@SW. You are just begging the question on naturalism. Reality is absolute axiomatically. Existence, exists and does so independently of the will of consciousness. Thus necessarily our ability to comprehend and reason on that reality means we establish objective truth. The cartoon universe of theism where one will (a god) can change reality whimsically, hardly provides a rock solid foundation for induction, morality or anything. It's just special pleading on top of a meaningless concept to turn round and claim that because it's god will it makes it OK. You're stuck on the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. Natural ethical systems can therefore be objective, theists ones cannot be. So you still need to demonstrate the contrary if you want to then ask "what makes it wrong if no - one sees it questions".
Your moral judgements clearly don't tally with those of the bible, in all cases. You can squirm and wriggle all you like ( like we didn't see that coming). But the words mean what they say. The morality exposed in them is abhorrent and only natural ethical systems can be relied upon to make solid judgements and xtians borrow from them every day.
To rationalize the bible to say god wills it is OK, is to abandon your own moral autonomy. This is exactly the point I made and you have amply demonstrated. This in itself renders theistic morality an oxymoron.
Your moral judgements clearly don't tally with those of the bible, in all cases. You can squirm and wriggle all you like ( like we didn't see that coming). But the words mean what they say. The morality exposed in them is abhorrent and only natural ethical systems can be relied upon to make solid judgements and xtians borrow from them every day.
To rationalize the bible to say god wills it is OK, is to abandon your own moral autonomy. This is exactly the point I made and you have amply demonstrated. This in itself renders theistic morality an oxymoron.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
