Note : Typo – "4a.-6" should read "5-7." Formatting changed before publishing, I neglected to edit that portion. Sorry for the confusion!

Note : Typo – "4a.-6" should read "5-7." Formatting changed before publishing, I neglected to edit that portion. Sorry for the confusion!

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MitchLeBlanc. MitchLeBlanc said: Objective Morality and the Bible | Urban Philosophy – http://bit.ly/9M0Kyw [...]

An objective set of morals is, by definition, followed by any entity. If God can chose not to obey them, then he is essentially a "king," and we become his "subjects." In this scenario, the morals he reveals are not objective, as they can change as he wills them to.

I personally deny #1 as well, but as I stated, I am assuming it to be true for the sake of argument. This is designed to be a counter argument to the argument from morality posited by William Lane Craig and the like.

An objective set of morals is, by definition, followed by any entity. If God can chose not to obey them, then he is essentially a "king," and we become his "subjects." In this scenario, the morals he reveals are not objective, as they can change as he wills them to.

I personally deny #1 as well, but as I stated, I am assuming it to be true for the sake of argument. This is designed to be a counter argument to the argument from morality posited by William Lane Craig and the like.

Personally I deny #1, assert #2 and am agnostic about #3.
–
I don't see how your #3 "God must follow any objective and perfect set of ethical facts." must be so. Why must the Judeo-Christian God follow any objective morals? He isn't human. You also seem to be judging God's actions based on modern morals. To the best of my knowledge God's behavior in the Bible is consistent with the morals of those who were alive at the time.

Personally I deny #1, assert #2 and am agnostic about #3.
–
I don't see how your #3 "God must follow any objective and perfect set of ethical facts." must be so. Why must the Judeo-Christian God follow any objective morals? He isn't human. You also seem to be judging God's actions based on modern morals. To the best of my knowledge God's behavior in the Bible is consistent with the morals of those who were alive at the time.

You write, “In any modern society, the expectation of a parent is not to require a sacrifice from their children after a wrong doing (Jesus).” Jesus never did anything wrong.

You write, “The problem is compounded wen God is given attributes which Humans do not possess, such as infinite love.” Where does the Bible say that God has infinite love? Why is the “problem” “compounded”?

You write, “One may simply maintain that the Garden of Eden story was metaphorical, in which case it seems that Jesus’ sacrifice was unnecessary.” One may not “simply maintain” this at all nor do you give any reason for maintaining it.

You write that, “In the Bible, God does many things which all sane Humans consider to be immoral.” Yet you had already written, “[I]t is often pointed out that their exists an, on the surface of it, objective moral order in the world. Regardless of whether or not this is true (I would contend it is not).” The conclusion to be drawn from your own words is that you are insane.

You also write, “Human beings and God must adhere to the same set of perfect, objective, ethical facts.” Not even all human beings must adhere to the same set of moral laws. I am not justified in cutting someone open whereas a surgeon is. God does not have to adhere to laws that humans are to follow. You need to take into account the Creator/creature distinction.

You write, “If Jesus was simply taking on the sin which is/was present in every being simply due to the imperfect nature of human beings, the same problem arises.” Human beings in and of themselves are not imperfect in nature.

You write, “People in modern society are expected to forgive and forget, which God seems incapable of doing in the Bible in numerous situations. (The Flood, etc.)” People are not expected to forgive and forget without repentance. God also expects repentance and the people killed in the flood did not repent.

You write that, “In the Bible, God does many things which all sane Humans consider to be immoral.” Yet you had already written, “[I]t is often pointed out that their exists an, on the surface of it, objective moral order in the world. Regardless of whether or not this is true (I would contend it is not).” The conclusion to be drawn from your own words is that you are insane.

You also write, “Human beings and God must adhere to the same set of perfect, objective, ethical facts.” Not even all human beings must adhere to the same set of moral laws. I am not justified in cutting someone open whereas a surgeon is. God does not have to adhere to laws that humans are to follow. You need to take into account the Creator/creature distinction.

You write, “In any modern society, the expectation of a parent is not to require a sacrifice from their children after a wrong doing (Jesus).” Jesus never did anything wrong.

You write, “The problem is compounded wen God is given attributes which Humans do not possess, such as infinite love.” Where does the Bible say that God has infinite love? Why is the “problem” “compounded”?

You write, “One may simply maintain that the Garden of Eden story was metaphorical, in which case it seems that Jesus’ sacrifice was unnecessary.” One may not “simply maintain” this at all nor do you give any reason for maintaining it.

You write, “If Jesus was simply taking on the sin which is/was present in every being simply due to the imperfect nature of human beings, the same problem arises.” Human beings in and of themselves are not imperfect in nature.

You write, “People in modern society are expected to forgive and forget, which God seems incapable of doing in the Bible in numerous situations. (The Flood, etc.)” People are not expected to forgive and forget without repentance. God also expects repentance and the people killed in the flood did not repent.

You write, “Another ethical law which God does not adhere to is the usage of people as a means to an end.” Where is this “ethical law” found in the Bible?

You write, “These are ethical laws which are set in stone to modern societies” but denied that there were such things earlier.

There are a lot of problems with this post. :/

You write, “Another ethical law which God does not adhere to is the usage of people as a means to an end.” Where is this “ethical law” found in the Bible?

You write, “These are ethical laws which are set in stone to modern societies” but denied that there were such things earlier.

There are a lot of problems with this post. :/

I think I agree with you on most of your points here. I'd just like to add that even if one does take the Garden of Eden to be metaphorical, it doesn't seem to follow that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary since while it may not be the case that two people, specifically Adam and Eve in a certain place committed sin against God, it could still be true that in some fashion sin was committed against God which would require some atonement, etc.

I think I agree with you on most of your points here. I'd just like to add that even if one does take the Garden of Eden to be metaphorical, it doesn't seem to follow that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary since while it may not be the case that two people, specifically Adam and Eve in a certain place committed sin against God, it could still be true that in some fashion sin was committed against God which would require some atonement, etc.

I think that you are confusing "objective" with "necessary". I think there are objective morals and yet many do not choose to abide by them.

I think that you are confusing "objective" with "necessary". I think there are objective morals and yet many do not choose to abide by them.

I agree. But God, as a perfectly moral being, MUST follow them, and I contend he does not.

I agree. But God, as a perfectly moral being, MUST follow them, and I contend he does not.

May I ask where the contradiction is in those two statements? I presuppose that there IS an objective set of ethical facts, for the sake of argument. If there is NOT, then the argument which this is a response to has no weight.

So, the creator of an object or being is justified in doing whatever they like with it? A parent can do whatever they like with their child, simply as they created it?

May I ask where the contradiction is in those two statements? I presuppose that there IS an objective set of ethical facts, for the sake of argument. If there is NOT, then the argument which this is a response to has no weight.

So, the creator of an object or being is justified in doing whatever they like with it? A parent can do whatever they like with their child, simply as they created it?

And, it was my understanding that humans were considered imperfect after the fall. Could you explain this in more detail?

Does not the Bible speak of forgiving and forgetting? "Turn the other cheek," among others. And, in the parent/child relationship, they most certainly are, typically. My son could do drugs, etc. and I would be considered wrong in shunning him and simply ignoring him, even if he didn't explicitly come to me and apologize.

And, it was my understanding that humans were considered imperfect after the fall. Could you explain this in more detail?

Does not the Bible speak of forgiving and forgetting? "Turn the other cheek," among others. And, in the parent/child relationship, they most certainly are, typically. My son could do drugs, etc. and I would be considered wrong in shunning him and simply ignoring him, even if he didn't explicitly come to me and apologize.

The idea that morals are drawn from the Bible is the bedrock of the argument that this article is a response to. If humans hold a moral belief, then it has come from the Bible.

I said that there are no objective morals. Things can be considered to be "set in stone" within a society. They need not to be objective for this to be the case.

The idea that morals are drawn from the Bible is the bedrock of the argument that this article is a response to. If humans hold a moral belief, then it has come from the Bible.

I said that there are no objective morals. Things can be considered to be "set in stone" within a society. They need not to be objective for this to be the case.

I never said Jesus did anything wrong. It is, to my understanding after many discussions with theists, the case that Jesus was crucified to "pay for," so to speak, the sins of Human beings.

I have never met a Christian who said that God is not infinitely loving.

And, many do maintain the genesis story is a metaphor, this is the case for theistic evolutionists, etc. etc.

I never said Jesus did anything wrong. It is, to my understanding after many discussions with theists, the case that Jesus was crucified to "pay for," so to speak, the sins of Human beings.

I have never met a Christian who said that God is not infinitely loving.

And, many do maintain the genesis story is a metaphor, this is the case for theistic evolutionists, etc. etc.

Parents do not create their children, they give birth to them but are not their makers. DNA does as it pleases with us and has the right to do so. That is Dawkins' selfish gene in a nutshell. DNA is amoral, just like God.

Parents do not create their children, they give birth to them but are not their makers. DNA does as it pleases with us and has the right to do so. That is Dawkins' selfish gene in a nutshell. DNA is amoral, just like God.

Well, I don't understand absolutes. I never can understand what is meant when people claim god is omnipotent etc. What does it mean to be a "perfectly moral being"? I've no clue.

Well, I don't understand absolutes. I never can understand what is meant when people claim god is omnipotent etc. What does it mean to be a "perfectly moral being"? I've no clue.

[...] Objective Morality and the BibleNon-Theistic Objective MoralityInductive Reasoning and the Christian God [...]