Rusty

So therefore PaulS, would it be fair to say that you regard morals (what is right and what is wrong) as being a subjective decision/perspective of the individual or people-group? If that is so, then what may be morally reprehensible to one (eg cannibalism) may be a valid option for other people. What is right for me may not be right for you and what is wrong to me is okay to be right for you. It has to be that way simply because it all comes down to personal opinion. Do we force our morals then on someone who holds the opposite view about cannibalism? Also, historical manuscripts etc show way beyond any other document that the Bible has not changed in all the 2,000 years that it has existed.Biblical interpretation has changed, but that is what people do and decide. There are doctrinal absolutes that have never really changed, such as salvation is only through the atoning work of Christ. Yes there have been groups that taught otherwise but historically those who believed this have always been there. They have suffered arrest, torture and being burned at the stake. The death penalty was introduced by God as an act of mercy to then make it so the offender was arrested, punished etc and the rest of his/her family were then not subject to retaliation. Homosexuality has not changed, yes there are those who have changed their doctrinal position but then there are many who have retained to the biblical position.

If someone wants to say that God is a moral monster (please I am not pointing any fingers here), the question is, what objective moral standard are you using to assess God? Do you think there is an objective moral standard? Where do you get that? How do you make sense of that on an evolutionary view? Or a Moral Reletavist’ view? You’ll discover that evolution can't give you an objective moral standard. It can only give you a subjective relative view of morality. Ironically, Dawkins’s own book River Out of Eden affirms that in a universe of selfish genes and electrons, there is no good or evil—just blind, pitiless indifference. How can he make such a metaphysical jump to damn “religion”? He can only criticize God by appropriating the moral resources available within theism rather than naturalism. There is the issue of specific examples. The person says that God is a moral monster. The questions are easier to answer when you boil them down to specific acts rather than addressing a vague observation. Which acts would qualify God as a moral monster? Which acts are genocidal? Often times, people won't have the specifics. When they do offer the specifics, we can deal with them on a case-by-case basis. You're going to have to do your homework on specific cases that are offered. Objectors, skeptics, and atheists typically don't have very good hermeneutics. They don't know how to read or interpret the Bible well, so they're not fair-minded when it comes to the text. They don't do the historical study or look at the background information. For instance, looking at the morals and ethics of the ancient Near East region, Israel was a huge improvement. But atheists don’t typically place their acts in historical context. Certain acts by God are morally justified. An effected part of the body left to travel its inevitable course will cause the body to die. When cancer becomes so corrupt it will kill the rest of the body, it must be cut out. It’s morally justifiable for God to command the destruction of a certain group of people because of their corruption. Not only their corruption and the resulting corruption within that particular people group, but also the corruption of other people groups. Looking at the history of the Old Testament narrative and the purposes God had for Israel, God had adequate moral justification for what he commanded in the Old Testament, and the details give us the specifics that we need make that case. http://creation.com/god-moral-monster https://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster

While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right. You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth… "There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes. "Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves. "Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement. "No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true. We all know there is absolute truth. It seems the more we argue against it, the more we prove its existence. Reality is absolute whether you feel like being cogent or not. Philosophically, relativism is contradictory. Practically, relativism is anarchy. The world is filled with absolute truth. Moral relativism maintains that everyone should be able to believe and do whatever he wants. Of course, this view is emotionally satisfying, until that person comes home to find his house has been robbed, or someone seeks to hurt him, or someone cuts in front of him in line. No relativist will come home to find his house robbed and say, "Oh, how wonderful that the burglar was able to fulfill his view of reality by robbing my house. Who am I to impose my view of right and wrong on this wonderful burglar?" Quite the contrary, the relativist will feel violated just like anyone else. And then, of course, it's OK for him to be a relativist, as long as the "system" acts in an absolutist way by protecting his "unalienable rights."

Hi Guys To answer your comments I think it best to speak to both together. Firstly, using the stealing scenario is (for me) a rationalization and is also suggestive that anarchy is an acceptable behaviour. What if it were me breaking into your house to steal the only food you had (a loaf of bread) – would that be wrong? Where, when would this form of rationalizing a wrong stop? Frederick Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, it does not exist. With moral problems/issues/disagreements, even if extraordinarily different viewpoints do prevail, a resolution is still needed. From this perspective, moral reflection that transcends human differences is needed even if relativism is entirely true. When two parties argue about some serious, divisive, and contested moral issue...we tend to think that some genuinely fair and justified compromise may be reached, or perhaps we remain uncertain while anticipating the emergence of the best argument.[2] In short, were relativism true, we might well have to act as if it wasn’t! Effectively, we can say, few relativists can remain relativists when they move from the calm realm of theory to that of practical realm of action where our roles as practitioners and evaluators come into prominence. The gist of that argument of moral relativism as being a good explanation of the moral disagreements we observe is fallacious. Yet the claim that some moral statements seem true to some people and false to others merely restates the fact of moral disagreement that is supposedly explained by relativism, it cannot explain that fact. (Perhaps some things are self-explanatory, but not moral disagreement!) So there is the familiar kind of truth dependent on how reality is apart from people’s beliefs or perceptions, and a bogus kind that is nothing more than belief. Moral relativism is at best morally confusing due to the absence of any clear ob­jective moral standards. If there is no absolute moral law then there is no basis for making moral judg­ments or decisions. Would we say that Mother Teresa is no more or less virtuous than Adolf Hitler? If there is no absolute moral standard, how can we call Hitler and the Nazi atrocities absolutely wrong? Is genocide relatively wrong or absolutely wrong?

Hi Guys To answer your comments I think it best to speak to both together. Firstly, using the stealing scenario is (for me) a rationalization and is also suggestive that anarchy is an acceptable behaviour. What if it were me breaking into your house to steal the only food you had (a loaf of bread) – would that be wrong? Where, when would this form of rationalizing a wrong stop? Frederick Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, it does not exist. With moral problems/issues/disagreements, even if extraordinarily different viewpoints do prevail, a resolution is still needed. From this perspective, moral reflection that transcends human differences is needed even if relativism is entirely true. When two parties argue about some serious, divisive, and contested moral issue...we tend to think that some genuinely fair and justified compromise may be reached, or perhaps we remain uncertain while anticipating the emergence of the best argument.[2] In short, were relativism true, we might well have to act as if it wasn’t! Effectively, we can say, few relativists can remain relativists when they move from the calm realm of theory to that of practical realm of action where our roles as practitioners and evaluators come into prominence. The gist of that argument of moral relativism as being a good explanation of the moral disagreements we observe is fallacious. Yet the claim that some moral statements seem true to some people and false to others merely restates the fact of moral disagreement that is supposedly explained by relativism, it cannot explain that fact. (Perhaps some things are self-explanatory, but not moral disagreement!) So there is the familiar kind of truth dependent on how reality is apart from people’s beliefs or perceptions, and a bogus kind that is nothing more than belief. Moral relativism is at best morally confusing due to the absence of any clear ob­jective moral standards. If there is no absolute moral law then there is no basis for making moral judg­ments or decisions. Would we say that Mother Teresa is no more or less virtuous than Adolf Hitler? If there is no absolute moral standard, how can we call Hitler and the Nazi atrocities absolutely wrong? Is genocide relatively wrong or absolutely wrong? If morals were simply 'how one perceives things' then that by definition would be moral relativism. Is God a moral monster? No, even when we look at the Old Testament we can see that as a sovereign being He brought justice into the world. He warned people of the wrongs that they were doing (prostitution, sacrificing babies, etc), gave them time to change and then brought judgment onto them as a result of their refusing to obey His commands.

In what way if He suffering...If He gives us objective absolutes such as do not rape babies - how is that delusional. Because He is not applying it to an individual or an individual people-group but to everyone on the planet. And so that is an objective moral and not a subjective relative moral made up by an individual or a people-group.

Only if someone outside of humanity (such as God or a god) is deciding what is right and what is objectively wrong and what is objectively wrong; otherwise it is simply one human deciding such and another deciding differently. They are both right in their own eyes and no one can say they are wrong because that individual is only adding in their morality to make such a decision.

G'day Again So going by your response, morality as I have stated previously is relative to each individual or people -group. Russ

Hi Joseph I understand where you are coming from but then I disagree with you. But then, what makes me wrong and you right/correct in both our definitions or choices?

Hi Bill Really sorry for your loss, I've lost people I know - a nephew committed suicide last year and my father died last year as well. It's not nice. Anyway, one thing in my search is that there is no such thing as Christianity without God. Any morals apart from God can only ever be 'relative morality.' You may think it's wrong to do one thing while I think it's okay to do it. Both are valid viewpoints and neither is wrong in this form of morality. I also believe that definitely God is not responsible for your granddaughter's death, the driver of the car is. He chose to drive in a dangerous manner and that resulted in her death. But all through this, God was with you. He stood with you in your grief and still stands there with you today. He also knows what it is like to lose a loved one - Christ died for a crime He never did. He was innocent of all wrong and yet He paid the penalty for it. Russell