Obedience vs Disobedience

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If it's God's law it's objective no? Or do you believe the ten commandments were/are optional?

In the way you are using the word "objective" here, haven't all laws of all gods since the beginning of human history been "objective" according to those gods' followers and their religions' adherents?

Originally posted by @fmf
We already discussed this at length. I wrote quite a bit about different or competing moral codes. You chose not to address what I said. Go back and take a look. I'm not typing it out again.

Without an objective standard for morality all we have are subjective opinions. So if one society decides to kill and eat humans that's ok because without an objective moral standard you cannot say that your morals are right and someone else's morals are wrong.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Without an objective standard for morality all we have are subjective opinions.

You don't have "an objective standard for morality". You have your superstitions, and you have your personal interest in Hebrew mythology.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So if one society decides to kill and eat humans that's ok because without an objective moral standard you cannot say that your morals are right and someone else's morals are wrong.

Like I said, I wrote in detail about different and competing moral codes. You chose not to address it. That was your opportunity.

Originally posted by @fmf
In the way you are using the word "objective" here, haven't all laws of all gods since the beginning of human history been "objective" according to those gods' followers and their religions' adherents?

If their laws were non negotiable, would you say their laws were 'objective' or 'subjective' to them?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If their laws were non negotiable, would you say their laws were 'objective' or 'subjective' to them?

Laws? You mean rules passed by village elders and parliaments?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If their laws were non negotiable, would you say their laws were 'objective' or 'subjective' to them?

It's interesting that you would ask me this question, as if you hadn't read this from page 6:

One could make objective statements about what laws exist that pertain to moral issues. As for what I believe is and is not true with regard to morality, it is not something I attach the word "objective" to and certainly not in discussion with you, because you have distorted/corrupted that (and several other) related words. I don't think anything anyone asserts with regard to supernatural phenomena and beings having a bearing on morality can be anything other than subjective.

-Removed-

So you think it's ok to kill another human and eat them even if there is other food available? Or is it always wrong regardless of what any society may say?

Originally posted by @fmf
Laws? You mean rules passed by village elders and parliaments?

Would you say the Ten Commandments can be regarded as a law by those that follow the Bible?

Originally posted by @fmf
It's interesting that you would ask me this question, as if you hadn't read this from page 6:

One could make objective statements about what laws exist that pertain to moral issues. As for what I believe is and is not true with regard to morality, it is not something I attach the word "objective" to and certainly not in discussion with you, because you have ...[text shortened]... natural phenomena and beings having a bearing on morality can be anything other than subjective.

I gave you the definition of the word objective before. How is it corrupted or distorted?

-Removed-

Tell me this honestly, do you or don't you believe that cannibalism is always wrong?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Would you say the Ten Commandments can be regarded as a law by those that follow the Bible?

You are entitled to regard whatever you want as being a "law" that applies to you. You are entitled to regard whatever supernatural instructions and rules you want as being stuff that applies to you and even to everyone else (including those who believe different stuff). It doesn't make it "an objective moral law". You use the word "objective" where what you mean to say is... you are very, very, very sincere about how true whatever has tickled your subjective fancy is.