Morality is objective, except when it isn't

TLK Valentine said:

Which raises the question of whether there is any objective morality, let alone how many...

Click to expand...

... yes, there's that, and whether or not there actually is any absolute morality. Now you're getting it!

Good work, Valentine!

2PhiloVoid said:

... yes, there's that, and whether or not there actually is any absolute morality. Now you're getting it!

Good work, Valentine!

Click to expand...

I had it since back in post #71 -- as you well know.

Good of you to remember.

TLK Valentine said:

I had it since back in post #71 -- as you well know.

Good of you to remember.

Click to expand...

That's a good reminder for me since I have too many irons in the fire here. I'll keep your Spong quotes in mind.

Nihilist Virus said:

Bigger? This makes morality subjective.

Click to expand...

One of the things Atheists typically do not give Theists enough weight to is the Theology of how grand Theists actually see God.

God gave us, as fallen, imperfect, sinful creatures morality because He already knows we cannot operate on the same level as Himself. I don't know how much of the Gospels you have read or what you think of Jesus exactly, but consider this verse:
John 7:31 "Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, 'When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?'"
The point is that the people were astonished at the signs and miracles that Jesus was doing. It became undeniable who he was to these people... because of the signs and miracles he did.
So what possibility do we have of matching the morality of God? The answer is that it's impossible for us. So you could say God's morality for us is simply a dumbed down version for us so we can understand it.
It's like saying God's morality is 3 Dimentional and our morality is 2 Dimentional. The two simply are not equal. That's what I am trying to say.

True Counterphobia said:

One of the things Atheists typically do not give Theists enough weight to is the Theology of how grand Theists actually see God.

God gave us, as fallen, imperfect, sinful creatures morality because He already knows we cannot operate on the same level as Himself. I don't know how much of the Gospels you have read or what you think of Jesus exactly, but consider this verse:
John 7:31 "Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, 'When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?'"
The point is that the people were astonished at the signs and miracles that Jesus was doing. It became undeniable who he was to these people... because of the signs and miracles he did.
So what possibility do we have of matching the morality of God? The answer is that it's impossible for us. So you could say God's morality for us is simply a dumbed down version for us so we can understand it.
It's like saying God's morality is 3 Dimentional and our morality is 2 Dimentional. The two simply are not equal. That's what I am trying to say.

Click to expand...

...which means we have no choice but to judge God's actions based on our subjective 2-D morality, since we can't experience His subjective 3-D morality.

Moral Orel said:

How do you know they should be part of scripture? Like we agreed, humans screw things up. We screw things up pretty quickly too. And God lets us.

Click to expand...

I know because God allows it to be part of scripture. Again it comes back to faith and trust.

Now that's not to say that some newer versions of the Bible are not suspect, some are, some have deviated away. I would always have an Old King James and either a New Kings James or other equal version. Plus the Greek or Hebrew can also be checked.

All parts of scripture should be laid out on a topic and looked at not just one piece. You want all pieces before you can see the whole picture.

God lets us because people want their free will. You should also be learning and growing through your mistakes.

I didn't say he never mentioned it. I'm talking about how people quote Him or Paul. Look at the effect Jesus' words have on people and the effect Paul's words have on people (where morality is concerned).

Click to expand...

Maybe you could tell me what part of Paul's words you are having an issue with? Could you quote the actual scripture?

Later in this post you're going to mention that feelings are misleading, and that's my point.

Click to expand...

They can be, yes, but they are still a part of it, they are still important.

But it gets complicated when God lets the humans He created make choices. God can desire that we act a certain way, but that doesn't cause acting differently to become the incorrect way to act.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you lost me there.

Well it's either intrinsically bad (bad all on it's own for it's own sake) or it's bad because God says so. If it's bad because God says so, then its badness is assigned, not intrinsic to the thing itself.

Click to expand...

Those things are bad, intricately so. God is letting us know that certain things are dangerous for either our physical, spiritual or mental well being, whether we recognize the dangers or not. Again maybe you have an actual example of what exactly you are referring to?

TLK Valentine said:

...which means we have no choice but to judge God's actions based on our subjective 2-D morality, since we can't experience His subjective 3-D morality.

Click to expand...

Which is where faith and trust come in.

If we trust God then we also trust his commands, we trust that he has our best interests at heart and that his commands are warnings to us. Like a parent who tells the toddler not to touch the hot stove. We are so far fallen that many of the dangers, especially the spiritual ones, we can't see.

If we do not trust that God has our best interests in mind, that his laws are arbitrary or pointless then we will be judging them based on what we feel.

Nihilist Virus said:

Like it or not, what you're saying is that morality is subjective.

Click to expand...

No, I am saying there is a greater and lesser morality but this does not mean either of them are subjective to the other.

@coffee4u Hi I was wondering what you thought of post #167

Nihilist Virus said:

What do you mean by subjective morality? What is it that you think I mean by subjective morality? I'm unable to make sense of what you're saying because I can't think of a definition wherein your statements make any sense whatsoever.

When I say "subjective morality" I mean a system of morality in which an action would be considered moral in a certain circumstance, or in a certain time period, or if performed by a certain party, and yet the same action would be considered immoral in another circumstance, or in another time period, or if performed by someone else.

When you say that God's morality is different from ours, I assume this is to account for the fact that he used to kill children quite regularly but somehow did so in a morally justifiable way. Yet if any human being did the things God did, then such a human being would be committing immoral acts. This is subjective morality. Under what possible definition do you think I'm operating? How could the situation that I just described be anything but subjective morality?

Click to expand...

A Balloon float if you put helium in them, right? Well, only if you put enough helium in them to offset the weight of the balloon. In the same way, our morality would be a balloon with just a tiny bit of helium in it. God would be a balloon with it filled with helium. God's balloon floats and ours doesn't. Same thing (helium) different result depending on the quantity.

coffee4u said:

I know because God allows it to be part of scripture. Again it comes back to faith and trust.

Now that's not to say that some newer versions of the Bible are not suspect, some are, some have deviated away. I would always have an Old King James and either a New Kings James or other equal version. Plus the Greek or Hebrew can also be checked.

Click to expand...

Well, see? God lets us screw up even scripture.

coffee4u said:

Maybe you could tell me what part of Paul's words you are having an issue with? Could you quote the actual scripture?

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a specific problem with anything Paul says. I'm saying that he motivates people to condemn sexual sin while Jesus motivates people to do good works.

coffee4u said:

Sorry, you lost me there.

Click to expand...

Let's use your painting analogy. Let's say I'm painting and I make a stroke in a place I didn't want to. I don't like it, and it makes my painting look different from how I want my painting to look. I may even say that it was a mistake. But, is there a correct place to make a stroke on a canvas? No, that would be silly.

coffee4u said:

Which is where faith and trust come in.

If we trust God then we also trust his commands, we trust that he has our best interests at heart and that his commands are warnings to us. Like a parent who tells the toddler not to touch the hot stove. We are so far fallen that many of the dangers, especially the spiritual ones, we can't see.

If we do not trust that God has our best interests in mind, that his laws are arbitrary or pointless then we will be judging them based on what we feel.

Click to expand...

There's the rub: faith and trust must be earned -- and when they are given, they are not always reciprocated.

Nihilist Virus said:

There's no indication he went to the "good" afterlife either, which I presume is Abraham's bosom. The reality is that he was a pawn used to inflict pain on another person. That's immoral.

Click to expand...

There is an indication and I already provided the scriptures to prove it. David’s son never sinned therefore he cannot be judged and punished for it.

2PhiloVoid said:

That's a good reminder for me since I have too many irons in the fire here. I'll keep your Spong quotes in mind.

Click to expand...

Bishop Spong has been a liberal and a theological maverick for decades, to the point where even I think a few of his ideas are out there -- but he does raise some good points. The quotes I provided were from his last* book, Unbelievable: Why Neither Ancient Creeds nor the Reformation can Produce a Living Faith Today.

Some of his ideas are radical, but his section on ethics and morality is on point, IMO.

*At 89 years old, Spong claims that this will be his last book... but IIRC, he was saying that at least three books ago.

Nihilist Virus said:

If your conclusion is a contradiction, check your reasoning.

Click to expand...

Can you explain why you think it’s a contradiction?

I hadn't noticed this reply, thanks for the link.

JohnClay said:

Thanks for your in depth reply.... I will respond to some of it.....

Thanks I wasn't aware of that.... so were Jesus' and John the Baptist's circumcisions not done correctly?

Click to expand...

I am unsure of the exact dates as it seems to depend where you look to the history of circumcision. But what God gave to Abraham looked nothing like what was done later. The changed occurred in response to Jewish men trying to appear Greek and that type of circumcision was later adopted by certain countries for bogus health reasons or for looks rather than for religious reasons.
This article appears to suggest a lot later History of Circumcision

My country is Australia which no longer has a death penalty. My examples were for working on the Sabbath (e.g. Numbers 15:32-36) and homosexual sex. Some Christians would say that God isn't against homosexual sex.

Click to expand...

I am also Australian, I was replying to an American.

Numbers 15:32-36 We are not given much information-which is what makes this passage difficult. We don't know anything about this man, what his attitude towards God was, what he had done before this. If God judged him as worthy of death then he was worthy of death.
If you read verse 27 before this you will see But if just one person sins unintentionally, that person must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering.
There was something in place for accidentally sinning.
So obviously he wasn't innocently just picking up sticks. Most times it isn't the actual crime (although sometimes it is) it is the heart attitude that is being judged.
For example if someone who is known to sell drugs and abuse children is caught for shoplifting people may call for harsh sentencing and it is not due to the shoplifting but because they have finally been caught for something. God knew this man, really knew him, and this wasn't just about picking up sticks, but who he was.

God is against all sex outside of marriage. Doesn't mater if its homosexual or heterosexual or anything in-between. Even a man lusting after a women without laying a finger on her is considered a sexual sin.
I can find numerous verses on sexual sin and how God calls Christians to purity if you need them.

Yes that is the passage I quoted. But what if a nation did that during modern warfare? Then there is the commanded genocide of 6 ethnic groups including their animals (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

Click to expand...

What has modern warfare got to do with it? That is just people going against other people for a variety of reasons, most times for power or control.
This was about God's judgment on a nation for being evil.
Places like the US who have the death penalty have deemed certain people worthy of death because of what they have done. These are human courts who can only go on witnesses and evidence. God doesn't need that, he knows exactly what they were doing so if he deemed an entire nation to death you can be sure it was full of evil.

Please provide evidence that the God of the Old Testament didn't approve of polygamy. Apparently Greeks and Romans were against polygamy and I think that is why it isn't present in the New Testament....

Click to expand...

You are the one saying that he did, what verses are you using to support that God was for it? Genesis gives the bases of marriage and Jesus repeats it.
3 The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
That is God's view on marriage, what he planned and wanted it to be.

But I think the law handed down to Moses allowed divorce.... and that is what Christians normally follow rather than the changes to this that Jesus suggested.
As far as Adam and Eve goes, Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs. He had many ribs so that implies he could have had many wives (especially if you consider all of the examples of Jewish polygamy)

Click to expand...

Yes it did, God often made things easier or even struck up bargains with his people. Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning"
It wasn't because God wanted divorce or polygamy. Do you think God wanted to come as a man and be nailed to a cross? It had nothing to do with what he wanted but how he could reach people and deal with them without them breaking away completely. He was basically herding a group of stubborn barbarians who were constantly rebelling.
Jeremiah 11:8
Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked, each one, in the stubbornness of his evil heart; therefore I brought on them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do, but they did not.’”

He created Adam then Eve (singular)