Addressing the issue of constrained morality as Christians - are we truly good people?

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Sorry brother, but I'm not lying. Subjective morality doesn't exist. There is objective good, and objective evil. There is no subjective good or evil. I could be lined up to do battle with my clan, standing against an opposing clan, whose reputation towards the captured of enemy villages is most heinous. I could then decide, after I started running forwards with the rest of my clan, that I'd do a ninety degree turn to the appealing hill valley in the East, and abandon my wife & children, and the wives & children of all of my family members & neighbours, to an uncertain & potentially terrible outcome. No society in the history of the world would EVER have even remotely viewed as a possibility that this was potentially a subjective moral 'good', if the perpetrator claimed - or even genuinely believed - that it were the case. Either that claimant is a liar & a traitour of the worst possible order, or he is mentally deranged - if indeed he genuinely believed in just such a 'subjective morality'. That's the example CS Lewis gave when he addressed the matter, though I can't recall which book he wrote that in.

The entirety of the problem of the demonstrably true fact of the reality of an objective good & an objective evil revolves around that of delineations marking out divisions on a line between two points of circumstantial possibility of outcome, where each is favourable or less favourable to the ideal state of the pursuit of harmonised perfection resulting in zero harm. That's my own personal attempt at hashing out a proof of an objective moral good & evil.

Your original post which contained your assertions concerning the alleged inability of atheists in particular to possess the capacity to properly gauge morality, as in, they have no standard by which to measure & therefore they can only possess subjective standards, is poorly worded & certainly will have given people difficulty in understanding your point. The thrust of your point seemed to be that atheists could not be relied upon to be morally accountable because they were adrift in a wishy-washy nebulous zone of made up reality - and it is in that context that I responded very correctly to your OP. Atheists are perfectly capable of being morally astute.

And really to be quite honest I was offended by the content of your response to my OP. I stated that you had made an error, which I admit COULD have been an error of presentation more than anything else. You stated that I had deliberately broken one of the ten commandments, and that I made a habit of misleading people.

With that said, I think this should be set aside, because in attempting to reach across the aisle to the atheist crowd, to offer an olive branch & to refute an absurdism of Christianity which is not isolated to your OP, the jackals really came to town to dance on the impending grave of Christendom because two of ATS's Christian brothers had a disagreement. We are of course cautioned against taking each other to task in the New Testament - the world wants to rip apart the Kingdom of God just as well all by itself.

I will have more to say on many other posts in this thread when I can set aside some time to respond appropriately.

FITO.

Rahab, in the Bible, betrayed her county by hiding foreign spies from the authorities. She asked that her and her family be spared from the massacre she knew would be coming by way of the army of said spies.

In the Bible, she is praised as an example of faith.

Morally, was it "good" that she betrayed her country to a foreign massacre, but saved herself and her family?

Subjective, ain't it?

A shoutout to Katt Williams. There should be entire thread on its own account about his interview if there isn't one already. As a christian he has refused to surrender to the sexual depraved gate keepers of entertainment industry and likely government. Even though he was offered $50 million four times to do so. I certainly consider him a good person.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

You said:

Subjective morality doesn't exist. There is objective good, and objective evil. There is no subjective good or evil.

This isn't Biblical. Subjective morality comes from the knowledge of good and evil. If there's no subjective morality, why is God judging people?

God's Will is the objective standard of good. God allows us to act outside of his commandments which gives humans their subjective morality and allows humans to actualize evil.

This allows humans to accept God through faith in Jesus Christ or to not accept God. People have their own subjective will that comes from the knowledge of good and evil. God doesn't force people to be in a personal relationship with Him.

In Revelation 20:12 it says:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

How can they be judged according to their works if there's no subjective morality that comes from their subjective will?

Moral law is about an objective standard of good not individual moral acts. This is why it's not about good works but the righteousness of Christ that's born within. The Bible says:

Romans 4:8 “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”

Sin will not be imputed because you're covered by the death, burial abd Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You also said:

Atheists are perfectly capable of being morally astute.

Wow, you made a whole long winded posts instead of just responding in the thread to say this??

Astute means:

: having or showing shrewdness and an ability to notice and understand things clearly

Morally means:

with reference to the principles of right and wrong behavior.

So if an atheist is a sex trafficker and says my subjective morality says it's good to provide for his family so he trafficks 3 or 4 women is he morally astute?

The Bible says the carnal mind isn't subject to God's laws. Without an objective standard of good, how can any behavior be deemed not good?

Of course atheist know there's an objective standard of good that transcends subjective human morality. They set up false gods like humanism and climate change as ways to reach ideal goodness and justice.

Any atheist that says they're for human rights realizes there's a state of goodness that transcends subjective human morality. This objective standard comes from God and it's usually integrated into different beliefs.

This is from the U.N. about human rights.

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.

human rights

How can these rights be inherent if humans are just soulless animals?

The problem is humans all know that there's goodness that transcends subjective human morality. They all try to reach this transcendent truth through human effort. The Bible tells us we can't be reconciled with the goodness of God through human effort. It's through the righteousness of Christ.

So when you talk about "morally astute" you're talking about man's law not God's law which comes from the objective standard of goodness and justice which is God's Will.

This is why we have to be Born Again and we have to crucify the flesh. This is why we say not OUR WILL be done but YOUR(GOD) WILL BE DONE. Saying there isn't subjective morality isn't Biblical. We give up our subjective morality to follow God's Will.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

This isn't Biblical. Subjective morality comes from the knowledge of good and evil. If there's no subjective morality, why is God judging people?

It's confusing and contradictory religious dogma, or is it really man's error in interpretation or more of man's need to control others?, because God's judgement as in scripture is yet to come for us all.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Again, I'm just going to state that you are flat out wrong. There is no such thing as subjective morality. It's an oxymoronic concept. Morality is objective. God's will is the supreme expression of that objective morality, but just because we're lesser beings doesn't exempt us from the need to adhere to an objective moral standard. Subjective morality as you have described it simply doesn't exist. What you're actually saying is that subjective morality = no morality. Which is BS, which is why I wrote this thread. Your definitions are screwy & your argument doesn't make any logical sense.

I'm not going to respond further because you're being deliberately obtuse & confrontational, you're refusing to acknowledge any of the points I've made which are positive, basically butt-hurt because I resisted your efforts to rebuke the concepts I was exploring in my thread. You're even complaining that I had the arrogance to post my own thread instead of obediently commenting in your thread. Despite the fact that I explored a bunch of additional thoughts which I felt needed to be emplaced in a specific OP for review by the community.

As a Christian you should be trying to agree that we can put this behind us & move on - but you won't do so. You're being arrogant & aggressive in your posting style, which is extremely un-Christian, something which I would have thought to be obvious. It's a shame, because up to this point I have always respected your work on ATS. Sadly my opinion regarding your character is now unalterably changed due to what is blatantly a very bad attitude towards a fellow believer.


FITO.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Why the animosity? It's just as likely that Neo and yourself are from different denominational backgrounds within Christianity. Modern Christianity itself exists because some people had doctrinal differences with the pope, and many such other splits have since happened, and continue to happen, within Christianity. All the product of subjective morality and disagreements on such things as the trinity, free will, predestination, ect. And now, the two of you are continuing that tradition by publicly splitting over "moral objectivity", instead of reasoning and debating scriptures, with the goal of FURTHER understanding the mind and will of the God you both claim to serve.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

What?

You're the one who made an unnecessary thread about me and my thread when you could of just commented in the thread like everyone else. You're making it personal not me.

You're doing this because you're wrong and you just can't admit you're wrong so you're reduced to ad hominem attacks. You said:

What you're actually saying is that subjective morality = no morality.

Yes, and I illustrated how this leads to modal collapse. You haven't addressed any points that I have made. You seem to want to defend atheism for some reason. It's not making much sense.

I have said atheist have subjective morality but you call them Morally astute?????

Atheist who blaspheme God daily are morally astute? Do you even know what a carnal mind is? The Bible says:

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

What is the law of God?

The law of God is the objective standard of good that's God's will. Atheist can't be morally astute as you say because they have no objective standard of goodness so they're not subject to God's law.

They have to have subjective morality and atheist in the other thread admit this so why can't you?

Simple question. Can the carnal mind be MORALLY ASTUTE as you say atheist are?

If you say no, then you're agreeing with me that atheist have subjective morality.

If you say yes, then you're going against scripture that says the carnal mind isn't subject to the law of God. How can something not subject to the law of God be MORALLY ASTUTE when there's no moral law?

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

****14 Indeed, when Gentiles, WHO DO NOT HAVE THE LAW, do by NATURE things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. ****

15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

a reply to: HKMarrow

A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES

In in-born knowledge of right and wrong. Just like the atheist were saying in the other thread. They didn't need to hear from the law "thou shall not kill/steal" to know that these things are generally wrong. Because these are morals BY NATURE, already installed in the human mind.

A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES. An objective or subjective if you prefer, moral compass that we all innately possess, even without knowledge of "the law".

a reply to: HKMarrow

Another example of atheist not understanding scripture.

Paul was talking about Gentiles that believe in God and accept Jesus Christ. There were Jews who said the Gentiles need to be circumsized and they have to follow the law to be Christians. If you just read the entire chapter and book you would understand this.

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

When Paul talks about the circumsision of the heart, he's talking about Gentiles that have accepted Christ so they don't need the letter of the law because it's written on their hearts. Hopefully, you will read the entire chapter.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Well, you see, I have read that entire chapter. And Paul is talking about the law, and judging by it, in general. But, to give another witnesses to the validity my previous statement:

Who was the Greek Poet Paul refers to as a prophet?

This might seem unrelated, but it's very much related, and relevant.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Hi ATS,

I saw a thread by NeoHolographic the other day which suggested that atheists cannot possess a true moral compass as they have no fixed standards of morality to hitch their wagons to, so to speak. The thread drew much ire from atheists & agnostics alike, who were angrily denouncing the OP for pushing a false narrative, stating that they believed they were perfectly capable of moral behaviour. Furthermore, they stated, it is Christians who are devoid of true morality, because they need to put themselves under what they consider to be an imaginary cosmic law in order for them to have morality at all. In essence, they were claiming that Christians are literally amoral, because without their special made up rules to adhere to, they would be adrift & unable to make moral decisions for themselves.

Now this raises some very thorny issues for us Christians. Firstly, let me state that even from a Scriptural perspective, NeoHolographic was categorically WRONG to claim that atheists & agnostics cannot be moral people capable of independently making morally righteous decisions in the course of their lives, in terms of how they interact with other people & the world in general.

In the Book of Hebrews there is much discussion regarding the sacrifice of Christ, made once for all time, replacing the daily blood sacrifices offered by the Jewish priests in those times for the forgiveness of sins. God speaks concerning this singular act of redemption, and states as follows:

“This is the covenant I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord.
I will put My laws in their hearts
and inscribe them on their minds.”

Hebrews 10: 16

Now admittedly, the context is that of the redeemed who accept the sacrifice of Christ - but this is definitely a case of God putting His laws into the hearts & minds of ANY people in the days after Christ had offered that sacrifice - which is the time we are living in now - and when those laws are inserted into the hearts & minds of people who are being redeemed (people chosen by God to be sanctified - not necessarily ONLY Christians) then those people will live lives of moral uprightness, without the need to continually check whether they are behaving according to the dictates of the Hebrew 'Mosaic' law, which formed the basis of the original covenant between God & Man. They will naturally & effortlessly know the difference between right & wrong, and they will live according to the internal moral compass which is emplaced within them such that they act unconsciously, without the need to check whether they measure up - they simply live righteous lives, naturally.

I often refer to case studies of near death experiences when I want to emphasise to Christians or non-believers that God is far more merciful & forgiving, gracious & loving than most Christians would give Him credit for. Many Christians cling to the FALSE belief that if you never said 'the sinner's prayer' from a repentant heart, then you will literally burn in the fires of Hell for all eternity, whether or not you lived a morally upright life.

In actual fact, near death experience testimonies prove unequivocally that God brings normal, decent, atheist or agnostic people to the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven after they die following an accident or illness which puts them into cardiac arrest, from which they are ultimately revived by medics many minutes later, despite them having clinically died whilst on the operating table or hospital bed. These people who have a NDE describe being embraced by God in a flood of love & light, meeting relatives that had passed away before them, meeting angels, seeing Heaven, even meeting Jesus. This actually happened to my wife when she was 15 years old, having suffered anaphylactic shock due to a drug allergy. She died there & then on the hospital bed, and it took several minutes to restart her heart & revive her. In that time, she found herself beyond her body. standing on the edge of a mountain crevasse, over which was stretched a bridge, and on the other side, Jesus was waiting for her. She was overwhelmed with a sense of love & perfect peace, but as she was about to cross the bridge to go to Him, Jesus held up His hand and stopped her, telling her that it was not yet her time. He then pointed to a place behind her, and when she turned to look, she saw a young man curled up in fear & sadness, desolate & despairing, alone & unloved. Jesus told her that she had to go to find that man, because he needed her help. Years later, she met me here in England, and we started a relationship, getting married a year later. Unbeknownst to me until several years later, she recognised me when we met, as the young man who had been despairing in that near death experience. As it happens, I used to suffer from terrible anxiety & depression, fearing & despairing & not knowing how to resolve the trauma I had experienced as a younger teenager & even as a child. Part of her life's mission was to support & strengthen me to become the man Jesus wanted me to be.

But the point is, she had never said the 'sinner's prayer'. She was not religious, despite being raised in a nominally Catholic household. She went to a religious/convent school run by nuns, and she passionately disliked/ hated many of them. She lived the normal secular life of a teenage girl in Ecuador at that time, never giving any particular thought to religious topics. And yet, when she died on that hospital bed, Jesus was waiting for her, blessing her with divine love & peace, asking her to embark on a challenging mission that would see her cross two thousand miles of the vasty deep to eventually meet me in England several years later, as if by a miracle of coincidence - though there are only miracles of synchronicity, there is no such thing as coincidence.


Continued...

I'll be honest- I did not read your entire wall of text but, I did skim through everything to see if there was anything non-anecdotal in there. I was just talking about Phil Zuckerman in another thread and he wrote some books pertaining to this exact thing that are worth mulling over.. I have to say that I completely agree with his idea of religious people participating in what he calls 'moral outsourcing'.



Ask yourself this simple question- How does life here on Earth seem any different from a world without a 'god'? Does the world look like it's had a 'messiah'? Literally- what is the difference between existence without any 'god' vs one where your christian beliefs are true? This 'god' ends up creating all this chaos anyways by creating satan- right? So what is the actual difference between naturally occurring chaos? It sounds as if primitive people had to make up reasons for all of the incomprehensible chaos- to me.



The world is chaotic and brutal beyond comprehension, that is not indicative of an intelligent designer IMHO. You would expect there to be inherent order and laws. You stuck-up people always want to talk about 'god-given' rights, but they are imaginary. Why wouldn't 'god' give children the right to clean water or food? Seems like a world without a 'god' to me- and if by some cruel twist of fate an omnipresent supreme designer of the universe does exist- they are inherently worthless to us, which is very obvious by the current and past states of Human history.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

The problem of "evil" is linked to the root of all of this moral superiority BS.

Even according to the bible that these "superior" types wave around, but fail to fully read, God is responsible for good and evil. Any evil that God does, is to accomplish what is good in God's eyes, making it... not evil? At least in God's eyes.

If we are created as replicas of this, then nobody is actually any better than anyone else, regardless as to if they believe they are chips off the ol block or not. We all ultimately do what's right in our own eyes, and selectively use things like religion to support our agendas.

If God is an actual separate sentient being, or simply Nature itself personified, it really doesn't matter. All things that exist eventually reduce to one single origin, one single seed that contained everything else.

To me, that means ultimately everything is equally nessary in order to produce our current reality, and everything is ultimately simply facets of that One Thing.

Even the evil and related hypocrisy of all religions world wide. All are products of the Big bang, Big Ejaculation, or Big Announcements in Genesis.

If anyone else believes this or not matters not at all to me. But I do enjoy conversations with loud mouthed "Christians" who don't even bother to know and comprehend what's in the book they think supports them.

The best cure for Christianity, is the bible itself,
To loosely quote Mark Twain.