Christian morality delusions

[tackattack]

---

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.

---

Look man I was simply, pardon the pun, separating the wheat from the chaff. I was just trying to clear what we agreed on so we could reduce the discussion to what we disagree on. Do I have biases that come from my beliefs yes. This isn't a set up and doesn't have a long and thought out apologetic strategy where I'm waiting for the gotcha moment. I would just like some clarity and conciseness and to reach some common ground.

You answered my simple yes or no statement by saying that we'd agree on the ground in common in our everyday moral propositions but no common ground on objective morality as a matter of justification or concept. I'm fine with that, enough said.
To get this back on track

---

then would you consider yourself a external moral realist? Would you consider yourself a moral rationalist? I'm not sure so I need a hint please.

I'll answer your questions even though you assume too much about me.  "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?" No if I wanted to ask you if it were nice if there were a God I'd ask you if you needed Jesus in your life. Are my beliefs integral to my view of reality, yes.There wasn't any questions bubbling under the surface. It's not some game where I move around chess pieces and try and think 10 moves ahead. It's not a debate it's a discussion and my statements, including the OP are reactionary and at the most probe-ative, not plotting.

I disagree that there is no test of time. I agree that there are mind independent moral facts, but I don't believe that mind independent facts are the only thing that can justify a moral stance.  I don't believe facts change, a fact is a truth statement. Our understanding of it's implications and our explanations may change but a fact is simply true. The fact that misinterpretations in the lay of the land occur is exactly the reason this conversation came about, that's not good enough. Our subjective perspectives, with all their biases included, are not enough to justify something as right or wrong.

---

Feel free to answer the above statements to take this in a direction without any God concept or see below if you want the direction to go the way towards God. I'm not sure I have the energy for both directions

---

You're positing that a loving God, if He exists, is bad or possibly worse at morality than us and that if it's not better than what we can do on our own, it's not necessary/beneficial. I agree. Feel free to support your assertion.

You also posit that a creator God, if He exists, would offer no unique insight. I'm going to have to see the reasoning and support before I can agree to this, I don't think I will but I'm open.

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. I can agree to this statement. The question would then be is God knowable or is the morality and revelations He points us to independently verifiable?

---

Jehanne,
Circumcisions was never believed to be the path to God for Christians, that was the Jews.

I do not ascribe to all the beliefs of the governmental theory of the atonement mainly because it doesn't support original sin.