Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

It addressed your basic problem...what you needed to hear, rather than what you wanted to hear. So I'm good with that.

Of course, the flocks of sheep on these One True Paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are all clamoring to explain that very same thing to him!

[Lacewing]

You can make up your own mind what you think He said.

If we can all make up our own minds based on varying accounts, who are you to conclude and tell us we're wrong?

[iambiguous]

Yep, that pretty much sums it all up in a No God world.

To have lived nobly, to have chosen noble actions when it would have been easier perhaps not to; it seems to me that that man had done more and better than the typical Christian whose reward was promised.

Right. And if you are not sure what actually constitutes "noble actions"?

Uh, start here?

https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

You may not attain immortality and salvation, but you can take comfort in knowing that on this side of the grave, you are a member of the right race and the right gender. And that you embody the right sexual orientation and espouse the right haplessly dogmatic assessment of biological imperatives.

Anyway, it’s not that it is a no-god world, it is that the former picture (of god, of ourselves, of this situation) became inadequate.

Right. And if you are not sure what actually constitutes an adequate picture?

Uh, start here?

https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora



Only -- click -- we can all "exit" ourselves from here. But given the ultimate exit -- death -- IC nails it.

But...

But it is nailed down only to the extent he can, in fact, demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

The part I keep pestering him about while you and others here sustain these didactic philosophical/theoretical assessments of human morality up in the spiritual clouds.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Better: hauled up and carried along by an astoundingly efficient conveyer-system of integrated intellectual skyjacks taking us — well, me anyway — up up toward the elevated regions of absolute-aesthetic truth!

Whew! What a ride!

[iambiguous]

Better: hauled up and carried along by an astoundingly efficient conveyer-system of integrated intellectual skyjacks taking us — well, me anyway — up up toward the elevated regions of absolute-aesthetic truth!

Whew! What a ride!

It would not surprise me in the least if he actually believes this post adequately addresses my point above.

On the other hand, thank God [if there is one] for small favors? Better that than one of those insufferably ponderous "wall of words" that he dumps on us over and again.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean that moral responsibility starts with you and me. We can worry about many ethical speculations about other people and entities.../... where are all the babies who never reached the age of decision...all very engaging to think about, but maybe not with answers you and I are due to be given.

So you don't think it's important to challenge and assess that which you choose to believe and follow...

I don't think you can show me from the above anywhere I said anything even remotely close to that, so you're going to have to find somebody else to defend that premise.

I don't imagine the secular world, which aborts babies at a rate of millions per year, can much concern themselves with the welfare of babies, though.

You think that secularists don't care about the welfare of babies?

That depends: are these secularists aborting them? Then I don't any longer they have any sincerity of concern for babies, for children, or for anybody but themselves. That much must surely be evident from their actions.

Surely you can conceive that women of all belief systems have aborted babies throughout human history.

Proof, please.

But I can say that abortion is an anti-Christian action.
Something immoral does not become moral when somebody who makes a claim to being moral does it. It remains immoral.

Making a claim that something is immoral is not the proof that it is immoral.

Nor that it's moral. But I didn't say a "claim" makes anything so, so again, you're going to have to go find the person who did, and ask them to defend that.

If (as you say) we are not in charge of anybody else, then Christianity has way overstepped... wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't say so. To agree with God isn't "overstepping," though disagreeing with Him would surely be.

Shouldn't God and each individual have their own relationship...

Yes.

...and understandings about what is appropriate for each person and circumstance, all things considered?

It depends what you mean by that.

What God has given us as information for all times, places and people doesn't change, of course. His word is His word. But the working out of response to that in a particular life is, of course, a little different in application for each person, because each person's life circumstances are a little different. But the variations of circumstance won't make good into evil, or evil into good. It won't make lying into truth, or stealing into rightful ownership; and it won't make baby-murder into not-murder.

Moral values stay as they are. What's to be discovered by us is only exactly how to acknowledge those in our personal lives.

[Immanuel Can]

You can make up your own mind what you think He said.

If we can all make up our own minds based on varying accounts, who are you to conclude and tell us we're wrong?

I don't have to tell you. You can read it yourself. It's very plain.

[attofishpi]

I don't imagine the secular world, which aborts babies at a rate of millions per year, can much concern themselves with the welfare of babies, though.

That depends: are these secularists aborting them? Then I don't any longer they have any sincerity of concern for babies, for children, or for anybody but themselves. That much must surely be evident from their actions.

Surely you can conceive that women of all belief systems have aborted babies throughout human history.

Proof, please.

Er, my Christian girlfriend for one. Plus many nuns that were raped my priests.

[Lacewing]

So you don't think it's important to challenge and assess that which you choose to believe and follow... and you are content to believe that there are 'answers you are not due' and for anything else, you 'must wait to discover'?

I don't think you can show me from the above anywhere I said anything even remotely close to that

You left off the second half of my sentence (I've re-added it above in blue) which provided the context. Why do you do that? If you are content to think that there are 'answers you are not due', you might feel no need to challenge and assess that which you choose to believe and follow. Is that not a perfect mental framework for believers who want to accept and follow anything?

I don't imagine the secular world, which aborts babies at a rate of millions per year, can much concern themselves with the welfare of babies, though.

Surely you can conceive that women of all belief systems have aborted babies throughout human history.

Proof, please.

Oh, so you cannot conceive of it! Yet you can conceive of an invisible God: proof, please.

But I can say that abortion is an anti-Christian action.

Proof, please.

If (as you say) we are not in charge of anybody else, then Christianity has way overstepped... wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't say so. To agree with God isn't "overstepping

Please provide proof of agreement with God.

Shouldn't God and each individual have their own relationship and understandings about what is appropriate for each person and circumstance, all things considered?

Yes. It depends what you mean by that.

Why would that personal relationship be anyone else's business? Why would it be subject to any Christian's judgments about whether it's authentic or not?

What God has given us as information for all times, places and people doesn't change, of course.

And that's coming from the Bible which contains varying interpretations, inconsistent statements, and missing information? I've started a topic 'Bible logic' to discuss such things, along with the Bible references. Perhaps you can add your perspective there.

Moral values stay as they are.

Do you have a source for your moral values other than the Bible?

[Lacewing]

You can make up your own mind what you think He said.

If we can all make up our own minds based on varying accounts, who are you to conclude and tell us we're wrong?

I don't have to tell you. You can read it yourself. It's very plain.

If it's so plain, why do Bible scholars still debate it?

And why do you tell anyone that their interpretation is wrong?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Better that than one of those insufferably ponderous "wall of words" that he dumps on us over and again.

Best to see them as verbal monuments descended from beneficent cloud-realms of goodness.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What God has given us as information for all times, places and people doesn't change, of course. His word is His word.

The Rishis of the Indian subcontinent had a similar concept but many thousands of years ago. The Vedas (mystic doctrines and word vibrations) descended from a realm outside of the manifest world. Those words are vibratory signs and revelations from an eternal world, a world of being that descends into our world by the grace of Vishnu, the god who saves souls caught in the mires of the material entanglement.

The Hebrew ideas are likely rip-offs (cultural appropriations) or embellishments of ideas and concepts of this sort.

[iambiguous]

Better that than one of those insufferably ponderous "wall of words" that he dumps on us over and again.

Best to see them as verbal monuments descended from beneficent cloud-realms of goodness.

Again, what does any of that have to do with this:

Yep, that pretty much sums it all up in a No God world.

To have lived nobly, to have chosen noble actions when it would have been easier perhaps not to; it seems to me that that man had done more and better than the typical Christian whose reward was promised.

Right. And if you are not sure what actually constitutes "noble actions"?

Uh, start here?

https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

You may not attain immortality and salvation, but you can take comfort in knowing that on this side of the grave, you are a member of the right race and the right gender. And that you embody the right sexual orientation and espouse the right haplessly dogmatic assessment of biological imperatives.

Anyway, it’s not that it is a no-god world, it is that the former picture (of god, of ourselves, of this situation) became inadequate.

Right. And if you are not sure what actually constitutes an adequate picture?

Uh, start here?

https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora



Only -- click -- we can all "exit" ourselves from here. But given the ultimate exit -- death -- IC nails it.

But...

But it is nailed down only to the extent he can, in fact, demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

The part I keep pestering him about while you and others here sustain these didactic philosophical/theoretical assessments of human morality up in the spiritual clouds.

[Gary Childress]

I think you should ask the Judge. He talked about such things a great deal. (John 3:36, for example. Or Mark 1:15, Mark 9:42, Matthew 13:41-43, John 3:16...) You can make up your own mind what you think He said.

No thanks.

[attofishpi]

So you don't think it's important to challenge and assess that which you choose to believe and follow... and you are content to believe that there are 'answers you are not due' and for anything else, you 'must wait to discover'?

I don't think you can show me from the above anywhere I said anything even remotely close to that

You left off the second half of my sentence (I've re-added it above in blue) which provided the context. Why do you do that?

That's one of the reasons I don't consider him much by way of a Christian, it's cowardly borderline dishonest. No point asking why, he'll tell you it wasn't relevant to the conversation (from his POV in attempting to show he has the upper hand and distort the debate to his favour).

If anyone has actually attempted an intellectual debate with him, they would understand how sly he operates.