An objective moral standard outside of God.

[ultimate777]

Is there one? Do the great majority of Christians agree with you? Do you know scripture that supports your position? If so, can you tell me the book, chapter, and verse?

[Canuckster1127]

Is there one?

No

Do the great majority of Christians agree with you?

I haven't talked with them all, so I don't know.

Do you know scripture that supports your position?

Yes

If so, can you tell me the book, chapter, and verse?

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

There's many additional scriptures related to individual morals with God as a standard. Scripture reveals to us and in addition, we have consciences that reflect the image of God (imageo dei) within us.

[jlay]

I think you could start with Gen. 1:1
The term objective, is a man made contruct to try and understand the source of things. Aquinas studied natural theology in his five ways. If there is objective truth in our universe, and God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, then how does one justify an objective standard outside of God?
The Bible paints a pretty good picture that God is eternal, unchanging, righteous, just, truth, and Holy. God is holy. That is, set apart. Not up to a standard, but A standard unto Himself and to all creation.
Col. 1:17
Ps. 90:2

[domokunrox]

No
I don't know
Yes

Here is the first mention of good
(NASB)Genesis 1:3-4
Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. [4] God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

The first thing we probably would be asking is if light is objectively good? The light allows us to see the truth so we don't walk in the darkness. Another thing about the light is that if light didn't exist, we wouldn't exist.

In otherwords, we cannot exist without God. On that note, we were designed in the image and likeness of God in the case that we separate ourselves from God. We are contingent, not independent and able to "create" our own "objective" standard.

Objective already exists and is God.
God is THE good. Jesus has laid his claim to being THE truth.

Everything is already there. Its all very well defined.

Read Genesis, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and even Isaiah. Lots of truth and exclusivity to Good and Morals can be found there.

[CallMeDave]

Is there one? Do the great majority of Christians agree with you? Do you know scripture that supports your position? If so, can you tell me the book, chapter, and verse?

There isnt an objective moral standard outside of God, because outside of God you only have Mans opinions .. and those are subjectively arrived upon (IF desired at all) . God is the highest objective moral standard and his very nature is one of infinite moral character . Everytime we appeal to an objective moral , it is in light of Gods moral essence which he has prescribed to us (a Moral Code) . We couldnt truly know right from wrong apart from it, there would be no basis for human rights without it , we wouldnt try and hide something which we morally failed on if it didnt exist , and, our REactions to when we are morally violated by others shows it exists within us. As freewill Agents , we have the choice of either desiring / following them or to suppress / veto them which is clear rebellion toward God , and often, others .

[CallMeDave]

Is there one? Do the great majority of Christians agree with you? Do you know scripture that supports your position? If so, can you tell me the book, chapter, and verse?

There isnt an objective moral standard outside of God, because outside of God you only have Mans opinions .. and those are subjectively arrived upon (IF desired at all) . God is the highest objective moral standard and his very nature is one of infinite moral character . Everytime we appeal to an objective moral , it is in light of Gods moral essence which he has prescribed to us (a Moral Code) . We couldnt truly know right from wrong apart from it, there would be no basis for human rights without it , we wouldnt try and hide something which we morally failed on if it didnt exist , and, our REactions to when we are morally violated by others shows it exists within us. As freewill Agents , we have the choice of either desiring / following them or to suppress / veto them which is clear rebellion toward God , and often, others .

[Ivellious]

I think the better question here is not "is there an objective moral standard outside God", but rather "is there an objective moral standard outside the Bible."

Obviously every Christian believes that God created morality and is the ultimate arbitrator between good and evil. That's kind of a given within the belief system, right? By the same token, ancient Greeks thought that their gods were the ultimate authority in that regard, Hindus think that a separate power deals with good/evil (karma)...Those assumptions are not really debatable, because they help to define the belief system.

Now, I've had the argument with several Christians that without the Bible, humans would have no moral guide or ability to live a moral life. I disagree with that point, because there are numerous societies that existed prior to biblical times that had similar moral standards without any sort of Bible influence. There are societies today that have similar morality without the Christian Bible. You can argue that you believe that these societies only have morality because of God. But again, you can't really "prove" that, so it's a non-argument for all parties involved.

[CallMeDave]

....................

Now, I've had the argument with several Christians that without the Bible, humans would have no moral guide or ability to live a moral life. I disagree with that point, because there are numerous societies that existed prior to biblical times that had similar moral standards without any sort of Bible influence. There are societies today that have similar morality without the Christian Bible. You can argue that you believe that these societies only have morality because of God. But again, you can't really "prove" that, so it's a non-argument for all parties involved.

Its obvious that people can be moral apart from God or any religious text....but its just that they cant really justify being moral . If its absolutely correct and good to be moral , then WHY is that ? When people say that something or someone is morally good or morally evil, they have to have a standard by which you are making that claim, for, you only call a line crooked if you know what a perfectly straight line looks like., therefore, you know the difference between a bad action, a fair action, a good action, and a superior action . As for the Bible, sure...a person has been moral without it , but there is no greater standard of morals and ethics known to mankind ... than that found in The Bible . If you disagree, then can you please list a foundation of morals and ethics that are better than the teachings of Jesus Christ / the 10 Commandments ? Lastly, I think the Irreligious would be surprised to see how much they actually give daily credence to biblical teachings without really thinking about it.

[jlay]

Now, I've had the argument with several Christians that without the Bible, humans would have no moral guide or ability to live a moral life. I disagree with that point, because there are numerous societies that existed prior to biblical times that had similar moral standards without any sort of Bible influence. There are societies today that have similar morality without the Christian Bible. You can argue that you believe that these societies only have morality because of God. But again, you can't really "prove" that, so it's a non-argument for all parties involved.

As stated, you are missing the point entirely. No one is saying that non-Christians can't have morals. They can. Atheist can and do have morals. But that doesn't answer the ontological question. What is the source of the morals? You are in turn misplacing the burden of proof. An objective moral source points to a source outside man, and morals by their nature require a moral law giver, which of course is a divine finger pointing toward God.

To even claim morality is to immediately imply an objective source. When one says they have morals, they are not appealing to the fact that they have preferences, such as I prefer vanilla ice cream. They are saying that their ethic is better than some lower ethic. They are saying that having morals is good, and not having them is bad. "See, we can be GOOD just like Christians." But according to what, and according to who? This implies some inherent quality in acting morally. It smuggles in a standard, yet refuses to acknowledge the standard itself. When one says, "people without the Bible can have morals," they are only measuring the rope which chokes their own position.
The atheist will admit that there are some things that are wrong. It is wrong to abuse children for pleasure. It is wrong to steal, and it is wrong to force oneself on another sexually. Not that they are wrong because they are not our preference, but because they are objectively wrong. THey have no problem with these things being wrong because they cross the boundries of their own subjective ideals. You see, they are their own standard. "Murder bothers me. Stealing bothers me. etc." But when there are things they do, that they enjoy, then comes the problem. They don't want these things falling under the category with the things that bother them. They don't want to see lust under the scope of those other 'bad' things. Why? because they enjoy them. The thought of their being a standard outside of themselves that holds one accountable is unthinkable.

[Ivellious]

Haha I understand. My point was that I don't think it's really possible to "argue" over your God making morality or the Hindu gods. Every perspective is simply presumed. You can tell a Hindu that you believe your God determines morals. That's not really a convincing argument. It doesn't make your belief invalid, it's just not something that you can really argue any further, and so it's kind of a dead-end question once you get two beliefs that say there are "different" sources.

I only wanted to point out that I've experienced people who say that without the Bible itself, humanity would essentially be a bunch of apes running around slaughtering each other and eating each others' feces. I'm ok with anyone posing an origin of human morals, and it is a fascinating discussion. Just don't make the mistake of saying that a book written long after human morality began is that source.

[jlay]

I,
I understand what you are saying. The bible is a revelation from the source of truth.

You can tell a Hindu that you believe your God determines morals. That's not really a convincing argument.

If that is the depth of the argument then yes. However, if we can agree that morality is, and is objectively sourced, then we can see which faith is in line with the natural revelation.

[CallMeDave]

Haha I understand. My point was that I don't think it's really possible to "argue" over your God making morality or the Hindu gods. Every perspective is simply presumed. You can tell a Hindu that you believe your God determines morals. That's not really a convincing argument. It doesn't make your belief invalid, it's just not something that you can really argue any further, and so it's kind of a dead-end question once you get two beliefs that say there are "different" sources.

I only wanted to point out that I've experienced people who say that without the Bible itself, humanity would essentially be a bunch of apes running around slaughtering each other and eating each others' feces. I'm ok with anyone posing an origin of human morals, and it is a fascinating discussion. Just don't make the mistake of saying that a book written long after human morality began is that source.

Would you agree that if the Bible can be shown to be supernaturally inspired (objectively) , supernatural in origin (objectively) and that modern science is pointing toward the Biblical Creator ... that we can conclude the Moral Law which is written on all our hearts came from this same (biblical) Creator instead of one of millions of Hindu 'gods' or the god of Islam ? If this could be shown to you conclusively, HOW willing would you be to follow his revealed moral mandates for your life and surrender yourself to his Ownership ?

[CallMeDave]

Now, I've had the argument with several Christians that without the Bible, humans would have no moral guide or ability to live a moral life. I disagree with that point, because there are numerous societies that existed prior to biblical times that had similar moral standards without any sort of Bible influence. There are societies today that have similar morality without the Christian Bible. You can argue that you believe that these societies only have morality because of God. But again, you can't really "prove" that, so it's a non-argument for all parties involved.

As stated, you are missing the point entirely. No one is saying that non-Christians can't have morals. They can. Atheist can and do have morals. But that doesn't answer the ontological question. What is the source of the morals? You are in turn misplacing the burden of proof. An objective moral source points to a source outside man, and morals by their nature require a moral law giver, which of course is a divine finger pointing toward God.

To even claim morality is to immediately imply an objective source. When one says they have morals, they are not appealing to the fact that they have preferences, such as I prefer vanilla ice cream. They are saying that their ethic is better than some lower ethic. They are saying that having morals is good, and not having them is bad. "See, we can be GOOD just like Christians." But according to what, and according to who? This implies some inherent quality in acting morally. It smuggles in a standard, yet refuses to acknowledge the standard itself. When one says, "people without the Bible can have morals," they are only measuring the rope which chokes their own position.
The atheist will admit that there are some things that are wrong. It is wrong to abuse children for pleasure. It is wrong to steal, and it is wrong to force oneself on another sexually. Not that they are wrong because they are not our preference, but because they are objectively wrong. THey have no problem with these things being wrong because they cross the boundries of their own subjective ideals. You see, they are their own standard. "Murder bothers me. Stealing bothers me. etc." But when there are things they do, that they enjoy, then comes the problem. They don't want these things falling under the category with the things that bother them. They don't want to see lust under the scope of those other 'bad' things. Why? because they enjoy them. The thought of their being a standard outside of themselves that holds one accountable is unthinkable.

Excellent treatise.

[B. W.]

Haha I understand. My point was that I don't think it's really possible to "argue" over your God making morality or the Hindu gods. Every perspective is simply presumed. You can tell a Hindu that you believe your God determines morals. That's not really a convincing argument. It doesn't make your belief invalid, it's just not something that you can really argue any further, and so it's kind of a dead-end question once you get two beliefs that say there are "different" sources.

I only wanted to point out that I've experienced people who say that without the Bible itself, humanity would essentially be a bunch of apes running around slaughtering each other and eating each others' feces. I'm ok with anyone posing an origin of human morals, and it is a fascinating discussion. Just don't make the mistake of saying that a book written long after human morality began is that source.

God created us as moral beings; therefore, to disprove this, one would have to disprove God's existence…

...to justify that we are just a bunch of with a higher education
-
-
~

[Ivellious]

But I'm saying you can't "prove" that statement any more than a Hindu can "prove" that humans were created by their Gods with morals. No one can disprove either point, either. That's why it's a dead-end argument, because neither stance can be disproven or proven.