If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.
Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if
some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would
still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!
You changed the words.
James said “people would agree on moral issues”
You said “abide by moral law”
I said his statement was erroneously misleading, a misrepresentation of believers since we're "supposed" to be taking the angle from the atheist view. Stating the notion that when Christians aren't agreeing with moral issues, for example, then this should mean "All Christians are wrong; automatically and therefore there couldn't be any Moral Objectivity'.
“There you go again.” (Ronald Reagan)
He never said “all Christians are wrong,” that was your fabricated martyrdom at play. He said,
“The evidence for that isn’t very compelling”
I would only need to 'quote' the actual words he said, if I wanted to make the exact point verbatim.
So, to clarify. I am the one who's saying it! That was my
example: making a comparison to what he was saying below:
"If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling."
Responding to the above, I'm saying that it's like saying:
IF there is
no Objective Morality then All Christians would be wrong - the disagreements between Christians would obviously be pointless. That's how I see it.
Again, I watch you do that and I wonder, “does he really not know the difference between, ‘that evidence isn’t very compelling’ and ‘he’s misleading by saying all christians are wrong,’?”
See above.
Do you? Do you really not understand the difference between him saying your evidence isn’t very compelling and him accusing all christians of being wrong?
See the above. But I'll say, they work hand in hand.
I watch Christians do what you just did pretty regularly. And while the phrase “the atheist is misleading” comes out of their mouth while they do it, I just watch and think, “dude, you realize it’s all in writing in front of all of us, don’t you? You just changed his words and called him misleading.”
His post, like the other posters was an atheistic world view. That understanding is different to the Christian world view. But I understand what he means, considering whos perspective this was. So basically... misleading. In terms of describing and giving an atheistic, anti-god opinionated view. I mean in context that
it would be misleading to think this was the representation of an Almighty God and the Christianity.
It’s fascinating. Like there’s no objective morality about bearing false witness that could be there to guide you or anything.
What are you on about? If you
abide by the Two Greatest Commandments, the thought of "bearing false witness" won't enter your mind.
But seriously, it really is fascinating. You leap to, “he’s calling us all wrong,” and of course the inevitable, ”Jesus said we’d be persecuted” is seldom far behind. The Christian wants SO BADLY to feel persecuted that they will just create it when it wasn’t there to satisfy them.
But it’s fascinating. Keep going.
The fascination is mutual. Keep going I will. Long posts will not deter me from engaging.
Not sure how the conclusion was made. Has he factored-in the simple equations, the simple things like for example : Some Christians may have studied more than others resulting in knowing more than others?
Why does your morally objective god require people to study so hard, one wonders.
Ah but you don't necessarily need to study hard to understand the bible. Jesus/ the bible speaks
with a variety of understandings on different levels. I am you could say with the little children, the understanding is through the language of compassion etc , the emotional sense.
Have you ever sat and pondered that? Why did my source of objective morals, who has the power, verily I say, to manipulate even molecules to create human life, why does he make it hard to understand his objective morality?
The Two Greatest Commandments.
How difficult do you think it is, in your minds (the posters who responded to me) for Christians or anyone else for that matter, to grasp or understand these two greatest commandments?
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 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!
Why does he make it difficult to know whether we should stone those who talk back to their parents or love our enemies?
Perhaps you should change religion. It's best to follow Jesus's example. Take note of the above, the love your enemies, those who try to harm you etc.. You could shout out to those who are willing to cast stones:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her
I think about that. I think about how Christians must think about that. Or rather, that that must not bother them one little bit. And again, it is fascinating.
I'm sure Christians do, plus the verse with "Who casts the first stone" too.
Bless..and you too.
Some may practice (abide) by the Moral Laws more closely than others. Christians are made up of a variety of people, each with their own individual minds.
Even if there should exist a common Objective Moral law ( in the Christian world). People will still be individuals under the same law.
That is Not the point he was making - that you ignored to create this point.
His point was that even if they practice (abide) differently, if there WERE an objective moral standard that was competently communicated by an all powerful being, everyone would be able to articulate it accurately before they decided to not abide it.
Moral laws should be simple, especially if there are 'consequences' attached to them. I'm a simple fellow, God wouldn't make it difficult for simple folk. Difficulty does occur when there are attempts to distort and cause confusion. These opposers/enemies and their attempts have always been about, running parrallel, since from the time of Jesus.
Anyway, if one should be confused, they only need look at the easiest to remember laws, declared by Jesus: The
Two Greatest Commandments, which ARE Moral law Objectives!
We all understand perfectly that if you hold a person’s head under water, including your own, you will only have about 3 minutes of life left. Not everyone abides that, such as Andrea Yates, who felt that she needed to do this to her kids so they could go to god and not get trapped by Satan, but she definitely understood the objective fact of it because that’s how she was sending her kids to god.
Unfortunate as it was for those souls, that sad case does
not represent the Moral Objective understood by billions of Christians today.
And the fact that christians, who actually care about their god and religion and want to do good, can’t agree on what the moral code is means that the evidence for an objective moral code is not very convincing.
I've got a response somewhere for this.
It would be more convincing if they were all able to articulate the same moral code, since it is purported to be objective and given by a single being, even if not a one of them abided it (practiced it). But the shifting foundation of the claim is that they can’t even agree on what it is, despite its purported objective truthiness, making the whole structure sketchy.
Yes that is how you see.
I already have a response somewhere.
(I'll leave it there. I haven't done too bad via my phone, getting better)
These, of course, are not the same thing.
Agreeing that a moral code exists is like saying “we all agree that theft from a store is against the law”
Uniformly abiding by that law, is an obviously different topic.
Um...they're synonymously packaged.
What? No they are not.
Oh yes they are.
As previously indicated above. Using the term abiding -
Which you brought up, he did not, so this is a derail from his point….
I brought it up, yes indeed! Just as people do in any other conversation, introducing different words not used yet in a discussion. I brought in the word consequences, I bet you could make up a "derail" line for that too.
in context, that variably each person would be practicing (or not at all) from the very same Moral law.
We’re still not talking about whether anyone practices it. That was not his point, that’s your straw man.
It was
my talking point,
my example. Not an implication that someone else said it.
In the Christian world view, the Objective Moral Code is only the 'one and same' understood by All Christians...even when there are differences between denominations, which may be trivial differences in terms of All things Universally Biblical.
“One and the same understood even when there are differences”?
That’s not understanding one and the same.
Do go on…
See Two Greatest Commandments response.
I ponder whether you do that on purpose, or whether, in your mind, you don’t understand that there is a difference between understanding a moral issue and abiding by a moral code.
As I said: moral issues between people doesn't conflict with the existence of Objective Morality as an idea. Ironically ... It's the atheists who often highlight Christians not following their faith - not abiding by their own laws....
And again, that is not what he said. Do you really not know the difference between
“Not everyone practices it so it must not exist as an objective standard”
and
“No one can agree on what it is, so it is unlikely to exist as an objective standard”
No one agreeing on what it is.. doesn't mean that someone isn't right. But then I see the context you're making here - the 'existence of Moral Objectivity is defined by a commonality'. Well in that context though different, that's fine by me, I was not refuting that point. My point was: the Moral Laws were defined, passed and declared. What Christian understands from it is irrelevant. The Moral Objective stands.
I’m beginning to think that no, you really honestly do not understand the profound difference between those two statements.
No counter argument necessary here.
... It is here... where we see the atheist repeating the same rhetoric mantra... 'Christians don't agree among themselves etc..' Both the 'moral issues' and the term 'abiding' are contained in the same package.
That’s your package, dude, not ours. That makes it a straw-man.
Christians disagreeing with each other,
should mean that with their differing positions on the moral matter; they would each be making the suggestion that between them...their side of the disagreement
abides follows the moral laws as according to the scriptures.
“If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues,” regardless of whther they all can, will or do abide by them.
“The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!” and everyone would agree on what that morality from that objective source is.
You did not refute James’ point. At all.
And still haven’t.
I refuted the atheistic biblical view as a foreign understanding, so different and at odds with the Christian view.
Disagreements will occur.
The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.
We can test a conceptual thinking.
Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the
source of Objective Morality?'
All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.
aaaaaahhhhh I would say that no, not all Christians agree that “God is the Objective Moral Standard” first because many Christians have a real problem with the world-drowning god’s morality - they are deeply troubled by it - and they think Jesus has better morals than YHWH, and second because they cannot agree that an objective standard exists or what that standard is, one can no longer argue that they agree on its objectivity.
We could clarify the context of God, so we can be on the same page.
Jesus is not God then by your book?
I don’t have a book. It’s not the same by their book.
Do you mean there are more than one? If you can show those differing books that would clear up a few things. Cheers.