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

Ed1wolf · Sep 30, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
Ed1wolf said: ↑
So you know what a dog knows just by body language and facial expressions?

ken: I didn’t say that. When I am angry, my dog has the look of fear in his eyes, his head lowers, and his tail goes between his legs. When I am happy, my dog acts excited, his head is raised, and his tail wags. My dog can often recognize my mood and he reacts accordingly.

I am not saying that dogs dont have simple emotional responses to simple human emotions. That is a far cry from a moral system though.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But you said that a good cop always shows mercy and lets the person go. Now you are contradicting yourself.

ken: I never said that. It is not a cops job to dole out mercy or justice. I said you could be forgiving and still be moral. Do you know the difference?

I believe you did, go back and reread what you wrote. Cops are the arm of justice that brings someone to justice under the law. Of course, you can be forgiving and still be moral. Forgiveness is part of morality too. Of course, as humans and our limited knowledge and insight, we may forgive the wrong person and get take advantage of. But God knows who should be forgiven and who should not based on His omniscience.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The Christian God doesn't do nothing, He either punishes you in this world with government authorities or in the next world in hell.

ken: He should have STOPPED Hitler; he should have STOPPED Amin. He should have STOPPED Mao. Punishing them after they slaughtered millions is a little too late.

How do you know He should have stopped them? You dont have an objective moral standard to say they did anything objectively wrong. But He created a free will and primarily natural law universe in order to destroy evil forever. So such people are possible to exist in such a universe. People can freely choose to do evil. 99.9% of the time it is up to us to stop them. This is how we grow spiritually which is another purpose of this universe, we grow by fighting evil ourselves without any supernatural help from God.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, because God and us are both persons, so we have similar moral systems. Especially since we are made in the image of God we were created with a moral conscience.

ken: How about those people (like Amin or Dahmer) whose moral system is much different than Gods? Are they moral too?

They are immoral according to God's objective moral standards. But if atheistic evolution is true, then they did nothing objectively wrong.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Dogs are basically programmed to do certain things and respond to certain stimuli in basically the same way everytime, they dont have a true free will. Without a true free will you cannot make moral decisions.

ken: What is the difference between free will vs True free will? Because nobody has complete free will; everybody’s desires are restricted in one way or another. So if true freewill is complete freewill; then I say you don’t have it either. If you disagree, try walking into a bank and taking all their money and see what happens.
s.

Actually I meant to call it a true will. Only fully personal beings have a true will. A true will enables you to refuse food even though you are healthy and hungry, dogs cant do that because they dont have a true will. Dogs are not fully personal beings, they do have a few aspects of personhood such as emotions, but not much beyond that. They definitely dont have a true will.

Ken-1122 · Oct 1, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
I am not saying that dogs dont have simple emotional responses to simple human emotions. That is a far cry from a moral system though.

You objected when I said my dog can tell when I’m happy mad, worried, or sad. You changing it now?

Ed1wolf said:
I believe you did, go back and reread what you wrote. Cops are the arm of justice that brings someone to justice under the law. Of course, you can be forgiving and still be moral.

Before you objected when I said “you could be forgiving and still be moral” . So you agreeing with me now?

Ed1wolf said:
How do you know He should have stopped them? You dont have an objective moral standard to say they did anything objectively wrong.

I’ve got the same thing God has; a personal moral standard.

Ed1wolf said:
But He created a free will and primarily natural law universe in order to destroy evil forever. So such people are possible to exist in such a universe. People can freely choose to do evil. 99.9% of the time it is up to us to stop them. This is how we grow spiritually which is another purpose of this universe, we grow by fighting evil ourselves without any supernatural help from God.

And if we lose the fight, he allows evil to win! And you call that moral? I don’t. I believe when good people sit back and allow bad people to spread chaos and evil unchallenged, those good people become contributors of chaos and evil. I believe if your God has the ability to stop evil but chooses not to, that makes him a contributor to evil.

Ed1wolf said:
They are immoral according to God's objective moral standards. But if atheistic evolution is true, then they did nothing objectively wrong.

They are immoral according to my objective moral standards as well! And even though there is no such thing as “atheistic evolution” what they did is still wrong.

Ed1wolf said:
Actually I meant to call it a true will. Only fully personal beings have a true will. A true will enables you to refuse food even though you are healthy and hungry, dogs cant do that because they dont have a true will. Dogs are not fully personal beings, they do have a few aspects of personhood such as emotions, but not much beyond that. They definitely dont have a true will.

When animals are given a reason, they will refrain from eating when hungry; the same for humans. Now of course due to their lack of intelligence, they don’t have the same will as humans, but non the less they do have a will albeit to a much lesser extent than we have.

Ed1wolf · Oct 2, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
*The knowledge that I will some day die is what creates the focus that I bring to life, the urgency to love, accomplish, to make a difference now before it’s too late. If I could always wait for tomorrow, it will never get done.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

If life is ultimately meaningless and it is if there is no God, then what does making a difference even mean? Only if your life has real objective meaning and it does if God exists and the afterlife exists, then the things you do in this life can make ETERNAL differences.

Ken-1122 · Oct 3, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
If life is ultimately meaningless and it is if there is no God,

If your life is meaningless without God, though I feel sorry for you however it is your choice to limit yourself that way; I bring meaning to my life. I bet you would find yourself doing the same were you to ever come to know the truth.

Ed1wolf said:
then what does making a difference even mean?

There are countless ways of making a difference; raising your children right and teaching them what you know makes a difference.

Ed1wolf said:
Only if your life has real objective meaning and it does if God exists and the afterlife exists, then the things you do in this life can make ETERNAL differences.

If this life isn’t important, why get married? Why read a good book? Why see a movie, have friends, or even eat a good meal, if all these things are meaningless in the context of eternity and your next life?

Ed1wolf · Oct 3, 2018

Dan1988 said:
The problem is, those who God doesn't draw to Himself will never choose to believe on their own. The things of God are foolishness to the reprobate, they will never choose to believe because they are dead in their sins and trespasses. A spiritually dead man cannot choose to believe spiritual things, unless God quickness him to life.

So salvation is in Gods hands, it has nothing to do with man at all. Nobody would be saved if God left them to make their own decision.

So you appear to be a fellow Calvinist. I agree with what you say is true from God's perspective. But from a human perspective the person still has to go thru the process of choosing to repent and accepting Christ as his lord and savior. Then when he matures spiritually and becomes more familiar with biblical teaching, he will learn that it was not him but God working thru the HS to change his corrupt will to make this response. And that God had chosen him for this from the foundation of the world.

Ed1wolf · Oct 3, 2018

Strathos said:
Ed1wolf said: ↑
When did I move the goalposts?

st: I said ToE is an accurate description of physical reality unless you move the goalposts to redefine your terms.

Umm..you didn't answer my question. I said WHEN did I move the goalposts?

Ed: God could have used evolution but the evidence both biblical and scientific suggest otherwise.

st: I don't believe it does, as I have studied both biology and theology.

As a biologist most of my disbelief in evolution is based on science, but I have also studied the bible a great deal and there are some problems in that area too. But I dont consider the how He created questions as important as whether God created or not.

Strathos · Oct 4, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
Umm..you didn't answer my question. I said WHEN did I move the goalposts?

I didn't say that you did. The key word in my post was 'unless'.

As a biologist most of my disbelief in evolution is based on science, but I have also studied the bible a great deal and there are some problems in that area too. But I dont consider the how He created questions as important as whether God created or not.

I definitely agree with that last part.

Ed1wolf · Oct 4, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not necessarily, facts dont always convince people if it goes against their agenda look at the Democratic party and CNN and the so-called "Russian collusion" scandal.

ken: I'm not talking about politicians who care more about agendas than facts; I/m talking about scientists where facts are everything. If you have facts on your side you will be taken seriously.

Scientists are humans too, many of them care more about agendas than facts too. They are not some superior totally unselfish beings.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There is no such thing as Science, there is only science and scientists.

ken: You jokin' right? So..... what's the difference between science and science?

You keep mentioning some infallible morally perfect institution called Science where you capitalize it. No such thing exists, there is only science. A manmade systematic study of the universe where man's selfish interests sometimes blind them to the facts and they make mistakes.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
For theoretical science, most conclusions ARE opinion. Only empirical science is not based on opinion. You do know the difference dont you?

ken: I'm talking about scientific claims that has the respect of the scientific community because it has gone through and survived the peer review process.

In theoretical science just going thru the peer review process does not eliminate opinion in it. Because it deals with mostly past events, they can never be tested by empirical observations and experimental analysis.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
A function is a mathematical value, not necessarily a real thing. The equations produce a point of infinite density, it does not mean that the singularity is infinite. It has no dimensions, so most likely it is nothing.

ken: What are you talking about? If the singularity were nothing, the Universe would be nothing as well! Obviously the singularity was something.

The singularity is just a manmade mathematical construct of the universe just before the BB. And when you run the big bang backwards it comes to a point with no dimensions, which means it was nothing physical. Physical things have dimensions, nonphysical things like minds, do not have dimensions.

Ken-1122 · Oct 5, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
Scientists are humans too, many of them care more about agendas than facts too. They are not some superior totally unselfish beings.

I’m sure many scientists do have agendas. That’s probably why so many scientific theories get disproven via the peer review process. But evolution has not been disproven.

Ed1wolf said:
You keep mentioning some infallible morally perfect institution called Science where you capitalize it. No such thing exists, there is only science. A manmade systematic study of the universe where man's selfish interests sometimes blind them to the facts and they make mistakes.

I never implied science was perfect, I just think it is the best system we have. The fact that they are willing to admit when they are wrong tells me they are to be trusted over religious claims that never admit to error even when it is obvious.

Ed1wolf said:
In theoretical science just going thru the peer review process does not eliminate opinion in it. Because it deals with mostly past events, they can never be tested by empirical observations and experimental analysis.

But at least when they are willing to admit when they get it wrong! Can your religion do that?

Ed1wolf said:
The singularity is just a manmade mathematical construct of the universe just before the BB. And when you run the big bang backwards it comes to a point with no dimensions, which means it was nothing physical. Physical things have dimensions, nonphysical things like minds, do not have dimensions.

Does energy have dimensions? Is energy physical?

Ed1wolf · Oct 5, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Huh? How is that logical? There has to be a logical connection between the two events for there to be logical reasoning. That is what logical reasoning means.

ken: In my scenario, it is logical to me because my house was never broken into till they moved in next door. Logic is subjective; just because something is logical to me doesn't mean it is logical to you or anyone else.

No, that is not logical. That would be like a scientist saying that an apple fell to the ground because you dropped it and not because of gravity. You dropping the apple does not cause the apple to fall. According to the law of causality, the cause of something has to be sufficient and necessary. Someone
moving next door to your house is not a sufficient and necessary cause of you having your house broken into. Logic is objective when used by someone who understands it. I dont think you understand logic, you need to take a class in Logic 101.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, He did want animals to die so we would know what death was and also so His complex ecosystems on the earth would work, but not humans. He gave us the ability to learn to control our reproduction or learn to travel to other planets and populate them.

ken: Where in the bible does it say God wanted the animals to die, but not humans?

The bible talks about how ecosystems work (Psalm 104:27-30) and we also learn about it from His other book nature that animals have to die in order for them to work. Remember nature is God's other book, and we can learn from it. Death did not come to humans until we rebelled against Him, see Romans 5:12.

ken: Also even if the animals did die, without humans dying, do you see the problem with overpopulation that would eventually be caused by constant birth without death?

Yes, that is why He gave us a large brain to learn to manage our populations using birth control (not the abortive kind though) and we have, but we may have gone too far in some developed countries where they are below replacement level.

ken: Also if God wanted us to explore other planets, why did he make the rest of the Universe hostile to human life?

He either wanted us to stay on the earth and manage the resources there to maintain a good sized population but not too big or He may have wanted us to learn with our large brains to cause other planets to become habitable. Our brains probably worked even better before the Fall so we could have learned faster but after the fall it has taken much longer so that we can't do that to other planets yet.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, death was not necessary originally only after we rebelled against Him then we had to die for our sins. But it definitely IS necessary for the atheistic evolutionist perspective as I have demonstrated earlier in this thread just for us to exist.

ken: Death is necessary in any situation where new life is allowed. If you don't have death, you can't have new life.

No, see above.

ken: Remember; for as long as Adam and Eve were in the Garden, they never had any children; then as soon as they left the Garden, they started having children like there was no tomorrow.

Because God commanded them to multiply and fill the earth when they were expelled from the Garden and we have basically accomplished that, but we have to maintain a large enough population to maintain a high level of civilization so that all the good things we have like hospitals and schools are kept up.

Ken-1122 · Oct 6, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
No, that is not logical. That would be like a scientist saying that an apple fell to the ground because you dropped it and not because of gravity. You dropping the apple does not cause the apple to fall. According to the law of causality, the cause of something has to be sufficient and necessary.

No; it would be like a person saying an apple fell to the ground because he dropped it; and that would be considered a perfectly reasonable and logical deduction because the law of causality does not have to be taken into consideration when forming logical deductions.

Ed1wolf said:
Someone moving next door to your house is not a sufficient and necessary cause of you having your house broken into. Logic is objective when used by someone who understands it. I dont think you understand logic, you need to take a class in Logic 101.

If logic were objective, everybody would agree on what is logical and what is not. As you know, people often don’t agree when it comes to logic.

Ed1wolf said:
The bible talks about how ecosystems work (Psalm 104:27-30) and we also learn about it from His other book nature that animals have to die in order for them to work. Remember nature is God's other book, and we can learn from it. Death did not come to humans until we rebelled against Him, see Romans 5:12.

Neither Psalm 104:27-30, nor Romans 5:12 mentions anything about God originally wanting humans to live forever, but for animals to die. Care to try again?

Ed1wolf said:
Yes, that is why He gave us a large brain to learn to manage our populations using birth control (not the abortive kind though) and we have, but we may have gone too far in some developed countries where they are below replacement level.

Birth control wouldn’t be good enough; if nobody dies, eventually you get to the point where nobody should be born, then you might wonder what are the sex organs for.

Ed1wolf said:
He either wanted us to stay on the earth and manage the resources there to maintain a good sized population but not too big or He may have wanted us to learn with our large brains to cause other planets to become habitable. Our brains probably worked even better before the Fall so we could have learned faster but after the fall it has taken much longer so that we can't do that to other planets yet.

You jokin’ right? You telling me those primitive people who didn’t even know the Earth was round was supposed to space travel to other planets? You read this out of the book? Or are you just makin' stuff up as you go along!

Ed1wolf · Oct 6, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, see definition no. 5 in your own link. A person does not necessarily mean it is a human. But there is no evidence that dogs have a true free will.

ken: Again; please explain the difference between freewill and true freewill; because I've got a feeling humans don't have "true" freewill either.

A true free will can go against what your genes, hormones and feelings try to make you do. Such as refusing to eat when you are hungry and healthy. Not engaging in sex when a naked woman wants you to have sex with her standing right in front of you. There are many other examples. When animals are healthy and hungry they will not refuse to eat. When animals are in heat sexually they will not refrain from sex when they have a mate available.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
For example, a healthy but hungry dog will never refuse to eat.

ken: Untrue.

Evidence?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But a healthy but hungry human person can use his will power and refuse to eat for any number of reasons.

ken: So will many animals.

Evidence?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Perhaps but the rules of the pack are primarily just to establish the pack hierarchy, they do not appear to be any type of moral rules.

ken: Perhaps their morals are just different than yours. Perhaps you just don't understand their morals.

Perhaps but there is no evidence for this. No one is punished for violating their rules.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Wolves sometimes kill and eat their fellow pack members or even their young. And yet they are never punished for doing so. So there does not appear to be any sense of justice, which is a major part of having a moral system.

ken: Morals are subjective. Just because you (and I) consider it immoral to eat their young, doesn’t mean they do.

All moral systems have some sense of justice, even if the sense of justice is very different from other groups. No animals seem to have any sense of justice.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, of course not. Because this world is flawed and abnormal due to the Fall, there are injustices that occur. So God created Hell to mete out justice on those who did not receive it in this world.

ken: Wait a minute; at first you said if your deeds are punished by the group, that means you’ve done something wrong, and if your deeds go unpunished by the group, that means you’ve done nothing wrong! So you’re changing it now? Remember; Jesus was punished by the group! Are you flip flopping?

I am not changing anything. God is part of our group, He is our King and Universal Judge. So if we dont punish evildoers then He will in the next world. Jesus was unjustly punished by evildoers.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The USA and most of western Europe are still generally based on Christian biblical principles.

ken: Which laws in the USA and Europe are based on Christian biblical principles? And don’t go saying Don’t kill, Don’t steal; etc. because in order for a principle to be Christian biblical, it could not have existed prior to Christianity or the Bible. Example; it would be foolish to proclaim a principle that was started by Hinduism, or Buddhism but copied by Christians; to proclaim it as a Christian biblical principle. So I ask; which principle was the USA and Europe based on that was started by Christians and didn’t exist prior to Christianity or the Bible? Enslaving Africans in a foreign land? I don’t think that was done prior to Christianity; I dunno I’m asking!

Well first of all, since the Christian God created ALL humans in His image and with a moral conscience based on His moral laws, that is why there are similarities like the ones you mention among many other peoples and religions. But there are things are uniquely Christian principles such as human equality, freedom of conscience and speech, and the whole concept of human rights is of Judeo-Christian origin. The concept of the infinite value of all human life of all ages, the concept of objective truth, and many others.

Ken-1122 · Oct 7, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
A true free will can go against what your genes, hormones and feelings try to make you do. Such as refusing to eat when you are hungry and healthy. Not engaging in sex when a naked woman wants you to have sex with her standing right in front of you. There are many other examples. When animals are healthy and hungry they will not refuse to eat. When animals are in heat sexually they will not refrain from sex when they have a mate available.

As I said before, when animals have a reason to refrain, they have been shown to refrain. An example; animals that hunt in a pack will bring down a big kill, and the pack leader gets to eat of the kill first while all the other hungry pack members sit around waiting till the pack leader has his fill. When the pack leader is done eating the choice areas and walks away, the rest of the pack dives in. For many animals these are the rules of the pack and obeying pack rules is a reason to refrain from eating when hungry

Ed1wolf said:
Evidence?

See above

Ed1wolf said:
Perhaps but there is no evidence for this. No one is punished for violating their rules.

I disagree! I’ve seen documentaries about what happens when an animal new to the pack violates pack rules; and the pack leader attacks him.

Ed1wolf said:
All moral systems have some sense of justice, even if the sense of justice is very different from other groups. No animals seem to have any sense of justice.

Ahh So because YOU don’t see it, that means it isn’t there huh?

Ed1wolf said:
I am not changing anything. God is part of our group, He is our King and Universal Judge. So if we dont punish evildoers then He will in the next world. Jesus was unjustly punished by evildoers.

Leave God out of this; you specifically said “punished by the group” not God. History is full of examples of evil men who were not punished by the group.

Ed1wolf said:
But there are things are uniquely Christian principles such as human equality, freedom of conscience and speech, and the whole concept of human rights is of Judeo-Christian origin. The concept of the infinite value of all human life of all ages, the concept of objective truth, and many others.

So you are saying the principles of equality, human rights, and all that other stuff you mentioned; none of it existed till the Europeans and their Judeo-Christian values thought of it; right? Sources???

Ed1wolf · Oct 7, 2018

Dan1988 said:
God has created different dimensions, such as the spiritual realm so hell may very well be in that dimension but that doesn't mean that they don't feel pain or emotions.

I am not saying that they wont feel pain and emotions, only that it is not part of this universe nor will it be part of the new heavens and new earth. It will be in a different realm or dimension as you say.

dan: The Bible is very clear, hell is described as a lake of fire that will never be quenched and the smoke of those who are tormented in it will rise forever and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Well that comes from the Book of Revelation which many scholars including Calvinist scholars believe is very symbolic and not to be taken literally. Though hell will definitely not be a very pleasant place. Remember there are also different levels of hell according to Jesus.

dan: Don't forget we are dealing with a God who is not limited by natural laws, He can speak anything into existence. He described hell in His Word clearly, sure they may not be red flames of fire but the heat is super hot even if is black fire in darkness.

In some parts of hell, there may even be extreme cold. I dont think the bible has told us a great deal about the details of hell literally. Christ said there will be gnashing of teeth in darkness. This could be because of extreme cold. And see above about different levels of hell.

dan: The point is, hell is the most horrific place imaginable and it's eternal so we must warn everyone to do everything necessary to avoid it. Christ said, "as many as believe in Me shall be saved" so everyone who truly believes in Christ will be saved.

True.

Ed1wolf · Oct 8, 2018

Dan1988 said:
God has created different dimensions, such as the spiritual realm so hell may very well be in that dimension but that doesn't mean that they don't feel pain or emotions.

The Bible is very clear, hell is described as a lake of fire that will never be quenched and the smoke of those who are tormented in it will rise forever and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Don't forget we are dealing with a God who is not limited by natural laws, He can speak anything into existence. He described hell in His Word clearly, sure they may not be red flames of fire but the heat is super hot even if is black fire in darkness.

The point is, hell is the most horrific place imaginable and it's eternal so we must warn everyone to do everything necessary to avoid it. Christ said, "as many as believe in Me shall be saved" so everyone who truly believes in Christ will be saved.

I was refering to unbelievers asking why God does what He does and I was making the point that they are asking question for which they are not equipped to receive the answers to.

The last person God spoke to was John, when He told him to write the book of revelation. Since than God hasn't spoken to men because He has told us everything He wanted us to know. We won't be able to process everything about God in this short life, so as you said we will learn more in the life to come.

Ok, that is true.

Madsaac · Oct 9, 2018

I think Christians will hope its subjective because if biblical morality is objective then the large majority of us are in big trouble.

For example, any Christian who doesn't live a very simple life and gives most of their wealth to the needy, is not doing what God asked in the bible.

It's fair to say that most Christians see biblical morality, subjectively, otherwise how can they live with themselves and comment on other moral social issues.

Ed1wolf · Oct 9, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
Ed1wolf said: ↑
If life is ultimately meaningless and it is if there is no God,

ken: If your life is meaningless without God, though I feel sorry for you however it is your choice to limit yourself that way; I bring meaning to my life. I bet you would find yourself doing the same were you to ever come to know the truth.

I do know the truth. Your meaning is just your subjective opinion and will mean nothing when the universe ends if there is no God. Only if God exists does your life have real objective meaning and you can actually make a difference in peoples lives, an eternal difference that never dies, long after the universe ends.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
then what does making a difference even mean?

ken: There are countless ways of making a difference; raising your children right and teaching them what you know makes a difference.

No, that will not make any difference when the universe ends if there is no God. But if God exists then doing those things for your children will make an eternal difference that will last long after the universe ends.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Only if your life has real objective meaning and it does if God exists and the afterlife exists, then the things you do in this life can make ETERNAL differences.

ken: If this life isn’t important, why get married? Why read a good book? Why see a movie, have friends, or even eat a good meal, if all these things are meaningless in the context of eternity and your next life?

No, you are confused, this life is EXTREMELY important since what you do has eternal consequences. If there is no God then life is not important at all, it is meaningless, it has no real significance, so why do those things other than for a few minutes of pleasure in a dying universe and a dying body that will turn into atoms that will eventually disintegrate in to nothingness.

Ed1wolf · Oct 9, 2018

Madsaac said:
I think Christians will hope its subjective because if biblical morality is objective then the large majority of us are in big trouble.

For example, any Christian who doesn't live a very simple life and gives most of their wealth to the needy, is not doing what God asked in the bible.

It's fair to say that most Christians see biblical morality, subjectively, otherwise how can they live with themselves and comment on other moral social issues.

Christian morality IS objective. And no, the bible never says that being wealthy is a sin, one of the greatest believers in history was very wealthy, Abraham. But Christ and the Bible do teach that you should use your wealth for good including helping the poor and it talks about priorities, being wealthy should never be your priority. But if it just happens because you are gifted or work hard, that is not a sin.

Madsaac · Oct 10, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
Christian morality IS objective. And no, the bible never says that being wealthy is a sin, one of the greatest believers in history was very wealthy, Abraham. But Christ and the Bible do teach that you should use your wealth for good including helping the poor and it talks about priorities, being wealthy should never be your priority. But if it just happens because you are gifted or work hard, that is not a sin.

No but like you said, what you do with your wealth is a mentioned a few times.

There are millions and millions of Christians who believe being wealthy is the priority over helping the poor, its an effect of capitalism and western society. I would think they hope biblical morality is subjective.

Ken-1122 · Oct 10, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
I do know the truth. Your meaning is just your subjective opinion and will mean nothing when the universe ends if there is no God. Only if God exists does your life have real objective meaning and you can actually make a difference in peoples lives, an eternal difference that never dies, long after the universe ends.

No, that will not make any difference when the universe ends if there is no God. But if God exists then doing those things for your children will make an eternal difference that will last long after the universe ends.

No, you are confused, this life is EXTREMELY important since what you do has eternal consequences. If there is no God then life is not important at all, it is meaningless, it has no real significance, so why do those things other than for a few minutes of pleasure in a dying universe and a dying body that will turn into atoms that will eventually disintegrate in to nothingness.

Just because my actions have no meaning a trillion years from now doesn’t mean it has no meaning today! I do what I do because it makes a difference now; not a trillion years from now.

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

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

No one important

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency