Morality is objective, except when it isn't

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.

Let's see, we have a balloon, helium, and flight. What parts match with God, humankind, and morality? It's certainly not obvious to me. I doubt you know either. It's a pretty bad analogy. I'm going to trust my understanding of basic words and definitions over some half-baked bizarre analogy you concocted. I don't know what it is you think you're doing, but this isn't how you win an atheist over.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There is an indication and I already provided the scriptures to prove it.

Not that I saw.

David’s son never sinned therefore he cannot be judged and punished for it.

The "age of accountability" is a manmade concept and is not Biblical. Please admit this.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You said that morality is both subjective and objective. If you don't recognize that as a contradiction, you're unfit to participate in the conversation.

It's not a contradiction if the nature of subjectivity isn't necessarily, or exactly, the anti-thesis of objectivity.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You said that morality is both subjective and objective. If you don't recognize that as a contradiction, you're unfit to participate in the conversation.

I can see why you might think that, but I did explain it. Here’s maybe a simpler, more direct way to put it. A subjects moral choices have an objective effect on themselves, those around them and the world to some extent.

So one might be able to see how morality both comes from within us(subjective) and also effects objective reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I can see why you might think that, but I did explain it.

I know you think you did. You said that a moderate wine drinker can morally drink wine, whereas a recovering alcoholic could not morally drink wine. Therefore, you say, it is objectively moral to drink wine for one person and it is objectively immoral to drink wine for another person.

You don't seem to realize that you're just saying that drinking wine is a morally subjective issue. You're misusing the word "objective." Objectively speaking, consuming wine can cause harm to one person but yet not to another. That is the reason why morality is subjective. If we define morality in terms of minimizing harm and maximizing well-being, then morality is subjective because two people could do the same thing with objectively different outcomes. That is what it means for morality to be subjective. You proved it yourself.

Here’s maybe a simpler, more direct way to put it. A subjects moral choices have an objective effect on themselves, those around them and the world to some extent. So one might be able to see how morality both comes from within us(subjective) and also effects objective reality.

You are convoluting issues here. You're associating objectivity with consequences and subjectivity with the action itself, and you then go on to say that morality is both subjective and objective. The consequences are objective because events in the real world are objective. The action itself is the moral action; the consequence is not the moral action. The consequence is not an action at all.
 
Upvote 0

JohnClay

Married Mouth-Breather
Supporter
Oct 27, 2006
1,129
186
Australia
Visit site
✟443,619.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
....God is against all sex outside of marriage. Doesn't mater if its homosexual or heterosexual or anything in-between.
Though in polygamy they're technically all married...
Even a man lusting after a women without laying a finger on her is considered a sexual sin.
According to Jesus that is... perhaps so that it is more difficult to be righteous....
What has modern warfare got to do with it?
Well you seem to be ok with slavery during Old Testament warfare so if God doesn't change then that implies that slavery with modern warfare is ok too....
......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.
If God was against polygamy why didn't he have any laws against it like he did for homosexual sex, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, etc? "Unlawful sexual relations" is nearly a whole chapter in Leviticus 18...
Polygamy was mentioned many times in the Old Testament (Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines) so it should have been mentioned in Moses' laws...
I think Moses also had two wives at once....
Q&A 1442—Did Moses have more than one wife? | Douglas Jacoby

edit: I found laws against polygamy....

Deuteronomy 17:16-17
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.​

That implies a king with a couple of wives is ok. Or maybe to have "many" if you're not a king....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I know you think you did. You said that a moderate wine drinker can morally drink wine, whereas a recovering alcoholic could not morally drink wine. Therefore, you say, it is objectively moral to drink wine for one person and it is objectively immoral to drink wine for another person.

You don't seem to realize that you're just saying that drinking wine is a morally subjective issue. You're misusing the word "objective." Objectively speaking, consuming wine can cause harm to one person but yet not to another. That is the reason why morality is subjective. If we define morality in terms of minimizing harm and maximizing well-being, then morality is subjective because two people could do the same thing with objectively different outcomes. That is what it means for morality to be subjective. You proved it yourself.

I admit the wine may not have been the best example.
IOW, someones subjective morality(choices) may actually be the right choice, which would make it objective morality to a different person who didn't know what the right choice was.

Let me ask you this: What would objective morality even be if it didn't come from a subject(person) separate(objective) from yourself?

You are convoluting issues here. You're associating objectivity with consequences and subjectivity with the action itself, and you then go on to say that morality is both subjective and objective. The consequences are objective because events in the real world are objective. The action itself is the moral action; the consequence is not the moral action. The consequence is not an action at all.

I'm associating the objectivity of a persons and their subjective moral choices. If a person tells me morally good/accurate information, then that information came from an objective source in relation to myself..

Lets say you're right in what you're saying to me, then I should concede to your accurate info(which is/or was objective from myself) and agree with you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I admit the wine may not have been the best example.
IOW, someones subjective morality(choices) may actually be the right choice, which would make it objective morality to a different person who didn't know what the right choice was.

I still don't see how that fixes it.

Let me ask you this: What would objective morality even be if it didn't come from a subject(person) separate(objective) from yourself?

You've just established why objective morality is a nonsensical notion, and hence morality must be subjective. To answer your question, morality would be some sort of ethereal "law" which, unlike physical laws, can be broken at any time for any reason; and further, there would be no way to test for what the laws actually are. A world in which objective morality somehow exists would not be any different whatsoever from a world wherein objective morality doesn't exist. It'd be as though objective morality didn't exist, even if it did. As I said, it is a nonsensical notion.

I'm associating the objectivity of a persons and their subjective moral choices. If a person tells me morally good/accurate information, then that information came from an objective source in relation to myself..

:scratch:

Lets say you're right in what you're saying to me, then I should concede to your accurate info(which is/or was objective from myself) and agree with you.

Yes.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Though in polygamy they're technically all married...

Are you taking a secular view or a Christian view?

The secular view of marriage is that there is a legal document declaring a couple is 'married'. So long as the laws in a country allow it they are 'married'. It's a legal thing. So a society could legalize polygamy as marriage if they wanted but that doesn't mean its marriage in God's view.
If they moved to another country they may face a different law. Reminds me of how in the US back in the 60's some states allowed marriage between black and white couples and some did not and the story of Loving vs Loving where a black and white couple could not move back to their own state without facing arrest. This was the legal and society view of marriage at that time, and it's changeable.

God's view of marriage, what he gave to us, is one man to one women for life.
Matthew 19

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

That is marriage and only that is marriage in God's sight. God doesn't care about country law or legal papers. God also doesn't care about race or skin colour. They simply had to be one man and one woman. Anything outside of that is not seen as marriage. So extra 'wives' are not actually married nor are gay couples because it falls outside the institution of marriage that God set up. Secular society can do whatever it likes, call whatever it likes marriage, doesn't mean God views it as such.

According to Jesus that is... perhaps so that it is more difficult to be righteous....
No one said it was suppose to be easy.

Well you seem to be ok with slavery during Old Testament warfare so if God doesn't change then that implies that slavery with modern warfare is ok too....

Doesn't mean I think it is a nice or a good thing, warfare itself isn't nice. The warfare was based on nations being enemies of God, nothing else. It wasn't based on their skin colour. If they had repented and turned to God there would not have even been any wars. That is all God asks for, repentance.
This is why he spared Nineveh. He sent Jonah to preach to them and then they repented and this made Jonah very angry because he thought they deserved to be wiped out.
Jonah 3
10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.


God doesn't change but how he deals with humanity has changed. This is why he died on a cross. His own blood allowed the New Covenant.

If God was against polygamy why didn't he have any laws against it like he did for homosexual sex, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, etc? "Unlawful sexual relations" is nearly a whole chapter in
Leviticus 18...
Polygamy was mentioned many times in the Old Testament (Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines) so it should have been mentioned in Moses' laws... BTW there is also the concept of "concubines" but I'm not aware of anything against that....
I think Moses also had two wives at once....
Q&A 1442—Did Moses have more than one wife? | Douglas Jacoby

You will also notice it was his wives, in particular a non Godly women (God had already warned them not to take wives from this nation) who was his downfall. This is why its included so we reading can see how a mans decisions both good and bad effect his life. These are life lessons. They are not there to say 'do this' but rather 'look at this man and see what his decisions reaped in his life, learn form them.'

Due to the stubbornness of their hearts God gave in to them, many times. You may think God would not give in, but he did. He gave in and he bargained with them.
Like a parent relents and gives a child what they keep bugging them for, doesn't mean the parent wants to or agrees with it. God was handling a group of barbarians who would have completely rebelled. So in some case he 'gave in' for want of a better way of putting it. At other times God would move away and let them have a taste of the consequences of their actions.

Psalm 81:11-12
“But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels.
Polygamy was there own council not what God wanted.

He did this when they kept on at him for a king too.
6But when they said, “Give us a king to judge us,” their demand was displeasing in the sight of Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7And the LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you. For it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected Me as their king. 8Just as they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking Me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9Now listen to them, but you must solemnly warn them and show them the manner of the king who will reign over them.”

Shortening this because I know it is long but verses 10-17 talks about all the terrible things this king will do to them.

18When that day comes, you will beg for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you on that day.” 19Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We must have a king over us. 20Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to judge us, to go out before us, and to fight our battles.” 21Samuel listened to all the words of the people and repeated them in the hearing of the LORD.

22“Listen to their voice,” the LORD said to Samuel. “Appoint a king for them.”

They had a chance to say, yeah we really don't want this king but no, they still wanted a king even after being warned.
It wasn't because God wanted them to have a king, he was giving in to them. God wanted them to learn from their own decisions.

edit: I found laws against polygamy....

Deuteronomy 17:16-17
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.​

That implies a king with a couple of wives is ok. Or maybe to have "many" if you're not a king....

Do you have children? If you picture God as a long suffering father whose children keep rebelling and coming back and rebelling maybe you will understand why he allowed certain things but didn't actually want them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnClay

Married Mouth-Breather
Supporter
Oct 27, 2006
1,129
186
Australia
Visit site
✟443,619.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Are you taking a secular view or a Christian view?
An Old Testament view. I am looking at what the OT itself says, not Jesus' reinterpretation of it.
BTW is there are single case of polygamy in the NT? (or a few?) I'm saying that the reason why Jesus was against polygamy was his Greek/Roman culture rather than because of a message from God. If it was from a message from God it should be mentioned in the OT too.

The secular view of marriage is that there is a legal document declaring a couple is 'married'. So long as the laws in a country allow it they are 'married'. It's a legal thing. So a society could legalize polygamy as marriage if they wanted but that doesn't mean its marriage in God's view.
Do you have any evidence that God didn't view King David or King Solomon's marriages (and concubines) to be real marriages? (based on the OT)
God's view of marriage, what he gave to us, is one man to one women for life.
I'm talking about the OT not a NT view that many Christians ignore (by remarrying after divorce, etc)
If they had repented and turned to God there would not have even been any wars.
If they aren't in the promised land (Deuteronomy 20) then they can surrender but if they're in the promised land then everything that breathes must be killed.
You will also notice it was his wives, in particular a non Godly women (God had already warned them not to take wives from this nation) who was his downfall. This is why its included so we reading can see how a mans decisions both good and bad effect his life. These are life lessons. They are not there to say 'do this' but rather 'look at this man and see what his decisions reaped in his life, learn form them.'
Note that Deuteronomy 17:16-17 also says says that kings "must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold" (see Solomon's 666 talents of gold)
Do you have children? If you picture God as a long suffering father whose children keep rebelling and coming back and rebelling maybe you will understand why he allowed certain things but didn't actually want them.
Why is it that Deuteronomy 17:16-17 says that kings "must not take many wives"? Why didn't God use this opportunity to say "must not take more than one wife at a time"? And the penalty is "his heart will be led astray".
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You've just established why objective morality is a nonsensical notion, and hence morality must be subjective. To answer your question, morality would be some sort of ethereal "law" which, unlike physical laws, can be broken at any time for any reason; and further, there would be no way to test for what the laws actually are. A world in which objective morality somehow exists would not be any different whatsoever from a world wherein objective morality doesn't exist. It'd be as though objective morality didn't exist, even if it did. As I said, it is a nonsensical notion.

I agree that objective morality apart from a subject is nonsensical, but that's not what I'm claiming or explaining. What I'm trying to explain involves a subject who's sharing their good/correct morals, objectively(into the world for all to see and hear).

It's like morality transitions from a subject > into objective reality through communication > and then into a different subject. All of which exist in objective reality together.

Again, I agree that objective morality apart from any subjects is nonsensical. :)
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I agree that objective morality apart from a subject is nonsensical, but that's not what I'm claiming or explaining.

I didn't say that either. With whom are you agreeing?

What I'm trying to explain involves a subject who's sharing their good/correct morals, objectively(into the world for all to see and hear).

You could use this incorrect logic to "conclude" that literally anything is both subjective and objective. This is saying nothing.

It's like morality transitions from a subject > into objective reality through communication > and then into a different subject. All of which exist in objective reality together.

Again, this is saying nothing.

Again, I agree that objective morality apart from any subjects is nonsensical. :)

Again, with whom are you agreeing?
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Let's see, we have a balloon, helium, and flight. What parts match with God, humankind, and morality? It's certainly not obvious to me. I doubt you know either. It's a pretty bad analogy. I'm going to trust my understanding of basic words and definitions over some half-baked bizarre analogy you concocted. I don't know what it is you think you're doing, but this isn't how you win an atheist over.

I'd like to know how you figure I am the ignorant one here.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'd like to know how you figure I am the ignorant one here.

I didn't use that word, but while you're on the topic, you do seem ignorant of how logic works.

One of your threads has this logical argument:

1. My experiences are something I don't know/can't predict
2. I know things in my experiences that seem like things I shouldn't know/predict
3. God can know/predict what experiences I need to have in order that it would show me God exists
4. God provides the experiences I need to know that God exists
5. Therefore, God exists


Premises 3 and 4 already assume God exists, and then you conclude that God exists. This is not how logic works.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I didn't use that word, but while you're on the topic, you do seem ignorant of how logic works.

One of your threads has this logical argument:

1. My experiences are something I don't know/can't predict
2. I know things in my experiences that seem like things I shouldn't know/predict
3. God can know/predict what experiences I need to have in order that it would show me God exists
4. God provides the experiences I need to know that God exists
5. Therefore, God exists


Premises 3 and 4 already assume God exists, and then you conclude that God exists. This is not how logic works.

And I think you are spiritually blind and as such, cannot understand what I am saying.
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
There is no way to verify what you're saying. It's almost as though spiritual things don't exist.

There's no naturalistic was to verify what I am saying. That's exactly the point I am trying to make.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums