non-Christians scare me. I don't want to be around anyone who doesn't believe in objective morality. They are like loose cannons.
non-Christians scare me. I don't want to be around anyone who doesn't believe in objective morality.
Talk religion
Talk religion
non-Christians scare me. I don't want to be around anyone who doesn't believe in objective morality. They are like loose cannons.
christian morality is only "objective" in the sense that it is unequivocal (in theory anyway, it never is in practice.)
But in truth god's law could change at any second. God could descend to earth tomorrow and say that trans women are women, and you'd just have to accept it, because he's god.
I, however, the person who apparently believes in "subjective" morality, would never accept a troony as a woman, no matter who told me to.
>But in truth god's law could change at any second
In christian theology, God does not change ever. So this impossible according to the Bible.
>In christian theology, God does not change ever.
Explain why you don't follow Leviticus law then.
see:
God does not change. Your hypothetical
>well, God could do this and change all of his own laws
Is laughable because God would never do such a thing. The problem with you subjective moralists is that you think everything is as wishy washy and unanchored as your own thinking, not even to mention how subjective morality is effectively meaningless because it is not tied to anything beyond yourself.
>I think this is bad, someone thinks differently than me
Leaves no ground for a source of validity if there's nothing coherent to follow outside of yourself. On the contrary
>God says this isn't okay
>I think it's okay
>I must be wrong
Leaves for a much more tangible and consistent mode of orienting behavior. Subjective morality changes the very moment your mind changes, objectively morality never changes even if you don't like it.
There’s no source of validity for what’s funny, scary, or sexy. I don’t know why I should assume what’s good is different. Reality doesn’t exist to make us comfortable or ground what we wish was grounded. Your argument here seems to be “the problem with subjective morality is that if it were true, that would be a big issue for us.” And yeah, it may suck. Things can suck from our perspective and still be true.
The thing is that things suck from your own perspective and are also untrue. The sky is blue, the sun rises every morning, and morality is objective. Thinking murder is right won't make it right, some things are just true.
I feel that killing animals is wrong. If I just assert that veganism is objectively mandatory without evidence, nobody will believe me. I don’t oppose biblical morality on the grounds of it being restrictive. It’s less restrictive than my personal feelings.
>I feel that killing animals is wrong. If I just assert that veganism is objectively mandatory without evidence, nobody will believe me
See, that's because you're wrong. God created animals so we may rule over them.
No, people already ruling over animals made their fictional character endorse it to provide justification.
You're confused because your conceptualization of natural hierarchy is distorted. There's no reincarnation, humans were created to be humans and animals were created to be animals. A rat does not have more sanctity than a human, a rat is created to be a rat. Also remind yourself that "ruling over" does not mean abuse, it means rule, above, higher. A human is higher than an animal, that is reality.
There is no such thing as “higher.” Humans are more intelligent and can reason, but those are only “higher” traits if you designate them as such. We could designate the most peaceful species as “higher” and decide on something else at the top. I don’t believe in reincarnation, so I’m not sure why you brought that up. I agree that you can benevolently rule, I disagree that slaughtering a healthy animal is part of benevolent rule over it. I don’t care if you want to breed animals as companions and then act in their best interest. The Bible endorses actions that are not that, and it doesn’t even stipulate that consumption of meat must be done for survival purposes only.
>There is no such thing as “higher.” Humans are more intelligent and can reason, but those are only “higher” traits if you designate them as such.
So, in other words, human beings aren't higher only if you ignore the objective fact that they are higher. Okay, lol.
>I don’t believe in reincarnation, so I’m not sure why you brought that up.
I brought that up because distortion of natural hierarchy comes from the Hindu school of thought and is ultimately where the concept of animals having more sanctity than human beings comes from, and this mode of thinking has bled into western countries to serve as justification for promoting the agricultural industrial complex by demonizing the consumption of meat despite lacking the belief in reincarnation, and it was a big factor in the cultural revolution in the 60's and why we have soiilent products and other such nonsense in the modern day.
>I agree that you can benevolently rule, I disagree that slaughtering a healthy animal is part of benevolent rule over it.
Take a trip to Mongolia and stay there for a few months and your disagreement will quickly dissipate providing you value living.
You consider humans higher, because you have already presupposed the characteristics associated with “highness.” No one has to accept your conception, in fact I don’t. Why is highness about intelligence? Why not peacefulness, physical strength, speed, size, etc?
I would kill an animal in self-defense (as I would also kill a human). I wouldn’t say that act is one of benevolence though. I’ve never claimed to be a being of pure altruism. I do things that are “bad” under my own subjective morality. I’m not my own ideal.
You see human superiority as so “obvious”, because you grew up in a culture so heavily influenced (“distorted” as you’d say) by Christianity’s deification of humans. You just stubbornly think your values are objective. I’m not even saying you have the wrong values, we just have different ones.
Answer this:
>He can also slaughter an animal in a benevolent way. Vegetarian animals on their own consume until their environments become a desert. Predators add a balance that corrects that, ergo are benevolent to their environments.
How is this not benevolent for the environment and in effect for the prey species itself? Prey species necessarily have to be managed otherwise they ruin the balance of the vegetation. When killed, should the food be left to waste?
>He can also slaughter an animal in a benevolent way. Vegetarian animals on their own consume until their environments become a desert. Predators add a balance that corrects that, ergo are benevolent to their environments.
No he didn't. There are a posteriori reasons to consider humans higher. You even mentioned some. Humans are taller and therefore higher than most species (this is true among known species). How does that not make them physically higher.
>Why is highness about intelligence?
It is not just about intelligence but about capacity for morality and the living of how each being is inherently created to be. Animals do not know right from wrong and cannot be held accountable on that front, humans do however. To proclaim and conceive of animals as being higher than humans is to misunderstand how each creature is created to function, as well as depriving yourself of being able to function as intended. You can't have a cat making laws and regulations for humans even if it had the capacity to read and write and articulate, for the creature was not created to know right from wrong to begin with.
>I do things that are “bad” under my own subjective morality. I’m not my own ideal.
And what use is your subjective morality if it's so mutable though? What is moral and immoral is entirely subject to whim according to your own worldview, and thus it is an entirely pointless topic and useless for teaching. If morality is entirely subjective then it becomes difficult to enforce any coherent standard of behavior or form meaningful and genuine relationships, because everyone's behavior is just as valid as everyone else's. Morality becomes mere opinion, whether you like coffee or tea, favorite color, favorite movie, you've taken an inherently important aspect of formulating relationships and have reduced it to a non-entity.
>You can't have a cat making laws and regulations for humans even if it had the capacity to read and write and articulate
Actually you can. Lions are cats (OED definition) and their example functionally sets the precedent for the essence of group justice in the natural world, regardless of whether they are consciously aware of justice.
So you'd willingly let a Lion be your ruler and decide how your town or even your country is run? How do you expect that to last in any meaningful capacity? I don't think you read my post fully.
All that's necessary for my response to the greentext is for cats to provide at least two laws. Your post doesn't require anything further of me, so don't be a weasel and try to move goalposts again. But I don't even need those or my lion example. The fact that Egypt had done so and their civilization lasted millennia is proof its a coherent basis for their specific areas of law. They are guardians, the killers of mice and their plagues.
Am I being a wag and reaching? Yes lol. But I'm right, and you know it, which means you have to sharpen your thinking.
>you can't have a cat making laws and regulations FOR humans
So again you didn't read my post.
>Egypt
Their cats didn't formulate their basis of law, what? Their Pharaohs and their gods did. Name three Egyptian laws that were written by physical cats, I'll wait. Also you never answered my question. I asked if you'd willingly let a lion be your ruler, as well as how you expect that to last, since apparently you're so focused on this delusion of animals somehow being higher than humans for no reason other than arbitrary whim that isn't based on anything coherent outside of yourself.
>So again you didn't read my post.
I did. You didn't, because you have a naive understanding of English.
>>you can't have a cat making laws and regulations FOR humans
"Make" doesn't necessitate being the direct cause or even having agency. See OED and various other dictionaries, they agree with me about this.
>formulate their basis of law, what?
Again, this would be you moving goalposts. Stop that. I was responding to your thought in
>You can't have a cat making laws and regulations for humans even if it had the capacity to read and write and articulate, for the creature was not created to know right from wrong to begin with.
And my response to this is logically verbally and grammatically sufficient.
Ignition makes a fire. So does air. In a negative sense, clothes don't actually make the man, now do they? Yet this is normal and accepted language. But cats do actually make and determine some laws, because make can simply mean being a cause of. So did their human worshippers, who obviously had more of a direct cause.
If you can't understand I'm having a lark but am doing it for your benefit, you should either write me off as a troll, or tighten your writing anyway so it isn't as open ended.
>If you can't understand I'm having a lark but am doing it for your benefit, you should either write me off as a troll, or tighten your writing anyway so it isn't as open ended
So you understand my overall point but are just being difficult? Alright then. What I was getting at though is that animals aren't created with the ability to give moral jurisdiction because they don't have a concept of what is right and wrong at all. There is a clear staunch difference between how human beings and animals are inherently designed to function and for which purposes, and confusion of this leads to dysfunction.
Yes. While I was being difficult, I know what's morally right. The other anon is philosophically literate but he must either realize he must choose objective morality or society decays faster than it has to, or be a trannoid with society rotting faster everywhere he exerts influence.
>If morality is entirely subjective then it becomes difficult to enforce any coherent standard of behavior or form meaningful and genuine relationships, because everyone's behavior is just as valid as everyone else's.
Then morality is measured by group mass and their ability to influence the standards for morality. It's wishy washy like you said, but hardly pointless or useless.
>Then morality is measured by group mass and their ability to influence the standards for morality.
The problem with that line of thinking is that there is no global, unified group that shares all of its system of values, so you're still stuck with an entirely subjective form of morality that is in conflict with other's morality that is contrary. Even if you take the biggest and most influential nations on this earth they still share opposing values. And I would argue that even under this circumstance it is still pointless and useless because your morality is subject to the whim of your governments and whoever holds sway of your nation. It no longer even has the benefit of an individualistic thinking for it's entirely dependent on what those who run your country want to enforce, who themselves are held to no standard outside of themselves. What is moral is whatever your government wants to do, and what your government wants to do is not always good (and especially isn't in these days).
Then when those groups crash against each other, whatever remains becomes standard. And it would still guarantee compromises and stability, because most people don't want to exert themselves. This is how it always worked, with a subjective interpretation of morality.
So in other words subjectively interpretations of morality inevitably end up collapsing in favor of objective ones due to being inherently unstable, much like what happened with the Soviet Union.
I already told you subjective morality as reality can suck from our perspectives. Believing it may lead to results we don’t like. The truth doesn’t inherently lead to results we like. I think a belief in objective morality was useful to humans. That explains why it is so common of a belief. But it isn’t evidence of truth. Pragmatism doesn’t equal truth.
Additionally, I do not believe that we or other animals were designed by a creator. I don’t believe we have a fundamental purpose.
To respond in general, as I believe multiple posters had this concern, I can understand why in certain instances it may be benevolent to slaughter animals. However, in modern practice, the goal is rarely environmental conservation or even providing an animal with a life prior. (I would have wished the Bible set rules with such stipulations with caveats for survival situations).
To simplify things, as this is more what I was initially trying to get at with an example of a vegan ideal (I’m not even a vegan myself, I just see it as generally good in my view). I do not believe there is an objective way to weigh human vs animal suffering (let’s put aside for now the best way to achieve particular weightings). I would say they should be equally weighed under my subjective morality, and this obviously would require a very different society and moral order to be achieved than if someone believed in a duty to prioritize humanity (as is the case realistically in most societies).
I don’t believe there is a factual way to reconcile differences in viewpoints based on a greater reference for human suffering and one that is more egalitarian towards all beings that can suffer.
And I already told you that subjectively morality isn't a truthful understanding of how morality operates. And any case according to your worldview you have to cope with the concept that anything you believe lacks legitimately and is just bs you made up with nothing to validate it, and all of your ancestors had no idea what they were ding and just got lucky. Every single consistent achievement ever produced by humanity is just a fluke apparently, at least if we adhere to your own thinking, which in itself isn't something that can be trusted even according to adhering to it.
>Additionally, I do not believe that we or other animals were designed by a creator. I don’t believe we have a fundamental purpose
That also explains why you believe morality to be subjective, for there is no standard or goal to adhere to if you believe morality to be as inconsequential as opinion on ice cream, and simultaneously it deprives you of obligations and responsibilities if morality is not something that matters. How you treat other human beings and what impact you have on them aren't questions that need to be dealt with if the conclusion is that morality is subjective.
>I can understand why in certain instances it may be benevolent to slaughter animals. However, in modern practice, the goal is rarely environmental conservation or even providing an animal with a life prior.
You are deprived of purpose and view morality as inconsequential, and therefore your views on animals, and anything at all for that matter, are entirely irrelevant because there are no standards in a meaningless world.
You haven’t made an argument other than pointing out how a lack of objective morality is not ideal from our perspectives. Like, yeah, guess it sucks.
Also, our progress isn't all flukes, we’ve created many ideas, inventions, and social orderings beyond the concept of objective morality.
You haven't comprehended what I've stated then or are just being stubborn. If you believe that morality is just subjective bs people make up all on their own with nothing to anchor it then it has no value.
>our progress isn't flukes
According to your worldview, it is, since you don't believe that there is any intention or purpose behind the world and that there are no standards; therefore everything is inherently random, and if this statement is inaccurate to how you think then you must object to such.
Okay, let me reword. Changes in society, that aren’t inherently good or bad (though we will often find ourselves feeling certain ways about them), occur for reasons besides changing conceptions of objective morality. If no one believed in objective morality, society would continue to change and evolve. If we had stopped believing in it sooner, changes would still have occurred.
And yeah morality has no intrinsic value. It’s just something that guides my actions to a certain extent. Like how what I find funny guides my actions some. Or what I find scary guides my actions some.
I hope to see things that align with my subjective morality. I have fun seeing things that align with my subjective humor. I prefer to avoid things that align with my subjective terror.
The world doesn’t exist to give me purpose or meaning. I assure you that if I convinced you of my worldview somehow, your daily actions would change much less than you think.
>I assure you that if I convinced you of my worldview somehow, your daily actions would change much less than you think
This is complete and utter cope. I'd unironically commit suicide if I had the same worldview as you, because that's what I ended up trying to do back when I was a nihilist.
I don’t want to harm your mental state, but honestly it sounds like you couldn’t handle reality so you adopted a false belief as a coping mechanism. I’m glad you survived at least. I don’t want to make your life worse, but I can’t in good faith say I believe in objective morality.
See
I wouldn't care if anon was coping with objective morality, because there are plenty of good rational reasons to believe in objective morality, many of which he pointed out. You're not going to just ad hominem him are you?
No, I found my nihilism to be inherently untrue, which is how I ended up getting out of it. I learned that the hardships of pain cannot compare to the love that is found within those who care for you, and that love is genuine even if human beings are inclined towards evil behavior. It sounds like to me that you stopped searching for what is true and have merely settled on flimsy answers instead of containing to ask questions.
What kind of Christian are you? Can you shed light on your intellectual journey? Which thinkers influenced your nihilism path, and which your Christian path?
I used to listen to a lot of absurdist thinkers back when I was a nihilist (Nietzsche, as well as Kafka being the most predominant two). And my journey was not solely intellectual but also personal. Jonathan Pageau as well as Jay Dyer helped influence my Christian path.
And are you Sneeder Salvy on Discord?
Nah I don't use discord.
EO is good. How do you feel about RC, which even though damaged at the moment, can be fixed, like it has in response to "the Babylonian captivity"?
have no idea what you're talking about
Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. I'm guessing you're Ortho based on Dyer and Pageau.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy
This is what the Babylonian captivity in Catholicism is usually called. It's just a period where Catholicism was damaged but not destroyed by outside elements.
Ah okay, wasn't familiar with those acronyms. Ultimately the Catholic church is either going to suffer a schism within itself or fixes itself with its next Pope. On thoughts on the actual tradition, theologically Catholicism seems to have missed the ball by their obsession with nailing everything down to a tee and not allowing any room for mystery, as well as an overly legalistic conceptualization of guilt, and a distorted concept of sin with teaching that mortal sin removes you from grace entirely. Transubstantiation is complete nonsense and a result of trying to comprehend a mystery that humans aren't capable of understanding. Even without Francis being one of the worst Popes in human history, Catholicism has gotten so much theologically wrong within their own tradition and evolution of doctrine that it really doesn't seem to have much validity.
I think that Orthodoxy is quite fascinating by how it's preserved itself. There is no perfect church and the worst Orthodox priests act like legalistic Pharisees full of spiritual pride, and the concept of revering saints, which the Catholics share, is really unconstructive for evangelism and leads people into heresy that could easily be avoided. I appreciate the rich and storied history of both of these churches as well as the lives of the saints themselves, but a focus on them seems to cause more harm than good.
Let me put it this way, you're a moral relativist, so if someone wants to rape your spouse how do you make a moral argument against the action? What serves as a basis for law and what standard do the courts adhere to under that worldview? There is none. His desire to rape your spouse is just as valid as your potential disgust of the action, and the surrounding community has no reason to take either side since their sense of morality is entirely relative too. You have to think about what affect your ideas have when put into practice and socialized.
Their existence and livelihood is threatened so they'll side against the rapist. Objectively morality isn't strictly necessary for the creation of civil laws, but it doesn't help formulate the best possible effectiveness of these laws.
OTOH rapists can control the law. Like in India, where rape is justified through the Puranas, by the example of gods who raped at a whim. This creates misery and a base of people who reject these pro-rapist judgments.
Who is they? The community? Why would they care? Women get raped all the time in India, do you see the community rushing in to kill the rapist? Nope. There is nothing that concerns the community about your spouse being raped in this scenario since it doesn't affect them.
>Objectively morality isn't strictly necessary for the creation of civil laws
It is because otherwise your laws are meaningless since standards do not matter. If morality is subjective and relative then nothing can be enforced and anything that is enforced is ultimately enforced on whim.
They usually do try to punish the rapist, and whenever governments or gangs don't protect the rapist they succeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akku_Yadav
I can see you have a naive view of the world, even though you are correct in your idealism. Consider this another opportunity to learn.
>The world doesn’t exist to give me purpose or meaning.
It can give meaning and purpose. These are both possible attributes of the world. The world usually gives you meaning. The fact that you respond so much to so many facets of it is proof of that.
Man India's a shithole.
It took hundreds of woman planning against a government institution's security forces just to make it possible for victims to be able to exact revenge.
I can’t make an objective moral argument against it. I have to hope that I have the strength to prevent it or can garner sympathy from others who have the strength.
Again, a heuristic of “the truth must lead to results I like” is completely delusional. Even if I wished I could believe falsehood or wish that everyone believed falsehood, I can’t will myself into adopting such a plainly delusional belief.
>Again, a heuristic of “the truth must lead to results I like” is completely delusional.
So why do you continue to persist in delusions that appeal to nothing other than personal feeling? Lol.
I’m not claiming that my feelings guide reality. When I say under my subjective morality x is wrong, I only mean that “x makes me feel the human emotion others associate with x being morally wrong.” I’m only making a claim on how it makes me feel.
oh okay so in other words you don't believe that morality exists in any capacity as a cope and try to intentionally ignore your conscious at every opportunity, This just sounds like an excuse to allow and perpetuate atrocities.
I would have no problem with objective morality existing. I like altruism, and I’d like if logic inherently led to it. I just can’t be honest and say I think it exists. Similarly, I’d have no problem with God existing. I just can’t believe it in good faith.
Highness exists. So do hierarchies and higherness.
A bird soars higher than humans can jump. A king has higher power than his subjects but not as much power as the sun. He could however bend solar panels to his will.
He can also slaughter an animal in a benevolent way. Vegetarian animals on their own consume until their environments become a desert. Predators add a balance that corrects that, ergo are benevolent to their environments.
These are perfectly rational abstractions, and I don't see anything wrong with what that anon said.
>A bird soars higher than humans can jump. A king has higher power than his subjects but not as much power as the sun. He could however bend solar panels to his will.
You can also abstract higher power in illustrations like this: Humans with more wealth are capable of building vaster projects, and the more wealth they have, the higher the buildings they can construct.
>ergo are benevolent to their environments.
And therefore to the species of animals that they eat, because they overall help those animals in continuing living.
>Thinking murder is right won't make it right, some things are just true.
There's 10 thousand scenarios in which you would concede killing a man is justified despite Christ himself telling his disciples to love your enemies because God's judgement will sort them out in the end. You're a charlatan.
Murder isn't the same as self defense or even manslaughter and the fact you equate the two means you haven't even read Leviticus as it breaks down all of these laws and the differences between them. In short you're illiterate on multiple facets.
>muh love means no kill
There is no instance within the entirety of the NT where Christ proclaims killing in of itself to be sinful, and neither does he for violence. In fact Christ specifically physically whips tax collectors out of the temple as opposed to asking them to leave, and He kills and eats fish.
>Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
You ignoring this to have crusader fantasies completely invalidates the supposed value of objective morality.
>love your enemies
You are in error because you do not even know what Love is. God is Love and He caused the flood, rained down Sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah, and told Joshua to wipe out the Canaanites, as well as caused the destruction of the israeli people. all because He loved each and every one of them. You take the word 'Love' and apply it to mean anything you personally like, or some arbitrary sense of compassion, for you do not understand what Love is but merely what your culture deceives you into thinking it is. Agape, unconditional Love, is beyond you and you cannot comprehend its fullness.
>bless those who curse you
Again, you think blessings are a material benefit or a giving, but truly I tell you blessings from the Lord are blessings of the Spirit, not to say He does not provide in some sense, but if you truly knew what it meant to bless those who curse you then you would bend over backwards for the opportunity to do so, for the truest blessing is that of Humility for it grows all of us closer to God.
>>well, God could do this and change all of his own laws
>Is laughable because God would never do such a thing.
I'm a Christian and God did this between Deuteronomy and the New Testament.
No he didn't, murder is a still a sin, theft is a still a sin, and the lamb is still being sacrificed (that is, Christ). The fact you think that the NT is an abolishing of OT laws and not a fulfilling of them only highlights your ignorance regarding your own scriptures.
>inb4 Kosher laws
If you agree with the Pharisee's misinterpretation of spiritual laws pertaining to human behavior and taking it in a literal fashion concerning animals, then I don't what to say other than the fact that you've quite literally been israeliteed. Read the Church Fathers and have your mind blown if you truly are a Christian.
You misquoted him, which makes you look bad for attacking strawmen. He said
>But in truth god's law could change at any second. God could descend to earth tomorrow and say that trans women are women, and you'd just have to accept it, because he's god.
The first part of which is true but the latter isn't, since the former could be the result of the Holy Spirit, but the latter would most likely be a demon trying to corrupt us. We know Christian revelation is true because it reveals more truth than any other religion and actuated humanity into organizing itself into the best it's ever been in history, consistent with the purpose of reflecting God's good attributes.
His claim
>I, however, the person who apparently believes in "subjective" morality, would never accept a troony as a woman, no matter who told me to.
Is obviously untrue because even if he's strongly against them he's not an absolute being and could be publically coerced to with enough influences.
You're moronic.
I accept your concession.
Well we're Christians so if you have a good handle on it, you tell me. Otherwise we should let it alone, since it risks blasphemy.
Reddit. Those witches were that time's egirls and their covens were our simps. Drains on their societies.
No, you asked and demanded for proof so it is your responsibility to illustrate what would constitute as sufficient proof. If you don't know what you're looking for that's also fine, but then the demand becomes ludicrous since you don't know what to demand.
Read my first post to you again. I didn't ask for anything. I only made a statement.
>This is potentially true if you can prove that objective morality is absolutely objective morality.
So you did ask for proof.
That's a statement. Where's my question asking you something in my post?
ah fair. my bad for reading too much into it. i'm used to be argumentative, forgive me.
The law was fulfilled through the death of Jesus Christ, not changed. The book of Romans covers this in detail, specifically Romans 8.
I would advise that you not assume that you are an authority here because you claim to be a Christian. I have seen many people presume that because they were raised in the faith, that they then must be experts. This is hubris, and it is a dangerous thing.
I pray that the Lord will guide you, friend.
None of this matters because christians have never practiced objective morality. Your ethics change to fit the society it serves. It's why somehow Christ demanded the slaughter of Saxons and now the Pope validates trannies.
>Christ demanded the slaughter of Saxons
So you claim the Catholic church is Christ Himself?
>muh Pope
Ah got it, so you believe that a church that quite literally caused a schism and isn't interested in following Scripture or the doctrines common to all Christian denominations represents the will of Christ. Might as well claim that wolves represent the interests of all sheep.
We're not talking about Christ or God, we're talking about PEOPLE who claim their source of morality is objective when that's clearly not the case.
Let me break this down for you then since you seem to be having difficulty
>morality is objective
>a person doesn't follow what is moral
>that person behaved immoral
Someone acting out of alignment with what is moral does not make the morality change, all it means is that person is not interested in acting properly. Look, if I ran a large church and tried to claim murdering babies was moral even according to the Bible while ignoring all off it and made a huge mental gymnastic fest to try to justify it then it wouldn't change the reality that murdering babies is wrong.
>Someone acting out of alignment with what is moral does not make the morality change
This is potentially true if you can prove that objective morality is absolutely objective morality.
So what would qualify as sufficient proof for you then? What exactly are you looking for that would serve as convincing and substantial proof?
Anon, since you don't seem to understand:
>OP claims non-christians are untrustworthy loose cannons
>christians have historically been loose cannons
not relevant to the discussion of morality
The discussion isn't about morality, it's about behavior.
>shifting goalposts
Black person, my original response itt was directed at the OP's accusation of people with subjective morality, not with morality itself. The entire Christian identity is a facade doesn't stop people's particular inclinations from overwriting God's law.
cool but the whole thread is a discussion about morality regardless of OP's post.
I find it concerning when people base their regard for others based on what from my perspective are false delusions rather than their own emotions.
You dont have to be Christian to have morals, most Christians agree with this btw
>noooo u can’t think for yourself you need an all powerful entity to tell you to not kill people and steal from them
consider suicide
Christoids scare me. I don't want to be around anyone who will bind me to a rock and sacrifice me because their magic sky daddy told them to
Damn.
Better not exist in public at all, ever.
>I don't want to be around anyone who doesn't believe in objective morality.
Be grateful you'll never meet such a person.
What, to you, makes a moral law objective?
That it serves as a basis beyond yourself and can be applied, consistently adhered to and shown to be the proper way for how human beings are meant to function. In other words, it is God's laws.
>In other words, it is God's laws.
So, forgive me, but how are God's laws objective, to you?
That they are real and are shown to be proper, for people do not act proper unless they follow them.
>That they are real and are shown to be proper,
How do you know they're real? Buddhists believe in no God, and yet their societies are about as proper as any society is.
>the only think stopping christians from raping and murdering you is the Bible
Unhinged people
and the only thing stopping non-christians from raping and murdering you, is nothing. 🙂
That is not at all what OP said. Please stop straw manning.
OP said that the BASIS of his, and other Christians', morality is from God and it is not subjective.
You are confusing the basis of morality with the actual moral principle.
Both an atheist and a Christian would say that rape is wrong.
The difference is that an atheist would have no objective reason to say that it is wrong other than that rape displeasing to him. To an atheist, there is only the material world and no transcendent moral reality (that is, if he is to remain consistent).
The Christian, on the other hand, would understand that rape is wrong in the same way that an apple is red or the sky is blue. Rape is objectively wrong because moral principles are transcendent of reality and established by God.
>The difference is that an atheist would have no objective reason to say that it is wrong other than that rape displeasing to him.
Morals are a mechanism for a social species to work together. They are developed and tested against each other like all other aspects of competition in life. Without morals, humans would die out as a species, unable to work together on anything because each individual would be killing his neighbor for all his stuff at all times.
>morality is from god
refuted by Euthyphro dilemma
am atheist. be afraid. be very afraid.
For me the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness without taking the happiness from others and helping others to have happiness. Happiness would be the basic biological, psychological, social etc needs. (Also abstraction and contemplation of reality).
Morality comes from this. 🙂