My views on objective morality

[J a c k]

No. God didn't change. Our understanding of Him changed. Particularly when Jesus came and contradicted a bunch of stuff in the OT. Personally I don't believe in the literal interpretation of any OT stories.

So, OT is not to be taken for face value, but NT yes? Why? How do you come to this conclusion, and if this is the case, why is it word of god? Do you believe it's word of god? 
I have a problem with this, because if Jesus came to fulfill the law, but the law is not to be taken literally, then how do you pick what he is fulfilling? 
If the stories are not literal, why would the god not be clear, knowing people would take it at face value? Why would the writers inspired by god write so much rape, violence, and theft, but not mean it? 

See, when people cherry pick the Bible, it creates a domino effect with questions and questions and questions. How do you pick? Why? Who told you to do it? What is the OT for? Etc. If he did mean it, then did god change? Did he evolve?

[Homeless Nutter]

No. God didn't change. Our understanding of Him changed. [...]

You mean - the bullsh*t you make up about god changed - and keeps changing - because the old bullsh*t was inconvenient and it's not like there's anything testable, or even perceivable about your imaginary friend, that can not be negated. Yeah, our "understanding" of wizards, ghosts, aliens and Batman also changed over the years, for the same exact reasons. Fantasies are very easy to reinvent, because nothing important relies on them - it's just mental masturbation, for people too intellectually inept, or lazy to deal with reality.

[Minimalist]

God only condones those things to a person who takes a completely literal interpretation of the OT and completely ignores the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. This is not Catholicism.

Which is, of course, the very problem with catholicism!

It tries to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[Catholic_Lady]

No. God didn't change. Our understanding of Him changed. Particularly when Jesus came and contradicted a bunch of stuff in the OT. Personally I don't believe in the literal interpretation of any OT stories.

In which case you are asserting that there is an objective standard, but that we don't know what that standard is?  If so, how do we know there is an objective standard?

I think the more civilized we become, the more clearly we are able to understand certain things. Thousands of years ago, perhaps most of humanity didn't see slavery as being wrong. (or maybe deep inside they did, but chose to ignored it or tried to rationalize it). Whatever the case, now a days we know better, and have come to understand that human beings have the inherent right to their own lives.

[bennyboy]

In which case you are asserting that there is an objective standard, but that we don't know what that standard is?  If so, how do we know there is an objective standard?

I think the more civilized we become, the more clearly we are able to understand certain things. Thousands of years ago, perhaps most of humanity didn't see slavery as being wrong. (or maybe deep inside they did, but chose to ignored it or tried to rationalize it). Whatever the case, now a days we know better, and have come to understand that human beings have the inherent right to their own lives.

Do you understand that your God is completely without evidence, and that your sense of objective morality is rooted in our monkey brains?

[Minimalist]

Whatever the case, now a days we know better, and have come to understand that human beings have the inherent right to their own lives.

I wish you were right, dear.

http://news.yahoo.com/modern-slavery-wid...06736.html

Modern slavery widespread among East Asia migrant domestic workers: researchers

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nort...n-10860965

Undercover in Qatar: MP witnesses 'modern-day slavery' as country prepares for World Cup 2022

http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/phill...=370194591

Ukrainian brothers sentenced to 20 years in janitorial slavery plot

Note the dates of these stories.

[GrandizerII]

Objective morality has been discussed many times on these forums, and many times by me. A lot of times I feel like I have a hard time trying to explain objective morality or why objective morality makes sense to me, which in turn helps make the existence of a god make sense to me.

Usually when people have a hard time articulating about stuff they claim to understand, it's because they really don't have a solid understanding of it. And I suspect this to be the case here with you as well.

I think you just want to believe there is an objective morality originated by God, or you are psychologically conditioned with the intuition that objective morality must exist. But neither means that it does. At least not one coming forth from God.

[SteelCurtain]

In which case you are asserting that there is an objective standard, but that we don't know what that standard is?  If so, how do we know there is an objective standard?

I think the more civilized we become, the more clearly we are able to understand certain things. Thousands of years ago, perhaps most of humanity didn't see slavery as being wrong. (or maybe deep inside they did, but chose to ignored it or tried to rationalize it). Whatever the case, now a days we know better, and have come to understand that human beings have the inherent right to their own lives.

But isn't this the very definition of subjective morality? It also begs the question: What if our understanding changes again?

[Minimalist]

What if our understanding changes again?

Get used to saying "President Trump?"

[SteelCurtain]

What if our understanding changes again?

Get used to saying "President Trump?"

***shudder

Although, after watching the debateshitshow tonight, other than Kasich, Trump scares me less than Rubio or Cruz.