The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ken-1122]

There are multiple other things you can try too. You can say they are not in any room of the house, the attic is not a room. God will honor anyone trying to remain truthful in all things.

Again; such a suspicious reply would probably get the entire premises searched resulting in your death as well as those you were hiding

There was a case in Africa where soldiers were looking for Christians and missionaries and God made them invisible to the soldiers even though they were standing right in front of the jeep they were driving.

I doubt that really happened. Otherwise you have to ask yourself how come God didn't work such miracles for those in the Concentration camps

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but it is unlikely that multiple independent sources would all lie about the same thing.

ken: There were also multiple independent sources that say Hitler was in good standing with the Catholic church until his death. Multiple independent sources often contradict each other; they can’t all be right ya know!

Well I don't deny that he was a member of the RCC and they did not excommunicate him, if that is what you mean by good standing then I agree. They definitely SHOULD have excommunicated him, but the RCC has a tendency to be more concerned about numbers than conservative protestants. They may have been hoping that he would change. Presbyterians like myself generally favor quality over quantity.
But if you consider someone in good standing with their church as someone who actually follows the teachings of their church, then he plainly was not.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Mein Kampf was propaganda to convince ordinary Germans to accept Nazi doctrine so he had to pretend to be a Christian in order to convince the German people who considered themselves Christians. I am not denying that some Christians may have been Nazis even some orthodox biblical Christians. But overall as I have demonstrated earlier, most of Germany was theologically liberal and didn't accept the infallible authority of the bible, which is a heretical position.

ken: Mein Kampf was about Hitlers views, not necessarily Nazi views. Mein Kampf means “my struggle”, not The Nazi struggle.

Yes, but everyone at the time knew he was the leader of the Nazi party, so most thought all the other Nazis basically agreed with most things in the book. Most Nazis agreed with his basic ideas.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, that is part of it, but objective morality also means that it objectively exists irrespective of what you believe about morality and it is objectively rational. And subjective morality also means that it is based on feelings and not on anything objectively rational thereby making it objectively irrational.
Just because something takes into consideration beliefs, feelings, and extenuating circumstances, does not make it irrational.

ken: Using the analogy I presented, do you feel it is objectively wrong to lie? If so, does this mean you would consider it wrong to lie to the Gestapo in order to save innocent lives?

Yes, it would be wrong to lie to the Gestapo, the ends never justify the means (another Christian principle), but given the circumstances God of course would immediately forgive you if you asked Him to.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well I don't deny that he was a member of the RCC and they did not excommunicate him, if that is what you mean by good standing then I agree. They definitely SHOULD have excommunicated him, but the RCC has a tendency to be more concerned about numbers than conservative protestants. They may have been hoping that he would change. Presbyterians like myself generally favor quality over quantity.
But if you consider someone in good standing with their church as someone who actually follows the teachings of their church, then he plainly was not.



Yes, but everyone at the time knew he was the leader of the Nazi party, so most thought all the other Nazis basically agreed with most things in the book. Most Nazis agreed with his basic ideas.


Yes, it would be wrong to lie to the Gestapo, the ends never justify the means (another Christian principle), but given the circumstances God of course would immediately forgive you if you asked Him to.

Why do you say “given the circumstances” God would Immediately forgive you? Does God forgive some lies quicker than others? Is he quick to forgive some lies, and slow to forgive others, or does God consider all lies equal.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Just because something takes into consideration beliefs, feelings, and extenuating circumstances, does not make it irrational.

No, what makes it irrational is that you believe that humans should be treated differently from other animals. If evolution is true, then no species should be treated any differently than any other. It is objectively irrational to do so. It is based on your sentimental feelings for your own species. There is no objectively rational basis to your morality unlike Christian morality which is based on the rationally objective existence of God's moral character.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Huh? What in the world are you mumbling about? I never denied the existence of dinosaurs and most Christians dont.

Most scientists do not believe that the entire planet was covered with water 2 mya but they do agree that it was covered in water around 2 bya shortly after the formation of the earth just as the bible says in Genesis 1:2.

ken: Oh so now science claims the “one time event” flood of Noah’s Ark happened 2 billion years ago? Do you have anything to back that up? Or is this just an empty claim.

No, science claims that very early in the earth's formation the earth was covered in water, just as the bible teaches in Genesis 1:2. This has nothing to do with Noahs flood, I was just stating evidence that backs up the divine source of the bible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We know because the evidence points to the universe having a beginning and changing. If the universe was eternal and no beginning then it would not be an effect and not need a cause.

ken: We only know of what we have studied, and we haven’t studied anything that we know is eternal, so if we did see something eternal; without a beginning, we wouldn't recognize it as such.

Actually prior to the BB theory most scientists believed that there WAS evidence that the universe was eternal. Look up the Steady State Theory. So apparently they thought we COULD recognize something that was eternal, at least in the physical world.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, what makes it irrational is that you believe that humans should be treated differently from other animals. If evolution is true, then no species should be treated any differently than any other. It is objectively irrational to do so. It is based on your sentimental feelings for your own species. There is no objectively rational basis to your morality unlike Christian morality which is based on the rationally objective existence of God's moral character.

Do you even know what the theory of evolution is? If so, explain why according to this theory we should not treat humans any better than any other animal.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, what makes it irrational is that you believe that humans should be treated differently from other animals. If evolution is true, then no species should be treated any differently than any other. It is objectively irrational to do so. It is based on your sentimental feelings for your own species. There is no objectively rational basis to your morality unlike Christian morality which is based on the rationally objective existence of God's moral character.

Do you even know what the theory of evolution is? If so, explain why according to this theory we should not treat humans any better than any other animal.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, what makes it irrational is that you believe that humans should be treated differently from other animals. If evolution is true, then no species should be treated any differently than any other. It is objectively irrational to do so. It is based on your sentimental feelings for your own species. There is no objectively rational basis to your morality unlike Christian morality which is based on the rationally objective existence of God's moral character.

Do you even know what the theory of evolution is? If so, explain why according to this theory we should not treat humans any better than any other animal.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, what makes it irrational is that you believe that humans should be treated differently from other animals. If evolution is true, then no species should be treated any differently than any other. It is objectively irrational to do so. It is based on your sentimental feelings for your own species. There is no objectively rational basis to your morality unlike Christian morality which is based on the rationally objective existence of God's moral character.

Do you even know what the theory of evolution is? If so, explain why according to this theory we should not treat humans any better than any other animal.

 

[Dave-W]

Do you even know what the theory of evolution is? If so, explain why according to this theory we should not treat humans any better than any other animal.

I will jump in here.

We should not treat humans any better or differently than any other species of Great Apes, since that is what we are in essence. Human and chimpanzee DNA differ by only about 2%. If we lock up chimps in cages for medical experiments, why would doing the same with humans be any different?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, science claims that very early in the earth's formation the earth was covered in water, just as the bible teaches in Genesis 1:2. This has nothing to do with Noahs flood, I was just stating evidence that backs up the divine source of the bible.



Actually prior to the BB theory most scientists believed that there WAS evidence that the universe was eternal. Look up the Steady State Theory. So apparently they thought we COULD recognize something that was eternal, at least in the physical world.

Actually the "steady State theory was an alternative to the Big Bang theory; but was never as popular. I think the idea that the Universe is eternal was based on speculation.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, science claims that very early in the earth's formation the earth was covered in water, just as the bible teaches in Genesis 1:2. This has nothing to do with Noahs flood, I was just stating evidence that backs up the divine source of the bible.



Actually prior to the BB theory most scientists believed that there WAS evidence that the universe was eternal. Look up the Steady State Theory. So apparently they thought we COULD recognize something that was eternal, at least in the physical world.

Actually the "steady State theory was an alternative to the Big Bang theory; but was never as popular. I think the idea that the Universe is eternal was based on speculation.

 

[Ken-1122]

I will jump in here.

We should not treat humans any better or differently than any other species of Great Apes, since that is what we are in essence. Human and chimpanzee DNA differ by only about 2%. If we lock up chimps in cages for medical experiments, why would doing the same with humans be any different?

So you think that because our DNA differs by only 2% that means we should treat them as equals? Or is it more to it than that.

 

[Ken-1122]

I will jump in here.

We should not treat humans any better or differently than any other species of Great Apes, since that is what we are in essence. Human and chimpanzee DNA differ by only about 2%. If we lock up chimps in cages for medical experiments, why would doing the same with humans be any different?

So you think that because our DNA differs by only 2% that means we should treat them as equals? Or is it more to it than that.

 

[Dave-W]

So you think that because our DNA differs by only 2% that means we should treat them as equals? Or is it more to it than that.

IF I believed in evolution, (which I do not) then the 2% male chimp to male human DNA difference (which is the same as the difference between males and females in both species) means that we are virtually the same; so there would be no reason to NOT treat humans just the same as we do chimps.

 

[Ken-1122]

IF I believed in evolution, (which I do not) then the 2% male chimp to male human DNA difference (which is the same as the difference between males and females in both species) means that we are virtually the same; so there would be no reason to NOT treat humans just the same as we do chimps.

If I asked you whose life were move valuable; mine, or your brother’s, you may give some standard response about how all people are equal blah blah blah, but if it came down to it and you were informed of my death and your brother’s death, your reaction to your brothers death compared to the reaction of my death would make it clear that even though you may claim all human lives are equal; that you consider your brother’s life more valuable than my own. Why? Because you have an emotional connection to your brother whom you’ve known all your life that you don’t have with me; whom you’ve never met, thus to you, your brothers life is more valuable than my own; even though I doubt my brother would agree.

If you asked me whose life is more valuable; a person or an ape , because I have an emotional connection to a fellow human being that I don’t have with an ape, to me a fellow human’s life is more valuable than that of an ape; even though I doubt another ape would agree. Does this make sense to you?

 

[Dave-W]

but if it came down to it and you were informed of my death and your brother’s death, your reaction to your brothers death compared to the reaction of my death would make it clear that even though you may claim all human lives are equal; that you consider your brother’s life more valuable than my own. Why? Because you have an emotional connection to your brother whom you’ve known all your life

I agree with your point. Even though I have NOT known my brothers "all my life." I lost an older sister in '08 that I never met.

If you asked me whose life is more valuable; a person or an ape , because I have an emotional connection to a fellow human being that I don’t have with an ape, to me a fellow human’s life is more valuable than that of an ape; even though I doubt another ape would agree. Does this make sense to you?

On an emotional level, of course it makes sense. But If I am a clinician, I would have to put those emotional attachments aside in the name of scientific inquiry. In the same way, were I not a believer in Creation, I would have to put aside the idea that humans were somehow better or more important than the apes in question. I would have to see them exactly the same.

Does the name Mengele ring a bell?

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree with your point. Even though I have NOT known my brothers "all my life." I lost an older sister in '08 that I never met.

On an emotional level, of course it makes sense. But If I am a clinician, I would have to put those emotional attachments aside in the name of scientific inquiry.

Scientific inquiry? Value in this context is subjective, not objective.

In the same way, were I not a believer in Creation, I would have to put aside the idea that humans were somehow better or more important than the apes in question. I would have to see them exactly the same.

Why would you have to see them the same? Most people who do not believe in creation do consider human life more valuable than the life of a beast; why would you be any different?

Does the name Mengele ring a bell?

Never heard of it. Why do you ask?

 

[Dave-W]

Why would you have to see them the same? Most people who do not believe in creation do consider human life more valuable than the life of a beast; why would you be any different?

Why would it be any different? Only in Creation do we know that we carry the Image of God.

A human is worth no more or no less than an ape, a dog, a toad or a mosquito in evolutionary terms.

But by either system, you have to let go of emotion and sentiment and focus on the facts at hand.

 

[Dave-W]

Does the name Mengele ring a bell?

Never heard of it. Why do you ask?

Him. Josef Mengele. aka the Angel of Death or the Butcher of Auschwitz.

Look him up. He is a prime example of the godless evolutionary treatment of humankind.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why would it be any different? Only in Creation do we know that we carry the Image of God.

You don’t need to believe you carry the image of God in order to recognize you are superior to animals.
If you believe humans were created in the image of God and all, if intelligent beings from another planet with technology far superior to ours; but they looked different than us visited Earth, would you consider them to be inferior to us since we are created in the image of God but they were not?

A human is worth no more or no less than an ape, a dog, a toad or a mosquito in evolutionary terms.

That makes no sense. Evolution does not address the value of things. That would be like saying; “according to colors, a human is worth no more than an ape, a dog, or a toad” See how ridicules that sounds?

But by either system, you have to let go of emotion and sentiment and focus on the facts at hand.

That’s fine and all; but you are working from a false premise. You can’t use evolution when discussing the value of life.

 

[Ken-1122]

Him. Josef Mengele. aka the Angel of Death or the Butcher of Auschwitz.

Look him up. He is a prime example of the godless evolutionary treatment of humankind.

Really? So you gonna go there with this? If pointing out an evil person who just so happen to believe in Evolution, or is Atheist, and you claim they are typical of atheists who believe in evolution, Trust me! This is not the game you wanna play; because there is a long list of theists, even Christians; perhaps even creationist; who have committed atrocities that would make even Hitler blush. You don’t want to go there my friend! I wouldn't suggest something like about you, please don't suggest something like that about me.

BTW speaking of Auschwitz, on Post #741 I posted a video (In response to another poster) I was wondering if you would be willing to look at the quick video and give me your thoughts on it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Umm you do know that the German newspapers were totally controlled by the Nazi government, right? I already explained that Mein Kampf was propaganda to a country that considered themselves Christian and Hitler wanted to get their votes. Do you think he would have gotten elected if he immediately attacked Christianity? Use your brain, Hitler did. I provided quotes from people that actually knew Hitler personally, his childhood friend, Joseph Goebbels, Martin Borman, and I can provide even more from people that knew him and heard him speak. All independent sources. You are going to have to do a lot better than pictures from Nazi newspapers trying to get out the Christian vote!

ken: Hitler wrote that book long before he came to power. As a matter of fact, Hitler was in prison when he wrote that book so obviously the German news papers were not controlled buh the Nazi government at that time.

I wasn't talking about Mein Kampf, I was talking about your pictures which were taken at the height of Nazi power by newspapers. The newspapers were totally under their control.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
In a nutshell, theological liberals are people who consider themselves Christians but deny the supernatural in the bible.This includes the supernatural delivery of God's moral laws. This is true today and 80 years ago.

ken: C'mon; that’s your definition; something you made up. Show me something that supports this claim.

Read anything by Frederich Schleiermacher, Samuel Angus, Julius Wellhausen, Ferdinand Christian Baur, David Frederich Strauss, Rudolf Bultmann and many more. These are many of the founders of liberal theology, and most of them were German. Just a coincidence?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There would be slight differences in their views of certain moral issues, that is true because society has changed. But the Bible and its teachings have never changed. For example 80 years ago most liberals would believe that homosexual behavior is wrong while most today would see nothing wrong with it. But neither group would primarily believe that for biblical reasons, the liberals of the mid twentieth century would argue against it from nature not the bible.

ken: 80 years ago there were many conservatives believed that interracial marriage was wrong, and they argued this position from a biblical standpoint claiming God created different races for a reason and that we should not mix them. Today Conservatives have no problem with interracial marriage.

Because there is no biblical standpoint of God creating different races for a reason, in fact the bible never even uses the word "race".

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually most of the Nazis including Hitler himself hated jews for economic and moral reasons, not religious reasons. He thought they were parasites on the nation of Germany, he thought they were human parasites biologically. Many of the ordinary Germans did justify their hate with religion, though it made no sense since jews founded Christianity. And yes the leadership of the RCC did very little to correct the laity and their irrational and sinful hatred of jews.

ken: I’m talking about christian attitudes of 80 years ago.

So am I, everything in my paragraph above is what was believed by Germans 80 years ago.

 

[Ken-1122]

I wasn't talking about Mein Kampf, I was talking about your pictures which were taken at the height of Nazi power by newspapers. The newspapers were totally under their control.




Read anything by Frederich Schleiermacher, Samuel Angus, Julius Wellhausen, Ferdinand Christian Baur, David Frederich Strauss, Rudolf Bultmann and many more. These are many of the founders of liberal theology, and most of them were German. Just a coincidence?


Because there is no biblical standpoint of God creating different races for a reason, in fact the bible never even uses the word "race".


So am I, everything in my paragraph above is what was believed by Germans 80 years ago.

This is something that you and I will never agree on, my point is; I think it is foolish for you to claim that Atheism or a lack of theistic belief is what lead to the holocaust when there were far more theists in Germany than atheists at the time. The citizens of Germany cooperated with what the Nazis were doing at the time and that’s why they were able to kill so many people

BTW what did you think of the video I posted on post #741?