Religion is good because it gives the believer an objective and absolute standard of morality

[Vivacia]

(This idea was introduced in another thread, but it felt like an unfair tangent for that thread to be taking in my humble opinion, but one I'd be interested in discussing).

Firstly, I absolutely disagree with the statement.

Secondly, I feel as an atheist I have an objective morality, if not an absolute one.

There's a verse in the bible which defines 'goodness' as God requires it.
'He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.'

So that's goodness. Justice and mercy. This is God's character resonating through the old and new testament, despite the difficult bits, bits we should face full on nonetheless.

I don't think God ever changes God's 'moral character' in line with the culture of the time. That would be a somewhat shifting sand to base faith upon. God never changes, but we do, and thus need to be careful about contextualising certain things in order to learn about what was actually being said or done. We have a duty to do this, as Christians, I think, and this applies to the nicey-nicey passages which people like to take out of context as well. For me it's so important to honour what I see as God's word and apply all the tools at hand in order to do so.

Of course you say those things are good, head. The context is implied and the fact you describe it as good means this is what your experience.

However I was trying to answer more generally in my post. And I am sure you can appreciate sometimes people's attempts at care, support and showing their affection go wrong. So each individual action has to be taken in context.

But you can say being supportive is good, so there are things that are good,

So good is what ever I think is good? So if I was a rapist I could think rape was good and that would be valid and you can't disagree?

I think you would know that rape is a bad thing because it is illegal, and also if you have any empathy, whether you try to convince yourself that it is good or not.

Being supportive? We'll sort of yes. But, as an analogy, if people, for example, are able to walk without a crutch, having to drag a crutch around with them would hinder them. So it depends whether you have using a wider definition of support, one that would allow that person to metaphorically stand on their own two feet.

Interesting thought actually, in Christian belief I guess here is where exercising faith is like standing on your own two feet, as it enables a person to be able to endure, without being able predict the exact way the hoped for outcome will happen. There is no crutch, tangible support or visible safety net.

In that sense i guess you could say that the legal system is an "objective standard" of morality.

head So good is what ever I think is good?

No, this is why, in the Bible, there is all the wrangling between the flesh (carnal/hedonistic/selfish/animalistic desires) and the spirit.

head So good is what ever I think is good?

No, this is why, in the Bible, there is all the wrangling between the flesh (carnal/hedonistic/selfish/animalistic desires) and the spirit.

queen but I think the laws of our legal system can also be applied unjustly. There are loopholes. People talk about the 'spirit of the law' and precedent is important.

However I was trying to answer more generally in my post. And I am sure you can appreciate sometimes people's attempts at care, support and showing their affection go wrong. So each individual action has to be taken in context.

Yeah but you must have a general idea, or else you wouldn't even attempt to lay down rules with your child like 'no hitting, biting' and so on. You must have some idea of what would be good? So if it is all contextual why would god have had laws?

queen but I think the laws of our legal system can also be applied unjustly. There are loopholes. People talk about the 'spirit of the law' and precedent is important.

Yes, no system is perfect. And of course, there is also Sharia Law.

As in, I see in legal systems the "objective standards" as related to the OP, rather than subjective standards as in the case of when Head says if someone thinks rape is a good thing then it is a good thing.

But the affects of this moral goodness might cause a variety of different actions being taken according to context, cat.
How do you judge morality if not by people's actions? Stoning people was good in the old testament, it's bad now, how can you not see that as a change? The only thing constant about is is "fit in with the culture you live in", which is a delegation of responsibility for morals rather than a moral position as such I'd say.

You believe that your internal feeling comes from god, fair enough; but you can hardly argue it's objective or absolute.

We are flawed contextual, corporal being's head and unable to keep all of God's law, which is a good but an impossible standard, without the receiving of His redemption.

The law shows us our flaws. The law serves to show, those that don't know, what is wrong, in case they were thinking of doing it. The law acts as a restraint. The people that know what is wrong would fulfil the law anyway.

We are told Jesus was the fulfilment of the OT law even though he appeared to have broken some of the rules. Eg. Resting on the sabbath. He healed on the sabbath, which the Jewish people considered work. But is it work if willingly done for no payment, and out of love? Is it breaking God's law if it is acting as God would?

cat I think there is God in me, in the form of the Holy Spirit. I do believe He is absolutely good with an objective moral sense. It is still possible for me to not comprehend Him, behave in a way that is not His best will for me though, out of ignorance and my own flawed thinking. I hope I progressively am able to discern God more, and examine further my own flawed preconceptions. This is what I believe God is leading me to do.

I hope I progressively am able to discern God more,

But how can you know you are discerning it right when there are many people with crazy differing opinions and that there are other people bombing the crap out of each other all believing they are discerning god?

What is your stance on LGBT issues Caps?

Religion is good because it gives the believer an objective and absolute standard of morality

I've been reading in the news about all those poor students killed in the name of religion. There is not a shred of morality as far as I can see. But I suppose the murderers did believe that it was morally right?

Makes me feel sick and very angry. Religion is shit sometimes.

I do my best head.

LGBT issues? I would welcome anyone into the church. Loving relationships are good in my book. As to each person's individual actions, concerning love and which gender they identify with, they have to act according to their own conscience. If I was to be cruel to anyone, act mercilessly, that would be wrong IMO.

I am equally saddened Eggy.

The LGBT issue is an interesting one as it highlights the problem of the relative – as opposed to absolute – morality within Christianity.

My DS went to visit a local Anglican church recently as part of Religious Studies. The church is an inclusive church – and on its website mentions in particular that the LGBT community is welcome and there is a regular service specifically for members of that community plus their families.

But I have just been reading about how homosexuality is viewed in Ghana – a predominantly Christian country. In that country 98% of the population think homosexuality is morally unacceptable. It is considered a crime and the Christian church in Ghana condemns homosexuality. Here is what one Christian group there has to say on the matter:

www.facebook.com/notes/presbyterian-church-of-ghana/response-of-christian-churches-in-ghana-to-homosexuality-and-same-sex-marriages/10150255667939879

The Christians in the church my DS visited who positively encourage members of the LGBT community to come along are receiving a different message from God to the one the Christians in Ghana are receiving, are they not?

It is true there are different understandings and interpretations within the Christian church, Out. What is more it is also true is that Church unity should be sought, according to the Bible,

"5 Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:
6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God." (Romans 15:5-7King James Version KJV)

Added to this, according to Christian belief, we are also called to remember our own limitations and acting in love, towards one another, is seen as the most important priority.

"11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13:11-13King James Version KJV)

So, whilst not straightforward, Christian belief requires to us to accept we will not know everything there is to know in this life, regarding God and what is good, but to seek at all times to act in love towards one another. I like this.

Head ... Just to come back to Jesus being racist. I suppose you are refering to Matthew 15? This is a crucial part of the gospels IMO.

At first, Jesus makes all the moves a Jewish rabbi was expected to make. He doesn't talk to her (she's a woman) and he certainly won't help her (she's a Gentile). He even compares her to a dog.

And yet ... Because she has faith ... He helps her. Now to you, this may be quite upsetting because Jesus seems racist, but to his disciples at the time, the big shock would have been that he actually helps her!! This must have blown their minds! Who is this guy, and what is trying to tell us?

These are crucial verses. Forget the racism, that is only relevant to you living 2000 years later. The point being made was/is that God's love is universal!

... to accept we will not know everything there is to know in this life, regarding God and what is good...
Still not sounding like an absolute and objective standard of morality to me. Or at least, "there is an absolute and objective standard out there, we just don't know what it is and the actions acceptable to it might change over time anyway" is not a particularly helpful guide in practical terms.

King, I don't see why we should forget the racism. Why is it only relevant now? The people on the wrong end of it were still people then. How can it be an absolute standard if racism and sexism are okay in some times and places and aren't in others?

As in, I see in legal systems the "objective standards" as related to the OP, rather than subjective standards as in the case of when Head says if someone thinks rape is a good thing then it is a good thing.

the legal system isn't objective, it is authoritative. This is the same fallacy as with god. The source doesn't make morality objective. as with god, the legal system can be immoral, and we can see various places where this is true. The legal system, like god, is authoritative - by that I mean that there is some reason (punishment mainly) why you should follow the legal system (and god) instead of me. by that doesn't make either of them right or good, it just gives them extra authority.

if something is objectively moral, it cannot do bad.