Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

1. So? An argument could easily be made that God was ensuring circumstances conducive to a greater good. Are you saying that an omniscient God who can see the trillion upon trillions of effects every ancient decision has, did not desire a specific outcome? What moral lapse does this represent?

Why would the "greater good" matter?  If morality is determined by gods nature than what's all this greater good shit?  Why would there be any need to make any argument?  Good did it, therefore it's moral, end of.  Or...not? Didn't turn out well for all those firstborn, did it....and it wasn't -their- hearts that were hardened. I doubt that they were all slavers, for that matter. OFC, that was just the intro...gods chosen people would rape and pillage their way into the "holy" land afterwards. Some greater good, some god.

2. God cannot murder by definition. The ark represented God's presence on earth. Holiness trumped mercy. 

He just creatively ended that guy...and then everything else's life?  This is getting silly.  Speaking of holiness trumping mercy...is that the kind of case where, even though you know you shouldn't riddle an apartment complex with 20mm...you do it because god wills it?

3. Immoral if a person made those decisions. Why can't God judge people? What does timing have to do with anything? Do you think that God 'owes' anyone a long life? If you believe the incarnation was by far the greatest good, any preservation of the events that led to it would be morally justified coming from an omniscient God.

Objective morality has a double standard? The god of do as I say and not as I do?

I think I've pinpointed the problem. It's not just the god of magic book that doesn't quite understand morality, objective or otherwise.....................no wonder you guys have so many horrid moral questions.

---

The weakest form of a secular objective morality seeks only to reduce harm, but leaves out any compulsion to increase wellbeing.

Seems to me like the two go hand-in-hand. Overlooking increased wellbeing contemplates only the absence of negatives. Fortunately, in some cases reducing or removing harms inherently involves substituting a boon of some kind. Reduce disease, you get more health whether you want it or not. That's not true of everything of course; take a poor man, make his lame leg whole, and send him back into penury and want to eke out an existence in some violent urban dystopia and he'll probably die about as quickly and be about as miserable, just for different reasons.

Yeah, wellbeing as a happy consequence.  I'll take it, lol.

Of course Christianity has (to put it kindly) a ... complex relationship with pleasure. We mustn't enjoy life TOO much. That would make us all into profligates. Even just simple ease or contentment are suspect to some Christians. Life is supposed to be a STRUGGLE against the forces of evil and your flesh, and if they're not, something is Just Not Right. Not least, they envy someone who has it easier than them.

Christian Moral Character: The fear thought that somebody, somewhere, might be having some fun.