Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[JesusHChrist]

For me, I happen to believe the eye witness accounts of prophets who over the millennia have reported the same story and have consistently and coherently recorded it in scripture. So, there is no doubt but that you will consider God to be subjective; But, since I believe these reports of the prophets to be true, then for me God is an objective truth.

Do you believe the eye witness accounts of Vespasian curing the blind with spit? Eye witness accounts of Apolloius of Tyanna doing all sorts of Jesusy escapades? Mohamed's eyewitness testimony of cave-time with an Angel? The angry, mono-theistic god of Islam is consistent with the polytheism of Christianity and Mormonism?

What same story? What consistency and coherency?

Why do you accept these "reports" of the prophets as true, when many were written post-hoc? Daniel for example...

[Esquilax]

If you think that an objective moral code can come about as a product of a subjective being, then I don't think you know what either of those words mean.

I see your point. But as you may suspect, my not being an atheist, suggests that I do not see God as being subjective.

Reading your immediate next response, I see that you've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that god is subjective in that the idea of god is subjective, as opposed to an objective fact, although I also think that's true. My main contention here is that even if god exists, any moral pronouncements that god makes are just as much the product of a subjective opinion as any human moral idea. God is a subject, he's a being with a mind, which is exactly the same kind of thing that a human is, and moral pronouncements that a god makes reflect only god's opinion, not some objectively real truth of the universe. You might bestow additional authority upon those opinions, but they are still just god's opinions, and not in some special category where they are objective features of reality just because god said them.

Furthermore, if god's moral commandments are objective, in your estimation, in that they reflect ultimate goodness, then ultimate goodness is evidently a standard separate from god's opinions, that god could not change. God, in that possibility, is little more than a mouthpiece for an objective moral goodness that does not require him to be real, meaning your argument falls apart. And if god can change that objective standard, then you're right back to just puffing up god's opinions, rather than providing a real objective source.

[Lek]

Hello there, welcome

I have no idea what spiritualism is, it seems like an empty word to me. Science rejects the supernatural from inquiry as unknowable. I'm not sure what that has to do with morality either. But secular morality is superior in every way to any kind of religious morality, there's not even any question about that as far as I'm concerned.

What is secular morality? Is there a standard code of morality that applies to all secular people?

[Mr.wizard]

Hello there, welcome

I have no idea what spiritualism is, it seems like an empty word to me. Science rejects the supernatural from inquiry as unknowable. I'm not sure what that has to do with morality either. But secular morality is superior in every way to any kind of religious morality, there's not even any question about that as far as I'm concerned.

What is secular morality? Is there a standard code of morality that applies to all secular people?

No, its morality derived from non-religious sources.

[Lek]

What is secular morality? Is there a standard code of morality that applies to all secular people?

No, its morality derived from non-religious sources.

How can you say it's superior if you can't specifically define it?

[Mr.wizard]

No, its morality derived from non-religious sources.

How can you say it's superior if you can't specifically define it?

What do you mean? I just defined it, it seems what you are looking for is some sort of list of right and wrong to live by?

[Esquilax]

No, its morality derived from non-religious sources.

How can you say it's superior if you can't specifically define it?

I can say that any action other than getting stabbed in the lungs is superior to getting stabbed in the lungs without having to specifically define the former. Understanding that one thing is inferior to a set of other things is still possible.

In this case, I can say that secular morality is superior because secular morality at least allows for the possibility of slavery not being a thing, which your religious morality does not have.

[ether-ore]

Do you believe the eye witness accounts of Vespasian curing the blind with spit? Eye witness accounts of Apolloius of Tyanna doing all sorts of Jesusy escapades? Mohamed's eyewitness testimony of cave-time with an Angel? The angry, mono-theistic god of Islam is consistent with the polytheism of Christianity and Mormonism?

What same story? What consistency and coherency?

Why do you accept these "reports" of the prophets as true, when many were written post-hoc? Daniel for example...

It is after all a choice isn't it? Each individual has to make this decision for himself.

But, to answer you question:

The story is that Jesus Christ suffered, died, was buried and rose again the third day. All of the Old Testament prophets testified of the mission of Jesus Christ. All of the prophets witnessed, reported and prophesied of how God deals with His children's wickedness, their righteousness and gave them guidance on how they could be saved if they would but repent. I find all of the information in the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price to be consistent with each other in terms of the plan of salvation. All of these records from the time of Moses (who recorded events prior to his time) up until the present testify of the same thing... that Jesus is the Christ. I, myself find these records to be consistent and coherent.

The other accounts you mentioned do not carry the same weight for me. Those reports are not corroborated by other records and neither do they cover a similar amount of time with the same degree of consistency.

I've no doubt that my answer will not satisfy, but I'm really not trying to convince or convert anyone here. I'm just here to express an opinion. Never at any time did I expect my opinion to be accepted.

I was just responding to an original post and then tried to answer follow-up questions to the best of my ability.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That doesn't change the fact that God is subjective.

For me, I happen to believe the eye witness accounts of prophets who over the millennia have reported the same story and have consistently and coherently recorded it in scripture. So, there is no doubt but that you will consider God to be subjective; But, since I believe these reports of the prophets to be true, then for me God is an objective truth.

Except that those accounts don't all agree with each other, and the have no serious historical support.

[ether-ore]

For me, I happen to believe the eye witness accounts of prophets who over the millennia have reported the same story and have consistently and coherently recorded it in scripture. So, there is no doubt but that you will consider God to be subjective; But, since I believe these reports of the prophets to be true, then for me God is an objective truth.

Except that those accounts don't all agree with each other, and the have no serious historical support.

That strikes me as a matter of interpretation. I believe one would have to understand the overall message and what God's methods and purposes were before one could make such a determination. If you don't believe God exists, how could you come to a fair conclusion as to what His methods and purposes were?

Historical support would not deal with metaphysical or moral issues. History can only hope to provide information on events and locations; it really cannot make positively accurate claims about 'why'. For example, archeologists have made claims based on what they found in the ground (and I'm not talking about written records). They make educated guesses as to what things like pottery shards and figurines mean. But that is all they are... guesses. It is pure supposition.