Is morality objective or subjective?

[Tinker Grey]

I´m not sure this last part is always correct - seeing that theologians and religious doctrines often do not present those moral stances as "objective" that are shared by the majority, but - au contraire - use the claim that they are objective to give more weight to their exotic moral ideas. ("Us believers" as opposed to the "the world", e.g.).

I've only begun to play with these ideas--so I haven't fully fleshed them out.

Most of us "feel" that morality is objective whether or not we think that this feeling is correct. I think that this derives from the fact that we've evolved as a social species and that this "objective" morality is concomitant.

All I was really saying about theologians, I suppose, is that they explain this feeling with "God". And when they aren't accusing of us immorality, they explain our morality with "prevenient grace"--which is only this evolved sense of morality.

 

[Zaac]

Perhaps, but how does one determine what measure to hold things up to?

Wiccan Child, this is where the Church has failed miserably. The standard is God's authoritative word as given in the Bible. The words of the Bible are inspired of God to present the words and very character of the standard: Jesus Christ.

But as you see demonstrated in this forum daily, too many professing Christians do not accept the Bible as God's written word,and thus they make it difficult if not impossible to present God's written word about the Living Word as the standard of measure to those who do not know Christ.

You can see the same thing demonstrated in this forum daily.

This is why not all should presume to teach. We've got some folks in this forum who are doing nothing but author confusion that is not of God because they are not willing to stand on the written word of God as the embodiment of the truth and character of the Living Word.

It's all very well and good saying that we should use Jesus as our standard, but how do we know what Jesus would do?

By looking at the written word inspired by Him. Everything in the Bible points to Jesus. This is how people learned about His life and what He did on the Cross and how things even got to that point.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian who does not stand firmly on the unified, inerrant word of God as given in the Bible to present a consistent standard.

Such a person will ALWAYS breed confusion because he opens the door for truth to be subjective instead of what God says it is in His written word.

The Bible is the standard for who Jesus is and what He did and is still doing.

 

[Zebra1552]

Sticking to your guns doesn't make your opinion objective.

I wonder how I missed this earlier... silly internet.

The principles of God's morality are not objective simply because they do not change, but because God's character does not change. The question you should be asking, then, is what God's character is.

 

[Zaac]

I have no problem understanding that - if there were a god - god would have the first and final say. I just don´t think that having the first and final say - while surely being a token of immense power - makes an entity objective.

Quatona, I think most people will understand that. Why would we,as Christians, expect people who don't believe in God to understand or even acknowledge why He gets the FIRST and FINAL say.

I can tell a person that God gets the FIRST and FINAL say but he is not going to understand the truth in that statement without being a follower of GOD.

 

[levi501]

I have no problem understanding that - if there were a god - god would have the first and final say. I just don´t think that having the first and final say - while surely being a token of immense power - makes an entity objective.

Excellent point.

 

[Zebra1552]

Quatona, I think most people will understand that. Why would we,as Christians, expect people who don't believe in God to understand or even acknowledge why He gets the FIRST and FINAL say.

I can tell a person that God gets the FIRST and FINAL say but he is not going to understand the truth in that statement without being a follower of GOD.

I'm a follower and I don't understand that statement. That is, I don't understand why I should view God as a dictator.

 

[Zebra1552]

Wiccan Child, this is where the Church has failed miserably. The standard is God's authoritative word as given in the Bible. The words of the Bible are inspired of God to present the words and very character of the standard: Jesus Christ.

Yes, inspired. Not dictated.

But as you see demonstrated in this forum daily, too many professing Christians do not accept the Bible as God's written word,and thus they make it difficult if not impossible to present God's written word about the Living Word as the standard of measure to those who do not know Christ.

You can see the same thing demonstrated in this forum daily.

So I HAVE to say that the Bible is 'God's written word' in order to view it as authoritative? Says who?

This is why not all should presume to teach. We've got some folks in this forum who are doing nothing but author confusion that is not of God because they are not willing to stand on the written word of God as the embodiment of the truth and character of the Living Word.

Because it isn't the written word of God, it is inspired by God. God did not dictate what to write, He inspired the writers to write what they did. Huge difference. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the word of God, nor would that make any sense if it did: the Bible wasn't even a concept until 2-300 years after the NT was finished being written.

 

[Zaac]

I think he's here as a service to the other Christians on this board. To tell you why what you think is wrong...

In part Todd. God has told me to teach and that includes Christians. There are a lot of young Christians on this board who have got some very wrong ideas about what God's word says.

They don't avail themselves of the Holy Spirit's discernment for the written word of God, yet they presume to teach people about this written word. And the teaching is, most of the time, just flat out wrong because they attempt to use the logic and reasoning of sinful men to explain the wonder and ways of a supernatural, HOLY GOD.

There is a Scripture that says 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. 15All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Phi. 3:15

The context of that Scripture shows that there will be young Christians who don't get it and who will errantly teach because they take a Philosophy of Religion class, etc,. and suddenly are privy to all the ways of Christ. And they value this learning over the truth from The One Who is THE Truth.

But it also points to , as they continue to spiritually mature, and listen to the Deliverer of Truth, how they will continue to be being made perfect in their understanding.

For example, there are Christians out there who will say it's okay to drink, whereas I and other more mature Christians can Biblically explain to you why it is NEVER in the best interest of your Christian witness to drink at all.

People will get it as they spiritually mature. But that demands listening to the Holy Spirit. But until said time, I am nonetheless still called of God to teach His truth...especially when the many who make themselves into false teachers, put forth that which is not true.

 

[Zaac]

I'm a follower and I don't understand that statement. That is, I don't understand why I should view God as a dictator.

You will just have to view Him however your relationship or lack of relationship deems that you view Him.

Making loaded staements does not undo God as the FIRST and the LAST. If you have a problem because God gets the FIRST and FINAL say as to what is right and wrong, you'll have to take that up with Him.

 

[Zaac]

Yes, inspired. Not dictated.

1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev. 1:1-2

10On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea." Rev. 1:10-11

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 2:20-21

The Spirit dictated and "dictated" what was written down.

So I HAVE to say that the Bible is 'God's written word' in order to view it as authoritative? Says who?

You don't have to do anything but continue to author the confusion that is not of God that you have been authoring.

Because it isn't the written word of God, it is inspired by God. God did not dictate what to write, He inspired the writers to write what they did.

Wrong again.

Huge difference. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the word of God, nor would that make any sense if it did: the Bible wasn't even a concept until 2-300 years after the NT was finished being written.

2 Pet. 1:21: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost

 

[Zaac]

Not necessarily. Most non-believers I've talked to accept that, if God exists, then his morality is The Morality™.

There is a fundamental difference between believing that God exists and trusting in Him as Lord and Savior.

You can't very well base your morality on an IF when morality is based in Absolute Truth.

If there is a reason, why not just state it, here and now? Logic and reason is universal, it doesn't change from person to person, regardless of their religious beliefs. I may not agree with your conclusion, but I could nonetheless understand how you got there.

Man's logic and reason just don't play a part in what God says is right or wrong. You have plenty of people in this forum who would lead you to errantly think so, but they do not.

God says it best in Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

Because He is ALL-KNOWING. Our logic and understanding aren't gonna always be able to understand why God says what He does. Which is why He also tells the Christian

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight. [a]

7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil. Proverbs 3:5-7

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why wouldn't it be dictated and inspired at the same time?

Perhaps because unless you're using non standard definitions of the words "dictated" and "inspired", then the two terms are mutually exclusive. If someone inspires me to write something, they aren't dictating to me what to write. And if someone is dictating to me, then I'm not inspired, I'm a copy boy.

 

[Zebra1552]

Perhaps because unless you're using non standard definitions of the words "dictated" and "inspired", then the two terms are mutually exclusive. If someone inspires me to write something, they aren't dictating to me what to write. And if someone is dictating to me, then I'm not inspired, I'm a copy boy.

If only I had your eloquence, I wouldn't be in this mess. Well, maybe I would, but it'd be less messy.

 

[salida]

From a christian point of view- this is how good is viewed. Rebellion to this is bad. Notice I'm not saying good or bad natured here.

Are you a good person? The Good Test

 

[salida]

Its objective.

 

[MoonLancer]

From a christian point of view- this is how good is viewed. Rebellion to this is bad. Notice I'm not saying good or bad natured here.

Are you a good person? The Good Test

took the test. didn't give me my results. Its a presentation, it says so at the end. Its just propaganda.

But for your info i was guilty with all 10, and yet I am quite a moral and loving person compared to god from the old testament. If he exists as outlined the bible and assuming the soul exists, he will have much to answer for the moment I die and should fear that day.

 

[quatona]

Quatona, I think most people will understand that. Why would we,as Christians, expect people who don't believe in God to understand or even acknowledge why He gets the FIRST and FINAL say.

I´m not sure I understand. First you seem to say that most people will understand, next you seem to say that you don´t expect them to understand.
I don´t need to believe in a certain god in order to understand the claims made about this hypothetical god any more than I need to believe in Harry Potter (or any other fictional story, for that matter) in order to enjoy and understand the logic in this story.

I can tell a person that God gets the FIRST and FINAL say but he is not going to understand the truth in that statement without being a follower of GOD.

As I said, I do understand the truth in that statement (if hyothetically assuming that the god of your concept exists).
I don´t know why you feel nobody can understand your ideas unless they believe they are accurate beforehand, but if that is the case I guess all that´s left to you is preaching to the converted.

 

[quatona]

I've only begun to play with these ideas--so I haven't fully fleshed them out.

That´s perfectly fine with me - I am just giving my ideas and contributions, hoping that some of them may be of help.

Most of us "feel" that morality is objective whether or not we think that this feeling is correct.

I really don´t know what most of us feel about it. I definitely don´t feel it´s objective, and even back in my early years when I wished for moralitý to be objective I couldn´t manage to convince me it was.

I think that this derives from the fact that we've evolved as a social species and that this "objective" morality is concomitant.

Hey, I really love it when someone uses a word I have never heard before! (No sarcasm)
According to Webster Online it means "accompanying especially in a subordinate or incidental way", and the bad part is that I unfortunately don´t seem to understand what it´s meant to communicate in this context. Care to explain that for me, please?

All I was really saying about theologians, I suppose, is that they explain this feeling with "God". And when they aren't accusing of us immorality, they explain our morality with "prevenient grace"--which is only this evolved sense of morality.

I think I do understand this, and I think I agree.
However, I still perceive a disconnect when people feel and argue from social agreement in order to establish an idea that is, well, disagreed upon in society or even a minority view.

 

[Zaac]

I´m not sure I understand. First you seem to say that most people will understand, next you seem to say that you don´t expect them to understand.
I don´t need to believe in a certain god in order to understand the claims made about this hypothetical god any more than I need to believe in Harry Potter (or any other fictional story, for that matter) in order to enjoy and understand the logic in this story.

You understand that if there is a God , He probably gets first and final say. But without KNOWING God, it is impossible for you to fully and truthfully comprehend why this is true.

As I said, I do understand the truth in that statement (if hyothetically assuming that the god of your concept exists).

You understand the truth inthe statement. But do you understand why the statement is true?


You can't without the Holy Spirit.

I don´t know why you feel nobody can understand your ideas unless they believe they are accurate beforehand, but if that is the case I guess all that´s left to you is preaching to the converted.

They aren't my ideas. It is God who says in 1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned

 

[nolongerhome]

Can anyone explain to me what 'intersubjectivity' is? I've never seen it before this thread :s

Here is a decent definition I've found:

intersubjectivity A term used primarily in phenomenological sociology to refer to the mutual constitution of social relationships. It suggests that people can reach consensus about knowledge or about what they have experienced in their life-world—at least as a working agreement if not a claim to objectivity.

In other words, I'm suggesting that morality is not purely subjective (I am not able to define what is moral in society by myself) but nor is it objective - it is an ongoing social construction, an ever changing consensus. "Intersubjectivity" captures this interaction (not necessarily conscious) between the subjects within a community (which can be as narrowly or broadly defined as you like) from which shared notions about morality are developed/enforced/redefined/discarded etc.