]
By that rationale, if a moral choice benefits someone enough, but contradicts god's morality... It's still a good choice. Likewise, if someone obeys god's morality and it never benefits them...they're justified in disobeying. Is that really what you think?
[FONT="]The benefits is only one aspect of why Christians follow God. But I was replying to when you said that I blindly follow God. I was saying there were reasons and one of them is the benefits. But that is mixed with other things. Sometimes you dont see any benefits straight away. But a Christian will still persist because they have evidence in their life from other experiences that showed God was working in their life for the better. Things are not so black and white. You dont always expect a benefit instantly and when you dont get one it doesn't mean things havent worked out. Life is not like that. But overall you know you are on the right track from all the things that are working in your life for the better.
[/FONT]
Those who believe that they follow the morality of god make mistakes by their own admission just as often as those with their own morality. I don't see any benefit other than being able to scapegoat god when you make a poor choice or hold an unpopular opinion. That may be a benefit...but it's very dishonest.
[FONT="]Religion can be one of the biggest deceivers for using God to do evil. Its easier to fool others and especially yourself that way. But that doesn't mean that there can be a truth to a faith in God. There are many who are quietly going about their business in the background doing Gods will. These are normally the ones who show Jesus working in their lives. They should be a noticeable signs in their lives. But normally they dont promote these things as Jesus didn't.
But humans do make mistakes and just because you are a Christian doesn't mean you are perfect. But you shouldn't be conforming to this world and sinning a lot. To me that is a religious person who is using religion as an escape and to fool people or to get some sort of benefit for themselves.
[/FONT]
How do you know it's correct? Because god says so? All that proves is that god says it's correct. Sure, you can claim god is always right... but that's just your opinion. You have no way of knowing that god is always right. So in the end...you have no way of knowing if that moral standard is "correct". It's just your opinion (which you got from someone else).
[FONT="]Thats silly, now your just disagreeing to make a point. Anyone would think that honoring your parents was good. There are many ways in which we can see that following Gods ways bring benefits and make peoples lives for the better. It just makes sense. I cant see any wrong or illogical ways in what Jesus says we should follow. If you check out things like the Sermon on the Mount it is full of wise and good morals and teachings. Jesus was always teaching things that were good. Sometimes we cant see the immediate benefits but like I said before we have testimony of life experience from other things that have happened which have proven to us that Gods will makes our lives better.
But even if you look at it from a scientific point of view it makes sense. Studies have shown people who are religious have better results in life. It makes sense that these people are interested in helping others more often, help the vulnerable and isolated in society, have communion with others which gives benefits of not being lonely. It helps with practicing good principles for health in that the body is Gods temple, good relationships as marriage and keeping families together is important. Helping society generally as helping others is a important part of belief. Secular society can also do these things but it is hit and miss. There are no common beliefs and in fact some laws in society promote the opposite with things such as easy divorces and sex outside marriage.
Being married and being involved in religious activities are generally associated with positive effects in several areas, including physical and mental health, economic outcomes, and the process of raising children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/[/FONT][FONT="]PMC[/FONT][FONT="]2614329/
[/FONT]
I didn't want to pull the entire quote...but everything you wrote between the beginning and end of these sentences here is a description of subjective morality...not objective morality. You're describing people deciding for themselves what is right and wrong without appealing to some objective moral standard. You talk about deciding which is the greater good or lesser evil...god doesn't allow for those things. God didn't write the ten commandments with a list of exceptions and all sins are equal in his eyes. It's objective morality that paints everything in black and white...it's subjective morality that recognizes most moral choices aren't that simple. It's nice to see you argue for my side once though lol.
[FONT="]Yes but that is not deciding between many different subjective views which come from humans. As I said the justification for killing in self defense is a very rare allowance because it involves a greater moral in the protection and preservation of life. This is also a moral of God. A person doesn't just stand there and get killed when they are being attacked or let that killer kill their family. Then that turns the situation into you allowing someone to be killed. You are then in some ways responsible for your family being killed because you didn't protect them or youre self. So thats the only exception. As you can see Two of Gods morals have crossed paths.
But what subjective morality does is allow many views of what is justified in killing. It allows human interpretations of what is moral or not. That is when you are allowing all sorts of reasons for killing. Thats because subjective morality states that everyone's views are valid. So no one can really say to another that they are wrong for believing what they do because that is their personal beliefs and they think that is OK. This is when it allows all sorts of crazy ideas to come into the situation and undermine what is truly right and wrong. With Gods morals you know where you stand. It is clear and everyone can be judged by those standards.
[/FONT]
I explained about different types of facts in my last post...but I'll try again. 2+2=4 is a fact. It's not subjective. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it....it's still a fact. I can prove it to you, thereby demonstrating its truth. "Abortion is wrong."...that's an opinion. You may agree or disagree. It cannot be proven. We can still debate it...discuss why we think it's wrong or right... but it's not a "truth". The only point the debate serves is to get others to see your way.
Morals can be assessed and if we are honest we can discover if they are truly right or wrong. Its just people justify their actions with reasons that are not always justified if we are truthful. The world view is to claim there is no truth and muddy the waters so that it allows them to make their actions acceptable. Normally there is a selfish reason or motive behind most unjustified reasons for doing something that is wrong. We all know that killing is wrong. The taking of another life at anytime is not good. It can be justified for some reasons and I have touched on that.
You say abortion is ok for some. But I think we can discover if it is truly right or wrong by investigating it. The fact is anyone who has an abortion whether they claim that its ok or not is affected by it. The main reason it sits well with some is that they tell themselves a fetus is not a life. But if it was a life it wouldn't sit well. So that is something that is up for debate. But another fact is that any woman who has a miscarriage no matter when it happens grieves like they have lost of child. This is natural and that is part of the process. So this gives some insight into the real issues around abortion. Its not so easy to do.
There is nearly 2,550 abortion everyday in the US. There are nearly 8 million a year. There are over 1.3 billion abortions a year world wide. No matter which way you look at this it is bad. It cant be good for the psyche of a nation of people. If we stop and consider the truth I think you can see that there are many unjustified reasons people do things. But subjectivity has to allow the many excuses that allow these things to be done because that is the nature a secular society. Its one thing to allow people the right to decide for themselves. Its another thing to actually allow them to do it. Because you dont believe in God and objective morality you therefore dont allow people to be told what to do. Thats when you are asking for trouble. Once you open the can of worms its hard to put the lid back on.
Here is a moral I once found as an example that takes away some of the options to show you that morality can be objective.
The Moral Argument: Objective Moral Values
Objective moral values would be values that are the same for everyone, everywhere, whenever they lived in history. For example, look at the following statement:
- Torturing little babies for fun is just plain wrong for everyone, everywhere; it always has been and always will be.
If you believe that statement is true, then you believe in objective morality.
Generally speaking, the majority does...as long as it doesn't harm the minority. Generally, but not always.
[FONT="]Like you said to me about how do I know for sure that I am right or God is right about Morals. How do you know that the majority is right? If one persons view on morals isn't correct and is just an opinion, isn't many individuals view still just an opinion that isn't correct? They are legalizing pot according to the majority in those states. They legalized alcohol according to the majority. But both affect people and cause many deaths. How do you know in 20 years or so we dont end up with a big problem of mental illness from pot. This happens all the time. The majority think they know but they still get it wrong.
[/FONT]
Right...it just can't prove they exist...or even explain them. That makes these "truths" look suspiciously like opinions. I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong....you say that killing is wrong is a moral truth. Demonstrate it....tell me why killing is wrong.
Because its taking a life and life is precious. God said thou shall not kill.
[FONT="]
Notice what you do when you assert that morality is subjective. With this assertion you affirm that there are no objective moral principles that are binding on anyone else. Now here's the problem. It is immensely difficult to deny the existence of all objective moral principles without at the same time affirming at least one. Which is because there are no objective moral principles, you ought not to evaluate my actions by any such principles. The problem with that statement is that it refutes itself. [/FONT]
Even those who claim to follow an independent moral guide make poor moral choices. I see no benefit, other than the ability to deny responsibility for holding unpopular moral opinions...like saying gay people shouldn't marry. By saying that it's god's morality and they just follow it, they get to deny responsibility for holding that opinion. It's dishonest.
I have already linked the support that religion has many benefits with physical, mental, emotional well being. As well as economically and for families and children. Those who follow God may make some poor moral choices at times but overall I believe those who follow God will live a good life moral life. But if a person does not follow the beliefs they support then how can they benefit anyway. Its like saying you believe in a particular healthy lifestyle. But if you dont follow it then you wont get any benefits. As I mentioned before some people can be hypocrites and say they are religious but they dont practice what they preach.
Heres the problem with subjective morality.
But heres the problem with the argument for subjective morality.
The claim that morality is subjective presupposes that there are facts about right and wrong, and that these facts are agent-specific. In other words, there are different moral facts for different people. Killing animals is morally acceptable for Bob and Killing animals is morally unacceptable for Susie can coexist as moral facts under subjective morality. But this is clearly absurd. How can it make sense to apply different moral standards to different people?
If there is a rational argument for the moral wrongness of killing animals, surely that argument must apply generally rather than to some people and not to others? Obviously there are many different contexts in which an act such as the killing of an animal can occur, but differences of context are not the issue at hand. If Bob and Susie commit the same act, in the same context, with same intentions, surely the act must have the same moral status regardless of whether it was committed by Susie or Bob.
http://armchairphilosophyblog.tumblr.com/post/27545173416/the-impossibility-of-subjective-morality
-, that allows us to conclusively discern facts from opinion?
