Several questions concerning the fall and evil

[MAGSolo]

Ill start another thread for it.

[MAGSolo]

jlay Id like to draw your attention back to the post I made on page 11. There was one specific point I made that I asked you to respond to and you either missed it or purposely chose to ignore it but Ill point it out for you and Id really like to hear what you have to say about it. It seems you did precisely what I predicted you would but I guess there is always the possibility you were in a rush and simply didnt have time to read the entire post. Anyone else feel free to chime in if you want.

So, perhaps we are all deluded into believing there is a God, and that right and wrong objectivley matter. But in your world, this doesn't matter either, since nothing is inherently right or wrong. Yet, here you are saying it does. Does that seem reasonable to you??
I agree that this is a bit of an issue. The problem is that I dont think the Bible or God are good barometers of what is objectively right or wrong, good and evil. There are numerous things in the bible that God decreed that I dont think are good or right, so I think there is an issue with using God as the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. Remember the story of Uzzah in 2 Samuel; how God commanded that no one touch the ark, and as the men were traveling the ox started to cause the ark to tip over and Uzzah reached out his hand to steady it and God became angry and struck him dead on the spot? No malicious intent at all, just seeking to prevent the ark from falling over but because God commanded it not to be touched and he touched it, he struck him dead instantly. I wonder how God expected them to get the ark back up without touching it if it had tipped over. Now I imagine you will gloss over this, claim thats not what the text meant or bow out outright as Neo did when I showed him the numerous passages of God commanding that children be killed. But let me be clear that I think this clearly shows that neither the bible or God are good objective measuring sticks for what is good and what is not. If you you dont answer anything else in this post I would like to see your response to this specific thing.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

The answer to your question about Uzzah is simple: in Numbers 4:4-5-6, God gave clear instructions on how the Ark was to be moved. Further information on the proper moving of the Ark can be found in Num 7:9 which explicitly says that the holy things are to be carried on the shoulders of the priests of the Kohathite tribe. David must have known of this because he had sufficient priests around him to remind him. Unfortunately, David deliberately chose to ignore God's instructions and went with the method used by the uncircumcized Phillistines: a new cart. Thus David's exuberance caused him to sin against God, and Uzzah was just as guilty because as a member of the Kohathite tribe he would have known that one must never touch the Ark. (Num 4:15)

Uzzah sinned gravely, and paid with his life. Now you know.

FL

[B. W.]

Here you go again muddying the waters. This is not about what I believe. How can you bear witness without providing an argument for why the bible has any authority? I would think anyones first question when being told about Jesus or God should be, "why should that book mean anything special to me?" But to answer your question, I feel that way because nobody has presented a compelling argument, nobody has presented any evidence for why I should feel otherwise. Do you think that belief in spectacular claims should be the default position? Do you believe the Book of Mormon is a sacred and divine text because Mormons claim it is? Would you require evidence for such a claim or just believe it because they claimed it to be so? I dont understand why you needlessly complicate these things. Is it so hard to just admit that you dont have a compelling argument for why the bible has any authority. Obviously if you had one you would have given it by now, so why cant you just say you dont have one?

Yes it matter what you believe so please you stop muddying the waters - you don't believe is what you believe…

We do have compelling evidence… Bible prophecy is pretty clear and plain regarding Isaiah 11:11, 12. The Jewish people returned to their homeland twice so far. You can deny it, but the facts are the facts. Who lives in Israel now, and next, why do these ancient people still exist as a people when the other ancient nations do not exist as the same people?

Nothing will convince you the Holy Bible is inspired by God as you are dead set in your belief system and are closed minded. The issue is your belief system, not ours, it is yours.

Pretty much like demanding a historian to prove that Julius Caesar existed but denying the historian the use of any documents from history to prove Caesar did live.

Like I said before, please purchase Lee Strobel’s book, Case for Faith as it address your question. Also it is you who need to stay on topic.

If you are one person or several using the same name on this account, we’ll check on this, as we can trace the IP addresses. You sound like several people using the same account in an attempt to barrage the forum as it is difficult to believe that you can stay up 24/7 and respond as fast as you do as soon as you do at all times of day and night. If you are several people using this account, please be brave enough to enter individually.

If you are really one sincere person, then let the bible defend itself, be opened minded enough to actually reason, not dictate, to us your terms. You may accuse Christians of forcing there views upon others – but look in the mirror.

It is your belief system on trial here – you prove that the bible was not inspired by God….

Next, your topic concerned the existence of evil, the bible addresses this, but your dogmatic belief system(s) can’t allow the use of the bible to even answer this.

If you are several people using one account, we will ban your account and kindly ask you all to enter individually and continue posting. We do have Forum Guidelines/rules that we do enforce.
-
-
-

[MAGSolo]

im actually not dead set in my belief system at all.

[neo-x]

You made an initial attempt and then when I addressed every last one of your attempts and you saw he could no longer defend your position, you backed out of the discussion

I disagree, an argument is not a one way road. If I am to account for my logic then you are to account for yours. If I see a problem, I stop and try to solve it out in the beginning, lest it gets in the way when we go on a higher plane of logic. Your only problem is that I called a spade, a spade. I'm going to breakdown one point as may be it was too thick for you.

Red is you
Blue is me
i.e

It could be any number of factors. Environment one was raised in, mental health, overall health, education, any number of factors could come into to play in determining why some people are good and some are not.

So good or bad are simply results of factors and actions and are not grounded realities. You see, this is the exact reason why I do not find subjective morals very impressing. Because in the end they boil down to your own preferences. And at the end of the day what you think about animals and humans and how their actions are equal to be carried out in a comparison as to draw results, is just your opinion, nothing more.
Okay. I dont really get what your point is?

The point is simple, subjectivity can not account for goodness or evil, right or wrong and consequently your opinion is flawed because it is presuming on subjective factors. By nature subjective factors have the tendency to be different on a case to case basis. Therefore to base an argument on this and then ask for an objective answer (which you are doing), is futile. Its a moving goal post argument.

lets assume

A kills B, because A observes B in doing something which A regards as evil.
B is killed but according to B, the attack was totally uncalled for, B was only doing what he thought was right.

The problem is obvious enough, A and B have different definitions of the word "right" and "evil".

Can this problem be solved with a subjective perspective, No. Because logically, A is entitled to his opinion and he therefore is deciding force to declare his own doing, right or evil. As is B is entitled to his opinion about right or wrong.

But A and B can not both be right at the same time. This violates the first rule of Logic, two opposite things can not be true at the same time. Because if both are right at the same time, then you have to concede that goodness and evil are mere perspectives at best. That is precisely why I mentioned Hitler. If he believed he was in the right, that his actions were good, then how can we contest him in a subjective worldview? More so how do we prove that he is wrong in his mind. That his actions are not good but truly evil. By subjectivity we can not; we are trying to force an objectivity in the situation "Murdering is always wrong", if murder is only wrong at a certain situation and not others than we will have to admit that there is indeed a situation when murder is right too. And the problem kicks in again, "right" and "wrong", in a subjective worldview are arbitrary factors, this means that any person can subjectively decide if murder is indeed right for him to commit or not - that is if murder fits his criteria of "right" than we can not say he was wrong.

Only if there is a standard outside of the nature of A and B (or outside of mankind's nature), is when we can truly say that murder is wrong. As I said before if our right and wrong are simply the product of our nature than we are left with subjectivity and nothing else. In that same scenario if you do not believe that Objectivity exists outside of our nature than you have forced yourself into the corner, if now you say that Murder is always wrong than it is plain illogical. Murder is always wrong, according to you. Someone may not share your opinion. In a subjective worldview, you cannot say he is wrong and you are right, because your claim has its roots in the same human nature and understanding as his.

But the absurdity of the argument comes up when you say God allows evil....okay...if its a subjective world view is what you conform too, then I might very well
say that since its subjective, your view of evil is different than God's and so what you think as evil, is considered good by God. By logic you can not contest this because you have already denied that objectivity exists in God. So God is only doing good because to him that is his nature and is to him, therefore good. You think its not good but in a subjective world view, good and bad are not universal, they are perspectives as they rely on the subjective self as to how it perceives these terms.

Consequently, you can not deny objectivity, affirm subjectivity then introduce an objective statement, ask for an objective answer and cry foul on a subjective basis. The argument is flawed to begin with. I backed out for a good reason. Continuing down the road with these arguments with out ironing out the problems is a waste of time.

[PaulSacramento]

So would you like to detail anything particularly notable that led you to believe the Bible had authority ordained by God?

Sure, but of course it is a personal opinion and, as with all personal opinions, your mileage may vary.
I saw in the bible, compared to the other books about "god and gods" of the ancient world, what was far more correct in regards to how the universe came to be, how the world was and the best possible way to make it better.
I found TRUTH in the bible, what I did not find BUT wanted to find, in other religious writings.
Now, you say "authority ordained by God", but I do NOT see the bible that way.
I see the bible as revealing to Us God's word in human words so that we can begin to understand a bit about God and Us.
The bible is only PART of how God reveals Himself to us - the other being the universe and via the HS.

[neo-x]

Mag, let again illustrate what I am saying

I said I would kill everyone who sought to do harm to another human. Under no circumstances would I ever kill a child. I dont have a problem at all with Israel going to war with its enemies and killing enemy combatants and even people caught in the act of doing terrible things. I do not think indiscriminately killing every man woman and child, just because they belong to a nation you are at war with is justified.

What if the child was a murderer? In African nations an 8 year old kid carries a AK-47, not only to protect but to use it as a weapon when they attack some other tribe. Or lets say that the child was Graham Young http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... index.html or the Ten year old Mary bell http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... dex_1.html.

If they were killed at their first murder, would not that save many more lives? would you agree?

Actually the Biblical writings show that their women were also part of those rituals of human sacrifices and child burnings etc etc, then even tried to seduce the Israel men at one point in time as to convert them to their savage practices. Speaking as a theist, God finally decided that he had given these nations too much time (400 years) to correct themselves and therefore he announced his judgment.

Okay now we come to the children's part, it seems very harsh, but I have come at a conclusion that perhaps it was the only way to end the corruption present in that land. Some times children are indoctrinated at a very young age. I mean look at Pakistan, a lot of fundamental Islam is present here. When I was in school, our text books had lines that would make you think what in the world are we coming too. In first grade these lines was actually taught

"No Christian or Jew can ever be a friend of Muslims."

"Christians and Jews are cursed offspring of pigs and monkeys."


Tell me, what do you think a Muslim child in first grade is going to do about it when he grows up? This is a level of degradation which is appalling.

I have come to conclude that the nations God commanded to kill were so fallen (and had not corrected themselves in 400 years) that God wanted them finished and no one remaining to carry on their hideous cannibalistic and human sacrificing rituals. I also think that physical death is best a temporary thing. We do know that new born babies who die go to heaven, they are indeed not corrupted by the world. Because if they had grown up in the wicked environment that existed in Canaan, then they themselves would most likely have done evil as well, and as a result be lost eternally.

Though I would strongly say that even though God commanded it, Israel never fully carried out this. Also, there only a but a handful of these cases, very rare IMO. I think these were unique cases. For Instance take the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He will destroy the righteous along with the wicked? God went along with him even as far as to say that if he finds 10 good people in there, God will spare the entire towns. So I do think it matters to God, I do not think that God rejoices when a sinner dies. I think God is deeply troubled at our corruption, because in the larger scope he loves us.

I also think you have misread me when I said humanity deserved a second chance, I was pointing to Christ's atonement and his grace through him Man has a chance to redemption and finally recover from the fallen state.

Just to clarify, by a social standard I do think that sometimes, killing is justified, as in the case of Hitler, if he was to be killed in 1942, a lot if it had not even happened. I also believe that as Christians we should not kill, not even Hitler, and even if we do, I am sure it is still killing, no less a sin. And we all sin, so I think we should leave judgement to God. What will become of Hitler? he will be answerable to God, I think if he deserves due punishment then he will be punished eternally for his sins. This is a separate topic but kind of off-shoots here, anyway no need to go in this at the moment.

Going back, I would just like to point out that in a subjective world view, it is impossible to claim truly good and evil notions. In this case, your view of justified killing again, is in question here. Objectivity does not exist in human society and nature. Without God we are left with subjectivity alone, so how do you think you can call someones else action as false when you can not even account for your own, which is indeed not very different than the person you are blaming. You are both appealing to your sense and interpretation of what is right and wrong, that I pointed out earlier, fails on logical grounds. This is the problem you have yet to explain, you haven't done it since I asked you this question and even pointed out these problems in the very first posts I made to you. Your turn!

Why I did not write, what I am writing now, because I think these kind of explanations can not afford to be vague, not to mention that the faulty logic you employed did not even merit the answer until it was corrected.

A lot of what you have written begs questions, which should be first clarified. Your ignorance of these problems is precisely why I said "You are incompetent to back up your arguments", I did not meant it as an insult, simply a fact, because I do not think you have thought this through. If you had, you certainly failed to express it.

P.S EDIT* : Lol...I still do not know why I wrote all the above, I guess I am giving you a benefit of doubt again. In humbleness I ask that if you really wanna understand, keep an open mind and study both sides of the argument before you ram your head into the matter without thinking, and jumping from point to point, not explaining questions made to you etc. The issues you are bringing here have been dealt a good many times by great minds in the past and the present. Do not just assume, we are stupid (since we believe in an invisible guy), that you got a silver bullet to knock down theology, we understand the problem and I do believe it is only an apparent problem. Rather than asking poor questions out of ignorance, do some homework if you wanna know more. Classical theism has a lot to offer in this regard, if only you would want to learn.

[B. W.]

So would you like to detail anything particularly notable that led you to believe the Bible had authority ordained by God?

Sure, but of course it is a personal opinion and, as with all personal opinions, your mileage may vary
.
I saw in the bible, compared to the other books about "god and gods" of the ancient world, what was far more correct in regards to how the universe came to be, how the world was and the best possible way to make it better.

I found TRUTH in the bible, what I did not find BUT wanted to find, in other religious writings.
Now, you say "authority ordained by God", but I do NOT see the bible that way.

I see the bible as revealing to Us God's word in human words so that we can begin to understand a bit about God and Us
.
The bible is only PART of how God reveals Himself to us - the other being the universe and via the HS.

Okay MAGSolo you appear to be the only poster using your account. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Please stay on one topic at a time as that would be very helpful for others and very beneficial to you. Please note, that just bombarding, tossing grenades of various topic, is not a very educated or reasonable approach to use. Such usage is usually designed by the tosser seeks to avoid truth while claiming it is seeking truth while having no intent at finding truth but rather sole purpose is to destroy and convert people to the atheist hair dryer model.

What both Paul and Neo wrote to you pretty much says what the views of many posting here are.

Many of us arrived at the same conclusions differently but all of our personal searches boiled down to truth. There is truth in the bible claims, prophecy, archeology findings, and use of logical reasoning. It is a book, as Paul pointed out - the bible as revealing to Us God's word in human words so that we can begin to understand a bit about God and Us.

No other religious text does that - reveals the truth about ourselves, in fact ancient text of the same period avoided mentioning the failures and family problems of its leaders as well fail to accurately represent human condition.

Mormonism fails to do this with its founder, Joseph Smith, killed by fellow Mormons over a Mormon newspaper article exposing him as a fraud and what amounts today, a pedophile preying on young teen girls. The book of Mormon also fails in archeology findings, logic, and constant illogical statements. So does the Koran.

So does Buddhism which historically borrowed from King Solomon’s writings and other wisdom writings of its age. You could say plagiarized ancient wisdom text make up Buddhism. Also the various forms of Buddhism cannot find truth or even define what truth is. Shinto systems of ancestor worship, etc, also fail on the merits of truth.

All these systems rely on human self works to attain favor or avoid consequences. Very much as your belief system does. Rely on you efforts to avoid consequences the bible speaks about and exalt a human win over God.

The issue comes down to this – what you believe about Jesus Christ, not on an intellectual level alone, but him as a living person ready to help you and does help you. Many of us writing here, have found this in the work of Christ and his inner indwelling. This inner indwelling often reveals our human condition, corrects it, heals it, and we move on. The bible and the Holy Spirit bears witness to truth about ourselves and who God is.

You wrote somewhere to the effect that the bible was written by uneducated ancient shepherds and thus cannot be true: That is a very uneducated assumption.

The bible reveals the human condition and God’s reaction to it and the means he offered forgiveness for its rebellious attitude. I spoke of dual forgiveness as the absolute form of forgiveness because one party offers and the other accepts or freely rejects the offer. There is partial forgiveness which one forgives but the other party does not accept. This partial forgiveness only works in some cases but remains partial in nature as it does not bring about reconciliation. Dual forgiveness brings about reconciliation. The other cannot.

Jesus Christ was about just reconciliation… not partial forgiveness.

I often find that such people as yourself really do not understand who Jesus is, what he did upon the cross, and for you through the Resurrection. If you think you do, then tell us what you know…
-
-
-

[jlay]

jlay Id like to draw your attention back to the post I made on page 11. There was one specific point I made that I asked you to respond to and you either missed it or purposely chose to ignore it but Ill point it out for you and Id really like to hear what you have to say about it. It seems you did precisely what I predicted you would but I guess there is always the possibility you were in a rush and simply didnt have time to read the entire post. Anyone else feel free to chime in if you want.

So, perhaps we are all deluded into believing there is a God, and that right and wrong objectivley matter. But in your world, this doesn't matter either, since nothing is inherently right or wrong. Yet, here you are saying it does. Does that seem reasonable to you??
I agree that this is a bit of an issue. The problem is that I dont think the Bible or God are good barometers of what is objectively right or wrong, good and evil. There are numerous things in the bible that God decreed that I dont think are good or right, so I think there is an issue with using God as the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. Remember the story of Uzzah in 2 Samuel; how God commanded that no one touch the ark, and as the men were traveling the ox started to cause the ark to tip over and Uzzah reached out his hand to steady it and God became angry and struck him dead on the spot? No malicious intent at all, just seeking to prevent the ark from falling over but because God commanded it not to be touched and he touched it, he struck him dead instantly. I wonder how God expected them to get the ark back up without touching it if it had tipped over. Now I imagine you will gloss over this, claim thats not what the text meant or bow out outright as Neo did when I showed him the numerous passages of God commanding that children be killed. But let me be clear that I think this clearly shows that neither the bible or God are good objective measuring sticks for what is good and what is not. If you you dont answer anything else in this post I would like to see your response to this specific thing.

Yes, I missed this. However, we'vre really already covered this. You keep saying things like "I don't think the bible is a GOOD barometer...." That is just a statement, not an argument. Unless you think that you are the standard. Otherwise I would say, 'good compared to.....??' You see, you continue to smuggle in objective morality. OK, account for it. For morality to be objective, can man be its source? No. So either morality is objective and there is a moral law giver. Or, morality isn't objective, yet for some reason you live like it is. Since you keep envoking a standard by which you judge the god of the bible. If it is good according to you, then I say, "so what?" If it is a group of people, again, "so what?" Why is one groups opinion "better" than another? So far, all you've said is you don't like God. Well, I don't like president Obama, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

-The issue with Uzzah has already been covered. Now, I admit, it is hard thing for us to understand. But let me give you an example. Would you consider prison a just punishment for refusing to make your bed? You would say, no. But what if the context was that you were a private in the military, and you were refusing to obey a direct order from a superior? Prison is a just punishment in this context given the insubordination. Now, an Ark may mean nothing to you, but, unless you are the standard of good, you've yet to offer anything to show this as an example that God isn't good. It may be of no concern to you if a soldier refuses to make his bed. But, there is a higher standard in the military and by gollly, it matters to them. You might not agree. You might even be offended. But your failure to understand the military standard doesn't invalidate it as right.

Also, we must acknowledge the context of the writing. It isn't as if God saw Uzzah do this, then became upset, and then struck him down. (that is not in the text) Uzzah was dead the moment he touched the Ark. Just as if I touched a high voltage power line, my fate is sealed. You might even say electricities anger struck me dead. I violated a boundary and zap. It's like staring into the sun. The sun, by its nature is a massive, raging ball of fire. If I stare into it, it will strike me blind, it's raging power burning against me. The sun was simply being what it is. My actions, whether intentional or not, have a consequence.

[Beanybag]

You see, you continue to smuggle in objective morality. OK, account for it. For morality to be objective, can man be its source? No. So either morality is objective and there is a moral law giver. Or, morality isn't objective, yet for some reason you live like it is. Since you keep envoking a standard by which you judge the god of the bible.

This doesn't sound like a good understanding of morality.. A moral law giver creates subjective morals (the morals are subject to that being) - but the subjective morals are highly authoritative to the point that you can say they are objective. This doesn't make them objective though, since (by what I assume your answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is) they are subject to a being. He might be the wisest, most perfectly good being, in which case there'd be good reason to think his morality is the best morality, but it is still subjective necessarily. Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man. Morals have an inherently subjective presence (they require subjects or subjective beings) but can still be addressed in an objective way (much like psychology can still be objective despite necessary subjective restrictions like whether or not someone feels pain).

[PaulSacramento]

There is something we also need to grasp and it WILL probably come off as a bit, well...harsh and to some, perhaps they won't be able to grasp it.
Death is, to God, somewhat "irrelevant".
Hear me out.
Death is a state of existence OUTSIDE OUR plane but NOT God's.
The death of a person is simply a physical death and that doesn't mean for God what i t means for Us with our very limited understanding of what happens after death.
None of this takes away what WE FEEL about death, But to judge God in regards to the "physical state of death" that God KNOWS to be different than us, well...that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
BUT as humans, with our finite ability to comprehend death, it is understandable.

[jlay]

This doesn't sound like a good understanding of morality.. A moral law giver creates subjective morals (the morals are subject to that being) - but the subjective morals are highly authoritative to the point that you can say they are objective. This doesn't make them objective though, since (by what I assume your answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is) they are subject to a being. He might be the wisest, most perfectly good being, in which case there'd be good reason to think his morality is the best morality, but it is still subjective necessarily. Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man. Morals have an inherently subjective presence (they require subjects or subjective beings) but can still be addressed in an objective way (much like psychology can still be objective despite necessary subjective restrictions like whether or not someone feels pain).

Beany, that is because we have a fundemental different view of morality. I would not say objective morality is from a law giver 'creating' morals. I would say God is omni-benelvolent. Not that this is a trait god simply has, but that His being and his goodness are one and the same.
Jac has already covered a lot of this turf in another concurrent thread. Yes, humans do create rules that are subjective. Such as the military example I used. (It isn't inherently evil for one not to make their bed.) My point isn't that all things between god and the military are analogous. Such are analogies. The point was that our failure to understand a standard doesn't negate the standard.

Further, it is hillarious, as well as self-defeating that you started your statement, "this doesn't sound like a GOOD understanding of morality." You just lit the fuse that blows up your entire statement. Well done.

Morals have an inherently subjective presence

Hmmm? Is that objectively true?

Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man

We are waiting.........

[Beanybag]

This doesn't sound like a good understanding of morality.. A moral law giver creates subjective morals (the morals are subject to that being) - but the subjective morals are highly authoritative to the point that you can say they are objective. This doesn't make them objective though, since (by what I assume your answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is) they are subject to a being. He might be the wisest, most perfectly good being, in which case there'd be good reason to think his morality is the best morality, but it is still subjective necessarily. Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man. Morals have an inherently subjective presence (they require subjects or subjective beings) but can still be addressed in an objective way (much like psychology can still be objective despite necessary subjective restrictions like whether or not someone feels pain).

Beany, that is because we have a fundemental different view of morality. I would not say objective morality is from a law giver 'creating' morals. I would say God is omni-benelvolent. Not that this is a trait god simply has, but that His being and his goodness are one and the same.
Jac has already covered a lot of this turf in another concurrent thread. Yes, humans do create rules that are subjective. Such as the military example I used. (It isn't inherently evil for one not to make their bed.) My point isn't that all things between god and the military are analogous. Such are analogies. The point was that our failure to understand a standard doesn't negate the standard.

I've not found a satisfying answer to the Euthyphro's dilemma, however. Either God is subject to morals or they are subject to him. This cannot be escaped by saying that God IS morality because then God could not be more than morality. If morality is a part of God or part of his nature, then that is an aspect of God that would either be subject to him or he would be subject to. You can't get around this without putting God outside of logic but then God can exist and not exist since he would no longer be subject to the law of non-contradiction.

It's arguments like these that I feel are too difficult to hash out - even if there is an answer, it would seem that people don't know it. I'm not one to stand on faith, so unless I can fully understand these facets, I can't accept them. It may very well be that morals are objective and God made them, but if it's outside of my understanding, then I don't know how to believe it.

Further, it is hillarious, as well as self-defeating that you started your statement, "this doesn't sound like a GOOD understanding of morality." You just lit the fuse that blows up your entire statement. Well done.

No, it's funny that you were able to misunderstand what I meant by good - our language does pack a lot of meaning into the word, so it's an understandable misunderstanding (oxymoron, but true). I was simply making a qualitative judgment about your moral understanding, not a moral judgment. Likewise, I could say that you did not have a good understanding of my meaning, which is not a moral judgment but a qualitative one.

Morals have an inherently subjective presence

Hmmm? Is that objectively true?

I'd say so. I'll demonstrate it through a propositional argument.

1) Humans are subjective beings
2) Subjective beings necessarily introduce a subjective element
3) Morals deal with subjective beings
4) Therefore morals deal with a subjective element

This doesn't make them subjective, necessarily, but does introduce a subjective element that can mislead people to think they are entirely subjective. It also muddles the binary distinction of subjective/objective into a gradient.

Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man

We are waiting.........

I'm not willing to accept this burden of proof and am willing to let this be an open-ended question. If you would like to prove the negative, I'm willing to listen.

[jlay]

I've not found a satisfying answer to the Euthyphro's dilemma, however. Either God is subject to morals or they are subject to him. This cannot be escaped by saying that God IS morality because then God could not be more than morality. If morality is a part of God or part of his nature, then that is an aspect of God that would either be subject to him or he would be subject to. You can't get around this without putting God outside of logic but then God can exist and not exist since he would no longer be subject to the law of non-contradiction.

Perhaps you understand your presumptions, but you seem to have ignored what was just said. You restate the flawed premise. "If morality is a PART of God."
As if God is composed of parts and that morality is just one of those. The dilemma is a false one. An either, or. How about neither. Maybe Jac can visit as he has a much better way of explaining the philosophy. In fact you might want to peruse his recent thread addressing Platonism. Eurypthro is rooted in Platonism, and many of us here reject it. It appears you would have good reason to as well.