>Jerry (also to Izz)
> All you can say is that there are some things that
>he did, which you don't like. You don't believe in >objective morality,
therefore you cannot believe in >objective moral atrocities. If you don't
have objective >moral atrocities, then all you have is subjective moral
>atrocities, and what might be a moral atrocity in your >mind, might not be
in another's.
JEF
Can someone explain to me what "objective moral standard" Jerry is
referring to? I subjectively presume he is referring to the supposed
pronouncement of a set of rules by an supposedly
omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent yaada yaada yaada deity (in this case
Jahweh) which were supposedly inerrantly recorded in the Bible, but what is
it about these rules that makes them OBJECTIVE? My dictionary defines
objective as: "dealing with external facts and not with thoughts and
feelings; free from personal prejudices; unbiased."
Jerry seems to think that because this set of rules comes from the
self-proclaimed creator of the universe (in this particular case, Jahweh -
as opposed to all the other claimants to the title of "God") that this IN
ITSELF makes these rules "objective". That would make EVERYTHING in the
Bible (the supposed "word" of this self-proclaimed creator) "objective" and
EVERYTHING OUTSIDE the Bible "subjective". No wonder it's so hard
to get through to the inerrantists. They are using a different criteria
for what is "objective". Any facts that don't conform to their criteria
are simply labeled "subjective" and dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
************************************
James E. Faubel
jef@europa.com
"Welcome to the planet Earth, where
belief masquerades as knowledge."
--> This way to the Unasked Questions
<-- That way to the Unquestioned Answers
anonymous
************************************