Good and evil only make sense to me with God

[salvationfound]

I am constantly astonished when I look at the concept of morality and am always under the
conclusion that its existence demands a creator. The existence of good and evil to me indicate
that something out there is guiding our moral centers and pushing us towards acts of
compassion and away from acts of destruction. Some call this concience and others call this
holy spirit.

I am extremely sick of atheists claiming that my arguments are pointing to the idea that if your
atheist your going to become evil. Since I believe God has placed morality on all beings then it
would mean I don't believe that.

Yes I believe God has given us morality and placed it on paper and on our hearts. Our heart
tells us its wrong and the Bible puts it in words our hearts may not answer and give reasons behind it. Christians
are still human which means they still fail to follow the direction their hearts and paper tell them
to go. Which makes sense since Christians admit their reason for needing Jesus is because
they failed to follow the morality that was placed on them.

But morality seems to be the biggest example of difficulty the atheist has in justifying their
beliefs. I find the atheist still cannot give an objective idea why if the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages a person shouldn't commit an evil act. But in a Christian world view the
advantages will never outweigh the disadvantages. For a Christian to commit an evil act they
are betraying a world view they've chosen to follow. Whether or not God actually exists doesn't
change the fact that a Christian believes the Bible and believes God is the author of their
morality. Thus when an Christian goes against the Bible they are betraying something they've
chosen to follow. An atheist on the other hand is a traitor to no one. They may be going against
the laws of the land but even so they aren't betraying the laws of the land because they haven't
necessarily made a life decision to follow it.

Not to mention what is a better reason than God to do good? Compassion? That isn't an
answer Compassion without God is an empty shell. We could claim that evolutionary devices
gave us our compassion but does that really sound as fulfilling? Our compassion would then
be just a result of a chemical accident but with God it is a chosen decision to give it to us that
was intentional.

What is evil? In the Christian world view it is anything that betrays the direction God has for us.
And for anyone who calls themselves a Christian a betrayal of their life choice. If an atheist is
right there really nothing actually evil. It is simply a decision based on individual or societal
preferences. Does anybody honestly believe that if everyone in the world became atheist we
would have a common moral ideology? Morals would be at the basic level personal
preferences. And who would decide which morals sound better to make it the societal norm?
Do I get a vote? Do we say that if 51% choose murder to be acceptable that it becomes
acceptable? Sounds crazy but if atheism is right how else can we decide fairly except for
majority opinion? Not every society has the same moral ideas as another. Sudan for instance
still allows slavery. Thus Sudan isn't wrong they just having different societal ideas than we do.
But we know there are people doing wrong no matter what our society or their society tells us.
And without God our reasons to feel this way are meaningless since its just our personal
opinion. Not to mention without the Bible how do we know our views of right or wrong are
correct. Maybe we are mistaken. But if God is the author of our morality only he can tell us
whether we are doing things right or wrong. Thankfully we have the Bible so we can say,
"This isn't just my opinion. The author of our morality tells us its wrong." But the best an
atheist can say is, "This is my opinion. Everything I know tells me its correct. I've got some
other people who say it is also correct. So I suppose I must be correct." The atheist
reasoning behind their morality is not as meaningful as one with God.

Thankfully we have a clear direction of right and wrong that is bigger than merely personal
preference. It was given to us both on paper and on our hearts. The fact that we sometimes
fail to act according to it is a problem with us and not with what God has sent us. Through God
we don't just decide what is good and evil we know what is. And it breaks my heart to see that
atheists try to justify their moral reasons without God. God is a necessity for our moral center.
Any other reasoning behind our actions are worthless and an empty shell.

[Carpedm9587]

I am constantly astonished when I look at the concept of morality and am always under the
conclusion that its existence demands a creator. The existence of good and evil to me indicate
that something out there is guiding our moral centers and pushing us towards acts of
compassion and away from acts of destruction. Some call this conscience and others call this
holy spirit.

Some of us call it a combination of logic, instinct, and social conditioning.

I am extremely sick of atheists claiming that my arguments are pointing to the idea that if your
atheist your going to become evil. Since I believe God has placed morality on all beings then it
would mean I don't believe that.

If someone claims that a person who is atheist is evil - I simply reject their claim. If not, then no problem.

Yes I believe God has given us morality and placed it on paper and on our hearts. Our heart
tells us its wrong and the Bible puts it in words our hearts may not answer and give reasons behind it. Christians
are still human which means they still fail to follow the direction their hearts and paper tell them
to go. Which makes sense since Christians admit their reason for needing Jesus is because
they failed to follow the morality that was placed on them.

Since I don't believe there is a god, I don't believe anyone but my community, my experiences, and my intrinsic nature "placed morality upon me." Morality is simply a name for the way we categorize actions.

But morality seems to be the biggest example of difficulty the atheist has in justifying their
beliefs. I find the atheist still cannot give an objective idea why if the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages a person shouldn't commit an evil act. But in a Christian world view the
advantages will never outweigh the disadvantages. For a Christian to commit an evil act they
are betraying a world view they've chosen to follow. Whether or not God actually exists doesn't
change the fact that a Christian believes the Bible and believes God is the author of their
morality. Thus when an Christian goes against the Bible they are betraying something they've
chosen to follow. An atheist on the other hand is a traitor to no one. They may be going against
the laws of the land but even so they aren't betraying the laws of the land because they haven't
necessarily made a life decision to follow it.

And when an atheist acts immorally, they are going against something they've chosen to follow. It's not really any different. It's just not a god or a person. As for your claim that they haven't made a "life decision to follow it," you're wrong. I have.

Not to mention what is a better reason than God to do good? Compassion? That isn't an
answer Compassion without God is an empty shell. We could claim that evolutionary devices
gave us our compassion but does that really sound as fulfilling? Our compassion would then
be just a result of a chemical accident but with God it is a chosen decision to give it to us that
was intentional.

I don't find god to be a very good reason to do good. That's not just because I don't think there is one, but it's also because I don't subscribe to an authoritarian morality. "Because I said so" is not an adequate moral response, IMO.

What is evil? In the Christian world view it is anything that betrays the direction God has for us.
And for anyone who calls themselves a Christian a betrayal of their life choice. If an atheist is
right there really nothing actually evil. It is simply a decision based on individual or societal
preferences. Does anybody honestly believe that if everyone in the world became atheist we
would have a common moral ideology? Morals would be at the basic level personal
preferences. And who would decide which morals sound better to make it the societal norm?
Do I get a vote? Do we say that if 51% choose murder to be acceptable that it becomes
acceptable? Sounds crazy but if atheism is right how else can we decide fairly except for
majority opinion? Not every society has the same moral ideas as another. Sudan for instance
still allows slavery. Thus Sudan isn't wrong they just having different societal ideas than we do.
But we know there are people doing wrong no matter what our society or their society tells us.
And without God our reasons to feel this way are meaningless since its just our personal
opinion. Not to mention without the Bible how do we know our views of right or wrong are
correct. Maybe we are mistaken. But if God is the author of our morality only he can tell us
whether we are doing things right or wrong. Thankfully we have the Bible so we can say,
"This isn't just my opinion. The author of our morality tells us its wrong." But the best an
atheist can say is, "This is my opinion. Everything I know tells me its correct. I've got some
other people who say it is also correct. So I suppose I must be correct." The atheist
reasoning behind their morality is not as meaningful as one with God.

At the end of the day, all of morality is about preferences. You have chosen/preferred to follow your god, so you've adopted the morality of this being you believe exists. If you didn't honor/respect this god, your morality might well look different, or be based in something else. Why do you choose this god? Because you prefer to. At the end of the day, we all make choices about how we make decisions, and the theist is not substantially different than the atheist.

Thankfully we have a clear direction of right and wrong that is bigger than merely personal
preference. It was given to us both on paper and on our hearts. The fact that we sometimes
fail to act according to it is a problem with us and not with what God has sent us. Through God
we don't just decide what is good and evil we know what is. And it breaks my heart to see that
atheists try to justify their moral reasons without God. God is a necessity for our moral center.
Any other reasoning behind our actions are worthless and an empty shell.

Every religion thinks they have it right. Every religion thinks their god has "written this moral code." Most of these codes align to a high degree. My philosophy of morality explains why this occurs. At the end of the day, as has been shown in thread after thread after thread - a universally objective and absolute basis for morality cannot be demonstrated to exist, nor can one be articulated. I have found a relative and subjective morality better describes the phenomenon of morality in the human species.

But that has been discussed until I think everyone is ready to hurl...

Michel

[salvationfound]

Some of us call it a combination of logic, instinct, and social conditioning.

Which I've already spoken on.

Since I don't believe there is a god, I don't believe anyone but my community, my experiences, and my intrinsic nature "placed morality upon me."

But you believe something has placed morality upon you. And do you consider that deeper
than the idea God did it? If so why? I've already explained my reasoning otherwise.

And when an atheist acts immorally, they are going against something they've chosen to follow.

Nope. How can you prove that? How do you know that a person has decided not to murder
someone and then betrayed that? Otherwise it would mean I'm betraying atheism because I'm
a Christian. You have to prove "not murdering" is a chosen lifestyle for each person. A Christian
can show it but you can't.

you're wrong. I have.

Not doing something is not following something. Do you believe atheism is merely a lack of
belief? If the answer is yes then you have a contradiction.

Even if the answer is no you have a problem with saying not murdering is a chosen action.
Let me put it this way. An atheist kills. What exactly are they betraying?

I don't find god to be a very good reason to do good. That's not just because I don't think there is one, but it's also because I don't subscribe to an authoritarian morality. "Because I said so" is not an adequate moral response,

Ok give me a better reason. Because so far you haven't given one.

Because you prefer to. At the end of the day, we all make choices about how we make decisions, and the theist is not substantially different than the atheist.

That can only be answered like this from an atheist perspective. From a Christian perspective
our preferences are at least more guided than the atheist. So yes it is very different.

a universally objective and absolute basis for morality cannot be demonstrated to exist

I see otherwise and humanity proves it. Let me give an example:

Is Sudan's slavery wrong? If your answer is yes is it because it is wrong for them to do
so no matter what anyone thinks or is it just your personal conclusion that it is wrong because
clearly Sudan thinks otherwise.

As much as you would like to say its just your personal conclusion if that is your answer I
don't think you really believe it. If it is the fomer than objective morals exist.

[Carpedm9587]

Which I've already spoken on.

But you believe something has placed morality upon you. And do you consider that deeper
than the idea God did it? If so why? I've already explained my reasoning otherwise.

I have no idea what "deeper" means. Since I don't believe a god exists, I don't see someone's god-based morality as particularly deep. It is based on something that doesn't exist..

Nope. How can you prove that? How do you know that a person has decided not to murder
someone and then betrayed that? Otherwise it would mean I'm betraying atheism because I'm
a Christian. You have to prove "not murdering" is a chosen lifestyle for each person. A Christian
can show it but you can't.

I can't prove it, SF. I simply know it to be true because it is true for me - ergo I know it is possible. I don't have to prove it is true for "each person." I simply know I am atheist, I have chosen my moral course, and I know when I have betrayed it. Like most people - I do not always act consistently with my own moral framework - and I know when I haven't.

Not doing something is not following something. Do you believe atheism is merely a lack of
belief? If the answer is yes then you have a contradiction.

No - "lack of belief" is meaningless to me unless you specify which belief is "lacking." I definitely "lack in Christian beliefs." I also "lack in Muslim beliefs." But atheism is just a poor choice of a name. The same is true of other things - like "wireless." The whole world of wireless technologies is not a negation - it is an active and vibrant collection of standards, industries, and companies dealing with optical and electromagnetic transmission systems that transit free-space (e.g., air, space-time fabric, etc.). But the entire industry is named after what it doesn't have: wires.

The same is true of atheism.

Even if the answer is no you have a problem with saying not murdering is a chosen action.
Let me put it this way. An atheist kills. What exactly are they betraying?

My commitment to respect life.

OK give me a better reason. Because so far you haven't given one.

Because it IS right. Because it IS good.

That can only be answered like this from an atheist perspective. From a Christian perspective
our preferences are at least more guided than the atheist. So yes it is very different.

A neat denial - but it does not change that you are so guided because you choose to be and prefer to be. If you didn't, you would not be so guided.

I see otherwise and humanity proves it. Let me give an example:

Is Sudan's slavery wrong? If your answer is yes is it because it is wrong for them to do
so no matter what anyone thinks or is it just your personal conclusion that it is wrong because
clearly Sudan thinks otherwise.

As much as you would like to say its just your personal conclusion if that is your answer I
don't think you really believe it. If it is the former than objective morals exist.

I believe Sudan slavery (as I understand it) is wrong. I can outline what underlying principles lead me to hold that belief. Ultimately, they are all based in the things I prefer, which drive my moral code. Since I assess all things by my own moral code, I believe it is wrong for anyone.

However, I also recognize that someone else with a different set of preferences could evaluate the Sudan slavery issue differently and arrive at a different moral formulation. Clearly some have.

Morals are based in our nature and cognitive, living beings, and strongly influenced by our social structures. But at the end of the day, they are individualized.

Michel

[salvationfound]

I have no idea what "deeper" means. Since I don't believe a god exists, I don't see someone's god-based morality as particularly deep. It is based on something that doesn't exist..

But from my perspective it would be.

I simply know it to be true because it is true for me

And I can't see how its possible without God being in existence. So obviously we just disagree.

No - "lack of belief" is meaningless to me unless you specify which belief is "lacking." I definitely "lack in Christian beliefs." I also "lack in Muslim beliefs." But atheism is just a poor choice of a name. The same is true of other things - like "wireless." The whole world of wireless technologies is not a negation - it is an active and vibrant collection of standards, industries, and companies dealing with optical and electromagnetic transmission systems that transit free-space (e.g., air, space-time fabric, etc.). But the entire industry is named after what it doesn't have: wires.

Simple no would have sufficed.

My commitment to respect life.

But there are exceptions to that rule. War, (maybe abortion I don't know what you think of that),
killing of insects. What's funny is not only do we often have exceptions to the rule but we can
even have exceptions to the exceptions. So your answer doesn't make sense.

For a Christian the betrayal is much more clear.

Because it IS right. Because it IS good.

Says who? Don't say people because people disagree.

but it does not change that you are so guided because you choose to be and prefer to be. If you didn't, you would not be so guided.

But even you have to admit our actions are more guided in the Christian world view than the
atheistic world view which is all I'm saying.

Morals are based in our nature and cognitive, living beings, and strongly influenced by our social structures. But at the end of the day, they are individualized.

Which means nothing is truly wrong. Which I really don't think you believe. No matter how
much you say otherwise.

[Jme]

I am constantly astonished when I look at the concept of morality and am always under the conclusion that its existence demands a creator. The existence of good and evil to me indicate that something out there is guiding our moral centers and pushing us towards acts of compassion and away from acts of destruction. Some call this concience and others call this
holy spirit.

Perhaps that is because you are viewing it only in a certain way – we are social animals that form groups that operate under certain rules, that these have developed into codified moral determinants is interesting.

I am extremely sick of atheists claiming that my arguments are pointing to the idea that if your atheist your going to become evil. Since I believe God has placed morality on all beings then it
would mean I don't believe that.

Do you ever tell atheists that there can be no good act without god? If not then you have nothing to worry about but some theists do argue that without a god a person can't do any good.

But morality seems to be the biggest example of difficulty the atheist has in justifying their
beliefs. I find the atheist still cannot give an objective idea why if the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages a person shouldn't commit an evil act.

Perhaps an example would help?

But in a Christian world view the advantages will never outweigh the disadvantages. For a Christian to commit an evil act they are betraying a world view they've chosen to follow.

So a christian would not steal food to feed a starving loved one? Stealing is wrong, does the bible excuse certain types of stealing? If not then is it right to allow a child to starve rather than steal?

Whether or not God actually exists doesn't change the fact that a Christian believes the Bible and believes God is the author of their morality. Thus when an Christian goes against the Bible they are betraying something they've chosen to follow.

And just because they are christian and believe that certain parts of the bible are worth following doesn't mean that what they consider moral is – and the fact that they would go against something that they feel is morally wrong (set down by the supreme being) makes me think that they are weak willed. Especially considering that you theists believe that these things are absolutes.

An atheist on the other hand is a traitor to no one. They may be going against the laws of the land but even so they aren't betraying the laws of the land because they haven't necessarily made a life decision to follow it.

And christians haven't made a life decision to follow the laws of a the land – why did we switch to laws? They don't translate directly to morals.

Not to mention what is a better reason than God to do good?

Why is a god a good reason? For christians you don't even have to do good to please god, belief is all that is needed and you are saved – you could be a morally repugnant monster that has misinterpreted the bibles moral teaching all your life and in the end... oh well you believe the right thing so that's no problem. Your god does not seem to want to encourage moral behaviour, just the right beliefs – this is contradictory if you want to argue that god is interested in morals.

Compassion? That isn't an answer Compassion without God is an empty shell. We could claim that evolutionary devices gave us our compassion but does that really sound as fulfilling?

Social animals, remember that and consider it when thinking about morals.

Then there is game theory - compassion has rewards.

Our compassion would then be just a result of a chemical accident but with God it is a chosen decision to give it to us that was intentional.

So it's better that something made you feel and want to do something than for it to have arisen naturally?

If an atheist is right there really nothing actually evil. It is simply a decision based on individual or societal preferences. Does anybody honestly believe that if everyone in the world became atheist we would have a common moral ideology? Morals would be at the basic level personal preferences.

Well part of it comes from that whole socially evolved animals thing, but there is room for personal preference. Even your morals are based on your personal preferences (culturally inspired stuff too), you think the bible makes sense, that god is real and wants you to do certain things – from these beliefs comes your personal preferences.

And who would decide which morals sound better to make it the societal norm?

It doesn't work like that – societal or cultural norms come from the interactions of the people in that society.

Sounds crazy but if atheism is right how else can we decide fairly except for
majority opinion?

Are there differences in morality around the world? In certain countries it is morally acceptable to stone people for adultery – what do you say? Is it right or wrong? How was this decided?

Or consider laws – how are they made?

And without God our reasons to feel this way are meaningless since its just our personal
opinion.

And because all you can do is claim god as your personal moral compass your arguments become meaningless – especially when you can't show that your reasoning is correct over others that claim the same.

Not to mention without the Bible how do we know our views of right or wrong are
correct.

There are other books that (holy or otherwise) present good ideas on right and wrong, they make strong cases for why some actions are preferable over others.

But the best an atheist can say is, "This is my opinion. Everything I know tells me its correct. I've got some other people who say it is also correct. So I suppose I must be correct." The atheist reasoning behind their morality is not as meaningful as one with God.

The best that I can say is that have considered my actions, weighed the consequences and outcomes of my actions – from these I can consider the costs and benefits of my actions. After that I will do what I think will be best for me, without harming others (because this causes problems). There is no one and nothing I can point to and say “it's their decision”, there is only me. I carry the weigh of my choices, you don't. Done something that turned out bad and now you feel guilty? “No problem god can forgive me for it” - I'm sure it makes people feel better and is one of the reasons for the success of religions but that's hardly a good thing.

Thankfully we have a clear direction of right and wrong that is bigger than merely personal
preference.

If you have such a clear direction why are there so many different opinions amongst christians about what is right and wrong?

Through God we don't just decide what is good and evil we know what is.

You don't decide anything – they are and you have to follow. You can't question whether an action is right or wrong (well you can because the bible is pretty vague), you can just accept it.

[Carpedm9587]

But from my perspective it would be.

Unquestionably. But your perspective doesn't look "deeper" to me since I see you as believing in a being that does not exist. I'm sure you don't see my perspective as "deeper" for analogous reasons.

And I can't see how its possible without God being in existence. So obviously we just disagree.

Obviously.

Simple no would have sufficed.

That would have been boring

But there are exceptions to that rule. War, (maybe abortion I don't know what you think of that),
killing of insects. What's funny is not only do we often have exceptions to the rule but we can
even have exceptions to the exceptions. So your answer doesn't make sense.

Even war can be grounded in a respect for life - if the reason for the war is to struggle against those who do not respect life. As for abortion, I consider it a travesty.

As for the insect thing - are you suggesting that Christians have a universal respect for even insect life?

For a Christian the betrayal is much more clear.

I don't see how it is any more clear or unclear, SF. I too have my life commitments. They are not the same as yours, but they are just as clear to me. Your statements are nothing more than unsubstantiated claims.

Says who? Don't say people because people disagree.

Says me. After all - it is my morality.

But even you have to admit our actions are more guided in the Christian world view than the
atheistic world view which is all I'm saying.

No - they aren't. My morality is very directed. It just isn't shared by a common group of people, and it is not dictated by the writings of a people 2,000 years dead. But it is very focused.

Which means nothing is truly wrong. Which I really don't think you believe. No matter how much you say otherwise.

Things are "truly wrong" measured against my moral code. Your statement, as is the case with so many other moral absolutist/objectivists reduces to "morality can't be subjective/relative because then it wouldn't be objective/absolute - to which I can only respond... ahh... yup...

MIchel

[the_light]

Your statement, as is the case with so many other moral absolutist/objectivists reduces to "morality can't be subjective/relative because then it wouldn't be objective/absolute - to which I can only respond... ahh... yup...

MIchel

Thank you for finally being nice and clear!

Like everything else on the planet, morals have been preserved and enhanced through natural selection - simply because morals are excellent at preserving life.

I once had a huge problem with the subjectivity of atheist's morality... but over time I realized my discomfort was only a result of being unfamiliar with its basis. I also realized that christian morality is actually no different - which is most clearly evident in things like slavery, and the killing of women/children during war.

[Carpedm9587]

Thank you for finally being nice and clear!

You mean I wasn't clear before?

Like everything else on the planet, morals have been preserved and enhanced through natural selection - simply because morals are excellent at preserving life.

I once had a huge problem with the subjectivity of atheist's morality... but over time I realized my discomfort was only a result of being unfamiliar with its basis. I also realized that christian morality is actually no different - which is most clearly evident in things like slavery, and the killing of women/children during war.

Welcome to Tweb! The issue of subjective/objective and relative/absolute morality has been discussed ad nauseum around here, and that particular quote is one I have repeated very often because it is, at the end of the day, mostly what the objection is: "but, but, but... that isn't absolute and objective!!! "

And of course we end up in a little interminable and and then we get another round of "but, but, but... that isn't absolute and objective!!! "

And then I usually go and have a nice cup of coffee!

Michel

[freethinker]

The issue of morality proving the existence of a superbeing has been the subject of many books and debates.
The supporters of this theory should prove with some examples why it is against a person's interest to be moral.
The opposite is easy to prove. Steal something - go to jail. Or in the past, die.
Morality is based upon the principle of delayed reward - you do something good and you expect a reward later. Only humans are capable of this behavior.
Humans are also the only animals that practice altruistic punishment. This is when a wrong is being done to somebody and you are not involved but you punish the perpetrator.
A theory that explains morality must also explain altruistic punishment.

[salvationfound]

But your perspective doesn't look "deeper" to me since I see you as believing in a being that does not exist. I'm sure you don't see my perspective as "deeper" for analogous reasons.

But the title tells why it doesn't make sense to me. Thus for the purposes of this thread the
position you consider is irrelevant.

As for the insect thing - are you suggesting that Christians have a universal respect for even insect life?

Well we certainly look at them in a different way than you do. But it was a response to your
claim, "Respect for life". It was an absolute statement. I never made an absolute statement
like that. Now I'm asking you to defend it.

I don't see how it is any more clear or unclear, SF. I too have my life commitments.

But nobody but you knows what those commitments are. Its simply a commitment to your
own commitments. A Christian has a commitment to the Bible something anybody can look
at. We can't look into your mind. For all we know your lying about your commitments and lying
is a part of your commitment.

Now a Christian could also be lying but if they then they are going against the thing they say
they are committed to. But if your commitments are solely from your perspective no one can
tell what your really committed to.

Says me. After all - it is my morality.

That's not what you said. YOu said "It IS right. It IS good." That is an absolute statement. You
did not say, "I conclude it is right. I conclude it is good." That could be subjective.

My morality is very directed

The only source is you. In the Christian world view it is ourselves and our creator. We have 2
you only have 1. (other people don't count)

Your statement, as is the case with so many other moral absolutist/objectivists reduces to "morality can't be subjective/relative because then it wouldn't be objective/absolute - to which I can only respond... ahh... yup...

Which actually sounds great to me. The question then is does that mean when God commits
an act in the Bible you don't like, would it be more correct for you to say, "What God did was
wrong" or "I personally conclude what God did was wrong".

[the_light]

You mean I wasn't clear before?

I may have missed it - but I was waiting for the "my morals are made up... you only imagine yours are absolute"

[Carpedm9587]

But the title tells why it doesn't make sense to me. Thus for the purposes of this thread the position you consider is irrelevant.

If you think it's irrelevant - then stop responding to it!

Well we certainly look at them in a different way than you do. But it was a response to your claim, "Respect for life". It was an absolute statement. I never made an absolute statement like that. Now I'm asking you to defend it.

Umm.. what exactly do you think an "absolute statement" is? Because I don't see my "respect for life" comment as an absolute anything, except that I approach life with a respect for it.

But nobody but you knows what those commitments are. Its simply a commitment to your own commitments.

Where exactly in the definition of "commitment" do we find the requirement that others know about it or that others share it?

A Christian has a commitment to the Bible something anybody can look at. We can't look into your mind. For all we know your lying about your commitments and lying is a part of your commitment.

What someone else thinks of my commitments does not alter what they are.

Now a Christian could also be lying but if they then they are going against the thing they say they are committed to. But if your commitments are solely from your perspective no one can tell what your really committed to.

And that matters because....?

That's not what you said. You said "It IS right. It IS good." That is an absolute statement. You did not say, "I conclude it is right. I conclude it is good." That could be subjective.

As with others, SF, I don't preface every sentence I utter with "I think" or "in my opinion." Neither does a Christian preface a statement like "loving is good" with "god says loving is good." They assume people know the basis for their morality is "what god says." Likewise, I presume people listening to me talk or reading what I write presume I am writing what I think and believe.

The only source is you. In the Christian world view it is ourselves and our creator. We have 2 you only have 1. (other people don't count)

Other people are welcome to know what I think and why. They need only ask. Likewise, no two Christians are the same. They read the same book and worship what they think is the same god. But when you scratch away at the details, they differ in what they think X means, and what characteristics their god has, and how god interacts with their world. We are all unique. We share commonalities to one degree or another, and we all have differences.

Which actually sounds great to me.

Of course it does. But it's not really an argument for or against subjective/relative morality. It is merely a restatement of a partial definition: relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective. We already knew that. It does nothing to refute that morality is intrinsically subjective/relative. But it is continually wielded as if it were an actual argument.

The question then is does that mean when God commits an act in the Bible you don't like, would it be more correct for you to say, "What God did was wrong" or "I personally conclude what God did was wrong".

God doesn't commit acts, since god does not exist. If someone reads to me a story about a being committing an act, in any context, then my evaluation of the moral content of the act will usually be from the perspective of my moral code. If I am evaluating from the perspective of a different moral code, I try to be clear which code I am using (e.g., the prevailing moral code in a particular society, or at a particular time, or held by Christians, or held by Muslims, etc.).

The same, I will note, is true of everyone. When you say "it is wrong" you are evaluating from your own moral code - which I presume is the adopted moral code of the Christian community. Even THAT, however, is not a precise definition since different Christians will themselves end up with different moral codes based on how they interpret their bible, or how they think their god has spoken to them, but also influenced by their culture, upbringing, and so forth.

Michel

[Mountain Man]

The biggest problem with moral relativism is that anybody who tries to argue the position inevitably contradicts themselves with an appeal to an absolute. In Carpe's case, he apparently feels it is absolutely wrong to betray his own moral convictions. If not then his statement "I have chosen my moral course, and I know when I have betrayed it" is meaningless. If moral relativism is true then nothing, not even betraying one's own moral convictions, is wrong, but people find that notion so universally distasteful that it's almost certainly false.

[Carpedm9587]

The biggest problem with moral relativism is that anybody who tries to argue the position inevitably contradicts themselves with an appeal to an absolute. In Carpe's case, he apparently feels it is absolutely wrong to betray his own moral convictions. If not then his statement "I have chosen my moral course, and I know when I have betrayed it" is meaningless. If moral relativism is true then nothing, not even betraying one's own moral convictions, is wrong, but people find that notion so universally distasteful that it's almost certainly false.

We've been around this horn before, MM, and your typical discussion strategy is to deny you've made an error and then discontinue the discussion. You have made an error here (as before), but given your history, it seems rather pointless to even begin to discuss it .

Michel