Christians don't believe there's objective morality.

[greneknight]

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.

[Napoléon]

So basically this is just another No True Christian™ argument?

:yawn:

[greneknight]

So basically this is just another No True Christian™ argument?

:yawn:

No, I think I didn't put it quite so well. What I meant to show is that the apologists like Craig and Zacharias are talking rubbish when they say that the existence of objective morality can best be explained by the existence of God as the law-giver. I want to take the wind out of their sail. I'm saying that's no evidence for God because the truth is in Christianity, there is no such thing as objective morality.

[Napoléon]

What I meant to show is that the apologists like Craig and Zacharias are talking rubbish when they say that the existence of objective morality can best be explained by the existence of God as the law-giver. I want to take the wind out of their sail. I'm saying that's no evidence for God because the truth is in Christianity, there is no such thing as objective morality.

I'm sure they'd disagree with you and jump to use the no true christian argument on yourself.

"The truth is in christianity"

Come on greneknight, surely you know as well as us, the only 'truth' you christians imbue into christianity is whatever the hell the individual christian wants to be true.

[greneknight]

What I meant to show is that the apologists like Craig and Zacharias are talking rubbish when they say that the existence of objective morality can best be explained by the existence of God as the law-giver. I want to take the wind out of their sail. I'm saying that's no evidence for God because the truth is in Christianity, there is no such thing as objective morality.

I'm sure they'd disagree with you and jump to use the no true christian argument on yourself.

"The truth is in christianity"

Come on greneknight, surely you know as well as us, the only 'truth' you christians imbue into christianity is whatever the hell the individual christian wants to be true.

Ergo, there ain't no objective morality.

[Napoléon]

Ergo, there ain't no objective morality.

For you obviously. For me obviously.

Not for the nuts who want the opposite to be true

[The Grand Nudger]

Morality is essentially the tofu of human thought - it tastes exactly like whatever sauce you decide to smother it with.

[greneknight]

Ergo, there ain't no objective morality.

For you obviously. For me obviously.

Not for the nuts who want the opposite to be true

It's the nuts I was hoping would object to this thread and would try to show me why they think I'm wrong and then I can show them that even in Christianity and the Bible, there is no such thing as objective morality. The world will be a better place when self-righteous fundies come to realize the truth - that there is nothing great about their belief system, that they are no different from others and that faith does not make a believer any more moral than a non-believer with no faith.

I tried to debate with a Christian in Christian Forums on the same topic because I got a little mad with the Christians there who kept insisting that atheists had no right to talk about morality because they didn't believe in a supreme being who gave an objective and immutable moral code. I wanted to show that even from the Bible and church teachings, there is no such thing as an objective and unchanging morality. But it'd be difficult to debate there because if I said something the fundies there deemed to be unorthodox, I got a 3-day ban instantly. If I persisted, I was warned that I'd be permanently banned. What's the point of allowing a debate if you can't argue properly without getting banned. They said debates in CF were only for Christians and if I said unorthodox things, I wouldn't be a Christian and so I couldn't debate in the formal debate section which is reserved for Christians. What a rotten forum CF is.

So I'm hoping to debate with a Christian here since here, I'm allowed to argue and show why the Bible teaches a morality that changes according to culture and time.

[Undeceived]

Christian morality is summed up in Jesus' words: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself." Love is good. Selfishness is evil. Jesus upheld the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law. The letter of the law is the actions Moses and other prophets commanded--they change. The spirit of the law is the mindset behind these commands. It has never changed.

[Mystic]

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.