Objective Morality?

[lucent]

OK, can we agree to a rule that when you make statements about Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian god, that you need to cite your source or specify chapter and verse from the Bible? I have quoted you chapter and verse to let you know what your own holy scripture says. I would appreciate it if you could at least do the same. This ought to be a reasonable request of a Christian. Thanks.

I'll provide chapter and verse where appropiate, but I am not going to do it to the point of redundancy. Eventually, you're going to have to be intellectually honest enough to address my argument rather than try to tear it down on the basis of your misinterpretations of Christian doctrine.

And speaking of sources, let's stick with the dictionary's definition of what "objective" is and not just make up whatever definition will suit the needs of your argument, OK?

So the word "objective" means independence of one's feelings, personal tastes, preferences, bias, etc. It doesn't hinge on permanency, as you seem to assert.

So by definition, if any being, however powerful, old or wise, makes up a set of rules, whether they be temporary or permanent, than these rules create a subject set of morals. The only distinction you draw is instead of being subjective based on our evaluations, they are subjective based on another being's dictates.

If morality is truly objective, it exists outside of and independent to any being's whims, bias or judgment. That which is objectively wrong would continue to be objectively wrong, regardless of what God says, if God went away or turned out never to have existed at all.

You're speaking of moral objectivism. I'm speaking of moral absolutism. Objective morality is subject to change, absolute morality is not. For your edification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Finally, your assertion that Yahweh is unchanging is false, as the Bible makes many changes to this being over the ages in which it was written. For example, I quoted you chapter and verse on how Yahweh had a physical form. He became a "spirit" with the Gospel of John (John 4:24).

Again, He appeared physically and spiritually. Just as Jesus Christ appeared physically and spiritually. Your belief here is incorrect and falls flat. The OT and the NT accounts of God are the same. God is spirit, and is also capable of manifesting Himself physically.

What is unchanging is Gods nature.

Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever

For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

James 1:17

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

This is junior grade theology..I suggest you read this:

http://www.tecmalta.org/tft133.htm

The very beliefs of Christianity state that Yahweh created a new covenant and they've added a New Testament. What was wrong with the old ones? What happened to "eternal unchanging rules"?

Nothing has changed about God, or His morality. What has changed is His interaction with the world. The Old covenant was for Israel alone. The New Covenant is for the entire world.

Christians have no trouble eating shrimp today.

The ceremonial law was given for Israel, in that place and time. Christians are not restricted by those laws.

You are free to believe that God gave us our conscience. Mine finds the Bible, with all its rape, genocide, slavery and bigotry to be morally repugnant, but that's another issue. However, if you say morality hinges on conscience, then it is subjective by definition.

It doesn't hinge on conscience, it hinges on the absolute values of right and wrong. Our conscience informs us what those values are.

The eternal and unchanging god of the Bible moved the Sabbath to Sunday to accommodate the pagans who joined Christianity.

Christians don't follow the Sabbath. Again, this is elementry theology. If you want to critisize Christianity don't you think you should at least know what you're talking about before you do it?

That Yahweh sure is a great salesman but then, what else would you expect from a deity that rose from the humble beginnings of volcano god of some obscure tribe to the empire he has today? A real all-American "rags to riches" story.

Totally false. The identification of literary forms which are similar to the bible has led some scholars to declare that portions of the bible was actually inspired by pagan writings. Particularly, a psalm which is about the Father is compared to a Pagan writing about Baal, a storm god. Similarities in the text have led some scholars to surmise that the existence of the Father was actually originally derived from Baal. Basically saying, to Satans delight I am sure, that God is a copy of a demonic caananite God. Such a connection is totally unfounded..rather it is the similarity of language and literary style of the two languages that create the apparent similarity.

Now, I wonder if you'll actually address the logic of my argument instead of trying to tear down Christianity:

Subjective, or even objective morality, due to shifting values of right and wrong, can allow for something like the holocaust as being morally right. Even though it is evident that there is no situation in which the holocaust could be morally right. Meaning, the holocaust is absolutely wrong. Given that only a system of absolute morality could support that conclusion, and morality could not be absolute without God, this proves that God exists. Specifically, a moral creator who imposes His moral standard upon us.

A real all-American "rags to riches" story.