How does the shifting of moral principles affect the Christian church today?

Originally posted by @fmf
Colours are not morals. Colours would only perhaps be analogous to morals in the mind of a child or a person with some kind of intellectual disability who has never thought about morality.

Without an objective moral standard there is no clear black and white. It’s all grey. Your black could be someone else’s white. Your liking for pink is no better than someone else’s liking of blue. You are welcome to ignore the obvious comparison.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Without an objective moral standard there is no clear black and white. It’s all grey. Your black could be someone else’s white. Your liking for pink is no better than someone else’s liking of blue. You are welcome to ignore the obvious comparison.

This fatuous analogy doesn't address my stance on morality. It's as if you are a new poster and you've never read anything I posted.

Originally posted by @fmf
This fatuous analogy doesn't address my stance on morality. It's as if you are a new poster and you've never read anything I posted.

Let's say you believe the death sentence is wrong and someone else believes the death sentence is right. If morality were subjective it means that if I were to be a neutral observer I would have to say that you are both equally justified in your moral beliefs since there is no objective standard by which to decide which of your views is correct. The same would apply to every single moral issue. The fact that you are either too blind to see this or to arrogant to admit this says a lot about you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Let's say you believe the death sentence is wrong and someone else believes the death sentence is right. If morality were subjective it means that if I were to be a neutral observer I would have to say that you are both equally justified in your moral beliefs since there is no objective standard by which to decide which of your views is correct. The same ...[text shortened]... act that you are either too blind to see this or to arrogant to admit this says a lot about you.

Morality is subjective. People could vote against it. People could vote for it. Neutral observers could abstain. I would against it. I might be outvoted. I would still oppose it. People and governments do things that citizens find moral and they do things citizens don't find moral. Morality is subjective.

Originally posted by @fmf
Morality is subjective. People could vote against it. People could vote for it. Neutral observers could abstain. I would against it. I might be outvoted. I would still oppose it. People and governments do things that citizens find moral and they do things citizens don't find moral. Morality is subjective.

If morality is purely subjective there really is no way to know for sure that the actions of Pol Pot and Nazi Germany were really wrong. If they were doing what was right in their own eyes you would have no right to impose what you believe to be right in your eyes upon them. Yet every rational person would agree that their actions are wrong and would stay wrong even if the majority voted that it was the right thing to do.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If morality is purely subjective there really is no way to know for sure that the actions of Pol Pot and Nazi Germany were really wrong. If they were doing what was right in their own eyes you would have no right to impose what you believe to be right in your eyes upon them. Yet every rational person would agree that their actions are wrong and would stay wrong even if the majority voted that it was the right thing to do.

Why does whether or not you think I have the "right" to impose my morals on people matter to you when you yourself would not impose your moral stances upon anyone? What does your supposed "objectivity" amount to? Just personal feelings of vindication?

Originally posted by @fmf
Why does whether or not you think I have the "right" to impose my morals on people matter to you when you yourself would not impose your moral stances upon anyone? What does your supposed "objectivity" amount to? Just personal feelings of vindication?

If you do believe there is a universal standard by which God will judge people you could rightfully see certain behavior as wrong whether it be your own or someone else's. If there is no universal standard of right and wrong everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong and no one has the right to judge anyone else for their view.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you do believe there is universal standard by which God will judge people you could rightfully see certain behavior as wrong whether it be your own or someone else's. If there is no universal standard of right and wrong everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong and no one has the right to judge anyone else for their view.

I have already reacted to and explained my stance with regard to this superstitious line of thinking. Why are simply repeating it again?

Originally posted by @fmf
I have already reacted to and explained my stance with regard to this superstitious line of thinking. Why are simply repeating it again?

What exactly is 'superstitious' about this line of thinking?

"If there is no universal standard of right and wrong everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong and no one has the right to judge anyone else for their view."

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What exactly is 'superstitious' about this line of thinking?

Your belief in a supernatural "law giver" and the way you think this superstition makes your personal opinions and morals "objective". How many times do you have to ask the same thing over and over and over again?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you do believe there is a universal standard by which God will judge people you could rightfully see certain behavior as wrong whether it be your own or someone else's.

That you personally just so happen to believe that your religious beliefs ~ whatever they might be ~ somehow make you able to "rightfully" see/judge this or "rightfully" see/judge that is pure subjectivity on your part.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your belief in a supernatural "law giver" and the way you think this superstition makes your personal opinions and morals "objective". How many times do you have to ask the same thing over and over and over again?

"If there is no universal standard of right and wrong everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong and no one has the right to judge anyone else for their view."

What is 'superstitious' about this line of thinking? Or do you agree with it?

Originally posted by @fmf
Your belief in a supernatural "law giver" and the way you think this superstition makes your personal opinions and morals "objective". How many times do you have to ask the same thing over and over and over again?

🙄

Originally posted by @dj2becker
"If there is no universal standard of right and wrong everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong and no one has the right to judge anyone else for their view."

What is 'superstitious' about this line of thinking? Or do you agree with it?

I answered your question about why I think your line of thinking is superstitious. Why are you asking me it again? Of course adults with a moral compass are able to 'judge' one another with regard to their behaviour and actions. Of course they can. That is what our human nature as moral agents equips us to do. We have talked about this ad infinitum. Why do nearly all of your questions rely so heavily on you pretending that you have not read or understood anything I have said over the last 2 years?

Originally posted by @fmf
Why do nearly all of your questions rely so heavily on you pretending that you have not read or understood anything I have said over the last 2 years?

He only has one topic, this one, and he runs out of ideas very quickly. There is little substance to the reams of posts, it’s all arguing over largely irrelevant nuances. I think most people here are bored with him and it; in fact the only interesting aspect of these threads is that you are not.