Snacker, maybe this will be helpful.
Any moral construct (don’t rape, don’t discriminate etc.) that is "invented" or adapted by mankind and that is truly good for society, will BE good for society because it coheres with an objective moral principle that exists independently. Meaning it is right and true regardless of whether you agree with it or obey it or even know that it exists.
Again, “objective” (not arbitrary or relative) because it comes from the Ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love - our Creator.
I’m sure you can see that any of the:
You shall not murder (murder being unjustified killing),
You shall not steal,
You shall not commit adultery etc.
if adhered to by the majority of people on earth would make the world a better place in which to live.
Yes? Of course you can.
Jesus said that all of the objective moral code (the Ten Commandments) could be summed up with:
1) Love God
2) Love your neighbour as you love yourself - or Treat others as you would like them to treat you.
The Objective Law or the Ten Commandments are the details or the specifics of Loving God and Loving our neighbour.
The Objective Law or the Ten Commandment are the specifics of the attitude that we are to have toward one another.
Any man-made law or moral construct that works (you’ve described one or two in earlier comments) will fall under one of the two headings just mentioned.
If man-made moral constructs work across time and culture:
. They will work because they are objectively and ultimately right.
. They will work because they are based upon standards that are objectively and ultimately sound.
. They are objectively and ultimately sound because they originate from the character and command of our Creator who is the ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love.
The Christian base for objective morality is based on Truth. In our interaction with others, when wronged, you and I know in an instant that it's based upon Truth. Because it's based upon Truth it helps in the survival of the collective.
The atheist base for morality is based upon it's ability to aid survival. It may or may not work over time. It is something that will change with the ebb and flow human desire, likes and dislikes, current ideology and the ability to meet our survival need. As such, at any given time, it may or may not entail truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Parts 1 and 2 (of 3):
ReplyDeleteI'm currently on a steep part of my learning curve regarding objective morality, so I may ramble a bit here.
1. First, I agree that atheists have no basis for objective morality. We can say we follow the Golden Rule, or it's intuitive that certain things are wrong, but it's impossible to answer the "why" question enough times to convince most Christians that some things are moral or immoral just because everyone knows it. In the end, we do what we think is right for a given situation based on a) The available data at the time, b) Our experience and teachings, and c) The expected consequences. Throw in a little empathy and you've got a decent human being most of the time. (I don't see how those who condone rape, or death for apostasy, or stuff like that can be considered empathetic, but I'm sure there's a twisted way of viewing them as empathetic toward the collective, if not toward the individual.)
2. So, let's assume the Christian source of objective morality is God's word. I was recently informed that the objective morality in the Bible that is applicable today consists primarily of the Ten Commandments and what can be found in the books of Romans and 1 Peter (corrections are welcome). In other words, some of those archaic rules in the Old Testament (especially Leviticus) don't apply today, since that was intended for the society of Old Testament Israel. I can accept that, and in fact that's good to know the next time a fundy points to one of those rules in Leviticus.
I made a quick read through Romans and 1 Peter, and there are some decent guidelines in there. I think I even saw the Golden Rule, which was pointed out in this post. I'll need to go over those books a little more carefully to put together a list of guidelines or rules or whatever you want to call it. (The two given in this post seem a little broad and open to wide interpretation, IMHO.) One question I have, however, concerns Romans 13, where it says not to engage in sexual immorality. Is it outlined anywhere in the Bible specifically what constitutes sexual immorality or sexual morality? I know the OT forbids homosexuality, but I just haven't looked for it in the NT yet. I'm also wondering if any acts between married heterosexual partners are considered sexually immoral, such as those that do not contribute to reproduction. Just curious, no particular reason.
Part 3 (of 3):
ReplyDelete3. Does God's objective morality cover any situation? For instance, if a Christian is placed in a scenario where he has to choose between violating commandment A or commandment B, how does he decide? If a Christian is placed in a scenario where he has to choose between stopping person A from violating commandment A, or stopping person B from violating commandment B, how does he decide? Without a list that ranks the rules in order of priority, it seems like the Christian has to decide on the spot what is the right thing to do, sort of like an atheist would. Would a Christian violate any of God's objective rules (even low priority ones) to save a stranger's life? To save the life of a close family member? To save his or her own life? I'm also curious how one objectively determines what is justified vs. unjustified killing.
I know this point was touched on in previous comments, but I thought the purpose of an objective morality was to provide a standard of conduct by which to live one's life. I'm not sure I understand the argument that God's objective morality is to show us simply how far we fall from God's standard, since he so clearly spelled out the Ten Commandments in the OT, and definitely got upset when people broke the rules. To me that seems like a standard of conduct we're supposed to follow.
History certainly shows that letting the collective decide what's right and wrong can have its drawbacks, whether the collective is primarily believers or non-believers, so I won't claim to have a solution. Maybe the best we can do is learn from the past and try to improve going forward, since those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
"I'll need to go over those books a little more carefully to put together a list of guidelines or rules or whatever you want to call it."
ReplyDeleteLet me save you the efffort.
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheist-women-reject-kindness.html
I couldn't find the original. This is one that I adapted to apply to our attitudes toward women but the principles apply to our attitude toward all people
==========
"Is it outlined anywhere in the Bible specifically what constitutes sexual immorality or sexual morality?"
Any sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual intimacy within the protective confines of a marriage is "sexual immorality."
“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined together with his wife.” The word “joined” has a much larger meaning than we understand in the English.
As I understand it, sexual behaviours within a marriage is open to whatever two consenting adults agree to, as long as it is not demeaning or physically / emotionally harmful. The Song of Songs, or the Song of Solomon shows two people thoroughly enjoying the exploration of each others bodies.
===========
“it seems like the Christian has to decide on the spot what is the right thing to do, sort of like an atheist would.”
Sure, we could both be in a similar situation. This is where snacker, I think it is, runs into trouble with confusing objective morality with absolute morality. The Bible says Do not Murder. That does not mean not killing of any kind for any reason. There may be situations where, a police officer for instance, might have to kill someone in the line of duty.
Love God. Love your neighbour as yourself. Do your best in sorting it out. In Christianity, it’s our motives, not our actions per se, that are judged. What is in our heart, is the question. Our action or our decision in the moment may turn out to be wrong while our motive was right.
============
"definitely got upset when people broke the rules. To me that seems like a standard of conduct we're supposed to follow."
But we can’t do it - can we? That's why God seemed ticked off all through the Old Testament. People were trying to do, on their own power, what people cannot do. We get caught up in making laws where laws are intended to highlight deeper principles, i.e., Love God = Love Your Neighbour.
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Matthew 15:19
We were created without sin, in harmony with our Creator
We chose to break that harmony and this is what we are now like.
The consequence of that broken relationship is eternal separation from God
We can do nothing to fix what we broke.
Jesus came to fix what we cannot fix.
Yes the moral code is a standard of conduct but it is ALSO one that we cannot keep. If a person is trying to be good enough to be good enough for heaven, the standard is perfection.
The sins (the breaking of the law) that we commit are merely symptoms of our fallen nature.
We don’t just do wrong - we ARE wrong.
That is why Jesus came - to save us from ourselves.
The collective already decides, it's called law. It's already practiced, so you need not worry about the implications of collective morality. If individual morality has priority over the group, that's called anarchy.
ReplyDeleteNow then mak...
Being that you already reguard Christianity as truth, it follows logically that you would consider god to be the answer to objective morality. There's nothing illogical about that, I find the assumption of god's existance the illogical part. If I believed in god, I would agree with you 100 percent.
We will never get anywhere with your method of arguement because your contention only works under the assumption of god's existance.
ALL your claims, from your morals being unchanging to our ability to know without ANY doubt the difference between right and wrong all depend on the validy or invalidity of your primary contention that the Christian god exists.
The only thing you can claim is that "if my god turns out to exist, then my qualifications for god are true. You can't just declare your outlook the correct one because YOU assume god to exist. That is not an actual arguement, it's an unfalsifiable declaration that holds no value in rational debate.
And that's all the bulk of this post is; claims that can only be made under the condition of god's existance.
Further, you just demonstrated the flexibility and relativism of your own model of ethics. You said...
You shall not murder(murder being unjustified killing)
you shall not murder is the command
murder under this rule only qualifies as unjustified
then...
DEFINE UNJUSTIFIED
... We are left to provide a value for unjustified.
When values are left to be defined we have relativism.
Now, you will want to no doubt return with, "god bestows the power to be able to provide the definition, that's objective morality."
But wait a second, can someone not know better?
What about the mentally disabled? Surely they do not always know better.
What about a crime committed by someone in the heat of a painful reaction to bad news or the reception of abuse? Will god make exceptions? How far do these exceptions go?
Suddenly, gods morality looks exactly like atheist morality, what's the connection?
The connection is, there is no godly morality, it all comes from the same source, human beings.
You said that everybody knows beyond doubt what right and wrong is. I find this to be a risky claim to make. But then in a previous post you elaborate on how you were a prison guard for the criminally insane. You say that you've worked with people that have justified there actions in raping and killing. You described someone who truly believes that they didn't do anything wrong AND NOW tell me that everybody knows without doubt the difference between objective right and wrong? Where is your objective morality?
ReplyDeleteAnd now your saying...
ReplyDeleteIn Christianity it's our motives, not our actions, per se, that are judged
WHAT?
You must be joking. This completely goes against EVERYTHING we've been arguing about. Would you let me get away with such a statement? Obviously not!
Can I just submit my contention to, "it's the collective's morality that counts, not their actions, per se?" You dig your own grave with a statement like.
"The collective already decides, it's called law."
ReplyDeleteSure, it used to the the collective's law to segregate blacks from whites, to deny women the right to vote, to discriminate against minorities.
===========
"You said that everybody knows beyond doubt what right and wrong is."
No - I didn't say that. I said, "When we have been WRONGED we know that immediately. We don't have to sit and think about it. We know immediately what the RIGHT action should have been."
How we treat others however, because of our human nature, is open to rationalisation and justification for all sorts of wrong behaviours.
==========
"elaborate on how you were a prison guard for the criminally insane."
No - I've never said I was a prison guard. My profession is in counselling / mental health (now retired).
=========
"I find the assumption of god's existance"
God's existence is not based on assumption, it's based upon many pieces of evidence from many different fields, science being just one of them.
When we love our neighbour as ourselvs, we are loving God.
When we keep the objective moral command, the Ten Commandments we are loving our neighbour as ourselves.
Don't get caught up in specifics snacker. It's about attitude and motive. When we are right with God, we WILL be right with our fellow man and vice versa.
When Christians screw up, it's because they are not loving God nor loving their neighbour.
We screw up because human nature prohibits our ability to perfectly keep the objective moral law.
That is why Jesus came to save us from ourselves.
With or without God, humans cannot be good.
Sorry - I forgot to include - re: assumption of God's existence - science being one piece of the evidence, The Objective Moral Code being another, - objective in the sense that Objective right and wrong exist regardless of whether you agree with the code, obey the code, or even know that the code exists. It exists because it originates with the character and commands of our Creator.
ReplyDeleteSure, it used to the the collective's law to segregate blacks from whites, to deny women the right to vote, to discriminate against minorities.
ReplyDeleteIt's also used to prevent the same thing... segregate blacks from whites, to deny women the right to vote, to discriminate against minorities.
Or would you rather grant the individual's morality authority over the collective. Should we allow serial killers to exercise their personal morality because we're trying to avoid the implications for the "safety net" of collective objectivity?
No - I didn't say that. I said, "When we have been WRONGED we know that immediately. We don't have to sit and think about it. We know immediately what the RIGHT action should have been."
This is a repackaging of the same implications. To know what the right action should have been is to be able to distinguish between a defined right and wrong. My statement still stands, which operates in conjunction with the other statement I made which was the prison guard reference. You, not being a prison guard was my mistake, but I know that I didn't get the other part of my statement wrong. You know what you had said, and I got it right. Don't hide behind my mistake of me getting your occupation wrong, that is completely irrelevant.
You tell us that we know without doubt whether or not we did the right thing, and then tell us another time that other people don't know.
If anybody can find that post you get one million points. Though I wager the same thing has been said on other posts. Its rather hard to navigate through the sea of text at this blog however. Or atlest time consuming.
And the entire bulk of the rest of your response just talks about how god is real and how morals work with god. I've already gone through this, and would think that you would agree with me on this one actually. I understand that you believe in god, and it naturally follows that god would be "the cause of moral behavior" given your belief, I get that.
But it does you no good to say, well evidence backs it up. I AM WELL AWARE THAT YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN. And I am an atheist. WE KNOW EACH OTHER'S POSITION on god. Okay? It does you absolutely no good, to say, well god exists, therefore your wrong about morals.
You continue to repeat your position and how the mechanics of Christian morals operate, I get it. Let's see if I understand it,
Objective morality is defined by God. Objective morality operates within human beings through the conscience. Since god gives us the freewill to follow or not follow his defined morality, some people, even Christians, will act moral and others will not.
Being that all this is the case, it however ultimately boils down to the heart. Do you truly believe that Jesus is god? And are your intentions honest towards the glory of humbling our imperfect and sinful self towards god and accepting him as your savior?
Did I get it right?
How about you take a whack at defining my contention?
I do like how we've been sticking this one out and not just changing the subject but we seem to be stuck at a spot that will stunt our progress unless one of us budges.
ReplyDeleteYour definition for objective morality is all over the place, let's recap..,
1. Gods law is non-situational and yet some laws depend on the situation somehow. Like killing, for example.
2. We may not know what action will be synchronized with god's will, yet it's still objective.
3. Objective moral rules ultimately do not matter since it's your intent that's really what's important.
This is not objective morality. It's a guessing game played on us by god. Objectivity, BY DEFINITION, has an physical objective place in the real world. What you describe is god's preferences which operate as non-physical ambience outside of physical reality. This is MORE relativistic than atheist morality! Because atleast after collective morals are defined we don't have to guess what they may be.
What your describing is better called "metaphysical morality".
ReplyDeleteThesauros is conflating morality and righteousness, as so many Christians do.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, morality is, by nature, subjective; its metrics are human happiness and suffering. This does NOT, however, make it any less useful than some allegedly 'objective' morality.
Righteousness, on the other hand, is objective; it concerns adherence to God's commandments/will or whatever. Just check the scriptures to see if yer doin' it right.
Honestly, thesauros: have you never heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma?
“If anybody can find that post you get one million points.”
ReplyDeleteThe quote that you’re looking for is:
“The thing is, we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us. We don’t have to wonder for one second what our community standard on the event is. We don't have to wonder for one second what society thinks about what the person did to us. We KNOW that we were wronged. At the moment that we’ve been wronged we believe that objective right and wrong exist.”
The quote is from http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2010/05/moral-dilemma.html
Now Pay up you schmuck :-)
===========
“Or would you rather grant the individual's morality authority over the collective. Should we allow serial killers to exercise their personal morality because we're trying to avoid the implications for the "safety net" of collective objectivity?”
Um I think that’s an argument that you’d have with Hugo. Not me.
=========
How about you take a whack at defining my contention?
No thanks
===========
"Objective moral rules ultimately do not matter since it's your intent that's really what's important."
Snacker, even secular mental health professionals recognise that our actions stem from our beliefs and motives. This is not a contentious issue. People judge by externals. Someone can look really good / honest on the outside but be a beast in terms of charcter.
God ignores externals and judges what we are really like. He judges our heart, our motives. God can do this because He knows what we are really like. Humans have a much harder time accurately judging a person because people are very good at hiding the truth.
==============
Honestly, thesauros: have you never heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma?
Yes and if you’d read or understood any of my former comments on why the moral code is not arbitrary but objective, stemming as it does from the CHARACTER of God, you’d know that this has absolutely nothing to do with said dilemma.
“Or would you rather grant the individual's morality authority over the collective. Should we allow serial killers to exercise their personal morality because we're trying to avoid the implications for the "safety net" of collective objectivity?”
ReplyDeleteUm I think that’s an argument that you’d have with Hugo. Not me.
Looks like you won't ever understand the difference between 'everybody is the ultimate judge of what's good or not for them' vs 'everybody should be allowed to do what they want'... pathetic, but not surprising coming from a man who wants to impose his religion on others.
Saying that something is subjective is not the same as saying it is arbitrary. Saying something is contextual is not the same as saying it is arbitrary. Arbitrary is not the opposite of onjective. You're creating false equivalencies and dichotomies.
ReplyDeleteLet's say that any consensual and non-harmful sexual act between a married man and woman is both moral and righteous. Does it remain so if they do it in the presence of a twelve-year-old?
Simpler and more straightforward: is it morally good, morally wrong, or morally neutral for a man to own another man as a slave? It seems to me that if one tries to answer this question in what seems to be the obvious way, one sees that the allegedly objective/unchanging Biblical Moral Code is, in fact "something that will change with the ebb and flow human desire, likes and dislikes, (and) current ideology."
"Does it remain so if they do it in the presence of a twelve-year-old?"
ReplyDeleteWould it be a loving thing to do to a twelve year old to let her watch? Most people could answer with confidence, "No it would not."
"is it morally good, morally wrong, or morally neutral for a man to own another man as a slave?"
Are you familiar with the term "bonded slavery"? In case you're interested >
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/09/sal-and-slavery.html
An artful dodge, to be sure.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to rephrase, then, since we're playing semantic games.
Is it morally good, morally wrong, or morally neutral for a man to own another man as a "bonded slave"? If morally good or neutral, why do we not practice bonded slavery in Christian America today? What has changed?
Also, is the bonded slave "equal" to his bonded master in the American sense of "all are men created equal"? Does he have what we would call 'rights'? If not, is this morally good, morally wrong, or morally neutral?
…
"Would it be a loving thing to do to a twelve year old to let her watch? Most people could answer with confidence, "No it would not." "
Then it would appear that even allegedly absolute moral codes operate contextually.
That was, actually, a >cough< fascinating essay you linked to. Here's my take-away:
ReplyDelete"While it is true that many English translations of the bible use the word slavery to translate the word ebed it is mistaken to see the two institutions as the same. Slavery refers to the state of being the property or chattel of another; regardless of what connotations various words in English translations have, the institution referred to in scripture did not permit, condone or allow this."
Gosh, if one didn't know any better, one might be tempted to say that translations tend to cloud meaning and make God look like the author of confusion.
But that would just be crazy.
"to deny women the right to vote"
ReplyDeleteUm, where does the Bible say women should have the right to vote?
I think your partly stealing your morality from secularism.
"If morally good or neutral, why do we not practice bonded slavery in Christian America today?"
ReplyDeleteOnly an atheist would think it reasonable to compare 21st century North American culture to 3 century B.C. Palestinian culture.
Are you suggesting that it would be a more loving thing to do to throw the debtor in prison until his family could pay off the debt? That rather than letting him work it off?
========
Also, is the bonded slave "equal" to his bonded master in the American sense of "all are men created equal"? Does he have what we would call 'rights'
Try actually reading the article.
I've been in this slavery debate before. Not with Mak, though. On the bright side, at least the debate has moved along since I last looked at it. I was worried because we were getting stuck for a while.
ReplyDeleteAND IT'S LASTED FOR SO LONG!! YES!!! It's a long argument with MY name in the title. Take that Hugo! I'm ahead of you by 1 ;)LOL.
Anyway, now to serious matters. I think I'll pick up where I left off, rather than work off this slavery stuff...
Snacker, even secular mental health professionals recognize that our actions stem from our beliefs and motives. This is not a contentious issue. People judge by externals. Someone can look really good / honest on the outside but be a beast in terms of character.
The human collective is an extremely dynamic gradient of social agents. The fact that there are, from person to person, extremities within the subjectivity of human perception, does not defeat the importance of our physical reactions. Do you suggest that our subjective perception holds prevalence to the physical reactions that effect the material world? Is thinking about rape "worse" than actual rape?
The quote is from http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2010/05/moral-dilemma.html
Now Pay up you schmuck :-)
LOL, Fine. Actually I was hoping for the maximum security prison thing, but I wanted this one too.
Mak said..."Again, “objective” (not arbitrary or relative) because it comes from the Ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love - our Creator.
ReplyDeleteI’m sure you can see that any of the:
You shall not murder (murder being unjustified killing),
You shall not steal,
You shall not commit adultery etc.
if adhered to by the majority of people on earth would make the world a better place in which to live."
Howdy Mak if these morals are objective because they have been provided by some sorce totally outside of our own choice of thought, then so is us ALL having the same need to eat and forfill our hunger.
And i ask what reason do you ever suppose there could honestly exist, where we humans would ever likely see any tribes of people, where the act of blatant murder would ever be welcomed ?.
It would never ever be likely to exist,because the simple fact is this act of welcoming in the act of blatant murder into the tribe, would soon enough simply lead to the total extinction of the whole tribe.As after blatant murder after murder soon enough "only one person" would remain,and one person cannot even "breed" on their own.Which would simply spell, the peoples extinction.Hense it is objective everywhere.
The act of stealing is always sooner or later a "vicious circle" no matter what tribe or people the act happens in.Hense reason why we never see any tribes where stealing wouldnt be thought morally wrong by most people.That it is objective in most every land and amongst all people remains so, simply because not one breed of human is ever likely to find it so morally pleasing, when the fact remains sooner or later the very act is "circular" in its very action, and so "sooner or later" tends to even return to "also bite the butt" of the thiefs also.So quite NATURALLY it never really became popular amongst any tribes, and so became another very "objective" type moral.The reason it existed out side of personal choice,was because it just didnt ever really work out well in the end for anyone.
Adultery is also found in most tribes to be thought objective imorality ,simply because humans are always humans and it just dont matter if even seas happen to set them apart,humans still remain humans ,and most every single tribe that ever existed in almost every single land on the planet ALL people experience the very same phenomonem, that adultery always most often caused trouble! and strife! and much disharmony that very often led to bloodshed and even murder.
There is other ways to easily explain these matters of moral we all most often share and do all tend to see as being very objective, that dont have any need of us to go placing some need of any supernatural force to see how they do come into existence.
The key factors often are, Humans stay Humans no matter whether sea or even miles and miles of land and time stands between them.Hense because they always remain humans ,they naturally on many things will also very likely be also oserved to have come to exactly the very same conclusions.
Mak said ..."2) Love your neighbour as you love yourself - or Treat others as you would like them to treat you."
ReplyDeleteWhat if im somebody who loves my neighbour to make himself feel totally at home in my house,should i simply go and just make myself at home in his?.Im somebody who likes other people not to feel like they have any need to be asking me,should i simply go and treat others how i would have them also treat me ?
I think all these questions about morality will be cleared up in October, when Sam Harris' next book is published:
ReplyDeletehttp://friendlyatheist.com/2010/06/09/just-revealed-the-cover-of-sam-harris-new-book/
It will be way too easy for Christian apologists to put their spin on it, however. "Even if science can determine human values, God gave us science, therefore God determines human values." And so it goes . . .
@Atheistsnackbar
ReplyDeletelol, ya, my thread went up to 9 comments only, yours is at 25 with that comment I'm leaving; you won! ;)
"I think all these questions about morality will be cleared up in October, when Sam Harris' next book is published:"
ReplyDeleteThat’ll be a good thing because it shor ain’t happening here :-) It’ll be interesting to see if he borrows from Christianity for his explanation (as all atheists do) or sticks to pure atheism where in point of fact the “I” that is doing all this explaining doesn’t even exist - "YOU" are just an illusion.
It’s also amusing - to me - to listen to all you guys who don’t need God in order to be nice people, stumbling all over yourselves to dream up scenarios where doing the right thing might actually be the wrong thing to do. Atheists - you’re a hoot.
I was thinking some more about the high anticipation of atheists that, “Maybe Sam Harris will explain all this to us and for us. We know that objective morals, values and obligations exist. We know that. Just like the laws of logic and mathematics somehow exist independent of our knowing or obeying or agreeing with them. They just exist. We know all this stuff but how can we explain this existence without allowing the presence of a Being Who set all this in place.
ReplyDeleteThat, we a priori reject so all we can do is hope for a saviour of our own to explain away our Creator. Please, please, please! Maybe Sam Harris will be our saviour."
"Objective" morals, values and obligations don't exist.
ReplyDeleteThey can not be objective in any sense of the word.
values exist in minds.
No minds no values.
Christians have to steal from the secular worldview to have a morality that fits this modern world.
ReplyDelete