(June 12, 2023 at 11:29 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What you appear to mean up there, is that morality is relative. The description you give is not the description of objective morality. I don't personally agree with metaethical relativism.Sorry, to many spinning plates. I get those two them backwards sometime.. yes I mean relative morality.
Quote:Ultimately, though, I really can't argue with you here. If you believe that this morality stuff is all bunk, and that things like "no ethnic cleansing" and "no cross border child sex slave raids" are not objective standards, or worthy standards, or are standards that a god could not or would not meet or be obliged by - that's just you telling me what kind of god you believe in, and what you're willing to do to avoid death.
Again these things are evil because the majority of society says they are. When Society changes these things are normalized.
Not to start a political debate, but just look at the turn society has made in the last 10 years concerning Trans issues and how we have now embraced and encourage trans people and related behavior in and around our children. Meaning what was identifiable in medical books as being a mental disorder to being what the cool kids are doing now.
To take it even a step further, there is a segment of society who want to be identifies with the LGBT that allows adults to have sex with small children. If morality was not relative then why isn't this behavior punished to the same severity it was 20 years ago? or let's say like it is still being punished in none western countries?
There is a standard beyond morality, and that is God's righteousness. Unlike morality it does not ever change, which is why a 'moral soceity' can look at God/Righteousness and claim it is immoral or rather simply goes against what the majority thinks is right and wrong.
Quote:If all of this stuff is true, this probably explains why I couldn't be a christian even if I wanted to.
If you see your current form of morality as the standard of standards the ultimate form of right and wrong I could indeed see how it would prevent you from every being christian. Because you would have to disown or go back on every morally based decision you have ever made in your life and reevaluate it or yourself.. This will be immeasurably harder if you see yourself as a 'good person.'
What this really means however, is you more often than not default follow the standard of right and wrong set fourth by society, and if you can't challenge this standard with any other like say God's standard, then that means you by nature can only be as 'moral' as your society is.
So that begs the question.. If you were born say in North Korea instead of here.. would you also be a equally 'moral person' living in that society? Meaning, one who does not question or challenge that society's moral standards. like you could not challenge this society's morality for God. If it is not in your nature to currently challenge everything you know to be right and wrong now.. what makes you think if you were from birth, programmed to follow the leadership of the Kim family without Question that you would be able question North Korean morality?
Then that begs the question what makes you think your western values are in fact the ultimate standard of right and wrong?
Quote:What accounting do you think is required? It's just a narrative discontinuity - not a challenge. Presumably, god had a change of heart between old and new magic books. One of many, really.
The accounting I am referring to is the reason for the 'orbital bombardment' being pushed by to judgement day. why god doesn't take his retribution now as He did in the OT.
Quote:What I gather from you is that it was to help guys like you cheat death? For me...no point at all - and that's kind of the point from the outside looking in, eh? What was the point of the sacrifice on the cross, if man must not become immortal?
not become immortal in his sinful state.[/quote][/quote]
