Morality Without God?

[PaulSacramento]

It is very dangerous to believe that morals are subjective, simply because of what it will inevitably lead to.
Of course there is no reason to believe in an "absolute (good) moral", unless of course you do believe in "good and bad" or "good and evil".
Laws were created to enforce a "moral good", so where did that moral good come from?
History shows that religious teachings of morals as as old as civilization, religion and civilization have gone hand-in-hand since the dawn of civilization ( it can be argued what preceeded what of course) and it seems to be that Laws came from the morals given, typically, by religion.
Granted that not every religion proclaims a "absolute moral good", BUT they do tend to make morals and ethics based on that there IS a Good to which bad is compared to.
IT is very easy to say that morals are subjective but of course to say that we must compare the morals of A to those of B and then conclude, based on what WE believe is good, that A or B has subjective morals because they do NOT agree with ours or that of the other party.
Of course to do that, to claim that moral are subjective, we have to base that on some objective or absolute moral ( good).
If not, what are we basing our view that someone else's moral is "wrong" or :"incorrect" and hence, subjective?

What I mean is , if I believe stealing is wrong and Tom does it, I think his morals are subjective but that would only be true IF stealing was wrong and if I don't have a standard that trancends my view of what is right and wrong, then I don't really have the right to call his morals , or anyone elses, subjective.

[B. W.]

[...You completely avoided my question, just like the article you linked to did. Talking about voluntary servitude has nothing to do with what the verses I quoted from Lev.25:44-45, nor does the Bible ever speak of perpetual voluntary servitude. That is the issue, please address it...

Both articles (Rick Deem, Glen Miller) go on, and on about slavery versus servitude making up loads of material along the way, without ever really addressing the main issue of owning people and keeping them and their children in perpetual servitude. Owning another human being is a violation of their human rights, and immoral...God allowed for such behavior in the Bible, which makes him morally corrupt and invalidates him as a true god.

The amount of time it took you to write your post avoiding my question, would have been sufficient time to copy and paste the appropriate part of Rick Deems article, so that's no excuse.

Are you in servitude to the Golden Rule derived by men? What’s the difference?

Also, Slavery in the USA was done away with by 1865 due to Christian Abolitionist and a great Civil War. According to the dictates of the Golden Rule of man, it was okay to use salves and justified. Muslims still justify slavery today. Christians do not. There is something called the year of Jubilee…but that escapes you.

The Civil War has been over since 1865, so please get over it. Since Slavery was an issue in bible times and it was a norm created by man dated from the time of Nimrod, God dealt with what man created on legal terms. Slavery was common practice in pagan Rome in New Testament times. Next, if you note, after the first century AD, Slavery decreased during the next 1900 years thereabout. Why - Due to Christian influence.

What escapes you when you read the bible is how God deals with the issues of man – sin, all in a manner that escapes your ability to reason clearly. Therefore, are you in servitude to any Golden Rule derived by men?

...First off in this thread I have never "claimed" to live by the Golden Rule, even though in my life I do try to practice its principles. The whole point of my conversation in this thread is to show that principles like the Golden Rule, do not need a moral law giver in order to exist.

Secondly, where have I misrepresented your beliefs? I don't even know you. My statement about people who try and impose their religious doctrines on others, refers to people I have known, or read of, so if the shoe DOESN'T fit DON'T wear it.

I respect your belief that objective morals come from God, otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation.

If you only try to live by the Golden Rule, then your whole argument crumbles and you have no authority to claim that such principles like the Golden Rule was derived from human construct alone. After all, none can live by it - not even you.

Let me try to explain it to you simply: The Golden Rule – no person can live to that standard, not even you. All have missed it and fallen short of the Glory of God and need someone outside themselves to save them from such warped twisted self love that uses the Golden Rule to set a standard none can live by.

In this, The Golden Rule does what it is supposed to – expose sin in the human heart. Awakens us to what defines sin as sin and how far we all have fallen from God's objective Golden Rule. The Golden Rule was posed to humanity as our tutor in order to bring us to Christ Jesus who set's us free from selfish love and self hate and slavery to human whims.

...My posts do not contain my definition of morality, but rather I am giving my ideas of how morality could have risen in the thought process of self-conscious humans. What I am saying is that it is wrong to impose your religious dogmas on others.

Are you not imposing your dogma of the Golden Rule on others, the same you claim you don’t live by and then impose your view that the Golden Rule come from human origin on others?

How could that be when the History of Humanity shows it cannot and will not follow any sort of Golden Rule? You, yourself claim to only try to live by….(what do you mean by - you try to practice?)

Why can’t you live by the Golden Rule to the Letter? If you could, maybe you’d have more clout…

Again, why can’t you live by that Rule to the letter of its law? Does it keep changing?

The Christian world view is summed up as simply as I can sum it up as this: God made us reasoning, intelligent creatures, and hardwired a moral conscious into our being/nature. Subjective morals are our own making, not God’s doing. He sent forth a standard of Objective Moral principles to expose our sin i.e. how we twist and warp things into a fine mess. In this, God reveals our need for His salvation out of the messes we create, such as slavery to our own subjective moral whims.

Jesus did clarified the Golden Rule thusly:

Mat 22:37, 38, 39, 40, Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." NIV

Somehow, you missed the first part of it: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

Why?
-
-
-

[jlay]

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.

And so by what standard to you judge this to be immoral?
Human rights? According to?

[PaulSacramento]

There is a context in regards to the Hebrew people that needs to be understood and why the laws was given to them and why the laws was HOW it was for THAT time, for them.
They were a people that had been enslaved for generations, all they new was slavery and the slave caste system.
They were a people that, even after witnessing all they did to escape captivity, turned on Moses and God the first chance(S) they got.
They were a people that had been punished over and over by God for rebelling against Him and yet, they still did.
They were a people that God had to accommodate and shape and mold and when you do that, you have to accommodate and work with what you have.
Casual laws were a necessity with them since they were gonna "break" laws anyways, much like the many causal laws we have now.
Did God condone slavery?
Nope, as a matter of fact he made a HUGE statement against it - The Exodus.
Did God KNOW that the hebrews were gonna keep slaves no matter what? Of course He did and as such he made provisional and casual Laws for that, Laws that the Hebrews kept as well as they could, but many faltered ( imagine if they had been even more strict".
Were the OT laws perfect? Hell no, not even close, they were Laws to accommodate the Hebrews, to bring them step-by-step, closer to being the people of God.
To lay the foundation for a greater and better Law, a Law of Love given by The Word of God personally.

[RickD]

Butterfly, here from the Christian thinktank article. The blue is Leviticus 25:44:http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

3. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".


In addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has some material on two other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of war and foreign slaves. There is not much material on these subjects, and, given the intention of the Law to differentiate between Israel and the nations, much of it falls into the exceptional category.

The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.

But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants (but the women apparently had special rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the rubric of the second case (below).

We noted earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the word, but more 'vassals' or 'serfs'.

The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:

· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]



· The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).


· The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)

As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.


· It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership. Some of these include:



§ Dietary laws: Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. (Deut 14.21)



§ Cancellation of Debts: 1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut 15.1-3)



§ Interest charges: Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, (Deut 23.19ff)

This shows that the standard for intra-Hebrew cultural practice was to be higher than international practice (but note that foreigners could easily become members of the assembly of Israel and participate in the covenant blessings, so this is not an exclusion scenario at all.) And indeed, such standard cultural priorities are meant as inducements to assimilate to the host community--they are like a 'Benefits of Membership' brochure.

Indeed, it must still be remembered that the nation of Israel was supposed to welcome runaway foreign slaves with open arms (Deut 23.15).

· The case of the female war-captives is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past slave, past concubine, all the way to full wife(!):

"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale." [OT:HLBT, 127]



· Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.


It should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for less-than-ideal praxis in the day (e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless regulated these practices and placed definite limits and protections around these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category as well.



But even with this class of people being 'below' regular Hebrew slaves, there was still a God-directed humanitarian vision required of Israel--in strong contradiction to other lands…

Let's see some of the data which reveals this perspective.

(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]

(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:

"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [OT:I:101]

But you still need to read the rest of the article for proper context.

[Butterfly]

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.

And so by what standard to you judge this to be immoral?
Human rights? According to?

By the Golden Rule, which is the same standard that Jesus promoted.

[RickD]

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.

And so by what standard to you judge this to be immoral?
Human rights? According to?

By the Golden Rule, which is the same standard that Jesus promoted.

So let me get this straight. Since Jesus is God, and he promotes the golden rule, that must mean you judged by an objective morality with God as its origin.
I knew you were a believer. See, you can't stray too far off without God bringing you back to Him.

[Butterfly]

Butterfly, here from the Christian thinktank article. The blue is Leviticus 25:44:http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

3. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".


In addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has some material on two other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of war and foreign slaves. There is not much material on these subjects, and, given the intention of the Law to differentiate between Israel and the nations, much of it falls into the exceptional category.

The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.

But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants (but the women apparently had special rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the rubric of the second case (below).

We noted earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the word, but more 'vassals' or 'serfs'.

The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:

· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]



· The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).


· The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)

As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.


· It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership. Some of these include:


· Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.

But you still need to read the rest of the article for proper context.

Thank you for quoting the article, but sadly my point still remains valid. God does make a distinction between Hebrews and foreigners, and did allow the Hebrews to keep their slaves for life and pass them and their children down as an inheritance in perpetuity. No amount of explaining away justifies God acting in a biased and immoral manner.

Quote from Glen Miller article: "· Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'. "

Glenn Miller tries to lessen the magnitude of this immoral transgression by saying it was an "option" for the Hebrews to keep their foreign slaves in perpetual servitude along with the slaves children. This by no means excuses God's biased and immoral behavior in purposely giving the Hebrews a legitimate option to keep foreign slaves forever is they so desired. If God required the Hebrews to release their fellow countrymen in the year of Jubilee, he should have also required that all foreign slaves be released, but he didn't...which concludes God acted in an unjust and immoral manner, and violated his own Golden Rule.

[Butterfly]

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.

And so by what standard to you judge this to be immoral?
Human rights? According to?

By the Golden Rule, which is the same standard that Jesus promoted.

So let me get this straight. Since Jesus is God, and he promotes the golden rule, that must mean you judged by an objective morality with God as its origin.
I knew you were a believer. See, you can't stray too far off without God bringing you back to Him.

Hey Rick, I'm glad I put a smile on your face, but don't get too hopeful I was a Christian for many years until I decided to try and find answers to some of the tough questions that had accumulated over the years, and what I found was not pretty...

Through my extensive biblical research, the unavoidable conclusions I came to were that the God portrayed in the Bible is immoral, biased toward the male, and unjust...which left me no choice but to invalidate him as a true God.

[Butterfly]

There is a context in regards to the Hebrew people that needs to be understood and why the laws was given to them and why the laws was HOW it was for THAT time, for them.
They were a people that had been enslaved for generations, all they new was slavery and the slave caste system.
They were a people that, even after witnessing all they did to escape captivity, turned on Moses and God the first chance(S) they got.
They were a people that had been punished over and over by God for rebelling against Him and yet, they still did.
They were a people that God had to accommodate and shape and mold and when you do that, you have to accommodate and work with what you have.
Casual laws were a necessity with them since they were gonna "break" laws anyways, much like the many causal laws we have now.
Did God condone slavery?
Nope, as a matter of fact he made a HUGE statement against it - The Exodus.
Did God KNOW that the hebrews were gonna keep slaves no matter what? Of course He did and as such he made provisional and casual Laws for that, Laws that the Hebrews kept as well as they could, but many faltered ( imagine if they had been even more strict".
Were the OT laws perfect? Hell no, not even close, they were Laws to accommodate the Hebrews, to bring them step-by-step, closer to being the people of God.
To lay the foundation for a greater and better Law, a Law of Love given by The Word of God personally.

Oh my, a perfect God making imperfect laws! I wonder if Jesus knew about that when he said:

Matt.5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So, you are telling me that because God knew the Hebrews were going to break the laws anyway, he just gave them some "casual" laws, like being able to keep foreign slaves in perpetuity?

[BryanH]

@jlay

the ability to corrupt something doesn't mean it is flawed. It is contradictory to say that an eternal, omipotent being can create an eternal, omnipotent being. Fail.

We were talking about God creating people who are evil and have no choice about that. You are implying that such people are "corrupted". Corrupted by what?

Yes, why?
What is it they lack?

I don't know mate. Go visit a psychiatry hospital. Maybe then you will understand better.

OM implies that there is a standard outside of man. That it REALLY is wrong to torture children for pleasure and not merely a preference.
Thus vanilla and chocolate, which are.......preferences. I can't say you are 'wrong' for prefering vanilla, even if everyone else in the culture prefers chocolate. The word 'wrong' just becomes a token assigned to societal or personal preferences. I suspect this is why you didn't answer the questions. You know where the answer leads.

There is no point in answering your question. I am not talking here about what is right and wrong, but the about the fact that I can choose what is right and wrong. I have already told you this.

Smuggling in OM. it presumes that a functioning society has some inherent value.

I'm not smuggling anything. I told you already(again) that societies choose their own moral values of right and wrong according to how a society shifts one way or another.

@paulsacramento

What I mean is , if I believe stealing is wrong and Tom does it, I think his morals are subjective but that would only be true IF stealing was wrong and if I don't have a standard that trancends my view of what is right and wrong, then I don't really have the right to call his morals , or anyone elses, subjective.

Moral laws are not decided based on individual examples. They are based on laws enforced at societal level. Your example is irrelevant. And another thing: you are not in the position to decide anything.

IT is very easy to say that morals are subjective but of course to say that we must compare the morals of A to those of B and then conclude, based on what WE believe is good, that A or B has subjective morals because they do NOT agree with ours or that of the other party.
Of course to do that, to claim that moral are subjective, we have to base that on some objective or absolute moral ( good).
If not, what are we basing our view that someone else's moral is "wrong" or :"incorrect" and hence, subjective?

You were EDUCATED to believe that A is good and B is bad.
You were EDUCATED to think that there is an objective god which gave you moral objectivity.
Thus you are subjective.

eg: There was a boy who was abandoned in a forest and grew up among wolves. At 12 years old he was "recovered" by some people. Although many tries were made to make him more human, that never happened. He was an animal. He didn't have any objective morality.

Morality is built through education. If they don't teach you moral values, you will never know them. You will never behave in a moral way.

Moral values are developed within societies and some of those values are also LAWS.

Morality is not something you are born with.

[Butterfly]

The Christian world view is summed up as simply as I can sum it up as this: God made us reasoning, intelligent creatures, and hardwired a moral conscious into our being/nature. Subjective morals are our own making, not God’s doing. He sent forth a standard of Objective Moral principles to expose our sin i.e. how we twist and warp things into a fine mess. In this, God reveals our need for His salvation out of the messes we create, such as slavery to our own subjective moral whims.

Jesus did clarified the Golden Rule thusly:

Mat 22:37, 38, 39, 40, Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." NIV

Somehow, you missed the first part of it: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

Why?
-
-
-

So, let see....which Objective moral principles did God set as a standard to expose our sin? Maybe it was the principle of inequality? If a person is born a male and a Hebrew than he gets all sorts of privileges women are denied under God's moral principles. Hebrew males get to marry multiple women, have concubines and take any captive woman they desire, they also can get away with rape as long as the woman who's raped is single and the man pays her father 50 shekels. Then there is the whole slavery thing, whereas if the slave is a Hebrew he must be set free in the year of Jubilee, but if the slave is a foreigner he may be owned in perpetuity.

Out of all the moral principles in the Bible, exactly which ones do you think were given by God as objective moral principles?

You know, I don't have any problem believing people of all races, and genders should have equal human rights...but, it seems like God does, especially in the Old Testament.

[RickD]

Butterfly wrote:
Hey Rick, I'm glad I put a smile on your face, but don't get too hopeful I was a Christian for many years until I decided to try and find answers to some of the tough questions that had accumulated over the years, and what I found was not pretty.

Do you mind sharing what you mean when you said "I was a Christian for many years"?

Through my extensive biblical research, the unavoidable conclusions I came to were that the God portrayed in the Bible is immoral, biased toward the male, and unjust...which left me no choice but to invalidate him as a true God.

Butterfly, I'm truly sad to hear this. You must have gone through something horrible in your life that leads you to feel this way. No matter what you've been through, God will never leave you nor forsake you. If you've ever believed on Christ, you are promised eternal life. Even if you forsake God, He can't forsake His promises to you. Even though you don't feel His presence sometimes, He will draw you back to Him. No matter how many people fail you, God will always be there for you. I pray that you will see that God loves you unconditionally, and is patiently waiting for you to return to Him.

[Butterfly]

Butterfly wrote:
Hey Rick, I'm glad I put a smile on your face, but don't get too hopeful I was a Christian for many years until I decided to try and find answers to some of the tough questions that had accumulated over the years, and what I found was not pretty.

Do you mind sharing what you mean when you said "I was a Christian for many years"?

Through my extensive biblical research, the unavoidable conclusions I came to were that the God portrayed in the Bible is immoral, biased toward the male, and unjust...which left me no choice but to invalidate him as a true God.

Butterfly, I'm truly sad to hear this. You must have gone through something horrible in your life that leads you to feel this way. No matter what you've been through, God will never leave you nor forsake you. If you've ever believed on Christ, you are promised eternal life. Even if you forsake God, He can't forsake His promises to you. Even though you don't feel His presence sometimes, He will draw you back to Him. No matter how many people fail you, God will always be there for you. I pray that you will see that God loves you unconditionally, and is patiently waiting for you to return to Him.

I was a Christian up until 2010 when I started asking the tough questions that had weighed on my mind for years, determined to find answers. Little did I know then, that my journey for truth would lead me out of the faith I held for nearly 28 years. I had no horrible event in my life that shattered my faith, only a hunger for truth. At any point in my 28 years as a Christian if you would have asked me how sure I was of the reality of the Christian God, I would have told you I absolutely knew that I knew that I knew God was real, but of course all that has changed now. Once the bubble bursts there is no way it can be put back together. It's sort of like the Santa Claus myth that we believe in as children, once we find out that Santa Claus is "dear old dad", there is no way we can ever believe in the magic again.

[neo-x]

I was a Christian up until 2010 when I started asking the tough questions that had weighed on my mind for years, determined to find answers. Little did I know then, that my journey for truth would lead me out of the faith I held for nearly 28 years. I had no horrible event in my life that shattered my faith, only a hunger for truth. At any point in my 28 years as a Christian if you would have asked me how sure I was of the reality of the Christian God, I would have told you I absolutely knew that I knew that I knew God was real, but of course all that has changed now.

ironic, i guess, i was an atheist once but when I asked tough questions and searched for the truth, it led me to Christ.