which makes it subjective (“taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment").

Simple, we do it all the time, it's called citizenship and law. Nice going by the way, working in a talking point about abortion.

No problem. You just have not provided a base against which to judge (other than own preference). If you do have such a basis, I would dearly like to hear what it is and why?

Oh, so we should do it your way? God proclaims nothing. Your god doesn't exist. You're the one doing the proclaiming.

Your argument to substantiate your claim that God does not exist? I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and thus I accept what He says as truth. You accept other matters as truth, such as there is no God

See anything else on this rock contemplating good and evil? We're not just the "eventual judge" we're the only judge, because we're the only thing here that this concept has any meaning for whatsoever (as far as we can tell). That we aren't very good at it is obvious, but why would we be? We're still human beings, evil or no, which is to say, still animals. So we fall short of not being complete savages...unsurprising

So good is good because you say so? Evil is evil because you say so? That is the standard? I am sure that you will find many people disagreeing with you on what is good and what is evil. It is generally accepted that Hitler was not what we will call “good”, with war crimes that cry out. Yet there were (and maybe still is) people that regard him as a hero (Palestinian Radio as an example). Thus you see the problem with subjectivity?
Yes, you are right, we often make mistakes and we all accept that “to err is human”. No doubt about that.

To bad that's not all the bible teaches eh? You'd almost have an argument if it weren't for all the garbage you've conveniently left out. Oh, by the way, god commands nothing. It's a fairy tale making commands. I'm wondering why you would comply with the demands of a fairy tale. Maybe you should let down your hair (rapunzel) or give me your firstborn in return for gold (rumplestiltskin). Sounds ridiculous? Sure as hell does

It will be great if you could highlight some of the “garbage” so we may critically examine it. Of course the cross sounds stupid to others. It was never claimed to be a real attraction to the world.
1Co 1:18 For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God.
1Co 1:22 And since Jews ask for a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 we, on the other hand, preach Christ crucified (truly an offense to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks),

Fairy tales, and sanctimonious shit. I don't accept a human sacrifice, or a scapegoat to be tortured for the things I do, good or bad. So you can take this "sacrifice" and shove it up your ass. It's the sickest thing that I can possibly imagine. Tell you what, go ahead and send me to hell and send jesus back to earth, he got shafted and it's not going to be on account of me, thanks.

At the risk of proving your point of sounding “sanctimonious”, I do not for one small moment wish to send you to hell. That is the honest to goodness truth. I am no “goody-goody” person with a continuous smile of pure bliss on his face but a person that gets angry at guys obstructing the traffic at intersections (may favorite gripe) and can sulk for days (ask my wife). But I would rather wish that God will look upon you with grace and mercy and make him known to you through the work of the Holy Spirit.
Whether you accept Jesus’ sacrifice is up you.

[Epimethean]

And since he is sane and rational, he will continue to put jesus next to mohammed next to Luke Skywalker on the fantasy shelf. No real offer extended, none needing to be accepted.

[DeistPaladin]

Your argument to substantiate your claim that God does not exist? I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and thus I accept what He says as truth. You accept other matters as truth, such as there is no God

Burden of proof lies with the claim that something exists.

You, I would speculate, do not believe there is an Allah, Zeus, Ra, Odin or variety of other gods. If you were to say, "there is no Allah", we would not demand proof. It would be understood that the statement is "as far as we know".

[Carnavon]

This definition does not conform to the dictionary definition of "objective", which is a measure independent of ANY subjective judgment. This is why GodWillsIt is not, by definition, objective. No matter how powerful, wise or benevolent the being in question may be, if that being exorcises judgment to make rules, it is a subjective set of rules, based on that being's perspective.

Using your definition, I could just as easily say that North Koreans have an objective standard of morality based on the whims of their "Dear Leader", whom they regard as a god. Followers of other religions could make similar claims. The followers of Bin Laden thought it was morally correct to kill "infidels" because they thought it was the "Will of Allah". There are many examples in history of Christians who've committed atrocities and even today there are Christian terrorists (see the Hutaree movement).

Maybe I should further qualify what I meant in view of the original argument of “they agree to have an open marriage and that is then not wrong”. That there seems to be a standard that distinguishes between right and wrong, and is not open to individual choice, is evident. As you mentioned, war crimes are not “right”, so is mutilating animals for personal pleasure or pedophilia. Thus a set of standards which is independent of individual choice/preference, would be an “objective standard”, as its origin is “outside the subject/individual making the judgement”

Now you may say these were not True Christians and they acted contrary to scripture. The problem is that neither Jesus nor Allah ever come down from Heaven to explain their will. It's always filtered through religious priest-type characters who have their own agenda.

Jesus claimed to be one with the Father and being thus God. He was crucified thus for at least blasphemy. Priests may interpret any way they want, but that does not make it true. If somebody interprets a poem, he does not give its real meaning. The poet had a message, irrespective of how others may see it.

Myself included, not just in my rejection of inequality but also as a matter of personal preference. My wife is a headstrong passionate woman. We fight sometimes but in truth I prefer it this way and I suspect she does as well.

Inequality has nothing to do with it. All people are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Thus whether you are a male,female, white, black, rich, poor, American, Australian is totally irrelevant. It is purely a matter of authority. If you regard for instance your employees as inferior, you have a problem. You asked your wife about her real views?

Seeing that the issue of slaves were raised, and a topic of a recent a sermon at our church, the following will be guidelines for employer/employee relationships.

Would I be right in assuming that the passage that speaks of beating your slave to death is OK as long as he doesn't die right away was not mentioned? Exodus 21:21

This is a difficult issue. It would seem that the purpose here was not to kill, but discipline. As you would have noticed, action should be taken against the “owner” if he died because of the assault. (see previous verse)
We have the same principle in our laws now. Cases are decided whether a man dies as a direct result of the injuries inflicted or was there other causes that affected the situation. Not an easy answer, I agree.
However, you will agree that the principle that I put forward and that is relevant to treating employees, are valid not so?

“How can you judge others by your standards as they are not accepted as "universally applicable” or use your criteria to judge what should generally be accepted as morally right? This is the predicament.”

Only in the Christian mind. Much of these "philosophical arguments" of apologetics seem to revolve around finding a problem that doesn't actually exist and then offering "GodDidIt, GodWantsIt, GodWillsIt" as the solution.

Morality is a matter of empathy. We identify with the suffering of others, the very nature of compassion. The "social contract", as summed up by Jesus and others before him, is to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. How can you pardon the existence of slavery when you would not be a slave yourself?

Your answer does not address the issue of the relevance of your value system as the criteria for right and wrong, whereas others may have a different set of values.

”It is now accepted that children may be aborted”
It is actually not accepted that "children" be aborted, though it was in the OT (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

No reference to unborn children and the argument of protection of those unable to protect their own interests- which should be the “hallmark” of a better society. Now it is “No 1” that counts.
You would have noticed what the process was: Did not listen to his father/ and mother in matters of morals, not because he “does not wash his feet before entering the house” ( This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard). After they have exhausted their efforts to rectify his behaviour, they have to justify any action to the “elders” of the city who were respected persons in the community.
This is contrary to what we find nowadays that there are actually action groups that lobby and take issue in the matter of “violence against woman and children” because of the rife occurrence. What a shame on our society!

What is accepted now is that a 1st trimester fetus may be aborted. Since the brain doesn't form until roughly week 21, a 1st trimester fetus is not another conscious being but a collection of cells.
Late term abortions are not on demand, as conservatives suggest, but only available when the woman's health is at risk. You can't just walk into an abortion clinic after week 21 and say you've changed your mind and want an abortion. Your life must be at risk.

The argument of brain functioning is thus the criterion? Thus people with brain damage may be killed? Awareness the only value to life? Are you not just a collection of cells? The child is not an “it”, it is a human being in the process of development. We call the developing child all kinds of things to distance ourselves from this. Why are mothers going through such trauma when they abort? My dear friend, we have really now limited the value of those least able to fend for themselves, and I always thought that this was the responsibility of a caring people – to defend the rights of those not able to fend for themselves? It is a tragic shame!

”The issue is thus the treatment of people and clear guidelines are given in this respect in the Bible.”

The Bible can be used to justify any belief. Jesus is a liberal, a conservative, a capitalist, a socialist, black, white, straight, gay or anything else you want him to be. This is why there are thousands of denominations of Christianity, each one thinking they got it right.

You are right. The Bible is the only truth and when we use it, as you previously mentioned, for our own purposes, it becomes distorted. Apartheid was justified by the Bible.

Why is homosexual behaviour accepted as fine? On what basis? If you believe in evolution, it seems to me that nature has worked out a really great method to ensure the survival of the specie- which is jeopardized by homosexual behaviour.

Evolution is about communities, not individuals. Homosexual couples may not reproduce themselves but can be effective godparents to children orphaned in a community. Research has shown that gay couples are every bit as effective at parenting as their heterosexual counterparts and in nature we see same sex animal couples raising orphaned young.

Also, evolution is not about morality, though I do believe that morality is its own reward in the long run.

As for why homosexuality should be accepted but not predatory sexual behaviors like rape or child molestation again comes back to the social contract. Someone who's not gay might still fight for the rights of gays because they would not wish to be abused themselves. This is distinguished from predatory behaviors where there is a victim.

I accept your point that you may justify it from a evolutionary point of view although it still seems at odds with the “system” that was developed over “millions of years” to find the best solution, and thus an aberration thereof.

God’s law does not change and does not have to.

One word: Shellfish.

Leviticus 11:10

I do not know what the reasons were, but you will know that the distinction between “clean” and “unclean” animals existed before then (See the flood) and thus there would have been health reasons for the prohibition.

The issue is Jesus Christ, who was by all accounts having all his faculties, and claiming to be the Son of God and equal to God, laying down his life so you could have eternal life in fulfillment of the prophecy

And this is the biggest problem I have with Christian morality. What are the three classic steps again?

1. Admit you're not perfect
2. Repent what you've done wrong
3. Believe that Yahweh sent his own son who was also himself down to earth to bleed upon a cross as the only means by which he could convince himself to forgive you because human sacrifice makes everything better because... because... well, that part is never explained.

You had me. You had me. You lost me.

Yes, as I indicated with a previous post, it may not seem “rational” that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Now if somebody offered you a gift that will change you whole future, are you going to describe to him what the conditions should be?
Let's see:
You know that you need a car.
You know your drivers license has been endorsed for drunken driving and no longer valid. You are offered a brand new Lincoln Continental, or a brand new Ferrari by a friend and he can remove your drivers license suspension. Are you going to say “No this gift is unacceptable because the price for the vehicle is not what I think it should be ”? What a friend you are!
Jesus will give you a new life and remove your sins – without you deserving it. And you complain because you think “the price is unfair?”

He did not have to convince himself – the punishment for sin is death (not only physical, but also spiritual) and Jesus suffered that on your behalf so you can have eternal life. The sacrifice removes all your sin, You are a clean slate with all the arguments and possible harsh words with your wife forgiven, and you complain?

The great thing is that in the previous example, you were for argument's sake not worthy of your friend's friendship (maybe you betrayed him and he knows it), and he still makes this offer to you, showing clearly that he loves you. This is what happens, the Bible tells us.
Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Yes, Jesus loves you. Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
(implication also -some will not hear)

---

Your argument to substantiate your claim that God does not exist? I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and thus I accept what He says as truth. You accept other matters as truth, such as there is no God

Burden of proof lies with the claim that something exists.

You, I would speculate, do not believe there is an Allah, Zeus, Ra, Odin or variety of other gods. If you were to say, "there is no Allah", we would not demand proof. It would be understood that the statement is "as far as we know".

There seems to be a difference between stating "there is no God" and "I believe there is no God". Without any fancy footwork, it is very obvious that if you make a positive statement such as you did, you are the one with the burden of proof. If you said "I believe there is no God" would be another matter altogether. But don't worry, you cannot prove there is no God, so shall we say "truce"?

***DEISTPALADIN EDITED TO FIX QUOTE BOXES***