objective/subjective morals/conscience?

Hi, PaulK. Well, I think he makes a good argument that there is near universal agreement among people about the human right to life (but the example only proves this point rather obliquely). The fact that you (a moral relativist, I'm assuming) equate "people with moral values" with "people who would not kill all five" is fairly good evidence of Jaywill's point.I still think he's wrong overall, though, that disagreement doesn't equate to relativity, or that his example is particularly meaningful for this debate (for reasons enumerated in the above post).

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

If scripture provides us with a complete absolute moral framework then by studying scripture alone we should be able to derive the ”correct’ answer to ANY moral dilemma.If however scripture alone is not enough, thus necessitating human interpretation and subjective moral judgement in the resolution of moral conundrums then it cannot logically be claimed that scripture is able to provide us with a complete and absolute moral standard. OK. Then the source of this absolute morality should be able to provide us with a single ”correct’ answer. Yes? Whoah. Just because people do not accept your God given absolute morality hypothesis do not assume that we apply no morality at all and do not assume that the source of this morality has not been deeply considered.
I would advocate what I would broadly describe as a form of universal human morality. A form of morality that, like most human traits, has evolved out of necessity in the fight for survival as a species.
The moral imperative to not kill off the members of the society on which you depend is quite an obvious result of such a conclusion. Do you agree that an absolute moral standard requires that there is a ”correct’ answer to every moral question? All scientific answers are tentative. Nothing is proven. Nothing is ultimately definite or ”known’ to be true. All scientific conclusions are falsifiable and therefore potentially subject to change.
Are you claiming the same regarding your absolute moral standards? That is not particularly absolute now is it? In fact it sounds rather relative . . Well to all practical intents and purposes this is exactly what they do demonstrate.IN PRACTICE MORAL ABSOLUTES ARE IMPOSSIBLE ANYWAY
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there is an absolute moral standard. Let us also assume that God himself is the ultimate source of this absolute standard. This would logically imply that an absolute and correct answer to every moral dilemma exists and that this answer is known to God. Correct?But how are we to know the correct answer to any given moral dilemma? We cannot know the mind of God. God himself seems unwilling to directly and obviously provide any answers to individual cases. The scriptures could arguably provide some basis but are quite evidently deeply open to subjective interpretation and human error. Everything from mass genocide to non-retaliatory pacifism can be (and has been) justified with reference to scripture.Thus for any given moral dilemma all we can do is use our subjective interpretation of the facts that we personally choose to take into account and apply our equally subjective moral judgement and personal moral outlook. As a result we will inevitably have a uniquely personal answer to any remotely complex moral dilemma.Thus -
Even if a form of absolute morality does exist unless we can definitively claim to know what this absolute moral standard actually tells us to do in each unique circumstance then there is no difference in practical terms between the moral absolutist and the moral relativist in terms of making moral judgements. Both rely on subjective personal interpretation If there is a correct answer to this question then how can we find it without the application of subjective interpretation. Unless you claim to know the mind of God? There is no absolute morality known to man. What is considered to be right or wrong varies considerably from culture to culture and person to person. However as an evolved social species you will find universal themes. Themes such as the immorality of killing. What precisely constitutes immoral killing and what precisely does not is exactly the sort of thing that will vary from culture to culture and person to person. There are rational arguments that can be made in such disputes but ultimately any reference to a divine and/or absolute moral standard is just a claim made in ignorance of the fact that no individual is privy to such a moral standard and that all such judgements are borne of inherently subjective interpretation. This is equally as true even in the unlikely event that an unknown absolute standard does actually exist. But it does suggest that nobody knows what this mythical absolute actually consists of.
Thus meaning that there is no real difference in practical terms, between the moral absolutist and the moral relativist when it comes to the validity or otherwise of their individual moral decisions. In practice each is as morally subjective and imperfect as the other.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well, I think he makes a good argument that there is near universal agreement among people about the human right to life (but the example only proves this point rather obliquely). The fact that you (a moral relativist, I'm assuming) equate "people with moral values" with "people who would not kill all five" is fairly good evidence of Jaywill's point.

---

However, near-universal agreement was not his point in the part I addressed. Nor is it sufficient to prove that there is an absolute morality as he claimed. (And I will point out that a "right to life" is not the only basis for preserving some of those that could be saved).Worse for his case, there are good explanations for the agreements that do exist, which do not invoke an absolute morality. Whereas explanations that assume absolute morality are speculative at best.

Hello Mantis, it's always nice to get some more input. I'm not sure if ALL people will agree to this, but yes, generally, it will be agreed upon that one should die. Given of course that these are all "normal" people, and not child molesting murderers, in which case it becomes a bit more complicated. But that's semantics. But the choice I see here is not who gets to live, but who gets to die, Now, as I pointed out earlier, if I were in such a situation, I wouldn;t want to die, there are also people who would sacrifice themselves to save the group. These two are diametrically opposed, and I don't see how there can be claimed to be an absolute morality on this. It's true we have a strong will to live, but apparently not that strong in everybody. Basically what I've been trying to say, yes. On the whole, true. Of course when we go to the individual level, this might not be accurate. Yes, I would actually. I wouldn't really care as much about 5 bunnies as I do about 5 humans. It all depends on the circumstances I guess. That's also part of the problem with these examples, they lack specifics of the situation. How will they die, what kind of persons are they, and more of those questions. Now, if all 5 bunnies were to die painless, or relatively painless, deaths, I wouldn't find it that disheartening for all5 to die, they could be used as a food source. Yes, again semantics, but they are important details, I think. Perhaps I think too much about these things. Hmm, you could be on to something here. Yes, quite important, if you ask me. Yes, almost certainly. However, as I've pointed out, people have been known to sacrifice themselves when faced with this kind of situation. Yes, that's how I see it. No apologies necessary, I'd probably do the same. Yes, leading to subjectivity. Quite true, in the bigger picture, the deaths of those 5 don't mean a thing. Nice analogy. Exactly what I'm trying to say. I think he's saying that although humans disagree on everything, that doesn't mean that somewhere, there is something that is an absolute moral law. Humans just don't know what it is. It's a useless argument, since if we are to entertain the thought merely because it could be, it's absolutely pointless. Of course. Well, I think there are a lot of differences even within Islam. But I get the point you're trying to make. Well said. Hehe, and a nice ending as well. Yes, this is basically what it comes down to. If there IS and absolute moral law, we don't know what that is. And so, it becomes non-existent as far as we are concerned.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hi, Paul. I read it as his his attempt to use near-universal agreement to prove that absolute morality exists. At any rate, I agree with you that it doesn't prove what he thinks it proves.----- True. The belief in a "right to human life" could easily be explained, for instance, by the evolution of social organization as a survival mechanism, and thus, could hardly be based on an absolute principle.Neanderthals would likely have had a belief in a "right to Neanderthal life" that they did not particularly extend to us (there is possible evidence that our sense of a "right to human life" didn't extend to them, after all).I find it terribly suspicious to argue for moral absolutism when oneself or one's "own kind" is the primary benefactor (and most others are malefactors) of the absolute moral that is being proposed.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

I read it as his his attempt to use near-universal agreement to prove that absolute morality exists.

---

I don't think that it is that simple. Consider this again: That isn't about universal agreement. It is a clear mischaracterisation of moral relativism. It is simply not true that moral relativism entails that there is no dilemma. A nihilist would say that"It doesn't matter..." - but it is certainly not the case that all moral relativists are nihilists.

Hi, Paul. Okay, I see what you're talking about. I was attaching your responses to a part of the post that you didn't actually quote. Particularly, this part: Edited by Mantis, : Added Jaywill quote for clarity.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Hi, Huntard. The majority would probably make the same choice for the humans and the bunnies, although the majority would probably be smaller for the bunnies.And, it would definitely change depending on who had to do the killing and how they had to do it. If you only had to sit in a classroom and radio the decision to somebody else, it would be relatively easy. And, if all you had to do was push a button (during which you could look away or cover your eyes), you would be less averse to killing than if you had to snap a neck with your bare heads.----- Yeah, I wasn't espousing the "Muslim Apocalypse" point of view. It was a kind of tongue-and-cheek reference to one of Buzsaw's pet topics.-----Now, a general question here:I have been using "relative" and "subjective" morality as essentially interchangeable. But, is this really correct? I could see "relativity" referring to different situations, and "subjectivity" referring to different people. Does this distinction need to be made, or am I overthinking it (again)?Edited by Mantis, : Minor corrections.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Yes, I agree. It all depends on the details of the situation. Ah, I see. Not on my account. I think they can be interchanged just fine.

---

I hunt for the truth

My thoughts are still developing in this area of morality. I do not claim to have a settled position on all aspects of it. So I am reading some posts here to help my own thoughts on the matter. What Scripture tells me is that the perfect man lived and died and rose again from the dead. But additionally, He is in a form in which He can unite, blend, and incorporate Himself with my being. That is so as to live His life again on the earth, but this time from within me in a mingled way."Abide in Me and I in you"This is the New Testament's call to live in an "organic" union with that perfect morality, as a vine flows its life into the attached branches.This is not attempt to summarize the whole Bible in a short paragraph. But I do point out that instead of Scripture telling us to go out and do 1,800 do's and don't as instructions, it tell us that Christ has taken care of our past offenses on His cross. And it tells us for the future we need to allow Him in His form as the divine life giving Holy Spirit to dispense His life and nature into our being that we could live one with Him.That is two lives intertwined and interwoven in a spiritual union. This union regulates our reactions and causes us to spontaneously live according to God's righteous nature. I think you may be right. I think however that Scripture didn't claim that it was going to do that. At least Scripture put everyone under condemnation - [b]"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."Paul's teaches that a chief function of the law of God was to expose man's sinful nature. Man was poisoned with a foreign element that constituted him a sinner. He thinks he is alright and it is a minor problem. God says in essense "You think it is a minor problem? Here take my law and live by it."All have failed.Right now what I see is that law God gave to Israel exposes man that no one is able to live up to it. All are condemned by it. It acts as a instructer leading fallen men to understand the need for salvation, redemption through Christ's atoning sacrifice on His cross for the sins of the world, and for the need for Christ to dispense His life and nature into those joined to Him - born of God to be partakers of His life. I think the answer is YES, to the SOURCE of perfect morality.The SOURCE yes. The source is God's nature. This perfect morality flows out of what He is by nature.But I think probably what you are trying to do is in essence say "Okay, show me what page and what paragraph and what sentence tells us exactly what to do in all possible situations among an infinite number of cases."We do not have a Bible of 900 trillion pages telling what the perfect reaction is in an infinity of human situations. What then do we have?We have the life testimony of a perfect man - Jesus Christ. That is a man who never commited one sin.We have His redemptive death and resurrection for our justification before a perfect righteous God.We have this Christ's ability to enter into our being, if we allow Him in, to live an "organic" union with us in all our varied and difficult situations.And we have TIME to learn how to live in oneness with Him in ever deepening degrees of union. We can abide in Him as an indwelling Presence. And He can abide in us as a realm and sphere to express His perfect life from within us, regulating our reactions, manifesting Himself in our personalities. This union expresses the highest level of morality on the earth, if we allow Him access to all of our soul. Notice that the paragraph you quoted from me did not mention God at all.But now that you mention it, this is what I think follows - If there is an absolute Moral Law there must be a Law Giver. There must be someone to whom we are obligated.A Moral Law means a Moral Legislator. A Moral Law means Law Giver, a Prescriber. That would be God. I think two things might be be necessary here for you to demonstrate if you hold to classic Darwinianism. I think you would have to argue that morals are material things. I mean hate must have a weight. Love must have its own atom. There must be a molecule for jealousy and a molecule for loyalty.I think that to fit morality into a purely evolutionary paradigm you have to stress the materialism of morality. That is as life forms do what they do to replicate themselves some mutations pass on material substance which is equvalent to moral values. The benefitial mutations are then made to survive through natural selection.Does love have a weight? Is there an atom for honesty? I think that is where we are if morality comes about from your evolutionary process. I want to think more on this. Good question. I notice that the first or second of the Ten Commandments says something about you shall love the Lord your God with all of your soul, all of your heart, all of your strength, all of your mind."Now if this perfect Moral Law flows out of what God IS by nature rather than what He arbitrarily decides, then to be in touch with His nature must provide the perfect answer. His nature knows exactly what to do.Perhaps that is why the commandment to absolutely love Him with the entire being. We know that none have done that except the Son of God. We know that the rest of us have fallen short of the glory of God and have all sinned.I am no ready to say that if my Bible had 900 billion trillion chapters in it that one portion would give the perfect answer to every possible situation of moral delimma among an infinite number of situations. But I think I am ready to say that there is a absolute Moral Law which flows out of God's nature. I think to the degree that it flows into man who is made in His image man can live the highest level of righteousness.That's about all I can chew right now. Be back latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi jaywill,It's always good to read your posts -- thanks. Your clear descriptions of your state of mind ("My thoughts are still developing...") are especially refreshing. A couple points stood out for me:1. This describes what I think is an entirely subjective basis for morality.As you say, holy scripture is not (cannot be) a fully-detailed instruction manual that provides a specific "moral" answer for every possible situation. For many situations where people must choose a course of action, there is no external, explicit specification that says which choice is the "moral" one.But then, when you say that a particular state of mind, involving a particular faith or belief, is the (sensible? best? only?) basis for moral behavior, you are actually dodging the question of how to validate that a particular choice is the "right" one. I expect there will be a fair degree of consistency among Christians when you present them with a given scenario and ask "What would Christ do?", but I also expect there are many scenarios that will elicit different answers, even among Christians of a single denomination, because each individual with this religious belief is likely to have a slightly different relationship with (a different understanding of) his/her God.It is an intrinsic and unavoidable fact of human existence that we must act in spite of uncertainty. The spiritual sense of certainty that you describe is an ideal that I assume is quite rare (and people who assert -- or even believe -- that they have such certainty are still liable to do things that really turn out to be wrong {ABE: of course, the same could happen to people who express or believe their own "certainty" on the basis of evidence, but perhaps less often}). Attributing one's choices solely to religious belief, based solely on some personal sense of righteousness, actually makes the justification of one's actions more problematic, because the religious belief is subjective.2. I think you are attributing too much materialism to ToE as it applies to behavior.Consider the vast range of "innate" behaviors observed in virtually all animal species (including man): things that creatures do, abilities that they acquire, without needing to be "taught" deliberately by others. Then consider how some innate behaviors will yield different outcomes when the members of a given species face different conditions.My favorite example is comparing houseflies and moths: trap the insects in a clear wine bottle, and lay the bottle on its side with the bottom facing a light, and the open end facing darkness. The moths will remain trapped in the bottle (and eventually die unless you change things around for them), because their behavior is to always fly towards a light source. Meanwhile, many (possibly all) of the houseflies will escape because their flight behavior is not constrained in that way. (If you try to alter the experiment to favor the moths and disfavor the flies, a few of the flies are still likely to succeed in escaping.)For all the species that seem to us to lack symbolic language, self-awareness and abstract thought, the linkage between behavior and physical inheritance/mutation can be studied and understood as a mechanism that consists in a binding of neural and muscle structures, and that interacts with events in the environment as perceived by the creature's given senses.As a general rule, when the senses, neural reactions and muscle capabilities combine in ways that work well in a given environment, the whole package tends to get passed on to subsequent generations. Over time, as mutations continue (both physical and behavioral), the ones that work better in the given environment will lead to a "honing" or "fine tuning" of both physical and behavioral patterns. When environmental conditions change (either because of moving to new territory, or because of things like climate change), the direction of favored mutations will change accordingly, but flexibility of behavior will tend to be the more important factor for survival.For humans, the matter is obviously more complicated: so much more goes into the determination for each choice of action; the acquisition of our behavioral repetoire is a much more prolonged and complex process; our dependence on elaborate social structures for survival tends to turn every behavioral trait into an equally elaborate mixture of individual and social motivations.The power of our behavioral flexibility, as proven by mankind's ability to survive and propagate in virtually every land-based ecosystem on the planet, seems to overshadow -- and indeed to override -- the influences of physical mutation. An infant born of Chinese parents and adopted by Arabic parents would have no difficulty learning Arabic as a native language, as well as the entire system of social behaviors of the Arabic community where the child grows up. The debilitating effects of many crippling genetic conditions are overcome by societal norms that allow the affected individuals to receive special treatment so they can live the fullest life possible.Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, the basis -- the basic rule -- for deciding what constitutes moral behavior can be stated quite simply: whenever you can, choose the course of action that will yield the most benefit to the widest range of life. I think we could look at history (and pre-history, and variations across communities and populations living today) and see an evolutionary vector for morality in terms of what the individual considers to be "the widest range of life" that should benefit from one's choice of action: pure self-interest would be the most primitive state; preservation of offspring and immediate family members is more advanced; then preservation of the clan, then of the multi-clan village or neighborhood, then of the larger town, the city-state, the nation.Very few have reached a stage where "the widest range of life" has global scope, and includes all species. But the results the of choices mankind has been making over the last couple millennia are reaching a point where a much larger proportion of us must reach that stage, or die for lack of this greater degree of flexibility.The point I want to stress about this perspective on morality is that the bases for making choices, and the rules for assessing the actual value and correctness of the choices we make, are fundamentally objective: the proof will be in the results. We will still be acting with varying degrees of uncertainty, but the goal, and the realistic expectation, should be a gradual reduction of uncertainty as we get better at doing what we need to do.This is too important to be consigned to vague and ephemeral notions of religious beliefs.Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor addition in part 1, as marked.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Thanks. I agree that this is subjective. What could be more subjective to a person than thier life?However, both in our experience as Christians and in the teaching of the NT this subjective experience grows into a corporate expression. That is why Paul speaks of "the Body of Christ", ie. all that are living by this divine life provide a body for one Person to express His desires on the earth."For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12)What happens as these deepening degrees of union regulate the believers is that the "body of Christ" emmerges, an aggregate and collective unity of experience. This entity is even called [b]"the Christ" - "so also is the Christ".God's goal then is not individual spirituality in a disjointed, isolated way of personal subjectivity. His dispensing of His life into people is for the formation of a corporate expression of the one body with one life and one expression of God united with humanity.The individual man, Jesus the Son of God, after His resurrection, was universalized and distributed into His believers. God infused this individual man with supernatural universality - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)This means that the SAME PERSON, the SAME MAN is in a form in which He can be dispensed into millions of people who can then live in Him as a realm simultaneously.It is important to realize that this subjective one is God-Man. Yes, to live in God as a realm is subjective. But there is only one God. And though there are scandelous divisions among brothers and sisters in Christ we do have His promise that He will build His church and that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.So while we do ascknowledged schisms and divisions we also have to testify that we have tasted oneness and unity in many cities accross the earth. The body is coming into existence. The corporate unity is emmerging. The subjective and personal is always being builded into the whole, fitly framed and compacted together.Paul taught much about this:"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

​

Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the cornerstone; In whom all the building, being fitted together; is growing into a holy temple in the Lord;

​

In whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit." (Eph. 2:19-22)The individual believers with the individual indwelling of Christ as life is growing along with and into a collective vessel, a corporate dwelling place of God. This is a organically growing building, a living temple emmerging through the encrease of Christ's life in a group of believers. This is exceedingly practical to many of us.As God dispenses His holy nature into these individuals what is developing is a holy living temple to contain God. That is God in a collective body of people - a corporate Body for Christ and a living temple for God as eternal life.I think the essence of your fear is that the new covenant I desicribe will only result in many isolated and subjective monk like individuals. That is not God's goal. And I beleive that what goal He has He cannot fail to reach in spite of our failures. Yes, I noticed that even in the giving of the ten commandments and the additional statutes, God had Moses appoint judges for decisions of hard cases. And the most difficult cases were to be brought to Moses. That is the Old Testament.In the New Testament though we are confronted with strange and difficult situations God promises that He will not allow the believer to be tempted above what he is able to withstand in His grace: The very term Father should communicate a sense of His wise and in depth understanding of the matters concerning His children. Jesus said that the very hairs on our head were numbered (Luke 12:7).Now if I pull out a hair and God knows, for example, that is hair # 134,264 and another hair is hair # 322,808 then He has intimate knowlege concerning my physical being. I know that He has just as detailed knowledge concerning my psychological and spiritual being as well as heredity, circumstances, inclinations, weaknesses, etc.I really don't think I can lose here. I did speak of the need to learn with time. Just as in natural life there is no instantaneous adulthood at the moment of birth, so at the moment of being born again, I am only at the beginning of my new life.Growth takes time and much trial and error. The divine Father knows that. I am not dodging if you mean. "Please point out the instruction in the Bible that tells me what to do in the next 10,000 actions I will perform for the rest of the day."Then our Bibles would be so huge you know. Even givin today's storage technology it would be slow, cumbersome, and impractical. So this is not a dodge anymore that the promise of "a new covenant" by God to His people is dodge. This now is the law of God's life being dispensed into man. First there was the law of letters. Then the new covenant is the promise of the law of God's life and nature being written in a living way into the inner being of the receivers.What you might call a "dodge" I would call the new covenant promised by God to impart His Spirit into His believers.The question then is not "What Would Jesus Do?". It is rather "What IS Jesus Doing?".Because "the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). He is in a form in which He can live and DO within us. "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom." (2 Cor. 3:17)Once "the Spirit of the Lord," which is virtually the Lord Himself, ie. the life giving Lord, the God giving Lord, is dispensed into the human heart, it is then our responsibility to allow Him to successively transform us by degrees into His image. Here is the continuation of the above passage:"Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

​

But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit."In other words, there is no escape from having to go through the process of successive growth, from one degree to another to another, by degrees, more and more into the "SAME IMAGE" of Christ.Now if you are going to throw back at me:" Well, jaywill, this is problematic you see, because all Christians are not instaneously perfect from day one. So there is lots of room for errors, mistakes, false starts, hypocrisies, inconsistancies, down right disobediences ... etc. So you see you have far from a perfect system going there."I would reply that you put much faith in the process of evolution don't you? How much trial and error has to take place in that system? Allow us to develop in spiritual growth as well.No one is getting away with anything here. I may be saved eternally and have eternal life. That does not mean that God cannot do some thing with me and even TO me in the age to come, let alone in this age.Putting aside the unbelievers in Christ for a moment, Paul says as well as His Master warns the Christians that we must all stand before the One who is living in us one day, and give an account of our life as His disciple: Remember that I said that if there is a Moral Law then there must be a Law Giver. There must be one to whom we are accountable.Yes, I may get over on you. I may get away temporarily with something. But I cannot get away forever. I am accountable to God - to Christ who lives in me now. I can be forgiven and still be disciplined by a wise Heavenly Father.I don't think we can improve upon God's way. That is true. But we Chistians will not abandon our faith because of some failures of His people.The record of the Bible is a record of God overcoming the failures of some of His people. Adam failed. Abraham failed somewhat. Isaac and Jacob failed somewhat. Saul failed. David had a big failure. Then many kings had some failures. The whole nation failed. God didn't stop. He Jews failed to recognise their Messiah. Peter had some big failures. There have been some failures of the Christian church in the last two thousand years.The resume of God however is filled with His ability to jump over the obstacles of man's failures. So we believe that He will reach His goal, if not with all, at least with a representative remnant.
( I do not speak of eternal redemption here but of the normal expression of spiritual victory of His people ). Do not forget - there is one to Whom we are ultimately acountable. Rare things are precious things often.If you split the right atom you will release tremendous energy although many other atoms were overlooked.As the centries roll on there are those obtaining the promises. There are those living in victory. Their numbers are encreasing in Paradise and on earth in spite of the immaturity of a greater number. God will acculate a number whom He will resurrect to be co-kings with Christ over the age to come.The story of how Gideon wrought a great victory with only 300 men is a lesson. God will obtain His purpose even if He is limited to a minority of cooperative ones.I have no immediate comment about the evolutionary portion of your reply yet. I want to read more about evolution.Skipping down then - But you could mean that as an outsider with no experience.Those standing outside of the construction that Noah was building probably thought that a "ARK" to save them from a "FLOOD" was kind of vague and ephemeral. They had never seen either.The Bible is saying that something is coming on the world which we neither have ever seen before. This dispensing of God's life and nature into man to saturate man should be thought of as the reality of the typology of the ark of Noah.We will be saved by what we build. That means by allowing this Spirit of Christ to fill us and saturate our personalities we are being built into that living vessel which alone will be able to stand what is coming.Otherwise we will be swept away with our ethics, our morals, our best efforts to do what is right. We will not be able to stand against the tide of the tribulation which is coming.This ark of Christ's salvation then is neither too nebulous or vague but very very practical. But it is spiritually based. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yes, the proof is in the rusults (Matt 7:16-20).But how do we get better at doing morally what "we need to do?" If you have no objective moral standards, then doing what we need to do becomes very subjective.God has given man His Bible love letter explaining to us how we can enter into relationship with Him, and the objective moral standards how we ought to live thereafter. Once we enter into relationship with God through the blood of Jesus, Paul give us these instructions:Phil 2:12-13 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.The goal for the Christian is to be saved to the "uttermost" those that come unto God by him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:25).Blessings

That was my point about the problem that is inherent in moral codes based on religious beliefs -- they are subjective (and jaywill, representing (some of) the faithful, agreed). By carefully observing the impact of what we've already done, by avoiding the actions that do more harm than good and pursuing the ones that do more good than harm (as measured, to the best of our ability, according to the widest possible scope of life), and by seeking tirelessly to understand how things really are and how our environment, our physical nature and our social/individual behaviors really work, without being constrained by archaic, counterfactual beliefs.I'm sorry if I seem too dense to understand your references properly, but the "instructions" you cited strike me still as being quite vague about how to discern a "successful" (correct, moral) course of action from the opposite. I don't see a single objective criterion there.I know there's a saying: "Judge not, lest ye be judged", but let's face it, humans have to make judgments about what other humans do, and have to work with or against the efforts of others accordingly. Relying solely on a religious basis for these judgments is not only inadequate, it's potentially counter-productive.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

If 'Christ within' (so to speak) is the ultimate key to personal morality then effectively whatever subjectively feels right to any given individual is the 'correct' moral answer as far as they are concerned.This is the very antithesis of the absolute morality you were originally espousing.Not only is it the very opposite of absolute it is also irrational and potentially dangerous.There are recorded cases of serial killers who committed their crimes punishing the "sinful" at the behest of God. Now no matter how immoral and delusional you or I may judge these people to be they truly believe that they are acting on God's will. They are genuinely convinced that they have allowed "Him in His form as the divine life giving Holy Spirit to dispense His life and nature into our being that we could live one with Him" and they are also utterly certain that their personal actions are as a result of "This union that regulates our reactions and causes us to spontaneously live according to God's righteous nature".The result of this, in these particular instances, is horrific murder of the worst kind.Given the standard of morality that you describe above ("Jesus guides us") on what grounds can we condemn these actions as immoral if they truly believe that they are doing God's work? In fact how can we truly know that they weren't doing God's work? Your slightly ludicrous misconceptions apart......The material element that you are ignoring is the brain. You show me an entity or object that has no physical brain of any sort, and that is capable of morality, and I will revoke my materialist stance.Let me know how moral you think you are capable of being with your brain removed!! Or, in a slightly less extreme scenario, we could remove certain portions of your brain that have been found to be key to moral and social judgement and see what the effect is. There have been recorded cases of brain damaged individuals whose moral outlook has changed significantly as a direct result of such injuries.Or we could just get you very drunk or expose you to some other mind altering substances and see if your moral outlook and the chemicals in your physical brain are inherently related in any way.Brains my friend. Brains are ultimately responsible for all the moral judgements ever actually witnessed. And brains are very physical, even if admittedly not entirely understood, things. Which brings us nicely back to the original point.If God's nature is the key to absolute morality then how can we know God's nature such that we can derive this morality? Other than by subjective and deeply personal experience it seems that we cannot.Thus a morality derived from our experience of God's nature is inherently subjective and personal and very much not objective or absolute.Thus we have moved the argument forwards from the inherently imperfect interpretation of scripture (that we both seem to agree is an insufficient source for absolute morality) to the interpretation of personal feelings that are subjectively attributed to 'God's nature'.Generally speaking I would say that our personal view of God's nature tells us more about our own nature than it does anything about God!! It certainly does not result in any form of morality that could possibly be construed as "absolute" in any practical sense whatsoever.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.