Christian morality delusions

[The Grand Nudger]

k so we agree there could be an objective morality, but it's not necessary. We already have an objective morality to personal morality. That it would be nice if whatever objective morality we use is were consistently proven moral and were communicated clearly and rigorously enough that it stood the test of time and misinterpretation. Is there common ground there at least?

More things that people look for in objective moral systems which are a feature of their religious beliefs (or the beliefs of their counterparts in that discussion) which actually wouldn't be expected if morality were objective.  

There is no test of time to stand, there is only the one test.  Mind independent facts of a moral matter.   Those relevant facts can and do change.  Objective moral systems must..in order to remain objective... change with them.  

Misinterpretation?  Of what?  As in would it be nice if people weren't capable of misinterpreting the lay of the field..as it were, those observations which lend themselves to a factual assessment?  Probably...but that's not a realistic wish.  We have eyes to see.  We have thoughts to organize.  We have profoundly successful systems to organize them with.  Even with all of that, misinterpretations of the kind above (if that's what we're talking about) still occur.  


As far as common ground...there's a very good chance that we have no common ground on this subject as a matter of justification or concept..despite the high likelihood of us having all of the ground in common in our everyday moral propositions.  That's the core of the comment, really..that launched this thread.

Consider, for a moment, the question above.  Those things you were seeking, those things you were asking about, "wouldn't it be nice if".  Are they actually components of objective morality, or your religious beliefs conflated with objective morality?  Is it possible that the two have become so enmeshed in your mind..that, properly, you were asking me if it would be nice if there were a god?  Are those not the things you believe that a god could bring to the table?

After having commented about objective moral systems as they relate to those questions, I'll comment on gods.  I'd say lets take a look at their cheat sheets.  Have their cheat sheets stood the test of time, or misinterpretation?  Doesn't seem to be the case.  So, the answer to that question..if that was bubbling under the surface (and you're free to disagree with that, ofc), is..no..I can't see why it would be nice to have their input.  We don't need it,  they're as bad (or worse) at this as we are, they offer no unique insight, but do offer plenty of confusion and flat out garbage. All of that, and it still gets worse, this isn;t the floor, lol

In the hypothetical of some god clearly not known to man who was significantly better than we are at this..it could only offer us what we could also provide for ourselves. In essence, it would be pointing at a wall that is right there in front of us, as well....and if we truly weren't capable of vouching for that information (because, say, our agency was so vastly inferior with respect to it's own) than we could never legitimately call it objective in the first place. It would be a mystery morality. Things right or wrong for reasons unknown and unknowable to us.