Does objective morality exist without Christ?

Does objective morality exist without Christ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>C*rist
i hope you meant Allah and his prophet Muhammed

I think you might mean Wotan.

Seeing as how the West is based on Humanism, which in turn is based on the New Testament, the answer is "No".

Christianity is the best you will have for a long time, especially while religions like Islam are around, deal with it.

But Muslims love Jesus too

>Christianity is the best you will have for a long time

also, help make it happen

He doesn't exist.

This is probably a more /his/ related thread, but personally I would say no both with or without him.

I suppose if you consider with christ having morality then it stands to reason that without there would also be, as there is still commonly held societal morals. Which is very much similar to the way religion propagates morality as well.

oh man, I miss being 14

>He doesn't exist.

yea unless right and wrong didn't exist before 31 ad which is clearly untrue

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism

Morality is a spook, society functions because men enforce a code of conduct.
People understand what it takes to maintain the human hive and enforce it on others.
People throw around "well would you X if you could get away with it", well look at human history and you will notice it's exactly what happens every time.
Morals go out the window the moment society is gone (or authority), except in those who've brainwashed themselves all too extensively (those are few).
Before some shiteating moralist calls me an anarchist - I like society, I like government, it's the greatest human invention, but it exists thanks to mutual understanding based on written and unwritten laws. Not god given morals.

...

Right and wrong is only a point of view

morality does exist beyond god because if not you would have a god being subservient to morality in that god is god for the sake morality, morality is god and god is it's messenger

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

No.
Terms like "good" and "evil" are only adjectives used to describe a set of values that are either compatible, or un-compatible with your own.

Nothing is truly objective, or absolute. And the moral norms and laws that exists in our society are constructed by ourselves.

the rules might be different but right and wrong exist in all societies

...

I dont think its a dilemma, any God would have to be the creator of everything, including the concepts that make up reality, and the minds that interact with reality, so the nature of good and evil is simply the preference of the God within the context provided

no self-respecting God would shirk responsibility for everything, and the Bible indicates pretty strongly that God does take responsibility for everything

Which is why I get so tired of conversations about how God is unfair because he requires certain things. Those conversations are based on false assumptions, along with a ponderous egotism that first assumes that God exists, and then makes oneself equal to God

I meant the historical origin of objective morality, not an ontological discussion about morality itself.

it argues out of the necessity of god's power in that morality becomes what we see as god's reason for existence
we cannot directly ask god questions so it is up to us to deal with whatever god has to say about certain things

obviously your theory would work if we can ask god what he thinks about morality but that's outside of our power so assumptions must be made

you are not forced to have those conversations in the first place so getting tirely is really a matter of self-punishment