In <1qksc2$2mr@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com writes:  > In article <1qkoel$5fr@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > |>  > |> Good question, my point was that a world with truth is better than a world > |> with falsehood.  A world in which it were possible to say "yes, I am > |> holding a Jew" (the truth) and you, me, the Jew, and the SS guy all sit > |> down to crack open a bottle of whiskey is better than the grim alternatives  > |> you present. Obviously, this is not possible, and the best alternative seems > |> to be to lie.  That's because other values are involved, such as life. > |> Now that IS just my opinion - don't confuse the claim 'objective morality > |> exists' with the claim 'I have a lock on morals'. >  > I think that at this point it would actually be quite easy to > confuse objective morality with relative morality. >  > jon. Actually, jon, that is quite true.  Christian people have caused "objective morality" to look very "relative."  After all, that was the point of the original question in this thread, i.e. can we toss out Christianity because it is so obviously inconsistent with its own principles?  If you will bear with me, I will attempt to explain this apparent inconsistency from at least one Christian's viewpoint:  If God exists and is the creator of mankind as the Bible claims, then He has a pretty well-defined concept of what makes people tick physically, emotionally, etc.  GOD has an "objective" morality for us. That is to say, He has no trouble understanding what is good for (or detrimental to) the creature He created.   	Galatians 2:10-- For we [mankind] are His workmanship, created in 	Christ Jesus for good works [a morality], which God prepared 	beforehand [a well-defined design], that we might walk in them.  However, contrary to what many people assume (including the Pharasees of the Bible,) God's morality cannot be completely codified in a list of rules and regulations.  To some extent, every activity of a person's life creates a new situation to which morality must be applied.  There never could be enough volumes to codify God's "objective" morality for us.   Throughout history, mankind has tried to reduce morality to a list of rules (objectivity, if you please.)  In the Old Testament, we have both principles and specific rules.  By the time of Jesus, most of the principles were obscured by the emphasis men had placed on the rules. Volumes of additional rules had been made to try to codify the application of the principles.  We [mankind] weren't comfortable with the "subjectivity" of principles.   	For reference see Matthew 5 where Jesus explains the difference 	between the Law and the principles of the Law.  For example, in 	verses 21-22:  "You have heard that the ancients were told, 	'You shall not commit murder'...and 'Whoever commits murder shall 	be liable to the court.'  But I say to you that everyone who is 	angry with his brother shall be liable to the court..."  The "objective morality" of God gets blurred by our inept interpretation of it.  We [Christians] have made our biggest errors when we have allowed any one person or group of people decide EXACTLY what God intended for us.  If we [Christians] would stay committed to seeking God's will instead of trying to prove we already had it all figured out, we might do a better job of allowing others to find God's "objective morality" for themselves.  If Jesus is who he said he was/is (and that's the fundamental question,) then HE IS "objective morality."