Believing it is not proving it

Its much more than a whim. Call it a lifelong relationship with a special person. I may not always get what I want but I have found that I get what I need. (Apologies to Mick Jagger for stealing his lyrics)

Oh, I thought perhaps you had some logical reason for your belief.

If by logical you mean do I have a scientific reason, I would say that I do not, apart from my own subjective interpretation of my own sanity.Through internal verification, I have my own reason, which is patently logical within my own subjective judgment.

robinrohanBut if it is feelings about right and wrong then it is subjective not objective.That you have these feelings does not constitute a requirement that the rest of the people in the world feel the same way.Indeed, it is this very notion of a personal sense of right and wrong that is the basis for discussions occur over morality. What you consider to be a violation of ethics makes it important to you and only those who agree with you.So now we are left with questioning the basis for right and wrong in a society.

Sin is a meaningless concept - except in practical terms.Jesus reduced the commandments to "Love God and love thy neighbour as thyself". Those are practical commandments, designed to help us get along with each other."Sin" is the impractical - what sets us against each other. Sin is what a particular person does to another particular person at a particular time. It makes no sense to talk about "objective morality". Similarly, it makes no sense to impose "morals" on God.Morals are based on social interactions - how we treat each other. Thus, morals vary from society to society and from situation to situation. They are subjective.God is not a "social animal". Therefore, for God "morality" is undefined.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-03 12:58 PMThis message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-03 12:58 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

True, if there is no God (see "dilemma" above).

robinrohan You are saying here that if there is no God it is true that feelings about right and wrong are subjective.Conversely if there is a god then the feelings about right and wrong are objective correct?

I am saying that it's possible they could be objective.But with no God, they cannot possibly be objective.

robinrohanOk then, is it possible with a god for right and wrong to be subjective?

But right and wrong don't depend on whether there is a GOD or not. You mentioned war earlier, but whether the war is right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad, justified or unjustified does not depend on the existence of GOD but rather the particular conditions and events of the incident.The existence of a GOD does not make an unjust war just, or a just war unjust.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

But with no God, they cannot possibly be objective.

---

Why not? What would it take for a system of morality to be objective?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Where are you getting that idea?The golden rule is explicitely subjective. It sets your own subjective view of how you want other to treat you, as the standard by which you should treat others.

quote:

---

If one is a Christian or Jew or Muslim, one has to believe in an objective morality. Otherwise, sin would be a meaningless concept.

---

Why? Morality is nothing more than the rightness or wrongness of an action or being in accord with the principles of right and wrong in conduct. Each individual, culture, or civilization decides what is right and wrong for their group.If you live in an apartment by yourself, you can run around the apartment naked, eat whatever you want out of the fridge, or keep the apartment as clean or as cluttered as you please. BUT, if you have a roommate, then there is a need for rules to define allowable conduct.Even between Jews, Christians, or Muslims what is considered morally wrong or right differs in some areas and situations. It even varies among sects within each religion.

quote:

---

If God made the process, then He is responsible for it morally.

---

Refer back to your Message 238. Don't change tracks on me. We are still working with the idea that God does not exist. So it is fruitless to project the concept of human morality onto a process that makes no conscious decisions.

quote:

---

I'm assuming that animals don't have a moral code and so are not responsible.

---

But animals do have their version of a "moral code." Look at wolf packs or a pride of lions. It is unreasonable to expect their code to be the same as ours and judge them by our standards.

quote:

---

He who made the animals would be responsible.

---

Again, we are still working with the premise that God does not exist.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

If moral rules are just ideas "decided on" by somebody or some group, then these rules are subjective, of no more significance than my preferring blue to green, the violation of which cannot possibly constitute "sin" in the theological sense. That's why, if one is a Christian, one has to believe in objective morality, which would be as objective as 2 plus 2 make 4. If God does not exist, of course it is fruitless.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-04-2006 03:25 PM

quote:

---

If moral rules are just ideas "decided on" by somebody or some group, then these rules are subjective, of no more significance than my preferring blue to green, the violation of which cannot possibly constitute "sin" in the theological sense.

---

Exactly. To some of us, this is why traditional Christian theology is problematic from the get-go. Traditional evangelical Christians cannot even explain what they mean by "objective morality", much less present a convincing argument that one might exist. As this is the basis of traditional evangelism, then this type of theology has a foundation built on sand. There is no need for further arguments that the traditional evangelical god exists or does not exist.The other solution to this dilemma is to say that morality just means what God says it does. But this is the morality of the biggest person telling everyone else what to do; such a concept doesn't really square with what most people think when they consider right and wrong.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)