''what is truth''

[stuartd]

again I don’t disagree with the general gist of this point , but again I see a potential problem in fact historically speaking this very
approach has lead to some of the worst spiritual abuses . and that is the point - that you can take 100 Christians in a room
giving them the same scenario [ALL claiming to be ‘‘being lead of the Holy Spirit’’] yet pretty much all of them arriving at different conclusions ?

Yes, Stuart, but as evidenced by this thread, you can say precisely the same thing about 100 Christians each advancing their own favorite interpretation of a scripture.
When we are each diligently attempting to hear from God (understanding that anything we hear must agree with the words and spirit of scripture),

true ,that could be said ,however scripture and its interpretation [even with all the '‘difficulties’'taken into account ] is still objective compared to ‘‘being lead by the spirit’’ being subjective , one in other words is on far more solid ground that the other as for ‘‘it has to agree with the words of scripture’’ what if said group already either believes in that understanding or are gullible enough to believe it when the
‘‘word from the Lord comes’’

Perhaps you’ll say that this is an impossible situation to achieve, but I have seen God achieve it. Nothing is too difficult for Him, correct, however right now there is no true unity that is why there are ‘‘galzillions’’ of groups and denominations . by saying we have unity in just a few things sounds lovely but not only does it not fit the picture as evidenced by the ‘‘galzillions’’ of groups ect , but I would also ask just who is it who decided ‘‘lets just make it these three things here’’
for example ? what are the ‘‘fundamentals’’
I believe this all ties in with ‘‘what is truth’’ and just how important is it

[stuartd]

there must be some flexibility
but there also must be [or should be] some consensus

Human rights activists of all stripes have done a great job establishing a moral consensus. Starting with William Wilberforce (my hero) it really did start to universally sink in that all conscious living creatures should be treated fairly and without cruelty. Even though we have far to go - I’m an optimist and see how far we’ve come. For some who may not be aware of William’s work : amazinggracemovie.com/

much like the political online activists [not all of them] today who even though a good percentage of them aren’t ‘‘Christian’’
by opposing and fighting against tyranny in its various forms , even when they get threatened

[Paidion]

Morality is not subjective. It is objective. Moral principles apply to all people, not just to some.

agreed but I think you are splitting hairs with situational ethics and moral hierarchalism , I believe in the principle of moral hierarchy but that can sometimes depend on the situation

NO! I am absolutely NOT splitting hairs. There is a basic difference between the two. To view morality as subjective, is to make oneself the judge as to what is right or wrong. A moral subjectivist believes that moral terms really refer to attitudes toward particular actions. For example, some moral subjectivists say that the sentence, “Stealing is wrong” really means “I disapprove of stealing.” Other moral subjectivists say that the sentence has no meaning at all; rather it merely expresses one’s attitude toward stealing. Thus when uttering the sentence, “Stealing is wrong”, what one is realling doing is expressing the emotion “Stealing — Yucchhh!” Thus stealing can be wrong for me, but right for you (if you approve of it). I really doubt that any of you actually believe that morality is subjective. If you did, you would hold that it was unnecessary to carry out Christ’s commands if you didn’t like them — that stealing or adultery is okay if you reall want to do it, and you truly approve of it.

Moral objectivists on the other hand, believe that stealing is wrong, not because of our beliefs or emotions about it, but is wrong independently of our beliefs and emotions.

Some moral objectivists believe in situational ethics, the idea that an act may be right in some situations, but wrong in others. So lying could be right under certain situations, perhaps if it would make someone happy, or if it made you wealthier, etc.

Other moral objectivists (such as myself) believe that moral imperatives can be arranged in a hierarchy so that where there is a moral conflict, some take precedence over others. For example, the imperative to save a life takes precedence over the imperative to refrain from lying.

Still other moral objectivists are absolutists. This means that if an act is wrong, for example, to lie, then it is always wrong under any circumstance, and if there is a moral conflict which forces you to choose “the least of two evils” — again, I’ll use the example of lying to save a life, you still did wrong to lie. A Christian absolutist, Erwin Lutzer, believes that in such a case, you should confess your sin of lying to God and ask forgiveness.

The above three kinds of moral objectivists do not exhaust the possibilities. There are several others.

[stuartd]

NO! I am absolutely NOT splitting hairs. There is a basic difference between the two. I do see this ! I just don’t necessarily
see it as being distinct in an always strict basis !

To view morality as subjective, is to make oneself the judge as to what is right or wrong. A moral subjectivist believes that moral terms really refer to attitudes toward particular actions. For example, some moral subjectivists say that the sentence, “Stealing is wrong” really means “I disapprove of stealing.” Other moral subjectivists say that the sentence has no meaning at all; rather it merely expresses one’s attitude toward stealing. Thus when uttering the sentence, “Stealing is wrong”, what one is realling doing is expressing the emotion “Stealing — Yucchhh!” Thus stealing can be wrong for me, but right for you (if you approve of it). agreed moral post-modernism ! so just like morals , truth must to some degree be seen in the same fashion

I really doubt that any of you actually believe that morality is subjective. If you did, you would hold that it was unnecessary to carry out Christ’s commands if you didn’t like them — that stealing or adultery is okay if you reall want to do it, and you truly approve of it. I don’t think one can apply the same approach to adultery in the way I and yourself below have pointed out regarding lying ,perhaps stealing [in the right situation!] may prove a difficult moral obstacle to get around , then comes the argument of ‘‘but you should trust GOD’’ ,but for the sake of the argument lets say GOD is going to leave you to your own devices lets say you are in a situation where the state turns nasty and people like you are not allowed food water shelter , the woman you have just meet with her baby is in the same boat ,and her baby [AND EVERYBODY ELSE WITH YOU] is starving , you are walking past a shop with baskets of food outside nobody is looking .should you steal ? if you do ,you are loving your neighbour by providing food for her precious new born but in doing so you are sinning against GOD , but at this point one might well ask ,which of the two is the greater sin in the eye’s of GOD

Moral objectivists on the other hand, believe that stealing is wrong, not because of our beliefs or emotions about it, but is wrong independently of our beliefs and emotions. if you believe it is wrong ,then how is that independent of your beliefs ?

Some moral objectivists believe in situational ethics, the idea that an act may be right in some situations, but wrong in others. So lying could be right under certain situations, perhaps if it would make someone happy, or if it made you wealthier, etc.
I would like to know of any moral objectivists who would be prepared to ‘‘cross the line’’ for the sake of ‘‘making someone happy’’

Other moral objectivists (such as myself) believe that moral imperatives can be arranged in a hierarchy so that where there is a moral conflict, some take precedence over others. For example, the imperative to save a life takes precedence over the imperative to refrain from lying.

Still other moral objectivists are absolutists. This means that if an act is wrong, for example, to lie, then it is always wrong under any circumstance, and if there is a moral conflict which forces you to choose “the least of two evils” — again, I’ll use the example of lying to save a life, you still did wrong to lie. A Christian absolutist, Erwin Lutzer, believes that in such a case, you should confess your sin of lying to God and ask forgiveness.

The above three kinds of moral objectivists do not exhaust the possibilities. There are several others.

[Melchizedek]

Moral ethics is subjective, it is never objective and has changed through the ages to accommodate the society or civilization in order to provide equality, safety and ability to live a long life.

In the days of Moses:
It was morally wrong to wear different fibers in your clothing in the Days of Moses.

Today:
It is not morally wrong but a standard of efficient cost efficient clothing for everyone and not just the privileged.

In the days of Moses:
It was not morally wrong to sell your daughter into slavery as a servant to another house.

Today:
Today, slavery is abolished, and child labor laws prevent a parent from profiting from their child’s labor and anyone who does this, is condemned.

Agreed. I have a friend who has a degree (M. Div.)in theological ethics and he would agree with this.

[stuartd]

I love ethicists !