Objective Moral Values

[Risto the Great]

It certainly does appear that moral values change going from the old testament to the new testament. If they have evolved or changed, then God surely changed His mind about a whole lot of things. This places a question on objective moral values in my mind.

[Michael]

It certainly does appear that moral values change going from the old testament to the new testament. If they have evolved or changed, then God surely changed His mind about a whole lot of things. This places a question on objective moral values in my mind.

This really shouldn't bring your moral experience into question... At all... Old Testament ethics can be treated seperately. The question is about objective morality vs relativism. Why is this being coupled with Christianity? Why assume that Vangelovski is defending a religion?

[Onur]

It certainly does appear that moral values change going from the old testament to the new testament. If they have evolved or changed, then God surely changed His mind about a whole lot of things. This places a question on objective moral values in my mind.

You mean whom by saying God? The God or the Jesus? No offense but i really don't understand the concept of trinity and i don't think i ever will!!!

AFAIK, both old and new testament hasn't been written in the era of the prophets themselves(or the God if you consider Jesus as same as God) but both has been written 100+ years after them. I`ve read both and both was an interpretation of their teachings by 3rd person(s). So, do you consider that these are directly the words of God or the interpretations of it?

Btw, i don't think the Abrahamic religions are so different from each other. To me, the main concepts are quite same in old, new and last(as muslims claims) testaments. The differences are in just some traditions like circumcision or the style of praying.

[Vangelovski]

AFAIK, both old and new testament hasn't been written in the era of the prophets themselves(or the God if you consider Jesus as same as God) but both has been written 100+ years after them. I`ve read both and both was an interpretation of their teachings by 3rd person(s). So, do you consider that these are directly the words of God or the interpretations of it?

This is nonsense - No informed atheist or theist would accept this claim because its simply ridiculous.

[Vangelovski]

It certainly does appear that moral values change going from the old testament to the new testament. If they have evolved or changed, then God surely changed His mind about a whole lot of things. This places a question on objective moral values in my mind.

RtG, on the issue of "different" moral values between the old and new testaments, there is no difference. Makedonin is using a cheap red herring tactics which was dealt with in the Hellenic Religion thread and I won't be engaging with it here. ALL of his red herrings were answered in that thread by various posters and he was not able to refute ANY of them other than to say we were "twisting words".

Intelligent atheists who have studied the Bible don't make the "contradiction" claim because they know there is none. As I said before, I could make Alexander the Great look like a Greek, Egyptian or Persian by taking sentences out of their textual, linguistic, historic and/or cultural context. But what would the point of that be? The question of my intellectual honesty would eventually have to be asked.

By using this tactic, Makedonin may be able to convince the casual reader, who has not studied the Bible, its authors, the specific audiences, the historic and cultural backgrounds etc, but he looks like a fool to anyone who has a basic background in the Bible.

[Onur]

So what Vangelosvki? You claim that old testament has been written in ~2000 BC when Moses was alive and new testament has been written in ~25 AD when Jesus was alive?

Even the sentences in these books are 3rd person manner of telling, in grammatical context.

[Vangelovski]

So what Vangelosvki? You claim that old testament has been written in ~2000 BC when Moses was alive and new testament has been written in ~25 AD when Jesus was alive?

Even the sentences in these books are 3rd person manner of telling, in grammatical context.

Onur, I'm not even going to try to convince you of it - that is not the topic of this thread. I suggest you get some accurate information on it. Read a scholarly book, visit one of the many musuems in Israel or across the world, (hec, maybe even wikipedia has some accurate information on it) but don't make idiotic claims that have no basis in reality!

[osiris]

The old testament was not written more than 500
BC and the nature of that god is based on the all powerful rulers of that time. The new testament god is a more mellow forgiving entity. Modern Christianity is confused and trapped in a dilemma trying to reconcile the brutalracist old god and the Buddha like Christ

[Vangelovski]

The old testament was not written more than 500
BC and the nature of that god is based on the all powerful rulers of that time. The new testament god is a more mellow forgiving entity. Modern Christianity is confused and trapped in a dilemma trying to reconcile the brutalracist old god and the Buddha like Christ

Osiris, I expect more intellectual honesty from you because I can see you are an intelligent person. But lets not get away from the question of objective moral values - you claim you do not believe in them, and if this is true, how then can you claim that child molestation is evil if morals are subjective? You have not been intellectually honest about this yet.

[osiris]

Your idea of objective morality is based on your belief in a christian god
RTG makes the point that the old testament and the new idea oh god are different and so have some of the values. I think you should stop questioning the character of those of us who disagree with you and stick to the topic and please cut the emotional references to child abuse.

[Vangelovski]

Your idea of objective morality is based on your belief in a christian god
RTG makes the point that the old testament and the new so have some of the values. I think you should stop questioning the character of those of us who disagree with you and stick to the topic and please cut the emotional references to child abuse.

References to child abuse is not emotional. It is an act that does occur in our society. How can we categorise it as evil if objective moral values do not exist?? If morals are only subjective, that means that that particular act may be subjectively good for some and subjectively evil for others. If, as you claim, objective moral values do not exist, then you have to accept the absurdity of child molestation being categorised as "good" by those who subjectively believe it to be so.

[osiris]

Is god bound by objective morality

[Vangelovski]

Is god bound by objective morality

Osiris, I'm trying to have an honest conversation. Lets stick to the question of the existence of objective moral values (which we can determine without bringing God into the debate). How do we categorise as either good or evil, certain acts that happen in our society, such as child molestation, without objective moral values? If as you claim, they do not exist, then you have to accept the absurdity that someone can categorise child molestation as good if they subjectively believe it to be so.

If you want to have an honest conversation, without either of us appearing to "win" or "lose" on the forum, I'm happy to continue through PM.

[Risto the Great]

This really shouldn't bring your moral experience into question... At all... Old Testament ethics can be treated seperately. The question is about objective morality vs relativism. Why is this being coupled with Christianity? Why assume that Vangelovski is defending a religion?

Welcome Michael.
I would have eased into a conversation a little more elegantly if it was my first post on a forum, but so be it.
Vangelovski is using objective morality to defend the existence of God. Not necessarily a specific religion if I understand correctly. Are we in agreement about this?

But if we are talking about God, then the God that Vangelovski is talking about is best understood by Christianity. Which led me to my earlier observations.

If we have specific objective moral values, and these are derived from God, then what are they? Also, why do other religions and or nations get by famously in a similar fashion even if they have many Gods (Hinduism for example).

I do not believe the discussion was about objective vs relative moral values. But more so about objective moral values coming from and proving the existence of God. Which makes for interesting discussions. Objective vs relative moral values is certainly worthy of discussion but not the central theme here.

Feel free to contribute by offering your perspective.

[Risto the Great]

How do we categorise as either good or evil, certain acts that happen in our society, such as child molestation, without objective moral values? If as you claim, they do not exist, then you have to accept the absurdity that someone can categorise child molestation as good if they subjectively believe it to be so.

The Spartans had orgies ignoring that objective moral value. So did Albanians until a couple of hundred years ago apparently.

Are you saying that they knew it was evil? I wouldn't have documented songs about "boy love" if I was an Albanian of 150 years ago if that was the case.

If the Spartans and Albanians (amongst others) did not think this was evil at all, then perhaps child molestation is not one of the objective moral values we are talking about. I feel like we have to assume we are talking about a moral value that has not changed over time like "murder". Although, in the right context, that seems to be fine in the Old Testament.

An interesting discussion that I am sure has had more than a few MTO members talking about it in the past.




A Buddhist perspective on moral relativism is as follows:

By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.