Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

It's a state that is morally corrupt and severed from its Creator by its rebellion against Him. It's thus one that is subject to death, having cut itself off from the Source of Life. It's one in which lots of bad things happen, and they happen randomly, to people good and bad. It's a state in which nature itself is also subject to entropy and death. And it's one in which society, as it attempts to organize itself by the wits of fallen people, ends up disastrously disordered and unjust. It's all of that.

But that is just the nature of nature.

Well, it's the only "nature" you and I have experienced, so it's automatic that we suppose that. But you and I only live 70 or 80 years or so. So there's a lot we haven't experienced.

But there is also all of recorded history, which pretty much confirms our suspicions about the nature of nature.

The C of E is a Christian organisation, so its members are Christian as far as I am concerned.

Students of the secular discipline of Comparative Religions call that "the self-identification criterion." They also say it's the weakest and least-accurate of all the criteria of judgment of who is and who is not to be taken into consideration as belonging to a particular ideology. And that, they know, is because is really requires nothing but a say-so...and people lie, are in error, misunderstand, and just plain dissemble. So they don't use it for any serious inquiry, because it's so badly misleading. But because we live in a society that is diseased with the belief that one can "identify" as anything one wants (including a woman or a cat, or any of 70 or so other "identities"), we regard questioning the criteria for anyone's claim of "identity," including religious identity, as an unpardonable sin. However, this just makes us suckers for every grifter, loony and charlatan that wants to use the identity criterion to his...or her...or its...or zer...or their...purposes.

You can't expect me to have a problem with people self identifying as Christian just because you object to it.

Obviously, on the grounds of religion, I don't give a damn, but on those of patriotism, I must stand firmly behind the C of E.

That's part of the "self-identification" problem. With dripping irony, the C of E has been wryly called "the religion of all good men," (C.S. Lewis) because all one has to do in order to belong to it is appear to be socially, Englishly "a good and civilized person," and you're in. But it takes no thought for the content of belief. Social respectability and Britishness are its only criteria.

If that is the case, they have just risen in my estimation.

But Christianity's not like that. It's a credal faith: if you don't believe it, and really believe it so that you practice it, you aren't it.

Well we can at least agree that I am not it.

And you, too, have the right to claim what you want, and the right to be wrong, which is only fair.

That is correct. So we will see which is right and which wrong.

My only advice is, "Bet carefully; there's a lot at stake."

Have you had much success with those ominous sign offs of yours?

[Immanuel Can]

But that is just the nature of nature.

Well, it's the only "nature" you and I have experienced, so it's automatic that we suppose that. But you and I only live 70 or 80 years or so. So there's a lot we haven't experienced.

But there is also all of recorded history,

Well, since the fall took place almost immediately after the Creation, that's hardly surprising...and not really indicative of anything. What's really indicative is the shape the world is in right now, which is telling us that all is decidedly not well with our universe.

You can't expect me to have a problem with people self identifying as Christian just because you object to it.

I don't. But I can suppose that a sensible person will see that the self-identification of a person, absent anything more, counts for practically nothing. That much is quite obvious.

My only advice is, "Bet carefully; there's a lot at stake."

Have you had much success with those ominous sign offs of yours?

Ominous? No doubt they are, for anybody who suspects he may be on the wrong side of them. But I just see that as being forthcoming, since the Bible tells me, "...we will all appear before the judgment seat of God. For it is written: 'As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow,
And every tongue will confess to God.'” I'm saying what I believe to be true, that we all must give our account to God, and it's wise, therefore, to prepare for that.

After all, you and I know there are two prospects here: one is that you're right, and death ends all; the other is that I'm right, and it doesn't. If you're right, neither of us will ever know. If I'm right, we both will.

I don't know that having one's soul committed to oblivion and one's bodies to the worms can be called a win. But I do realize that it's the best an unbeliever in God can hope for. My thought is that I would wish you to have a better hope; but that doesn't come without some realization of where things are actually going, and not all possible outcomes are equal. Here, between the womb and the tomb, you and I have a chance to make choices of immense significance. The right choices are made in light of eternity. My encouragement would only be to make the wisest choices. That's all.

[Harbal]

Well, it's the only "nature" you and I have experienced, so it's automatic that we suppose that. But you and I only live 70 or 80 years or so. So there's a lot we haven't experienced.

But there is also all of recorded history,

Well, since the fall took place almost immediately after the Creation, that's hardly surprising

It's one thing for the project of a perfect being not to go quite to plan, but to fail so quickly...

and not really indicative of anything.

Some might say indicative of incompetence, but I would never say that.

What's really indicative is the shape the world is in right now, which is telling us that all is decidedly not well with our universe.

I'm sure the universe is getting on just fine, regardless of what is happening on this spec of dust we call Earth.

You can't expect me to have a problem with people self identifying as Christian just because you object to it.

I don't. But I can suppose that a sensible person will see that the self-identification of a person, absent anything more, counts for practically nothing. That much is quite obvious.

It might count for a great deal from the point of view of the self identifier, and if they are not harming anyone, why would we deprive them of it?

Have you had much success with those ominous sign offs of yours?

Ominous? No doubt they are, for anybody who suspects he may be on the wrong side of them.

You won't be pleased to know that I harbour no such suspicions, then; considering your frequent attempts at planting them.

I don't know that having one's soul committed to oblivion and one's bodies to the worms can be called a win. But I do realize that it's the best an unbeliever in God can hope for.

I happen to be quite happy at the thought of oblivion, but what we would prefer makes no difference to what we will get.

Here, between the womb and the tomb, you and I have a chance to make choices of immense significance. The right choices are made in light of eternity. My encouragement would only be to make the wisest choices. That's all.

Did you have the adverts with the Duracel bunny in your country? It just keeps on banging its drum, and never stops.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And no, I do not 'see' that Yeats is Medieval...

My insipid, humorless loon: I did not say he was Medieval. I say that the idea expressed in the notion of a centre that cannot hold is definitely related to a former — we can call it Medieval but that is a general term — way of understanding man’s internal order in a microcosmic sense. If the centre cannot hold the cause is spiritual disorder.

Your religious conceptions are pre-modern actually and pre-Medieval. And my recent posts are largely about shining a light on you.

[Immanuel Can]

It's one thing for the project of a perfect being not to go quite to plan, but to fail so quickly...

Can you be surprised at the unreliability of mankind? It's all they seem to exhibit, sometimes.

It might count for a great deal from the point of view of the self identifier, and if they are not harming anyone, why would we deprive them of it?

Well, simply because by agreeing to go along with that, you're surrendering your own mental autonomy. It may be that the guy in front of you is wearing a dress; but that doesn't make him a woman. And you know he's not. He demands that you act as if he is, and you have a choice to make. You could go along, and probably catch no flak; but you know full well he's insistiing that you must lie and say that something is true that you certainly know is not true. He's demanding you sell out your integrity. And he's trying to bully you with threats of "transphobia" if you don't cave in.

Really, he has no right to demand that you surrender your own awareness of truth in order to capitulate to his delusions or profligacies. If he has such, he's on his own for that; you're not obligated to join him.

Likewise, if a person self-identifies as anything, then there are criteria that make that a truth you ought to accept, or a delusion you ought to have a right to maintain your own doubts about. And in the case of Christians, Jesus Christ Himself foretold that many false claimants would come, and He declared that all Christians have a responsibility to be discerning about those that are genuine and those that are not, starting with oneself; and He provided the necessary criteria. That's a package of responsibilities every Christian has. One can sell it out in order to be lauded as "inclusive," or at least not persecuted as "discriminatory." But that's a sell-out. We know better.

So one is always entitled to the choice of indulging the false claimants if one wishes; but it's always at the expense of one's own integrity, if one does it.

...what we would prefer makes no difference to what we will get.

Truer words were rarely spoken. I agree.

[Immanuel Can]

And no, I do not 'see' that Yeats is Medieval...

My insipid, humorless loon: I did not say he was Medieval. I say that the idea expressed in the notion of a centre that cannot hold is definitely related to a former — we can call it Medieval but that is a general term — way of understanding man’s internal order in a microcosmic sense. If the centre cannot hold the cause is spiritual disorder.

Ah, I love a person who's skating backward furiously, after he said something foolish, and trying all the while to say it wasn't really foolish at all. It's quite a sight.

[iambiguous]

...since the fall took place almost immediately after the Creation...

Speaking of that...

Adrienne Greene

"Yes, God knew Adam and Eve would sin before he created them. Isaiah quoted a statement from the Lord to show us: “I am God, and there is none like me. I declare from the beginning how it will end and foretell from the start what has not yet happened. I decree that my purpose will stand, and I will fulfill my every plan” (Isaiah 46:9, 10, TPT.) In addition to being omnipotent, God is also omniscient (unlimited knowledge), so he knows everything that pertains to the earth and everyone on it from beginning to end. It’s a head-scratcher, I know. Why would God bother creating Adam and Eve? If he knew how it would all unfold, why would he even create?"

Over and again, the Christian Bible provides us example after example of Divine behavior that can only be accounted for by pointing out over and over again that "God works in mysterious ways".

[attofishpi]

But there is also all of recorded history,

Well, since the fall took place almost immediately after the Creation, that's hardly surprising

It's one thing for the project of a perfect being not to go quite to plan, but to fail so quickly...

I love you Harbal. As if God wouldn't want you back hanging out with your ever so subtle wit!!

Worse case scenario, you might have to be reborn a Welshman.

[Alexis Jacobi]

All you are proposing is a theoretical alternative, with absolutely no evidence to support it.

That’s really not true. He is engaged in a “metaphysical dream of the world “. But so are all men. Life really is a metaphysical journey, the self being the metaphysical vehicle.

(Maybe those crystals are working!).

It is like play-acting. It has much more to do with the inner world than with the outer world though.

In the world absent man the metaphysical visualization does not exist. Man carries it into the game.

Evidence?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, I love a person who's skating backward furiously, after he said something foolish, and trying all the while to say it wasn't really foolish at all. It's quite a sight.

::: deep reverent bow :::

Wait till I perform the quadruple backward flips!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here, between the womb and the tomb, you and I have a chance to make choices of immense significance.

See? I nailed it. The Goy’s Teeth.

All “serious” religions propose the awareness that we are in an enactment of tremendous significance.

[Immanuel Can]

All “serious” religions propose the awareness that we are in an enactment of tremendous significance.

True. And Atheism supposes we're in a giant cosmic accident, which inherently has no significance at all.

So one has to choose. And it will affect a lot about how one lives, depending on which one actually believes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

True. And Atheism supposes we're in a giant cosmic accident, which inherently has no significance at all.

So one has to choose. And it will affect a lot about how one lives, depending on which one actually believes.

That is your own 'supposition' that non-theists are 'supposing we're in a giant cosmic accident'; this reflect your intellectual immaturity.

There are many types of non-theists with their specific beliefs which can be different among different groups.
A rational non-theist believe in the reality of the empirical-based and empirically-possible world that is grounded on rationality and critical thinking with wisdom & morality and therefrom optimize his well being and those of humanity.
This is the TOP-DOWN Approach, i.e. starting with the empirical and go as far as empirical can support reality and possible reality.

Re reality, rational non-theists do not suppose nor speculate [no need to do so] on things that are beyond the empirical-based and empirically-possible world. It is non-productive to do so except in rare occasions for philosophical secular discussions.

On the other hand, theists relied on the BOTTOM-UP Approach to reify [instantiate] the illusory Creator-God as real merely to soothe the very painful inherent cognitive dissonance, i.e. nothing can come from nothing, thus things must come from something, i.e. God.

[Immanuel Can]

That is your own 'supposition' that non-theists are 'supposing we're in a giant cosmic accident';

Not at all. It's what any Atheist is required by his own belief system to believe. I certainly don't want him to do it.

But he has to believe that this universe came into existence by accident...that it came without any purpose...that it was not "intended" by anyone or anything to go to any particular future...that everything is doomed to extinction...and that there are no objective rules in the meanwhile for how one conducts oneself.

If not every Atheist believes this, it's only because not every Atheist is thinking clearly. But their creed demands it of them, if they are to be rational and consistent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is your own 'supposition' that non-theists are 'supposing we're in a giant cosmic accident';

Not at all. It's what any Atheist is required by his own belief system to believe. I certainly don't want him to do it.

But he has to believe that this universe came into existence by accident...that it came without any purpose...that it was not "intended" by anyone or anything to go to any particular future...that everything is doomed to extinction...and that there are no objective rules in the meanwhile for how one conducts oneself.

If not every Atheist believes this, it's only because not every Atheist is thinking clearly. But their creed demands it of them, if they are to be rational and consistent.

Again it is your supposition that "But he has to believe that this universe came into existence by accident..."

*Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation.[1]
The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind,[2] thus Critical Thinking is an acquired skill used to evaluate data. [3]
Richard W. Paul said that the mind of a critical thinker engages the person's intellectual abilities and personality traits.[4]
Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use in effective communication and problem solving, and a commitment to overcome egocentrism and sociocentrism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

It is the default, no rational and critical thinking* non-theists will believe "this universe did not came into existence by accident...that it came with any purpose.."