I would agree.
But why would I think that the supposed author of my conscience is acting in an immoral way by commanding human sacrifice?
Because mine and your conscience finds it morally objectionable to sacrifice humans. The only reason Abraham agreed to obey God is that he believed God would raise his son, Isaac, from the dead. Otherwise I don't think Abraham would have done it.
Heb 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and the one who had received the promises was offering up his only
son; 18
it was he to whom it was said, “Through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” 19
He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
My objection in the case of Abraham is not objective, and I never claimed that it was.
Oh, I thought your objection would have to be subjective. I didn't understand why you would think that I thought it was objective when you said this 'If I told you I thought that your god was immoral to command Abaraham to sacrifice Isaac, I take it that you would consider me to be
objectively incorrect - yes?" I must have understood you. {I'm on east coast time and it was early in the morning when we were posting last night.) Why did you think I would have considered your opposition to child sacrifice to be objectively incorrect?
It is based on the fact that the harm caused by the command was not justified, in my opinion.
Is there anything that would justify any type of human sacrifice unless the human actually agreed to it like Jesus did?
Commanding a man to kill his child is immoral whether or not the commander intends for the man to carry it out.
If there is no intention to carry it out why is it immoral? It was a test. There are some Christians who believe that God knows the future as a certainly and there are other Christians that believe that God knows the future as possibilities. I think God commanding Abraham to offer his son to God was a test and proves to me that God does
not know the future exhaustively even to the minutia.
"Kill your son, Abraham..." does not become moral just because it concluded with "... PSYCH!"
It wasn't a practical joke! Abraham passed the test and was blessed by God. Genesis 22: 15-18
I think the reason God gave this test to Abraham was that he wanted to know if Abraham would obey him even in an extremely tough test. Abraham passed the test and God blessed him.
Gen 22:12 “Do not reach out your hand against the boy, and do not do anything to him;
for now I know that you fear [revere] God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Gen 22:16-13 By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand, which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.
No - and that is the problem.
Objectivity does not require agreement on the premises; the premises would be true whether we agree or not, and the conclusion would follow inexorably. "Here is the definition of moral, and if you use another one, you're mistaken", in other words.
Okay, that's what the guy said in the video. He spoke of the social morality that changes with time and different societies. The objective as unchangeable which he based on God's moral character.
So doesn't that mean that using God's character as our moral standard (the God of the bible or any so-called god) fails if God commands a human sacrifice but our conscious tells us that human sacrifice is immoral? Some people, like Pixie, cannot believe in a God that they think is immoral.
Do you believe in moral absolutes as an agnostic/atheist?
Actually, I agree with Turek - I think that all morality is opinion because there is no way to prove otherwise. A person's morality flows from their definition of right/wrong, but the key word is their definition; there is, as far as I can tell, no way to cut through and establish "the" definition of right/wrong.
Then everything becomes relative to each different person's definition of right and wrong. You certainly don't believe in a conscience given to us by God. There is nothing solid to base any law upon. But this does agree with your agnostic/atheistic point of view.
Who is Turek? Frank Turek? I have a book I found buried in a tote called
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.
When I say "X is wrong", that is a linguistic shortcut denoting "as I understand right/wrong, this is wrong". For me to change my position and accept the existence of objective morals, I would have to see proof that there is a correct understanding of right/wrong.
Thank you, now I understand what you mean by "objective morals". You would need to meet God before you can find that proof, imo.