Just as well we have a separation of religion from our politics then aye.

It’s more the separation of good objective morals/conscience from our politics that I’m concerned about Cerium. Especially if the last nine years are anything to go by.

Perhaps this stuff is more ‘life affirming’ than the somewhat more inconsequential political stuff I would agree.

And when I do put forward a poltical view on other threads they are usually from a Christian/moral perspective (eg abortion, smacking, DPB, homosexuality, incest, and laws that no longer reflect a Judeo-Christian foundation, etc). As you would agree, many of the laws of our country are a direct reflection of the morals/conscience of both those that make the laws, and those that put them in power. Which is perhaps one of the main reasons I blog here, along with having meaningful conversations with people such as your good self.

Look forward to the next duel. And thanks Ryan.

Thanks for the chat, Kris. No doubt we’ll have another one soon. I enjoy this stuff more than bickering over parliamentary politics.

That’s interesting to me, because I don’t think the experience of finding one action right and another wrong is different between you and me. You are more accountable in terms of reward and punishment, perhaps. But in terms of experiencing an act as praiseworthy, good, bad or abhorrent, I think how it feels to make a moral decision is the same for both of us.

I think the main difference is (remember I’m imperfect too) that one of us has a ‘submitted’ conscience, while the other has an ‘unsubmitted’ conscience. So while I may have a submitted conscience, and therefore the Holy Sprit, and God’s word; you only have an ‘unsubmitted’ conscience. (I’m trying to explain, not be offensive).

So while both of our ‘consciences’ might acknowledge that “murder is wrong”, mine is perhaps more from an ‘objective’ standard, while yours is more subjective; either by your own conscience, or by agreeance for the ‘common good’ (whatever that means). But remember that I believe all consciences ultimately come from God.

Kris, what do you think is more important, to believe in God, or to live by a good moral code?

Some people who believe in God don’t live by a good moral code, and it is possible to live well without believing.

I believe that if one knows and follows God in obedience, then they will also endeavour to live in accordance with God’s absolute objective moral standard.
Those that know Him but don’t live to His standards are disobedient (and may be punished in the here and now).
Those that don’t know Him may listen to their conscience to ‘some’ degree, but once again this becomes a subjective choice; not an objective one.

I believe, perhaps, my ’should’ is more binding upon me than, say, your ’should’; for no other reason than I am more accountable to the one that sets the ‘morals’ I am to adhere to. And because His standards ARE absolute.

That’s interesting to me, because I don’t think the experience of finding one action right and another wrong is different between you and me. You are more accountable in terms of reward and punishment, perhaps. But in terms of experiencing an act as praiseworthy, good, bad or abhorrent, I think how it feels to make a moral decision is the same for both of us.

Okay, and how would I make such a decision? By which standard would I choose a standard? I hope that question’s clear.

For the unsaved person, he should listen to his conscience – this is his main link to the objective standard, and the standard maker. And while he may subjectively interpret conscience, a genuine seeking after truth will lead him ever more toward the objective truth, and, of course, to the One who sets that truth/standard.
Of course, there are also those that have already found the Giver of the objective standard that can help the unsaved person likewise find the Giver of the objective standard.

The should implies an objective absolute standard only if you’re operating within that framework to begin with. My main point here is that, for people who see value and morality as subjective, the word “should” does imply a moral standard, but it doesn’t imply an objective absolute moral standard.

Perhaps the term ‘should’ means different things to individuals depending upon which side of the ‘fence’ they’re on.
I believe, perhaps, my ‘should’ is more binding upon me than, say, your ‘should’; for no other reason than I am more accountable to the one that sets the ‘morals’ I am to adhere to. And because His standards ARE absolute.

Some people who believe in God don’t live by a good moral code, and it is possible to live well without believing.

I guess ultimately it is you (the individual) that decides whether you ’should’ do what is objectively good, or adhere to subjective standards; whether they be your standards, or other ones you may agree with (excluding the ‘objective’ good obviously by definition).

Okay, and how would I make such a decision? By which standard would I choose a standard? I hope that question’s clear.

In the same way as anything you decide to do is a free-will choice; whether they be ‘rules’, actions, thoughts, etc.
Even the term ’should’ implies an objective absolute standard, which points to the One who sets that standard.
Perhaps the term ‘may’ is more appropriate to adherance to subjective standards.

The should implies an objective absolute standard only if you’re operating within that framework to begin with. My main point here is that, for people who see value and morality as subjective, the word “should” does imply a moral standard, but it doesn’t imply an objective absolute moral standard.

No worries, Kris.

Okay, I think this explains it better:
Why should I do what is objectively good, rather than good according to other moral standards?

I guess ultimately it is you (the individual) that decides whether you ‘should’ do what is objectively good, or adhere to subjective standards; whether they be your standards, or other ones you may agree with (excluding the ‘objective’ good obviously by definition).

In the same way as anything you decide to do is a free-will choice; whether they be ‘rules’, actions, thoughts, etc.
Even the term ‘should’ implies an objective absolute standard, which points to the One who sets that standard.
Perhaps the term ‘may’ is more appropriate to adherance to subjective standards.

Okay, I think this explains it better:

Why should I do what is objectively good, rather than good according to other moral standards?

Sorry, my brother popped around for a few hours.

So could you choose not to believe in God for the next, say, three hours. Then start again?

No. But even if it were possible that wouldn’t alter the fact one way or another.
God’s existence is not dependent upon my belief of Him.

But what does “objective” mean if not “best”?

As soon as you link ‘objective’ and ‘best’ something becomes subjective, if you see what I mean. Especially in the biblical sense regarding God. Or likewise, I think vanilla ice cream is best, is a subjective statement.

Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God is the pre-existant one and unable to be compared to anything within His creation. So to say God is ‘best’ is nonsensicle. Simply, God IS. Or, as He responded to Moses above, “I AM”.

You have to understand that, to the theist, “God exists” is not just a statement that happens to be true in their worldview and not true in yours. Their whole worldview is a God-exists-worldview, just as yours is a God-doesn’t-exist-worldview. These differences are so fundamental that the very meaning of words is different depending on the framework. The theist cannot imagine a world in which God does not exist any more than you can imagine a world in which mathematics doesn’t exist. You can both try, but all you’ll be doing is imagining the same world without a few peripheral bits and pieces, rather than imagining the radically different world that such a profound difference entails.

Says who, a book. Many books say their way is the best. Many religions, and ethnic groups say their morality is not only the best, but the only correct one. Why? Cause a book says so. How can that be the best way, with everything we have been given to determine what is best, or what is only acceptible? Further those who misinterept the bible, are they damned because their interpretation is incorrect. Many (would argue most modern) christians do not side with the idea that homosexuality is a sin, many do. Further some believe that if you have not asked forgiveness for a sin then you cant be forgiven. Accordingly if your interpretation is incorrect, on some grounds say the commandment love your neighbour as you love yourself, overrode the original interpretation, and therefore by judging homosexuals as devients and sinners you have sinned, but you think you havent so you dont ask for forgiveness, and if your judgement that gods morality is absolute then your fucked. If the opposite others fucked.

It makes no sense, as it shouldnt. Moriality is not absolute. Further humans have been given the ability to determine moriality, whether this gift be by evolution or god is near irrelevant, we have it, and we have it without relying on text.

I mean other wise effectively of all the religions on earth, only one have got it right. If god really loves us that much it seems a pretty sick joke.

What evidence, there is no definitive evidence he / it/ she / they exist. The only evidence is human testimony on how he has touched their life, that is it. Comparing that to choosing not to believe a chair is beneath you is false.

Only in the same way you could choose to believe there is no God despite the evidence.

So could you choose not to believe in God for the next, say, three hours. Then start again?

Not in an objective way.

But what does “objective” mean if not “best”?

Therefore you could, if you chose, believe that there was no chair beneath you.

Only in the same way you could choose to believe there is no God despite the evidence.

But there clearly are other standards by which behaviour can be evaluated.

Not in an objective way.

That’s irrelevant at this point. What I am saying is that the statement is not rendered meaningless by the lack of an objective standard for evaluating ice-cream flavours.

It is meaningless in a moral sense. It is also a subjective choice. Even though it may be a ‘meaningful’ ‘preference’ to you.

You choose to believe based on the evidence; ignoring the evidence doesn’t alter tha fact.

Therefore you could, if you chose, believe that there was no chair beneath you.

Yes, God is the standard. There is no higher standard. ‘Best’ becomes meaningless; God is the ONLY standard.

But there clearly are other standards by which behaviour can be evaluated.

Not in a moral sense. (In the same way as choosing to wear a yellow shirt is not a moral choice.)

That’s irrelevant at this point. What I am saying is that the statement is not rendered meaningless by the lack of an objective standard for evaluating ice-cream flavours.

So the evidence makes you believe, you don’t choose whether or not to believe the evidence.

You choose to believe based on the evidence; ignoring the evidence doesn’t alter tha fact.

So all you’re saying is that God’s morality is the best by the standards of God’s morality.

Yes, God is the standard. There is no higher standard. ‘Best’ becomes meaningless; God is the ONLY standard.

But as an expression of preference, and as an expression of the experience of preference, it is meaningful, right? It means something.

Not in a moral sense. (In the same way as choosing to wear a yellow shirt is not a moral choice.)