objective/subjective morals/conscience?

I said this regarding objective moral standards we are to live by. If you like, I can quote a few or dozens if necessary.The problem, whether Christian or not, lies in the power and ability to live by these objective moral standards. For the Christian, God gives us His enabling Spirit so that we can live morally and godly by His strength. Many Christians fail to avail themselves of God's enabling Spirit, and continue to struggle all their lives in the flesh. For the non-Christian, one lives morally as best he can by his own strength, some very well and many not so well.As for me, I choose to live by God's enabling Spirit, not my own.Blessings

No need for that at this point. Your use of "objective" there is either meaningless or self-contradictory, as discussed in previous posts on this thread.In any case, what has been given to us in the bible comes from people. These people may have been convinced that they were speaking on behalf of some deity, but the words came from people. That is where words come from. You can profess all you want against this assertion, and claim that your personal experience disproves it for you, but this does not disprove it for others.These particular words have been through many tortuous turns and diversions. They have been read and interpreted in many different ways, and have led readers/believers to draw many different conclusions, often mutually incompatible. Viewing other EvC threads (e.g. this one, which is both long-running and still current: Pick and Choose Fundamentalism), it seems that some parts don't really fit well with other parts in terms of their "instructions".The general and still common strategy for dealing with disputes about how to interpret particular points in the bible -- or more often, how to extrapolate from the bible into the many details that it does not cover -- is to divide into splinter groups because there is no agreeable (objective) basis for resolving or reconciling the disputes.You, John, will choose as you see fit in accordance with your particular interpretation of the faith, but if your choice diverges from the course that would be chosen by truly objective standards, you will be part of the problem, not the solution, and claiming religious righteousness for your actions will not change that.I would hazard a a guess that the success of Christianity in its two millennia may be due in large part to the significant amount of congruence between the moral standards professed by Jesus, and moral standards that derive from truly objective principles. I appreciate this fact about Christianity, but as a religion, it remains susceptible to all sorts of outrageous distortion, due to its reliance on subjectivity.

---

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

The Mosaic law of the Bible contains many commands which Christians do not follow. These are generally regarded as "Ceremonial Laws" which have no moral value in themselves (e.g. the ban on eating shellfish).
However, the Bible itself does not clearly distinguish between which laws are "ceremonial" and which are moral requirements. Christian interpretations do not seem to follow any clear guidelines either - why should the ban on homosexual acts because they are ritually unclean not be considered "Ceremonial" as other such laws are ? Why should the ban on charging interest on loans to Jews not be considered a moral law to be extended to all people - as the Church indeed did for some considerable time ?But this is not a problem unique to the Bible. It is one that occurs in everyone's mind. Our moral intuitions do not manage to cleanly distinguish widely agreed moral rules from parochial cultural rules. To do that requires conscious examination of the situation - and a willingness to accept that our personal moralities may not be absolute.This fact is a further blow against the idea that there is an absolute morality. Our intuitive ideas about morality are one of the major lines of argument allegedly supporting the idea of an absolute morality. The fact that these ideas can be clearly wrong (if often not to the person holding them !) seriously undercuts any such argument.

Call it "my particular interpretation" if you like, but I choose to live by the words of Jesus, as He declared in these verses.John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
67 So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"
68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.I'm very sorry you think that the words of the Bible and the words of Jesus just came from people, and not from people who were inspired by the God who is to write the Scriptures (2 Pet 1:20-21). Maybe you will have to have a Road to Damascus experience as did Saul in Acts 9 before you are convinced that Jesus is Lord?Blessings

My so-called ideas of "absolute morality" are found in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The fact that my personal morality has not yet lived up to His perfection does not discourage me from "pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. (Phil 3:14-16).Blessings

OK. And if somebody elses moral conclusions are equally believed by them to be founded "in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ" and yet differ from your own moral conclusions who is right and on what basis?Absolute morality, even if it exists and is God given, can never knowingly be known to man.

The moral conclusions that are found in the Person of Jesus can be validated by His life and the truth that He taught. If my moral conclusions and behaviors do not measure up to the perfection of Jesus, then my moral conclusions and behaviors are wrong, and so are others who claim the same. Matt 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."Edited by John 10:10, : added verses

Hi, 10:10. Maybe I could try a thought exercise here.You and your friend find a twenty-dollar bill on the road.Your friend owes someone twenty dollars, and has been praying to God to help him settle his debt. Seeing the twenty dollars on the road makes him think it's an answer to his prayer.You say that the money is not his, and that, since you don't know who lost it, it should be donated to charity or something.But, your friend argues that Jesus paid his taxes with with money that he found in a fish's mouth (Matthew 17), so it's okay to settle debts with money that is found. And, he still thinks it's an answer to his prayer.Both you and your friend are basing your course of action on Jesus' example. Who is right? How can you know?

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

The key is the one who is praying to the God who is. If the Lord tells you to go fishing and the first fish you catch has money in its mouth, It's OK by the Lord (and me) to use this money any way you want.Morals are judged primarily by our behaviors.Jesus love you.Blessings

And if you are both believe you are praying to the "God who is" how can you ever actually know who is wrong and who is right?

I pay attention to the ONE who tells Peter to go fishing, and the first fish Peter catches has a coin in his mouth. If you can find someone better than this, pay attention to him.Blessings

This is probably going to have me running in circles with you again, but here goes. And how would you determine this actually IS god talking to you, as opposed to some other entity trying to deceive you?

---

I hunt for the truth

If only moral choices were as clear cut and uncontentious as first fish with coins in their mouths.Do you think you could answer the question as it relates to a more relevant moral example?Two Christian doctors have to make a decision regarding a transplant. There are two possible candidates for the operation and only one organ. After both turning to Jesus for guidance they both confidently come back with different conclusions.Who, objectively and absolutely, is right ad who is wrong?Objective and absolute morality cannot exist unless we can know the mind of God.

You will keep running in circles until you pay attention to Him whom God sent:Matt 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"As for me, I pay attention to the Lord (Acts 2:36).Blessings

That's not an answer to my question. So, here it is again:How do you know it is god speaking to you?

---

I hunt for the truth