Christians don't believe there's objective morality.

[idunno]

I wonder, what was your user name over at ChristianForums?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

we really don't believe in objective morality.

I don't care,neither do I.


What is often called Judeo-Christian morality is authority based. (the word of God) In theory, that morality is universal, absolute and unchanging. In practice, it has been anything but,whether justifying burning heretics,blessing the murder of Muslims during the crusades, 1500 years of European anti semitism,and of course,slavery,about which the New Testament is silent, but the Torah supports.

[greneknight]

Ho Ho Ho!!! Sir Greneknight is tickled.

I find the Fundies in this forum extremely hilarious. Some deny I'm a Christian. Others insist I am (and they refuse to debate with Christians) but they do that only because they don't dare to cross swords with me in a debate - they fear someone who hasn't even reached physical puberty!!!

Fear is what fundies always have. They always cite "For the FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

But if I'm not a Christian, and I'm prepared to debate on the Bible, what's your problem?

---

There's something that non-Christians don't know about Christians - we really don't believe in objective morality. William Lane Craig tells a huge lie when he says there's such a thing as objective morality that's immutable. That's not the teaching of Christianity as evidenced by the history of the church. Ravi Zacharias is another liar. He always gives talks in universities and he would ask an atheist student if there was such a thing as a moral law. Afraid that Ravi would accuse atheists of being immoral if he replied in the negative, the student says there is. Ravi then asks "If there is a moral law, who is the moral law giver?" Of course the poor student is no longer able to answer the question because the mike has been passed on to the next questioner.

Both Craig and Ravi are liars. That's not what Christians really believe in. We believe that morality is very much the product of culture and it varies from place to place and from time to time. This is backed up by the teachings of the church and even the Bible. There is ample evidence in the Bible that what's wrong or right at one time need not be wrong or right today.

I was on the verge of engaging in a formal debate with a Christian in Christian Forums before I realized what a rotten place that is. It's very hard to argue there. You say the wrong thing and you get banned. Any Christian who says there is objective morality that is unchanging over time is dishonest. He should know that's not what our religion teaches. And I'll be happy to cross swords with him in a formal debate.

You are not a Christian, the scriptures prove that and since you want to use scripture to debate objective morality, you must also use scriptures to prove you are a Christian.

I am able to use Scriptures to prove I am a Christian but since the fruit of the Holy Ghost (which I have in considerable abundance; woot!!) includes humility, I won't bother to do that.

You will never be able to do it, I assure you. Scriptures teach morality's objective, just because you do not want to adhere to the morality the scriptures lay out does not make them subjective. Morality has never nor will it ever depend on what you want or believe, objective morality depends only on God. Christ said that the moral laws of scripture would never change, if you were a Christian you would know this and believe this. You've come to an atheist site and claim you are a Christian and then represent their beliefs, you must be a real loon. It's people like you that give Christianity problems, the atheist on this site are honest about their position, you are trying to be as deceptive as Satan and you fail at even that.

Thou liest! Scriptures do not teach that morality is objective. Why don't you engage in a formal debate. Oh please, sum up all your courage and agree to debate with me. You don't want it to go down on record that you are FEARFUL of a 13 year old boy who's not yet attained physical maturity but who has mental maturity by the spadefuls. If I don't know Scriptures as you claim then it shouldn't be difficult to debate and we use Scriptures, is it? YOu shouldn't be trembling in fear.

I don't just claim I'm a Christian. If you have the opportunity to talk to the Archbishop and you remind him who I am, he will tell you I'm a fine and faithful child of Holy Church.

You claim I am as deceptive as Satan. You don't even know that Satan does not exist as a person and is used throughout as a METAPHOR? Oh, for crying out loud. I suggest you read Elaine Pagels on Satan. She's a professor of religion in Princeton which is a respected university in your country.

SIR GRENEKNIGHT THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET AND CHALLENGES GODSCHILD TO A DUEL IN THE FORM OF A FORMAL DEBATE.

LET ALL AND SUNDRY BEAR IN MIND THAT GODSCHILD HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AND WHETHER HE IS TO BE SEEN AS A MAN OR A COWARD DEPENDS ON HIS RESPONSE.

I urge you to take up the challenge and I will ask the moderators to arrange for a formal debate. Let's sharpen our swords and to the battle!

Sir Greneknight, Knight of the Order of the Round Table

[genkaus]

Somethings to consider:

1) Moral improvement/evolution in society doesn't disprove objective morality, but shows it exists, if you truly believe we are improving/evolving with respect to some issues.

2) Differences in morals doesn't disprove morals that differ, it rather can be that both views have their relationship to objective morality but fall short of it or one is more nearer to it then the other.

This can be for example on the issue of whether we should want everlasting revenge on tyrants like Saddam Hussain. It can be that anger and wrath towards such people is good, as well, as mercy and compassion is good. Which one is higher depends on which one is in tune with God (objective morals). But they both can have their origin from God, just one is more in tune.

3) Non-universal morals doesn't disprove anything for same reason as above.

4) Universal morals also would not prove objective morals.

5) At the end, the only thing that can prove objective morality is properly basic knowledge of it.

6) Most of humanity believes in objective morality without knowing why and how.

7) You can prove scientifically doing certain actions make us happier, make us feel good, helps our survival as a species, is shared by other animals etc, but you cannot prove objective morals/ethics from science.

So close. Except for 6 and 7.

[discordianpope]

So close. Except for 6 and 7.

What's wrong with 6 and 7? They seem to be obviously true to me.

[genkaus]

What's wrong with 6 and 7? They seem to be obviously true to me.

Most of humanity believes in objective morality because of their theism. So, even if they are wrong, they know why.

Why wouldn't we be able to find a scientific basis for morality? Proponents of science of morality would surely disagree.

[discordianpope]

What's wrong with 6 and 7? They seem to be obviously true to me.

Most of humanity believes in objective morality because of their theism. So, even if they are wrong, they know why.

Why wouldn't we be able to find a scientific basis for morality? Proponents of science of morality would surely disagree.

Oh, my bad, maybe you are right about the theism thing. I thought you were saying that it is not the case that most people believe in objective morality.

The problem with the whole science of morality thing is that it's, well, pretty much bullshit. It just ignores the whole is/ought distinction. To ground morality in biology you need a re-teleologised aristotelian biology. Something nobody wants. Facts about what is going on in our brains tell us nothing about what ought to be going on in our brains unless we already have an idea of what ought to be going on in our brains.

[genkaus]

The problem with the whole science of morality thing is that it's, well, pretty much bullshit. It just ignores the whole is/ought distinction. To ground morality in biology you need a re-teleologised aristotelian biology. Something nobody wants. Facts about what is going on in our brains tell us nothing about what ought to be going on in our brains unless we already have an idea of what ought to be going on in our brains.

The is-ought is not a distinction, it is a problem for any type of morality. Bridging that gap would be one of the purposes of science of morality. And no one said it had to grounded on biology.

[discordianpope]

I don't understand what you mean? The is-ought distinction is a distinction. Between facts and values. Science tells us what is, not what ought to be, and it can't do so. The idea of grounding it in biology is just the least absurd option.

[genkaus]

I don't understand what you mean? The is-ought distinction is a distinction. Between facts and values. Science tells us what is, not what ought to be, and it can't do so.

Study up on it. The is-ought problem, as devised by Hume, talks about the gap between "what is" and "what we ought to do" on basis of it. There have been several response to it including the use of goals to bridge the gap or using institutional facts.

The idea of grounding it in biology is just the least absurd option.

Really? I would've thought that psychology would be the best option.