Christian morality delusions

[Brian37]

[edit] 
God is constrained by his nature. 
[edit]

Sorry to pull this out of context but it struck a chord (dissonant?). How is god "constrained" (restrict the scope, extent, or activity of) and how do you know it's "nature" (the basic or inherent features)? .............[parts of google definitions in ()].

That makes no sense to assign a limitation on a being that is claimed to be "all powerful".

"Constrain" is a limit, which is conflict with the word "all".

[Crossless2.0]

Sorry to pull this out of context but it struck a chord (dissonant?). How is god "constrained" (restrict the scope, extent, or activity of) and how do you know it's "nature" (the basic or inherent features)? .............[parts of google definitions in ()].

That makes no sense to assign a limitation on a being that is claimed to be "all powerful".

"Constrain" is a limit, which is conflict with the word "all".

It makes sense if your goal, as an apologist, is to have it both ways.

[Brian37]

That makes no sense to assign a limitation on a being that is claimed to be "all powerful".

"Constrain" is a limit, which is conflict with the word "all".

It makes sense if your goal, as an apologist, is to have it both ways.

That is the great thing about any naked assertion, you can make it mean what it means until it doesn't mean what it means, then make it mean something else.

We simply don't understand and are taking it out of context.

[tackattack]

Wyzas,
God cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. He can do only those things which are in not logically absurd or contradictory and a proper objects of his power and nature. He cannot make square circles or rocks even he can't lift, etc. I know God's nature through the Holy Spirit, experiential observation, faith and reading of the Bible.

Jor,
I see your point that

morals are just something we each decide, then there is no way to determine whose morals are correct and indeed the question becomes inapplicable because all morals then become correct because any arbitrary moral opinion is granted validity.

with relation to subjective morality and I honestly was just confused by your definition arbitrary. I was not meaning to define what you meant by your definition just defining how I read it. If you define arbitrary as "did not depend upon anybody but himself" then I accept that God as a source of objective morality is an arbitrary source.

I'm trying to address all points I apologize, I believe your point from your 2 world example is that God could be a baby throwing a tantrum, an evil tyrannical bigot or a shining knight of justice, and we'd have no reference to validate that and thus it is moot. Is that about right? If I am catching your meaning, can we evaluate a creator God's by His creation and His nature? Can we critique a Judging God by His judgments and His nature? There are no grounds where opposite worlds that claim to be both be good would have validity without an objective moral authority.

Gae and the others,

There is circularity in judging one's values by one's values, I believe. I don't believe subjective morality is a problem in a perfect world. How do you stop 2 subjective moralists from arguing? wait for one of them to prove he's right by putting a bullet through the other's head. subjective morality would be enough for me if everyone wanted to get along and have peace, I am a hippie lover. It's not though and people have police and lock their doors because societal or personal subjective morality has proven to be not enough. It's not my displeasure with the events, it's the testing and observation that subjectivity in morality is not worth anything more than the subject using it.

And to answer the last question No objective morality doesn't reduce tolerance. The fact of having an objective authority does not necessitate compliance with or acceptance of that authority. Having an objective rule stick doesn't make people bash each other over the head with it (Even though that's been done a lot in the past too, with or without God).


Last minute Omni answer- God is all powerful and will act according to His nature. An all powerful God can not create a rock he cannot lift because that is a logical paradox. You can pic it apart and say then God is not all powerful and I'd be fine with that. would God can do all possible things sit better with everyone?

I'm really trying to see the other side of the coin on moral subjectivity without moral objectivity and I think I've been genuine and intentional in my responses, if the peanut gallery can't keep the strawmen out of this then I'll just mosey elsewhere. I do appreciate those that have contributed and taken the time to respond though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gae and the others,

There is circularity in judging one's values by one's values, I believe. I don't believe subjective morality is a problem in a perfect world. How do you stop 2 subjective moralists from arguing? wait for one of them to prove he's right by putting a bullet through the other's head. subjective morality would be enough for me if everyone wanted to get along and have peace, I am a hippie lover. It's not though and people have police and lock their doors because societal or personal subjective morality has proven to be not enough. It's not my displeasure with the events, it's the testing and observation that subjectivity in morality is not worth anything more than the subject using it.

You keep using the terms societal morality and subjective morality....but, as already mentioned..your use of both is problematic.  Even if there were an objective morality...there would still be police and locked doors.  Frankly, absent some form of objective justification the very actions of police become more than a little bit troubling.  

They bust down your door why, because drugs are "other than objectively bad..mmkay..."...right?  

-and I appreciate that you think that there's more at play than your subjective displeasure and an adherence to the articles of your undemonstrable faith....but your description of each article doesn't seem to support that contention. Societal morality bad - ignoring that societal morality could very well be objective morality. Subjective morality bad...but your idea of subjective morality is inaccurate and could include objective morality. Reference to some higher objective moral standard good - but you describe no such thing..only your belief in gods.

And to answer the last question No objective morality doesn't reduce tolerance. The fact of having an objective authority does not necessitate compliance with or acceptance of that authority. Having an objective rule stick doesn't make people bash each other over the head with it (Even though that's been done a lot in the past too, with or without God).

History and our present state of affairs begs to differ.  Even folks..such as yourself, who are not actually referring to an objective morality but believe they possess one have done exactly that. It's a compelling observation of the effect of moral objectivity (real or imagined)...that we're all ultimately left to make up our own minds about. Would whatever shittiness arises from such a thing be worth it. I think, in most cases, yes..but I don't believe in free lunches, so, I acknowledge that it can be and has been problematic.

[Brian37]

The God/s of Abraham WERE NOT the first God claimed in human history. Polytheism existed long before. And long before any written language humans still had their superstitions and god claims.

So what you are doing here is arbitrarily picking a point in our species history and saying, "This is where it all started" and basing your morality on your own personal like.

That is retrofitting to suit your own desires, and not how objective reporting of history works.

[tackattack]

Brian get that huge ass straw man outta here. I never claimed that the Abrahamic God was the first God claimed in Human history.

Jor, before we proceed with another post of all that Reductio ad absurdum we've had for 3 posts, please answer my questions first

---

You keep using the terms societal morality and subjective morality....but, as already mentioned..your use of both is problematic.  Even if there were an objective morality...there would still be police and locked doors.  Frankly, absent some form of objective justification the very actions of police become more than a little bit troubling.  

They bust down your door why, because drugs are "other than objectively bad..mmkay..."...right?  

-and I appreciate that you think that there's more at play than your subjective displeasure and an adherence to the articles of your undemonstrable faith....but your description of each article doesn't seem to support that contention.  Societal morality bad - ignoring that societal morality could very well be objective morality.  Subjective morality bad...but your idea of subjective morality is inaccurate and could include objective morality.  Reference to some higher objective moral standard good - but you describe no such thing..only your belief in gods.

---

Earlier you stated something along the lines of societal morality could be a type of objective morality. We follow laws because they're objectively defined by our society with comparison to us. It is our subjective choice to follow those laws or not and our subjectively moral interpretation whether they are "good or bad". If there is a problem with a distinction or definition of personal morality and societal morality please let me know.

The rest is a misrepresentation. I never stated that societal or personal morality was bad, just that it was not sufficient for objective measurement because of it's fails through history. I'm certain you used the term "think" unintentionally as you obviously feel I'm not thinking at all. I was positing that a moral objective authority would be better than a societal and subjective morality. I wasn't arguing the nature of said moral authority, or via for compliance with any such authority, just that a ruler measurement than a guesstimate.

---

History and our present state of affairs begs to differ.  Even folks..such as yourself, who are not actually referring to an objective morality but believe they possess one have done exactly that.  It's a compelling observation of the effect of moral objectivity (real or imagined)...that we're all ultimately left to make up our own minds about.  Would whatever shittiness arises from such a thing be worth it.  I think, in most cases, yes..but I don't believe in free lunches, so, I acknowledge that it can be and has been problematic.

---

again with the "believe" .. how tiresome... history is rife with problems with societal morality ie. slavery, witch hunts,crusades, women's rights, I'm sure there's more.

[Minimalist]

God cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of.

Then he's not omnipotent.  Personally, I don't give a rats ass because I think it is all made up nonsense to begin with but be careful of painting yourself into corners.

[The Grand Nudger]

Earlier you stated something along the lines of societal morality could be a type of objective morality.

I did, yes, because there's nothing preventing a society from aligning itself with an objective morality.

We follow laws because they're objectively defined by our society with comparison to us. It is our subjective choice to follow those laws or not and our subjectively moral interpretation whether they are  "good or bad". If there is a problem with a distinction or definition of personal morality and societal morality please let me know.

We have subjective and disparate motivation to follow any moral schema, objective or not.  A persons personal morality can, like a societal morality, align itself with an objective moral schema.

The rest is a misrepresentation. I never stated that societal or personal morality was bad, just that it was not sufficient for objective measurement because of it's fails through history. I'm certain you used the term "think" unintentionally as you obviously feel I'm not thinking at all. I was positing that a moral objective authority would be better than a societal and subjective morality. I wasn't arguing the nature of said moral authority, or via for compliance with any such authority, just that a ruler measurement than a guesstimate.

I think..that you're thinking sloppily, not that you're not thinking at all. More importantly, I can (and have) shown that to be the case.  


 OFC the things that society tells us to do is an insufficient objective measure..but no more or less so than the things a god tells us to do or the things that any other rando tells us to do.  Nevertheless, it's possible for a society to tell us not to do x for some objective reason.  For example..our society tells us that waltzing over to the neighbors yard and beating him to death is wrong because of the harm it causes.  This harm is no mere opinion...not of society, not of a god, and not of any individual...though, obviously, we all have opinions about it.  

As I've been explaining, your use of every one of these terms is not consistent with their very definitions.  Societal morality is not made "other than objective" on account of it being societies morality.  Morality is not made subjective on account of people having opinions about it, either.  And some being or entity is not made an objective moral authority on account of it existing, or existing outside of and before all the reast of it;s creation.  

That's not how any of this works.  

again with the "believe" .. how tiresome... history is rife with problems with societal morality ie. slavery, witch hunts,crusades, women's rights, I'm sure there's more.

OFC it is, but moral failure is not in and of itself a barrier to the existence of an objective morality or proof that every moral proclamation -is- an example of moral failure.  The christian god is a moral failure..and yet we can still contend that there is an objective moral standard in a universe in which it exists. Repeat again with societies and people. Referencing the moral failures of the past..a huge portion of which have to do with the various gods people have believed in...is just a case in point.

There is, again..just the one thing involved in objective morality. Are there mind independent facts of a moral matter. No matter where we find those..in societies morality, in a persons morality, in the morality of a god...they would be examples of an objective morality. That is -the- objective moral standard. That's the entire premise of objective morality. Would it be nice to have that? Yes, I think so..and I think that we do, even if we don't have a perfect score when it comes to working that out..or, even when we do, acting in accordance with it...and even if possessing it might cause shittiness, at times...like those instances that I point out that the christian god is a moral failure.

[brewer]

Wyzas,
God cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. He can do only those things which are in not logically absurd or contradictory and a proper objects of his power and nature. He cannot make square circles or rocks even he can't lift, etc. I know God's nature through the Holy Spirit, experiential observation, faith and reading of the Bible.

OK, well that's a different take on what I normally hear. And I hear theists talking and quoting a lot of biblical absurdities, which if I understand them right, are used as the word(s) and deed(s) of god. For instance, I hear that it can make pigs suicidally insane and have bears kill children. 

I really don't care if you believe, I live in a world of very diverse god(s) believers. I hear contradictory things from different believers on a routine basis. I'd think that the holy spirit and the bible would be communicating the same messages, after all, it is a god. 

Maybe you can understand why I find so little validity in the belief itself (and the consequential justifications that get attached), and find more validity in the people, with or without a god influence.

Edit: When you get time I'd like to hear about your experimental observations and any subsequent conclusions.