So in addition to all the many false assertions you've made, you're also going to malign what I've said and do it fallaciously in the form of a straw man. Absurd.
In your relativism, Greek pederasty is "moral" because immoral people decided it was. In your relativism, homosexuality is moral because immoral people have decided it is. You pick and choose which immoral behaviors are "moral" and then attempt to force them on moral people while hypocritically asserting that it's immoral for moral people to force their normative morality (something you've shown you either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent) on immoral people.
So far, and this isn't name calling but just an accurate definition based on your own statements, you've identified as an immoral, deceived, hypocritical tyrant.
Now you're also showing that you're no theologian.... not even competent to the point of being able to discern what a genuine Christian is from a professing Christian though the manual to tell the difference can be had in about two minutes by going to biblehub.com.
And, never having taken a logic class in your entire life (yes it's painfully obvious), you don't even know that the presence of disagreement does not invalidate the possibility of truth.
And since you're false assertion of subjective moralism and relativism have been scholarly refuted using scholarly sources (which you never even had the intelligence to ask for because you were too busy prattling on about your feelings on the topic), repeating your false assertions only shows that you're recalcitrant too.
But I'll waste another minute on you as it might help someone else reading this. One doesn't need to know all truth absolutely for absolute certainty is possible of some things. For those whom God has manifested Himself to (obviously not you though you have His revelation at your fingertips), one can be absolutely sure that God exists.
And one's own existence is undeniable. One would have to exist in order to make the statement "I do not exist." One can also be absolutely sure that he cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Just as he can be certain, for example,
that there are no square circles.
Of course, there are many more things of which absolute certainty is not possible. But even here relativists like yourself miss the mark in rejecting absolute truth simply because of the lack of absolute evidence that some things are true, for they fail to recognize that the truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds for believing it are. For instance, if it is true that Sydney, Australia, is next to the ocean, then it is absolutely true no matter what my evidence or lack of evidence may be.
An absolute truth is absolutely true in and of itself no matter what evidence there is for it. Evidence (or the lack thereon does not change the facts. And truth is what corresponds to the facts. The truth doesn't change simply because we learn something more about it.
Let's get something straight here.
Morality is something concerned with the principals of right and wrong behaviour. Now, you assert that there is an objective, total moral framework imparted upon a
true believer. This is a perfect example of the No True Scotsman argument. What constitutes a
true believer is incredibly difficult, in fact almost impossible, to practically define in that the definition of a
true Christian itself is disputed among Christians, meaning that many Christians struggle to even define what a Christian is - thus reaching different conclusions.
The word '
believer' itself denotes that a person have personal faith in a particular thing's validity. Now, it is obviously true that the belief that there is water on Earth is a true belief, in that it can be observed, testified to with evidence, and thus validated as true. Water is everywhere, we drink it, we use it, and our oceans are filled with it. Yet you argue that because observation of Sydney's geographical location, or observation of the water near it, are objective and verifiable truths that there is also an objective and total moral truth, the existence of which can be asserted based on the premise of the easy validation of observed geography. You fail to recognize that this analogy doesn't work because morality is in itself something internally cognitive. To show up how ridiculous this argument is; we don't walk down the street, see morality running into our street drains and say 'oh look, it's objective morality', but we do see water running and can say 'look, it's water'.
Particularly where religions are concerned, belief in a very specific religious moral viewpoint is especially subjective, not objective, as evidenced by the many discrepancies in individual Christian beliefs. Yet, those sometimes wildly varying beliefs all come under the heading '
Christianity', which is itself defined as the 'religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or in its beliefs and practices'. The scope of particular interpretations within 'Christianity' as a whole include some
41,000 different denominations. The definition of
denomination itself is 'the emphasizing of denominational differences to the point of being
narrowly exclusive'.
Thus your assertion that there exists a
singular and total truth within Christianity
must conclude one of three things in light of the evidence of denominationalism:
1. Only one denomination of Christianity holds the entirely correct view.
2. Many of these denominations hold a central truth but hold fallacies in specific areas.
3. All types of Christianity are simultaneously true.
And
any one of these last two conclusions completely nullify your assertion that an exact moral Christian truth exists, at least on a practical level insofar as the followers of the religion are concerned. The second conclusion shows that the truths held by the individual Christians are not complete or all encompassing - fallacies exist. The third conclusion shows that the basis for Christian truth is a paradox - the 'Christian' can himself or herself be contradictory things to another 'Christian', thus the basis for what constitutes a 'Christian' cannot be established, and inconsistent premises make any argument arguable. And lastly, the first argument narrows the truth down to a single specific denominational belief out of around 41,000 sects, so unless you are utterly sure which one of those denominations holds that truth, then you may very well not be a part of it.
Thus the objective total morality of the bible is very difficult to define. As far as practicality and the reality of the entire Christian demographic is concerned, we
can't currently define a complete and total objective Christian moral framework which can be unanimously validated like the existence of water can. Each one of those denominations holds a subjective opinion on the teachings of Christ and on what those teachings constitute, how they should be viewed and what is inherently right or wrong - yet every one of those peeople,
just like you, believe that they 'have the spirit' and know the objective reality of the true Godly morality.
Let's get something else straight, I believe that morality is subjective insofar as how people actually come to moral conclusions. You come to your conclusions because of your conditioning, just like someone else comes to theirs. That is not to say that I think any old morality is acceptable, much less beneficial or worthy of adherence. For instance, I could certainly understand how a person who grew up being raped by her father viewed the death penalty for paedophiles as a morally valid, righteous principle of law that should be upheld and enforced. But just because I understand something, does not mean that I condone it.
Understanding that subjective conditionings lead to subjective conclusions (that every person's life experiences are different and lead them to different beliefs about the world) is not in any way evidence that I
agree with a particular person's definitions of what is right and wrong. I simply understand that subjective circumstances led them to the beliefs they hold.
A great example of condition and circumstance leading to personal conclusions are this; if you had never come across those who inspired you to God, or had never been in whatever moment wherein you discovered God, you would not have discovered him. That argument cannot be refuted. If you never had a moment of time wherein you saw God, you would not have seen him.
1-1 = 0.
Now that has ramifications. It means that your belief in God is, for all intents and purposes, a result of the experiences wherein you came to, or validated, that belief in him. Whether it be that you read the bible and saw in it some universal eternal wisdom that was up to that point missing from your life, or whether your parents indoctrinated you into belief, or whether you believe the hand of God actively searched you and struck you and you never stood a chance against it - it doesn't matter - your circumstances led to your conditioning, and your conditioning led to your conclusions.
Now, you argue against me that my observation of moral subjectivism's existence (denominationalism, which I can
objectively observe) means that I believe anything is 'moral'. If you define something as being 'moral' if it is something which is a
personal belief of right and wrong, then yes, any belief of right and wrong is a 'moral' belief.
But if you mean 'moral' to be equatable to 'condonable' then no, not every behaviour based on a subjective morality is 'moral' - some behaviours based on particular moral systems are despicable. For instance, the practice of stoning people to death. Though it is based, like all moral beliefs, on a personally held conviction of 'right and wrong', I think it is despicable.
Why do I think it is despicable? Because
I would not like to be stoned to death. Empathy. My morality is based on empathy. I base my morality on empathy because for all my searching for some objective truth, like searching for a secret key to the universal right and wrong, I recognized that in empathy lay that very thing. If I consider another person as myself, I become them in mind, thus whatever I may do against that person I would imagine done against me. Would I like to be discriminated against? No.
Would I like to be a self funding religious person who runs an institution forced to employ people who go against my religious ideals? No.
Would I like to be a governmentally contracted Christian running a Christian ministry, who by garnering government funding goes against my
own religion's ideals? No. (Matt 35:33-35 - Swear No Oaths By Either Heaven Or Earth)
And just like you can argue against the conclusion I have formed on that verse, I can counter-argue, all day long. Because there is
no totally objective method of interpreting the gospel's message. My understanding of that verse, in practical terms, is just as valid as yours, unless of course you believe that I haven't got the subjective spirit of your
single correct denomination out of 41,000 denominations, in which case you automatically win.
And that win would be on the basis that you believe that your conclusions are superior to mine, regardless of what I say. Nothing else.
