Your post shows the opposite is true. Look - almost all theists believe an objective moral standard exists - yet they will also disregard whatever they want and easily explain it away. For example, Jesus is recorded as saying: “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”

I have met zero (read: 0) people who take this at face value. They subject it to their perceptions of what is right. For example one may say “I can’t give my car away because Paul said ‘But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel’ and if I give away my car I can’t get to work and provide for my own and so it CAN’T be God’s will to give my car away”.

Apologists go to work explaining what this REALLY means then everyone nods and says “of COURSE - that’s it!”. So it’s very easy to side step what many see as the objective moral standard and essentially ignore (ie: reinterpret) anything one feels is unreasonable.

Largely subjective you mean.

NO I mean that your point is valid e.g. morals are affected by the culture of the day ect [correct] I don’t believe all morals are set in stone, I think a degree of variation is not just understandable given our ‘‘condition’’ and all the variables in any given situation but also allows some freedom shall we say but my point of morals being objective is also valid and indeed truthful in that if you are too fluid you could rightly argue that its ok to murder everyone called Stuart because it is suddenly the culture of the day in other words there must be some degree of solidity in morals
or the society we find ourselves in would end in moral chaos

I’m not so sure those who interpret it in such a way are doing so based on how one ‘‘feels’’

the moral direction of this post is also related to ‘‘what is truth’’ in that morals should also be based on the concept of
‘‘what is true’’

putting it another way if you don’t believe in any form of solidity in truth and or morals then it is true to say , anything goes

Again - I believe there is an absolute truth and absolute morals, but I (and no other human) knows what that means, exactly. We (our understanding) is the fluid part. What difference does it make if moral rules are etched in diamond forever? It changes nothing. In spite of many believing that the bible is absolute morality “anything goes” pretty much describes some phases of historical Christian inhuman behavior.

Empathy and conscience are the basis for what I consider “high morals”. Try and adhere to whatever eternal moral creed you wish - without those two things it’s all worthless.

One definition of “feel” is: “to believe, think, or be of the opinion”. Another example of how even a written word can be very fluid.

Indeed. Let us look at the Law which was the ‘etched’ morals of society, and how Jesus and the disciples spoke of it. Jesus never preached the Law, He did not espouse the ‘Do Not, Do Not, Do Not’, He said, “Love the Lord God, Love your neighbor, Love as I love.”

He absolutely was telling us an absolute truth there.

We love as Jesus loves by following His lead. That is to say, walking right at His side, listening to Him as we go along, and doing as He says. We don’t always know what to do from scripture, since it is limited and doesn’t address every situation in which we may find ourselves. We need the Living Word in the person of the Paraclete. It’s the only way to find and remain in the way that leads to life.

Scripture, as is being demonstrated here, can be variously interpreted. It can be rightly interpreted only with the direction of the HS – not by individual interpretation, but the interpretation of God, given to us through His approved channel; the Holy Spirit of Truth.

again I don’t disagree with the general gist of this point , but again I see a potential problem in fact historically speaking this very
approach has lead to some of the worst spiritual abuses . and that is the point - that you can take 100 Christians in a room
giving them the same scenario [ALL claiming to be ‘‘being lead of the Holy Spirit’’] yet pretty much all of them arriving at different conclusions ? lets say ‘‘for the sake of the argument’’ you are giving them a scenario that isn’t addressed in scripture
I can understand how and why GOD may ‘‘lead’’ some to a slightly different position given for example differences in personality ! but that is vastly different from a scenario where everyone is ‘‘authoritatively’’ arriving at completely different conclusions , how exactly is that being lead by the spirit of truth ?

point taken and while I don’t disagree with the idea that there are a range of variables that affect the ‘‘way we see it’’ the gist of what I am trying to get across with truth is also applicable to morals , there must be some flexibility
but there also must be [or should be] some consensus

Yes, Stuart, but as evidenced by this thread, you can say precisely the same thing about 100 Christians each advancing their own favorite interpretation of a scripture. And what are these spiritual abuses of which you speak? The witch burnings (and burnings of pretty much anyone else whom the authorities found troublesome) were scripturally mandated, after all.

When we are each diligently attempting to hear from God (understanding that anything we hear must agree with the words and spirit of scripture), and when we respect and love one another and each of us admits to our own weakness and ability to be misled, and when we come to a consensus in a spirit of love and brotherhood in all humility, then yes, I think Jesus is capable of being our Good Shepherd.

Perhaps you’ll say that this is an impossible situation to achieve, but I have seen God achieve it. Nothing is too difficult for Him, after all. No wonder Jesus prayed that we would be one so that the world would know that the Father had sent Him. Nothing short of a miracle can MAKE us one, but God’s up for that. (And interestingly, we almost never arrive at different conclusions.)

Human rights activists of all stripes have done a great job establishing a moral consensus. Starting with William Wilberforce (my hero) it really did start to universally sink in that all conscious living creatures should be treated fairly and without cruelty. Even though we have far to go - I’m an optimist and see how far we’ve come. For some who may not be aware of William’s work : amazinggracemovie.com/

Yes, Stuart, but as evidenced by this thread, you can say precisely the same thing about 100 Christians each advancing their own favorite interpretation of a scripture.
When we are each diligently attempting to hear from God (understanding that anything we hear must agree with the words and spirit of scripture),

true ,that could be said ,however scripture and its interpretation [even with all the '‘difficulties’'taken into account ] is still objective compared to ‘‘being lead by the spirit’’ being subjective , one in other words is on far more solid ground that the other as for ‘‘it has to agree with the words of scripture’’ what if said group already either believes in that understanding or are gullible enough to believe it when the
‘‘word from the Lord comes’’

Perhaps you’ll say that this is an impossible situation to achieve, but I have seen God achieve it. Nothing is too difficult for Him, correct, however right now there is no true unity that is why there are ‘‘galzillions’’ of groups and denominations . by saying we have unity in just a few things sounds lovely but not only does it not fit the picture as evidenced by the ‘‘galzillions’’ of groups ect , but I would also ask just who is it who decided ‘‘lets just make it these three things here’’
for example ? what are the ‘‘fundamentals’’
I believe this all ties in with ‘‘what is truth’’ and just how important is it

much like the political online activists [not all of them] today who even though a good percentage of them aren’t ‘‘Christian’’
by opposing and fighting against tyranny in its various forms , even when they get threatened

NO! I am absolutely NOT splitting hairs. There is a basic difference between the two. To view morality as subjective, is to make oneself the judge as to what is right or wrong. A moral subjectivist believes that moral terms really refer to attitudes toward particular actions. For example, some moral subjectivists say that the sentence, “Stealing is wrong” really means “I disapprove of stealing.” Other moral subjectivists say that the sentence has no meaning at all; rather it merely expresses one’s attitude toward stealing. Thus when uttering the sentence, “Stealing is wrong”, what one is realling doing is expressing the emotion “Stealing — Yucchhh!” Thus stealing can be wrong for me, but right for you (if you approve of it). I really doubt that any of you actually believe that morality is subjective. If you did, you would hold that it was unnecessary to carry out Christ’s commands if you didn’t like them — that stealing or adultery is okay if you reall want to do it, and you truly approve of it.

Moral objectivists on the other hand, believe that stealing is wrong, not because of our beliefs or emotions about it, but is wrong independently of our beliefs and emotions.

Some moral objectivists believe in situational ethics, the idea that an act may be right in some situations, but wrong in others. So lying could be right under certain situations, perhaps if it would make someone happy, or if it made you wealthier, etc.

Other moral objectivists (such as myself) believe that moral imperatives can be arranged in a hierarchy so that where there is a moral conflict, some take precedence over others. For example, the imperative to save a life takes precedence over the imperative to refrain from lying.

Still other moral objectivists are absolutists. This means that if an act is wrong, for example, to lie, then it is always wrong under any circumstance, and if there is a moral conflict which forces you to choose “the least of two evils” — again, I’ll use the example of lying to save a life, you still did wrong to lie. A Christian absolutist, Erwin Lutzer, believes that in such a case, you should confess your sin of lying to God and ask forgiveness.

The above three kinds of moral objectivists do not exhaust the possibilities. There are several others.

NO! I am absolutely NOT splitting hairs. There is a basic difference between the two. I do see this ! I just don’t necessarily
see it as being distinct in an always strict basis !

To view morality as subjective, is to make oneself the judge as to what is right or wrong. A moral subjectivist believes that moral terms really refer to attitudes toward particular actions. For example, some moral subjectivists say that the sentence, “Stealing is wrong” really means “I disapprove of stealing.” Other moral subjectivists say that the sentence has no meaning at all; rather it merely expresses one’s attitude toward stealing. Thus when uttering the sentence, “Stealing is wrong”, what one is realling doing is expressing the emotion “Stealing — Yucchhh!” Thus stealing can be wrong for me, but right for you (if you approve of it). agreed moral post-modernism ! so just like morals , truth must to some degree be seen in the same fashion

I really doubt that any of you actually believe that morality is subjective. If you did, you would hold that it was unnecessary to carry out Christ’s commands if you didn’t like them — that stealing or adultery is okay if you reall want to do it, and you truly approve of it. I don’t think one can apply the same approach to adultery in the way I and yourself below have pointed out regarding lying ,perhaps stealing [in the right situation!] may prove a difficult moral obstacle to get around , then comes the argument of ‘‘but you should trust GOD’’ ,but for the sake of the argument lets say GOD is going to leave you to your own devices lets say you are in a situation where the state turns nasty and people like you are not allowed food water shelter , the woman you have just meet with her baby is in the same boat ,and her baby [AND EVERYBODY ELSE WITH YOU] is starving , you are walking past a shop with baskets of food outside nobody is looking .should you steal ? if you do ,you are loving your neighbour by providing food for her precious new born but in doing so you are sinning against GOD , but at this point one might well ask ,which of the two is the greater sin in the eye’s of GOD

Moral objectivists on the other hand, believe that stealing is wrong, not because of our beliefs or emotions about it, but is wrong independently of our beliefs and emotions. if you believe it is wrong ,then how is that independent of your beliefs ?

Some moral objectivists believe in situational ethics, the idea that an act may be right in some situations, but wrong in others. So lying could be right under certain situations, perhaps if it would make someone happy, or if it made you wealthier, etc.
I would like to know of any moral objectivists who would be prepared to ‘‘cross the line’’ for the sake of ‘‘making someone happy’’

Other moral objectivists (such as myself) believe that moral imperatives can be arranged in a hierarchy so that where there is a moral conflict, some take precedence over others. For example, the imperative to save a life takes precedence over the imperative to refrain from lying.

Still other moral objectivists are absolutists. This means that if an act is wrong, for example, to lie, then it is always wrong under any circumstance, and if there is a moral conflict which forces you to choose “the least of two evils” — again, I’ll use the example of lying to save a life, you still did wrong to lie. A Christian absolutist, Erwin Lutzer, believes that in such a case, you should confess your sin of lying to God and ask forgiveness.

The above three kinds of moral objectivists do not exhaust the possibilities. There are several others.

Agreed. I have a friend who has a degree (M. Div.)in theological ethics and he would agree with this.

I love ethicists !