"...Except when my God is involved"

[Jessie]

I suppose I should be happy that it creeps you out.

[Operator_019]

This is an interesting discussion. 

I'd like to see it stay on point with regard to the title. 

Thanks.

019



Edit - Thank you, A. Pony, for the correction.

[Aaron123]

You assert that God somehow cast a spell (or some such thing) on Pharaoh in order to harden his heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. God is simply stating what He knows will be the case when Moses approaches Pharaoh and the miraculous displays of God’s power are made manifest. God knew what kind of man Pharaoh was (a god in his own prideful twisted view) and that he would only grow colder and angrier with every attempt to upset his control over the Israelite slaves. Pharaoh’s hard-heartedness grew out of his own decisions to ignore God through Moses. When God says that He will harden Pharaoh's heart, He is stating what He knows will be the effect that His planned miracles will have on Pharaoh's heart.  
1 Samuel 6:6 further attests to this correct interpretation.

Holy story revisionism Batman!

Just look at what the text says:
Exodus 4, god is saying:
But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

"I will" showcase his plan to do an action.

Exodus 7, god again says:
But I will harden Pharaoh's heart[/b], and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you.

Again, the "I will" showcase god's intent to do an action.

Exodus 9, 10 and 11 all have this line:

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart

I'm making that text extra big so you can see it plainly states that your god worked some magic on Pharaoh.  The text does NOT states "And the Pharaoh harden his heart, just as the lord knew he would", it explictly states that god did something to Pharaoh to "hardened" his heart.

And let's not forget WHY god did all this:
Exodus 14:
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD."

How nice.  Killing off a whole bunch of people just so he could "gain glory" for himself.  Just the sort of thing I'd expect from a loving and merciful being.  And of course, there's that "I WILL do an action" line again.  But of course, that's godspeak for "something will happen without any personal intervention on my part... honest!"

[Dkit]

Exodus10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them,
I just don't see how anyone can get around the fact that this entire idiotic series of negotiations was for the sole purpose of boosting YHWH's ego and his standing with his people.  In his omnipotent decision making process he decided it was better to torture and steal from an Empire he didn't like to set free a subset of people within a larger group who were already descendant's of the flood Patriarch, Noah.

[Noman Peopled]

Do you believe that lying is wrong?

I you phrase it that way, no. Not under all circumstances. Specifically, the more important the information will be deemed by the recipient and the more likely it is to impact their life or our relationship, the less likely I am to lie about something.
For the record, it is possible to lie for the benefit of others.

If so, then why do you do it ?

Sometimes because it's convenient, but mostly I take care not to lie. There are some more or less conscious exaggerations, half-truths, and lies that I tend to regret and if possible correct in hindsight.

If you believe that judging others is wrong, then why do you still do it ?

I do not believe that judging others is wrong. Everybody does it all the time. Not forming a judgment would be a huge evolutionary as well as sociodynamic detriment. You have to form a judgment of X to deal with X.
The key is to keep my judgments flexible, subject to change as new information comes in.

Are you morally perfect ?

Of course not.

If not, why?

Because I'm fallibly human.

What about you? Do you never covet your neighbour's stuff?



I'd like to point out that my morality, amorality, or immorality has nothing to with your original statement that morality can't exist without god.
Neither does the fact that I on occasion violate my own moral guidelines - that just means they're not a law of nature and that I will on occasion failt to follow what I myself think is right.

[Woland]

About the Nazis...

I would tell the truth and let God's sovereignty rule the day. What would you do ?

You truly are insane.  
I'm be sure your friends and family would be happy to know that they can't trust you to protect them because you're a dumbass.  You value your own ego over their lives.

Strongly seconded.

If you can't bring yourself to lie to nasty genocidal people in order to protect innocent lives (not even children?), you have serious issues - and obviously as well as unsurprisingly, they come from your religious beliefs. "God's sovereignty" - give me a break. I suppose it would be yet another instance where people die needlessly in the name of the "perfectly great moral absolute values" of the ever elusive (and imaginary) God of the Bible, with the approval of "true Christians" such as you perceive yourself to be.

Again, I ask, what would have been a better plan in your opinion ?

Mass teleportation.

Toasted.

There are a million ways to do things better than the BibleGod character is said to have done in any circumstance. I'm sure an omnipotent being just *has* to genocide (flood) and order genocide of his creation (many instances). There are no other ways for sure! I'm certain he just has to maul down kids with bears when they insult his prophet. Omnipotence and omniscience aren't enough to prevent this God from being dangerously psycopathic.

What can you say to this?
"You're not God so you don't know that non-violent solutions would work better than genocides and senseless massacres"?

[BibleStudent]

I feel like we’ve probably gone as far as we need to go with the issue of being dishonest. The exchange we’ve had on this topic caused me to give pause and reflect on my own character to the point where I concede that I am a liar, too. I make an effort to refrain from being untruthful but I do catch myself from time-to-time straying from the truth. So, when I apply the same strict definition to myself, I am a liar, too.....just not with knowledge or intent to purposely deceive.

This, however, does not change my position with regards to the hypothetical situation involving the Nazis and the Jews. I realize that seems cruel and chilling to some of you, however, you’re not committed to the same beliefs and faith that I am so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. The scenario assumes that the consequences of my decision would result in certain death to others and, frankly, that is a bold assumption to make given the numerous variables that would come into play. You can label me selfish, stupid, egotistical or whatever else you deem appropriate but you have no way of knowing for certain how a confession would have played out in an actual real life situation.  

The sad fact of the matter is, our society has become increasingly indifferent to the consequences of being dishonest and I believe it is because we are straying further and further from the moral foundation that has kept us restrained. A comment or two was made earlier in this thread that indicated our morality has evolved and is still evolving….yet, we are not heading in the right direction. The condition of how we interact with each other is, in fact, getting worse. If we're evolving, we're going in the wrong direction.

1. You say the Nazis were evil and wrong for the torments they inflicted upon the Jews.
2. The Nazis, at the time, felt they were acting rightly by exterminating a certain race.
3. Since morality is subjective (as you said), then how is it possible that either of you are wrong ?

Morality is either subjective or it isn't. You're saying it's subjective EXCEPT when it involves......

That's double-talk.

There are people in this world who dislike some of the foods you do.  Does that mean you stop saying things like "Chocolate is delicious!"?

Your dodging. Please answer the question.

Exodus 9, 10 and 11 all have this line:

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart

I'm making that text extra big so you can see it plainly states that your god worked some magic on Pharaoh.  The text does NOT states "And the Pharaoh harden his heart, just as the lord knew he would", it explictly states that god did something to Pharaoh to "hardened" his heart.

And let's not forget WHY god did all this:
Exodus 14:
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD."

You didn't mention anything about these verses:

“But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.” (Ex. 8:15)

“But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also.” (Ex. 8:32)

“And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants. So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the LORD had spoken by Moses.” (Ex. 9:34-35)

“But the heart of Pharaoh became hard.” (Ex. 9:7)

Why then do you harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had worked wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed? (1 Samuel 6:6)

I also took the time to point out that even if you had it your way, it was still yhwh who made it happen.  You did not even respond to that.  Instead you gave me a very dismissive and disrespectful dodge.  I do not appreciate that.  Please answer my points.

Oh brother. Are you really that sensitive?
I am trying to staying on point. We are talking about Pharaoh's hard heart.....not God' omnipotence. However, just so you don't get your undies into too much of a bunch, I will stipulate to the fact that God was fully aware and intimately involved in the event.

[Omen]

You didn't mention anything about these verses:

Why would he, they certainly do not contradict what he is pointing out.  Why did you even bother quoting the other verses, as if they explained anything at all when they don't even offer anything self evident in answer?

Why didn't you bother to offer any kind of argument, other then just quoting something else?  Why do you think that that is an effective argument at all?

[OnePerson]

This, however, does not change my position with regards to the hypothetical situation involving the Nazis and the Jews. I realize that seems cruel and chilling to some of you, however, you’re not committed to the same beliefs and faith that I am so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. The scenario assumes that the consequences of my decision would result in certain death to others and, frankly, that is a bold assumption to make given the numerous variables that would come into play. You can label me selfish, stupid, egotistical or whatever else you deem appropriate but you have no way of knowing for certain how a confession would have played out in an actual real life situation.  

The point of that question is whether or not you'd rather lie or let innocents die.  The Jews and the Nazis were only there because it was a common realistic scenario.  I'm sure even you're against letting innocents die over that, or else you wouldn't be making excuses like "Oh they might not die after all" up.

You do a pretty good job of making religious nutjobs look repulsively insane though, so keep it up.  You're going to end up driving even more people away from the extreme side of your religion.

The sad fact of the matter is, our society has become increasingly indifferent to the consequences of being dishonest and I believe it is because we are straying further and further from the moral foundation that has kept us restrained. A comment or two was made earlier in this thread that indicated our morality has evolved and is still evolving….yet, we are not heading in the right direction. The condition of how we interact with each other is, in fact, getting worse. If we're evolving, we're going in the wrong direction.

Yes, because you're one of the few people in this world who is willing to betray a family that entrusted their lives to you over to some mass murderers over your own ego and fear of God.  It's so sad that more people don't share the same moral foundation as you do.

Your dodging. Please answer the question.

You're putting words into my mouth.
If something is subjective, there is no right or wrong answer.  At least not outside of our minds.

Here, in case you don't know what "subjective" means,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

[BibleStudent]

Why would he, they certainly do not contradict what he is pointing out.  Why did you even bother quoting the other verses, as if they explained anything at all when they don't even offer anything self evident in answer?

Why didn't you bother to offer any kind of argument, other then just quoting something else?  Why do you think that that is an effective argument at all?

Have you even read through the last couple pages of this thread? I had already presented an alternate argument for how Pharaoh's hard was hardened. Now I'm providing Biblical verses to support. If these verses do not suggest to you that Pharaoh's hard hardened as a result of the events unfolding by his own willful pride, then you are just ignoring the clear wording of the text.

[BibleStudent]

You're putting words into my mouth.
If something is subjective, there is no right or wrong answer.  At least not outside of our minds.

Here, in case you don't know what "subjective" means,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

I know what "subjectivity" means. Now please explain to me how the Nazis were wrong if morality is subjective and they believed they were acting morally.

[jetson]

Who cares about wrong or Ruhr when you are fully aware of their intentions?  You do not give up an innocent family to the known torture and death at the hands of monsters in order to avoid lying.  If you do, then you are also a monster.

[Omen]

Why would he, they certainly do not contradict what he is pointing out.  Why did you even bother quoting the other verses, as if they explained anything at all when they don't even offer anything self evident in answer?

Why didn't you bother to offer any kind of argument, other then just quoting something else?  Why do you think that that is an effective argument at all?

Have you even read through the last couple pages of this thread? I had already presented an alternate argument for how Pharaoh's hard was hardened. Now I'm providing Biblical verses to support. If these verses do not suggest to you that Pharaoh's hard hardened as a result of the events unfolding by his own willful pride, then you are just ignoring the clear wording of the text.

Aaron quite neatly pointed out the fact that:

And let's not forget WHY god did all this:
Exodus 14:
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD."

Plus, the actual verses where the lord 'hardens' pharaohs heart occur prior to the ones you're claiming.  I realize the apologetic rationale you're trying to make, but the scripture is pretty forward about the act itself.

There is also the overwhelming fact that other christian apologist agree with what Aaron is pointing out exactly:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-pharaoh.html

The best, most direct, simple answer to the question above is: “In order to demonstrate His power, and in order that His name might be proclaimed throughout the entire earth.”

The reason that is the best, most direct, simple answer to the question is because it is God's own answer. See Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17.

God raised up Pharaoh and hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to promote His own glory.

or

http://truthsaves.org/doctrine/harden_hearts.shtml

In the midst of these various statements on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, Scripture gives us some clarification on this issue of who was responsible for Pharaoh's hard heart. In Exodus 7:3, God says that he will harden Pharaoh's heart. The Hebrew verb used here is a word meaning "to be hard." This is a Hiphel form of the Hebrew verb (see The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, pg. 904) with a basic meaning that God will cause the heart of Pharaoh to be hard. The Hiphil form of the Hebrew word denotes the subject (God) acting and the object (Pharaoh) participating as a second subject in the action (An Introduction to Hebrew Grammar, Waltke, page 435). The object is joining with the action. In other words, Pharaoh joins God in the hardening process. Pharaoh may be seen as the agent by which God accomplishes His hardening action. Because the Hiphil states nothing about whether the object is a willing or an unwilling participant in the action, we are left to the context to determine whether the author of Exodus sees Pharaoh as joining willingly in the hardening.

The Calvinist interpretation of scripture is the only one that logically follows, it is the only one that can be entertained by not only that usage of harden but every use of 'to harden' beyond it.

Romans 9:18 ( JKV, my favorite ) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

----

Now, ignoring all of that, your post still does not accurately or even responsibly answer Aarons.  It still does not epxlain why you think it does and you offer no reasonable/rational correlation between the two.  Instead of doing so, you offer an argument from your own personal incredulity simply to dismiss me.  Why do you think that is an effective style of argumentation?

[BibleStudent]

Who cares about wrong or Ruhr when you are fully aware of their intentions?  You do not give up an innocent family to the known torture and death at the hands of monsters in order to avoid lying.  If you do, then you are also a monster.

In your eyes I am a monster. In God's eyes, I am not. What do you think matters to me more?

[jetson]

Who cares about wrong or Ruhr when you are fully aware of their intentions?  You do not give up an innocent family to the known torture and death at the hands of monsters in order to avoid lying.  If you do, then you are also a monster.

In your eyes I am a monster. In God's eyes, I am not. What do you think matters to me more?

The more you post, the more I recognize that you prefer an imaginary god over reality.  It's your life, just keep doing what your god wants if it makes you happy.  I stated that if you prefer to let an innocent family die a certain death, then you are a monster.  It's difficult for me to believe you would actually do something like this, but what do I know.

[OnePerson]

You're putting words into my mouth.
If something is subjective, there is no right or wrong answer.  At least not outside of our minds.

Here, in case you don't know what "subjective" means,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

I know what "subjectivity" means. Now please explain to me how the Nazis were wrong if morality is subjective and they believed they were acting morally.

I answered your question already.  I'm not going to do it again.

In your eyes I am a monster. In God's eyes, I am not. What do you think matters to me more?

The one you fear more.

[BibleStudent]

or

http://truthsaves.org/doctrine/harden_hearts.shtml

In the midst of these various statements on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, Scripture gives us some clarification on this issue of who was responsible for Pharaoh's hard heart. In Exodus 7:3, God says that he will harden Pharaoh's heart. The Hebrew verb used here is a word meaning "to be hard." This is a Hiphel form of the Hebrew verb (see The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, pg. 904) with a basic meaning that God will cause the heart of Pharaoh to be hard. The Hiphil form of the Hebrew word denotes the subject (God) acting and the object (Pharaoh) participating as a second subject in the action (An Introduction to Hebrew Grammar, Waltke, page 435). The object is joining with the action. In other words, Pharaoh joins God in the hardening process. Pharaoh may be seen as the agent by which God accomplishes His hardening action. Because the Hiphil states nothing about whether the object is a willing or an unwilling participant in the action, we are left to the context to determine whether the author of Exodus sees Pharaoh as joining willingly in the hardening.

Also, from the link you provided above:

Second, in considering whether Pharaoh was a willing or unwilling participant in his own hardening, there is no sense in the passage that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was contrary to Pharaoh's desire. There are no statements that Pharaoh wanted to be merciful to Israel but God prevented him from doing so. Pharaoh was a hard taskmaster over the Israelites. He was cruel and capricious. He was not a nice person before God sent Moses to Egypt. The fact that Scripture states often that Pharaoh caused his own heart to be hardened lends credence to the view that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was a cooperative effort. It was Pharaoh's desire to have a hard heart towards Israel.

and also:

Hard hearts ultimately are our responsibility, not God's. God tells us in Joel 2:12 to turn to Him with all of our hearts and to rend our hearts. A broken and repentant heart God will not despise (Psalm 51:17). And God's very nature is to show mercy (Exodus 34:5-7). Jonah knew this (Jonah 4:2)

Now, ignoring all of that, your post still does not accurately or even responsibly answer Aarons.  It still does not epxlain why you think it does and you offer no reasonable/rational correlation between the two.  Instead of doing so, you offer an argument from your own personal incredulity simply to dismiss me.  Why do you think that is an effective style of argumentation?

You may present arguments on your terms and I will present them in a manner in which I feel I necessary to support my position. I am not going to get into a debate regarding the 'proper techniques of making an argument'....nor am I moved by your implications that I lack the ability to properly frame an argument.
No one else is complaining about the 'style' I use and the discussion has been progressing just fine.

[BibleStudent]

I answered your question already.  I'm not going to do it again.

No, you didn't....and it's because you can't.

[OnePerson]

I answered your question already.  I'm not going to do it again.

No, you didn't....and it's because you can't.

"Morality is subjective."

"If something is subjective, there is no right or wrong answer.  At least not outside of our minds."

Put two and two together.

[BibleStudent]

The more you post, the more I recognize that you prefer an imaginary god over reality.  It's your life, just keep doing what your god wants if it makes you happy.  I stated that if you prefer to let an innocent family die a certain death, then you are a monster.  It's difficult for me to believe you would actually do something like this, but what do I know.

Obviously not too much because, outside of the adolescent criticisms you make, you have offered nothing of any substance to the discussion.

[BibleStudent]

"Morality is subjective."

"If something is subjective, there is no right or wrong answer.  At least not outside of our minds."

Put two and two together.

Then explain to me on what moral grounds the Nazis are to be condemned.....if within their minds they were not acting immoral.

[OnePerson]

"Morality is subjective."

"If something is subjective, there is no right or wrong answer.  At least not outside of our minds."

Put two and two together.

Then explain to me on what moral grounds the Nazis are to be condemned.....if within their minds they were not acting immoral.

The moral grounds inside our minds.

Inside our minds, most of us see you as a monster for being willing to let a family die just because you can't tell a lie.  Inside of your own mind, you're acting perfectly just.  And in the future (or in many other parts of the world), many of the things we think are morally right may be considered wrong there.

I just have to point out that it's hilariously ironic how you're talking about condemning Nazis after the way you answered that "lie or let Nazis kill family" question.

[jetson]

The more you post, the more I recognize that you prefer an imaginary god over reality.  It's your life, just keep doing what your god wants if it makes you happy.  I stated that if you prefer to let an innocent family die a certain death, then you are a monster.  It's difficult for me to believe you would actually do something like this, but what do I know.

Obviously not too much because, outside of the adolescent criticisms you make, you have offered nothing of any substance to the discussion.

That would be funny if you recognized the irony.  Good luck in heaven!

[JeffPT]

Then explain to me on what moral grounds the Nazis are to be condemned.....if within their minds they were not acting immoral.

This is exactly the point! 

The Nazis did not think they were acting immorally because their beliefs informed them that the Jews were a lesser race and deserved death.  The rest of us feel they WERE acting immorally because they were murdered unjustly by the tens of thousands for simply being Jewish (and Gypsy's etc).  What more evidence do you need to have in order to understand that morality is subjective?  Good and bad, right and wrong are entirely in the eyes of the beholder. 

Do the Nazi's deserve to be condemned?  It depends who you ask.  If you ask 99% of the world, they will tell you yes because most of us feel certain ways about mass murder and genocide.  There will always be that 1% that thinks the Jews did deserve what they got and the Nazi's should not be condemned.  When you have that sort of consensus on an issue, then our sense of justice takes over, and it becomes necessary to hold them accountable for what they did.  Make no mistake though... the Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing. 
 
Another excellent example is you with the Jewish family.  You sicken us with the idea that you would tell the truth to the Nazi's and risk an innocent family's life simply because you think you get bonus points from your invisible sky man for not telling a lie.  Your morality says that you should not be condemned for such things, but our morality says you should.  Both of which are subjective.  You only THINK it's objective because you get your morality from a 2000 year old book written by desert people, so you have no room to think for yourself. The rest of us judge things based on our cultures, experiences and our evolved nature as people.  We think for ourselves, and find your conduct disgusting. Are either of us objectively right?  No.   

To make things more simple for you to understand... imagine for a minute that we are right and there is no god, and that we are simply an evolved species of animal with higher brain functions.  What would morality look like then?  Everyone would decide for themselves what is morally right and morally wrong, correct?  Like it or not, THAT is what our world looks like.  There are no moral laws given from on-high.  None.  And we should be thankful for that, because I for one do not want anyone telling me what my morality SHOULD be, especially the horrible God character of the bible.  Or worse yet, someone like you.... a person who would rather speak the truth and cost an entire family their lives, than to lie and save them.  If I had to follow your morality, I would shoot myself first. 

I choose to condemn what the Nazi's did because I believe they brought unimaginable suffering on a people who did not warrant it.  I would suspect a LOT of people agree with that, and when you have multitudes of people agreeing that something should be condemned, it can feel like it was objectively wrong to do what the Nazi's did, but it wasn't.  It was simply wrong in millions and millions of peoples minds. 

Sometimes the truth is not as nice as we want it to be. It is all nice and swell to think there are things that are objectively right and wrong, but like it or not, that's not how it is. 

[mrbiscoop]

I have always enjoyed JeffPT's posts and this one in no different. Very articulate.

[BibleStudent]

Do the Nazi's deserve to be condemned?  It depends who you ask.  If you ask 99% of the world, they will tell you yes because most of us feel certain ways about mass murder and genocide.  There will always be that 1% that thinks the Jews did deserve what they got and the Nazi's should not be condemned.

When you have that sort of consensus on an issue, then our sense of justice takes over, and it becomes necessary to hold them accountable for what they did.

Irrelevant. You cannot say that morality is subjective and then judge another person's actions when they are entitled to the same moral liberty that you are. Period. You say the Nazis actions were immoral based on what's in your mind and that there is nothing wrong with your assessment. You are neither right or wrong. Yet, you become a hypocrite the second you withhold that same liberty from someone else by judging their morality as wrong.....which is precisely what you are doing when you cast an immoral infraction against the Nazis.    
  

Another excellent example is you with the Jewish family.  You sicken us with the idea that you would tell the truth to the Nazi's and risk an innocent family's life simply because you think you get bonus points from your invisible sky man for not telling a lie.  Your morality says that you should not be condemned for such things, but our morality says you should.

Same as above. Under your idea of subjective morality, I can neither be right or wrong since I am entitled to the same freedom in choosing my moral code as you are. Again, you are a hypocrite to even suggest that I am immoral for anything I think or do.  

Another excellent example is you with the Jewish family.  You sicken us with the idea that you would tell the truth to the Nazi's

I knew the moment that I revealed my adherence to truthfulness in the hypothetical that the topics of discussion (namely Pharaoh's hard heart and the issue of morality) would become secondary to an assault on my character. Very predictable around here.

... imagine for a minute that we are right and there is no god, and that we are simply an evolved species of animal with higher brain functions.  

If you assume that our morality has evolved and that it will continue to evolve, then please explain the acceleration of immorality in our world. We seem to be heading "away" from something beneficial to the human condition rather than "towards" it. If you do not believe our morality has evolved and will continue to evolve, then disregard this question.
 

I choose to condemn what the Nazi's did because I believe they brought unimaginable suffering on a people who did not warrant it.

So do I. However, I do so with an objective moral code based on a written laws and a prescribed means for dealing with other human beings given to us by our Creator. You, however, do so under your own personally conceived sense of morality and then deprive the people you condemn of the same freedom to choose their own morality.

[Azdgari]

A god's morals are as subjective as those held by any other being, by virtue of the fact that the god has to hold them at all.

An objective set of morals would be "true" whether the god holds them to be true or not.

EDIT:  Does anyone else appreciate the irony that BibleStudent is harping on the Nazis as an example of an objective evil, while having stated that he would have preferred to help them commit their atrocities rather than to lie to them? 

[Azdgari]

If you assume that our morality has evolved and that it will continue to evolve, then please explain the acceleration of immorality in our world. We seem to be heading "away" from something beneficial to the human condition rather than "towards" it. If you do not believe our morality has evolved and will continue to evolve, then disregard this question.

BibleStudent, you misunderstand what "evolve" means in JeffPT's post.  It means "to change".  It doesn't have a goal.  When something evolves, it's not "getting better", or going "towards" something.  It isn't teleological.

Now, having been corrected on this point, you won't actually accept the correction - right?

[OnePerson]

Irrelevant. You cannot say that morality is subjective and then judge another person's actions when they are entitled to the same moral liberty that you are. Period. You say the Nazis actions were immoral based on what's in your mind and that there is nothing wrong with your assessment. You are neither right or wrong. Yet, you become a hypocrite the second you withhold that same liberty from someone else by judging their morality as wrong.....which is precisely what you are doing when you cast an immoral infraction against the Nazis.    

Moral subjectivity is simply a fact of life, not something we grant to others.  None of us are advocating the right to choose whatever morals you want to follow.  You simply made a bunch of incorrect assumptions.

I know it seems paradoxical; believing someone to be wrong but knowing that it's only in our minds and the universe couldn't care less, but that's how it is.

Same as above. Under your idea of subjective morality, I can neither be right or wrong since I am entitled to the same freedom in choosing my moral code as you are. Again, you are a hypocrite to even suggest that I am immoral for anything I think or do.  

No, we never said you were entitled to the freedom.  You simply have that freedom.  The fact that people have different moral codes proves that people have that freedom.

We don't have to respect that freedom though.

I knew the moment that I revealed my adherence to truthfulness in the hypothetical that the topics of discussion (namely Pharaoh's hard heart and the issue of morality) would become secondary to an assault on my character. Very predictable around here.  

It's funny because this started with you assaulting someone else's character because they were willing to lie in certain situations.

If you assume that our morality has evolved and that it will continue to evolve, then please explain the acceleration of immorality in our world. We seem to be heading "away" from something beneficial to the human condition rather than "towards" it. If you do not believe our morality has evolved and will continue to evolve, then disregard this question.

When he said "evolve", I don't think he necessarily meant "got better".  
But morality is subjective, so some of us may not even see the "acceleration of immorality" that you seem to be talking about.

So do I. However, I do so with an objective moral code based on a written laws and a prescribed means for dealing with other human beings given to us by our Creator. You, however, do so under your own personally conceived sense of morality and then deprive the people you condemn of the same freedom to choose their own morality.  

Even if your morals came from a god, those morals would still be subjective.  I'm starting to think you don't actually know what "subjective" means.

EDIT:  Does anyone else appreciate the irony that BibleStudent is harping on the Nazis as an example of an objective evil, while having stated that he would have preferred to help them commit their atrocities rather than to lie to them?  Cheesy

I just have to point out that it's hilariously ironic how you're talking about condemning Nazis after the way you answered that "lie or let Nazis kill family" question.