Objective Morality?

[lucent]

OK, can we agree to a rule that when you make statements about Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian god, that you need to cite your source or specify chapter and verse from the Bible? I have quoted you chapter and verse to let you know what your own holy scripture says. I would appreciate it if you could at least do the same. This ought to be a reasonable request of a Christian. Thanks.

I'll provide chapter and verse where appropiate, but I am not going to do it to the point of redundancy. Eventually, you're going to have to be intellectually honest enough to address my argument rather than try to tear it down on the basis of your misinterpretations of Christian doctrine.

And speaking of sources, let's stick with the dictionary's definition of what "objective" is and not just make up whatever definition will suit the needs of your argument, OK?

So the word "objective" means independence of one's feelings, personal tastes, preferences, bias, etc. It doesn't hinge on permanency, as you seem to assert.

So by definition, if any being, however powerful, old or wise, makes up a set of rules, whether they be temporary or permanent, than these rules create a subject set of morals. The only distinction you draw is instead of being subjective based on our evaluations, they are subjective based on another being's dictates.

If morality is truly objective, it exists outside of and independent to any being's whims, bias or judgment. That which is objectively wrong would continue to be objectively wrong, regardless of what God says, if God went away or turned out never to have existed at all.

You're speaking of moral objectivism. I'm speaking of moral absolutism. Objective morality is subject to change, absolute morality is not. For your edification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Finally, your assertion that Yahweh is unchanging is false, as the Bible makes many changes to this being over the ages in which it was written. For example, I quoted you chapter and verse on how Yahweh had a physical form. He became a "spirit" with the Gospel of John (John 4:24).

Again, He appeared physically and spiritually. Just as Jesus Christ appeared physically and spiritually. Your belief here is incorrect and falls flat. The OT and the NT accounts of God are the same. God is spirit, and is also capable of manifesting Himself physically.

What is unchanging is Gods nature.

Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever

For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

James 1:17

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

This is junior grade theology..I suggest you read this:

http://www.tecmalta.org/tft133.htm

The very beliefs of Christianity state that Yahweh created a new covenant and they've added a New Testament. What was wrong with the old ones? What happened to "eternal unchanging rules"?

Nothing has changed about God, or His morality. What has changed is His interaction with the world. The Old covenant was for Israel alone. The New Covenant is for the entire world.

Christians have no trouble eating shrimp today.

The ceremonial law was given for Israel, in that place and time. Christians are not restricted by those laws.

You are free to believe that God gave us our conscience. Mine finds the Bible, with all its rape, genocide, slavery and bigotry to be morally repugnant, but that's another issue. However, if you say morality hinges on conscience, then it is subjective by definition.

It doesn't hinge on conscience, it hinges on the absolute values of right and wrong. Our conscience informs us what those values are.

The eternal and unchanging god of the Bible moved the Sabbath to Sunday to accommodate the pagans who joined Christianity.

Christians don't follow the Sabbath. Again, this is elementry theology. If you want to critisize Christianity don't you think you should at least know what you're talking about before you do it?

That Yahweh sure is a great salesman but then, what else would you expect from a deity that rose from the humble beginnings of volcano god of some obscure tribe to the empire he has today? A real all-American "rags to riches" story.

Totally false. The identification of literary forms which are similar to the bible has led some scholars to declare that portions of the bible was actually inspired by pagan writings. Particularly, a psalm which is about the Father is compared to a Pagan writing about Baal, a storm god. Similarities in the text have led some scholars to surmise that the existence of the Father was actually originally derived from Baal. Basically saying, to Satans delight I am sure, that God is a copy of a demonic caananite God. Such a connection is totally unfounded..rather it is the similarity of language and literary style of the two languages that create the apparent similarity.

Now, I wonder if you'll actually address the logic of my argument instead of trying to tear down Christianity:

Subjective, or even objective morality, due to shifting values of right and wrong, can allow for something like the holocaust as being morally right. Even though it is evident that there is no situation in which the holocaust could be morally right. Meaning, the holocaust is absolutely wrong. Given that only a system of absolute morality could support that conclusion, and morality could not be absolute without God, this proves that God exists. Specifically, a moral creator who imposes His moral standard upon us.

A real all-American "rags to riches" story.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

What is unchanging is Gods nature.

I'm sorry to hear that. The god of the Torah is petty, petulant, fickle, jealous, vindictive, cruel, and genocidal. I can fully understand why he terrified a bunch of illiterate bronze age goat herders.

[DeistPaladin]

You're speaking of moral objectivism. I'm speaking of moral absolutism. Objective morality is subject to change, absolute morality is not. For your edification:

Fair enough but it seems to me that objective morals would be absolute.

Subjective, or even objective morality, due to shifting values of right and wrong, can allow for something like the holocaust as being morally right. Even though it is evident that there is no situation in which the holocaust could be morally right. Meaning, the holocaust is absolutely wrong. Given that only a system of absolute morality could support that conclusion, and morality could not be absolute without God, this proves that God exists.

I've read many moral philosophies, from deontological to utilitarian, which could be used to make a convincing case that the holocaust was absolutely wrong. None of them rely on GodWillsIt.

Also, what evidence do you base your assertion on that absolute morality exists? Or if God exists, how do you know this god is moral?

Specifically, a moral creator who imposes His moral standard upon us.

Just to be clear on your moral philosophy, do you think Yahweh sets the rules for us, as a celestial lawgiver, based on his own whims? Or do you think Yahweh is a celestial arbiter, who is able to weigh out the issue and determine right and wrong?

In other words, is it good because Yahweh wills it? Or does Yahweh will it because it is good?

[lucent]

Fair enough but it seems to me that objective morals would be absolute

Moral obectivism says that right and wrong is not independent of context, just of opinion. (Murder is wrong except in scenerio 1 2 and 3) Moral Absolutism says context doesn't matter. (Murder is always wrong) So, under moral objectivism morality is fluid and subject to change according to circumstance and consequence.

I've read many moral philosophies, from deontological to utilitarian, which could be used to make a convincing case that the holocaust was absolutely wrong. None of them rely on GodWillsIt.

It's still just what human beings decide. Put a different group of human beings together and they will come to a different conclusion. A group of human beings decided the holocaust was morally justified, and it could happen again. A morality that could change for any reason is not absolute.

Also, what evidence do you base your assertion on that absolute morality exists? Or if God exists, how do you know this god is moral?

I know absolute morality exists because God exists, and His morality is fixed and unchanging. By my conscience, I know some things are absolutely wrong regardless of context. I know He is moral from my own experience and observation, from others experience, and from the bible.

In other words, is it good because Yahweh wills it? Or does Yahweh will it because it is good?

It's good because God is good. That His nature is goodness itself. So He, as the supreme good, only does what is good. What is good could be defined as what God does.

Or does Yahweh will it because it is good?

[Zen Badger]

Now, I wonder if you'll actually address the logic of my argument instead of trying to tear down Christianity:

Subjective, or even objective morality, due to shifting values of right and wrong, can allow for something like the holocaust as being morally right. Even though it is evident that there is no situation in which the holocaust could be morally right. Meaning, the holocaust is absolutely wrong. Given that only a system of absolute morality could support that conclusion, and morality could not be absolute without God, this proves that God exists. Specifically, a moral creator who imposes His moral standard upon us.

But where is this "absolute morality"?

Since lots of people even now think the holocaust was a good thing along with lots of things you and I would find morally repugnant it cannot be an absolute.

Otherwise everyone would think it wrong, wouldn't they?

You cannot prove the existence of this absolute morality.

And since the old testement obviously no longer applies to christians( which is odd since ol JC seemed to be pretty hot on the old laws still applying) you'd better stop using Leviticus to justify your homophobia.

[downbeatplumb]

For most of the modern world morals shift over time.

This is a good thing.

By trying to adhere to the morals of a terrible past, religion causes all sorts of horror to be inflicted on the world.

look at Iran, Egypt, Indonesia or any fundamenalist country and you can see what I mean.

Secular societies are the ones with the best 'morals' precisely because they dont follow the teachings of raving mad preachers from 2000 or 1400 years ago.

Some muslims still think its ok to kill girls for the crime of being raped or for just being alone with a boy. Some even think its ok to keep sex slaves as it was mentioned in the koran and is not 'Haram'.

The catholic church has for millenia protected paedophiles and sex offending clergy as a matter of course.

Look just look a little and you can find all sorts of morally dubious things being done because of religion and its tendency to look to the past and not the future.

[lucent]

People have a choice as to how to react to what their conscience is telling them. How they act is not a measure for the existence of an absolute standard. It is your god given conscience which tells you what that standard is. That people can compromise, or sear their own consciences is a given.

The change in the OT law was due to the change of priesthood from levitical, which was for Israel, to Melchizedek, an eternal priesthood. When the priesthood changed the cermonial and sacrificial laws were made obsolete because Jesus fulfilled all of those things. This doesn't mean none of the laws from the OT are valid, just the ones that apply specifically to the observance of jewish law as it applies to the levitical priesthood. As far as a law against homosexuality, that is in the NT as well.

Now, I wonder if you'll actually address the logic of my argument instead of trying to tear down Christianity:

Subjective, or even objective morality, due to shifting values of right and wrong, can allow for something like the holocaust as being morally right. Even though it is evident that there is no situation in which the holocaust could be morally right. Meaning, the holocaust is absolutely wrong. Given that only a system of absolute morality could support that conclusion, and morality could not be absolute without God, this proves that God exists. Specifically, a moral creator who imposes His moral standard upon us.

But where is this "absolute morality"?

Since lots of people even now think the holocaust was a good thing along with lots of things you and I would find morally repugnant it cannot be an absolute.

Otherwise everyone would think it wrong, wouldn't they?

You cannot prove the existence of this absolute morality.

And since the old testement obviously no longer applies to christians( which is odd since ol JC seemed to be pretty hot on the old laws still applying) you'd better stop using Leviticus to justify your homophobia.

---

I agree, religion has caused a lot of harm to the world. Jesus didn't like religion either, which is why he called the pharisees vipers and whitewashed tombs. I would also note that secular societies have also caused untold harm, most notably with brutal wars, genocide and famine. I think the point is that human beings have fallen short in every walk of life, secular or religious. We pollute everything we touch. Specifically, as to the United States, it has always been a hybrid of Christian ideals. Check out this series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5jzS1mEF_Y

For most of the modern world morals shift over time.

This is a good thing.

By trying to adhere to the morals of a terrible past, religion causes all sorts of horror to be inflicted on the world.

look at Iran, Egypt, Indonesia or any fundamenalist country and you can see what I mean.

Secular societies are the ones with the best 'morals' precisely because they dont follow the teachings of raving mad preachers from 2000 or 1400 years ago.

Some muslims still think its ok to kill girls for the crime of being raped or for just being alone with a boy. Some even think its ok to keep sex slaves as it was mentioned in the koran and is not 'Haram'.

The catholic church has for millenia protected paedophiles and sex offending clergy as a matter of course.

Look just look a little and you can find all sorts of morally dubious things being done because of religion and its tendency to look to the past and not the future.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lucent, until you can show that such a thing as a transcendent lawgiver exists, it cannot "give" or be the "ground" of anything. All the things you think god hates, you hate that stuff. Roll that around in your head for a minute. God isn't a bigot, you are.

There isn't any argument here to address. You're just stringing words together.

[lucent]

Excuse me but I am no bigot. I don't treat or think about homosexuals any differently than anyone else. I don't approve of their sin, but it doesn't mean I hate them.

I offered to debate you on several different premises but apparently debate is not your cup of tea? You haven't offered any arguments at all and skepticism is not a position I am afraid to tell you.

Lucent, until you can show that such a thing as a transcendent lawgiver exists, it cannot "give" or be the "ground" of anything. All the things you think god hates, you hate that stuff. Roll that around in your head for a minute. God isn't a bigot, you are.

There isn't any argument here to address. You're just stringing words together.

[The Grand Nudger]

What points? You have one point- "I believe". I remain unconvinced.