My views on objective morality

[abaris]

The church was the last authority until it choose the Bible as the last authority.  And in the case of some sects the church  remained the last authority.   Catholicism is one such sect.

Yet there wasn't even one church before 325, with the council of Nicea. And there wasn't even one bible nbefore very much later in the 4th century. They kept bickering about what to leave out, what to edit and what to take. Only in 385 they became the church of Rome and had the power to crunch all the other disagreeing factions within their reach. And, as you already pointed out, it has always been much more the church of Paul than the one of Jesus. A misogynist and supporter of everyone knowing their place. Including slaves.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and out of all of this, arises an objective morality, somehow......though I'm not sure exactly what that objective morality -is-....no one took the time to elaborate. 

[LadyForCamus]

But without the book, would there have ever been a church at all?

Yes, actually there might. There really wasn't a Bible when Paul was writing, and not for some time after that. But there were Christians. So Christianity predates the Bible. Actually, it predates the OT, which like the NT, existed as a few of many scriptures before being chosen as the official scriptures. Some of both the not officially chosen of Jewish and Christian scripture remain, others are lost.

The church was the last authority until it choose the Bible as the last authority. And in the case of some sects the church remained the last authority. Catholicism is one such sect.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me! [emoji4]

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I've heard from some Christians that God is not the author but that scripture is inspired by God. That it's also not infallible but fallible. 

I'm afraid it has to be one way or the other, can't have it both ways.

I just don't get why from this perspective, God would not reveal more books or if he would end the books, would make sure it's protected from corruption.

Of course, it would be important for infallible interpreters of the book to safeguard it from misinterpretation, but in case people follow their desires, then the book should be written in a way that it safeguards it's own verses and God would be able to do that. 

Also, while an infallible representative of God is to be followed absolutely,  it still follows people during and after his time can attribute many falsehoods to that person.

The book of God would be a way for God to make sure that many of the vital important things are not corrupted but remain in safeguarded due to the book.

It would also be a way for humans to know those who God appointed even if people deviated from those he appointed.

If there's anything truthful about this claim of any words coming from god or his said appointees, then it begs the question which is never answered, for which no answer is ever forthrightly attempted, and therefore never will be answered without the most logical conclusion which atheists have arrived at (God is probably nonexistent). That question is: Why do you really think such a powerful god needs human appointees to communicate his current thoughts, and can't even write his own books?

[pocaracas]

In other words, "what does god need with a starship?"

[LadyForCamus]

I think that there would have been.  It's not as if they ever really cared about the book..their first order of business was to edit and anthologize what would -be- "the book". Asserting primacy from the outset. A borrowed ladder, discarded as soon as humanly possible. What they needed was the appearance of legitimacy, not the contents.

*scratches head* Then how utterly ridiculous to call it "word of God"! I mean, aside from the most obvious reasons that is...

[God of Mr. Hanky]

In other words, "what does god need with a starship?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnxvKJAv5Ik

[Whateverist]

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.

And HIS priests come before HIS altarboys?

Some of those priests feel it is better to give than to receive and always make sure the alter boys cum first.



[Yeah, I know.  I'm a sick, sick individual.]

[Jenny A]

The church was the last authority until it choose the Bible as the last authority.  And in the case of some sects the church  remained the last authority.   Catholicism is one such sect.

Yet there wasn't even one church before 325, with the council of Nicea. And there wasn't even one bible nbefore very much later in the 4th century. They kept bickering about what to leave out, what to edit and what to take. Only in 385 they became the church of Rome and had the power to crunch all the other disagreeing factions within their reach. And, as you already pointed out, it has always been much more the church of Paul than the one of Jesus. A misogynist and supporter of everyone knowing their place. Including slaves.

Yep Paul's letters have a doctrinal war in the background. In Romans he writes a church in Rome he hadn't visited in hopes they will give him money. He has to be careful there because he doesn't always agree with Rome. In his other letters, it's churches he's visited or started. The difference in tone is palpable as in one he must establish his credentials with the internal opposition, and the others he's talking to his own. The united church is like a unicorn, sought but never found. That elusive beastie has never existed. Paul's letters and Acts are both about doctrinal fights and come to think of it, the Gospels document Jewish schisms as does much of the OT. The unified Hebrew religion is just as elusive.

[abaris]

Romans he writes a church in Rome he hadn't  visited  in hopes they will give him money.

That was one of the major talking points of the late and unlamented Randy. He outright denied the existence of Arianism, which, for the longest time, was a very powerful stream of christianity, even after a bishop of Rome was appointed. Arianism was very popular with the peoples streaming into the Italian Peninsula, before and after the Roman empire fell. Especially with the Goths.

At Pauls times there hadn't been any churches in Rome. Only small shrines in private houses. So, either that passage is a later fake, or he uses church very losely. In the sense of begging for money from a wealthy homeowner, who happened to have a christian place of worship in his house. He certainly didn't talk about the church of Rome.