Is morality objective, even without God?

[partinobodycular]

ooops..... the Bible is never wrong.

Just to be clear, I didn't say that the bible is wrong. I said that based on the fact that Christians disagree, it seems that your understanding of what the bible says is wrong. You're conflating the two again. Saying that you're wrong isn't the same as saying that the bible is wrong.

Please, please, please try not to misread what I very diligently try to state accurately. Can you do that for me?

 

[Bradskii]

He is always available to those who ask ...

But I can ask you. In fact, I have to ask you because you say...

'I have such an omniscient authority that informs me... '

...so you have an authority which will inform you and give the answer to whatever moral quandry we have. And I can't get the answer because
atheists do not.

...atheists do not.' Although you seem to now contradict yourself:

...even those who do not believe in Him yet.

So atheists can ask for help from something in which they do not believe? I wonder what Shiva might think of my charitable work. And hey, we all know that people are clearly getting mixed messages that they say are from God. Are the ones that you get always correct?

Let's face it. You are either right all the time. Or sometimes you'll have it wrong. I'm in the former category. Which one are you in?

 

[Aaron112]

Just to be clear, I didn't say that the bible is wrong. I said that based on the fact that Christians disagree, it seems that your understanding of what the bible says is wrong. You're conflating the two again. Saying that you're wrong isn't the same as saying that the bible is wrong.

Please, please, please try not to misread what I very diligently try to state accurately. Can you do that for me?

My understanding is a gift as always it is from YHVH , by faith living and abiding in Jesus.
You have no reason nor evidence at all, of any kind, to make the claim you do.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Moral objectivity, it sounds like a form of Idolatry.

 

[Bradskii]

People always tend to go to the extreme examples.

It tends to focus the mind.

We should appreciate our parents as they are and especially when they are faithful servants of God.

We should respect our parents as they are and especially when they are faithful servants of God.

We should obey our parents as long as their commands do not violate God's Law.

We should forgive our parents and care for them when they are in need.

Well, her father is clearly violating God's laws. So I think we have an answer. Honour your father...unless he is not worthy of being honoured. That's been my point from the beginning. Obey the rules, unless that you think they don't apply.

In this particular case caring for him would include testifying against him with the hope that he would be punished for his crimes so he can repent of his sins.

We weren't talking about caring for the guy. Let's not detract from the actual command. Which was to honour him. Which seems to me to be, in this case, reporting him to the police so that he will be punished. I must admit that haven't seen the word used in that sense.

 

[Zaha Torte]

It tends to focus the mind.

I find people do this to try to justify some sin or other.

Well, her father is clearly violating God's laws.

Correct. According to the Law given to Moses - he would have been put to death.

So I think we have an answer. Honour your father...unless he is not worthy of being honoured.

The answer is to honor God before anyone else - even your father.

That's been my point from the beginning.

I don't think so.

Obey the rules, unless that you think they don't apply.

That is not the point that I made.

It is not the point made in the Law of Moses.

The point of the Law is to obey God's rules.

We do not determine what rules apply when and where - God does.

We weren't talking about caring for the guy.

Caring for one's parents is part of honoring them.

As I said - to honor one's parents is to appreciate, respect, obey and care for them.

Let's not detract from the actual command. Which was to honour him.

I am on message - you are stuck in your bias.

Which seems to me to be, in this case, reporting him to the police so that he will be punished. I must admit that haven't seen the word used in that sense.

If you love someone then you would want them to repent of their sins.

A part of repentance is confessing your sins and suffering the consequences.

Any rapist who would seek repentance needs to confess their crime, be arrested and go to trial - and hopefully serve a long time if not death for that crime.

If you love someone who has committed a grievous sin and crime - you should encourage them to face the music - so they do not procrastinate the day of their repentance.

If you encourage them to avoid accountability - you probably don't love them.

 

[Bradskii]

I find people do this to try to justify some sin or other.

It's obviously not in this case. We are trying to see if a command is inviolate or whether there is some 'small print' one can refer to.

We do not determine what rules apply when and where - God does.

So at what point does the girl determine that her father is disobeying God's rules? Who decides this?

If you love someone then you would want them to repent of their sins.

You think the girl would love her father simply because he is her father? Is this another rule she must obey? I can't see someone consciously deciding to love someone. That makes no sense.

 

[Aaron112]

I can't see someone consciously deciding to love someone. That makes no sense.

For thousands of years, "love" as God 'Commands' is a decision , a choice of the will, not some feeling of passion or carnal.

 

[Bradskii]

How do you determine objective truth?

The scientific method.

 

[Aaron112]

footnote noted before in some threads.

The co-called "scientific method" is flawed for many reasons. Mainly it is of the flesh, not of God.

 

[Bradskii]

For thousands of years, "love" as God 'Commands' is a decision , a choice of the will, not some feeling of passion or carnal.

If you mean in the sense of to care for someone's well being - agape? Then yes, that can be a conscious choice. But I don't think the word was used in that sense. The girl might try to save her father's life in some situation. But to say that she loved him would be a travesty of the use of the word.

 

[Bradskii]

The co-called "scientific method" is flawed for many reasons.

You are free to promote any other method that will give better results in regard to objective facts.

 

[Aaron112]

You are free to promote any other method that will give better results in regard to objective facts.

For now it is sufficient to avoid the errors incorporated in that one.

Once men get a hold of any method, so-called, in , of, for, and from the flesh, they corrupt it.

 

[Bradskii]

For now it is sufficient to avoid the errors incorporated in that one.

So it is the best method that we have.

Please let me know asap when something better becomes available.

 

[Aaron112]

So it is the best method that we have.

Please let me know asap when something better becomes available.

Not only is it not good, and not the best, but is used by greedy men to deceive teachers, pastors, lay persons, basically everyone is deceived by greedy men with the science method(s).

 

[Bradskii]

Not only is it not good, and not the best, but is used by greedy men to deceive teachers, pastors, lay persons, basically everyone is deceived by greedy men with the science method(s).

Then please propose a better method.

 

[Aaron112]

Then please propose a better method.

See the results of those you can find, if you can find any these days, who have
cured countless cases of health problems in spite of the druglords opposition to it always.
If it becomes known you agree and advocate curing health problems, and preventing them, naturally, instead of under the druglords outrageously expensive rip-offs,
you will be becoming a target(one of many) of them, and might disappear soon.
If necessary, be quiet , be still, and know that God is God. He might be of some help - His Choice.

 

[BCP1928]

ooops..... the Bible is never wrong.
'Christians'? Too many fake ones to identify by most means.

Some people claim to be able to identify them by the interpretation of scripture they adhere to.

 

[partinobodycular]

How do you determine objective truth?

There's my short answer, and there's my really, really long answer. I don't think that anybody wants to hear my really, really long answer.

Unfortunately, if you haven't spent fifty years thinking like a solipsist this explanation may be very difficult to follow. But I'll give it a shot.

So here we go:

From my perspective as a solipsist, objective truths are those things which are true by necessity.

For example, cause precedes effect. Since I exist, this rule must be objectively true because it would be impossible to create a coherent reality without it. And without a coherent reality the thoughts which are the hallmark of my existence, wouldn't be possible. Therefore, since 'cogito ergo sum' is self evidently true... cause must precede effect.

From there it's just a matter of taking that which is demonstrably true, and deducing from it that which must necessarily be true.

Like I said, this is the short answer. Does it mean that Christ must've risen from the dead... nope. Does it mean that He didn't... nope. It simply means that there must be a logical reason for why people believe that Christ rose from the dead.

 

[BCP1928]

I asked you to cite my post that supports your claim that I exercise moral authority over others... it appears you couldn't find one. Do you know why?

I suspect you would say that it is God's moral authority you are promoting, not your own.