How exactly does the existence of some god(s) solve the problem (if it is a problem) of opinion based morals?
There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God. Thus, I have what is necessary for I realize that in and of myself I am not necessary in determining the moral good.
And even if it did how do we determine some god(s) morals?
That God/god would have to have revealed His standards (i.e., the Ten Commandments which teach on both our relationship to Him and our relationship to others. Jesus summed up those commands in
two. By reading God's revelation Christians come to understand His moral beauty and goodness. God has a reason for what He does and His revelation carries with it meaning and purpose. To follow Him is to be wise. His Spirit communes with our spirits in subtle ways that are experienced by His word, through prayer, and in His providence.
And if the morals of the god(s) in question are abhorrent isn't it better to be immoral than to support a moral standard (even an "objective" one) that we are in fundamental disagreement with?
Are you speaking of the biblical God or some other god?
How is it good to kill an innocent human being? How is it good to steal or lie or covet or commit adultery, or dishonour your Creator?
If you are speaking of the Christian God, is it your understanding, or is it actually abhorrent? It is not abhorrent to me. I understand to some degree why God does what He does in His treatment of nations in the OT. There are reasons He prescribed what He did, some of which I got into with SkepticalOne.
If you disagree with
goodness is it not you who are evil?
First, I would ask you what is your ultimate standard, the fixed reference point that you point to as your reference point? If it is yourself? I would question why what you believe is the actual good, especially when others disagree with you and your standard. Second, if your standard is some cultural norm or convention I would refer you to the same culture perhaps fifty years earlier and point to how they believed the opposite of what they do now and ask you what is the actual case? Then I would ask you how a shifting standard can identify 'good' and how it can gauge better? Better in relation to what? What is the best that it measures qualitative values against? Popular opinion passed into law?
Thought experiment time!
If your preferred god came to you in a dream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the "moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow this beings horrible commands?
Why do you think God would do such a thing?
Are you referring to the example of Abraham who believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness? The purpose God led him up the mountain with his son was not only a test for him in his faith but also an example or typological lesson and foreshadowing of what His Son would accomplish (
voluntarily) when God made Him the sacrificial Lamb.
The physical reality of the OT is seen in a
spiritual light or understanding in the NT. What is the physical reality in the OT becomes a
spiritual reality understood by believers in the NT.
What if your preferred god sent an angel to led you to a gay bar and delivered a prophesy and a commandment that you were to engage in homosexuality with the patrons? Would you be of the opinion that he was leading you to behave morally since he is the final objective arbiter of morality?
Everything needed for our salvation has already been accomplished by Jesus Christ and all fulfillment of prophecy has been accomplished. Thus, I can only go on what has been written. I should not depart for His revelation, but if I do I have an Advocate who has gone before me, establishing my righteousness in Him, and who I look to for my inspiration, guidance and salvation. In Him, along with the promised Holy Spirit who speaks through the word to my spirit, I gain wisdom.
Would you be of the opinion that he was merely testing you to see if you would refuse to do either (or both) of the things I just mentioned on the grounds that you are of the opinion that these are immoral actions? Wouldn't your forming an opinion about how to follow/interpret these commands put us right back to square one of having to rely on our own opinions of right and wrong even though there is an "objective" moral standard?
God's standard has been revealed. Anything that goes against that I should avoid if I am faithful to Him but I do fall short all the time. Thus I appeal to Christ and His righteousness, His sacrifice as meeting the satisfaction of God of a good life lived perfectly and atoning for my sin and the punishment that should have been mine by His substitute for me, Him taking the punishment upon Himself to fulfill God's will. In this way God is fully satisfied by my faith in His Son because His Son accomplished everything I could not.
Thus, I can't boast on what I have done or my merit but on the merit of Christ I stand and gain a relationship with God!
I understand that you are of the opinion that your preferred god is unlikely to make such commands but the bible does (by some interpretations) command the death penalty for many transgressions and (presumably) you do not think that all homosexuals all divorced women and all wall mart greeters who are scheduled to work on sunday should be executed so you already interpret the Yahweh's commands based on your own subjective moral intuition.
God has made His provisions for me and those are found in the NT, a covenant that is by His grace, not based on what I have done or could do. I recognize what is evil or what should not be done to a large extent. And, I don't confuse the OT and its standards with the NT. They are two different covenants. God understands there are some things I must do to live, such as perhaps work on a Sunday if I am a shift worker. I live by and because of His grace and mercy to me. I recognize that there is one kind of marriage that God has sanctioned, between a man and a woman. I understand that divorce is not permitted except for marital unfaithfulness, and so on.
What is my takeaway supposed to be as an atheist given that you are still reliant on your opinion to guide you even with the objective moral standard you claim to have access to?
When in doubt I appeal to His word, His standard, not my own. If you can reason with me that I have not understood some teaching then present your case and we can discuss it. The point is that there is an ultimate reference point that I can appeal to, a necessary one, provided this God exists. The evidence is a different discussion. I can provide you with all kinds of reasons as to why my view is rationally justifiable. And lastly, I can appeal to you to show me why your moral values are "better" or THE standard over mine. Thus, please tell me what you believe about morality and let's examine which system of belief is more reasonable.
Since you say you are an atheist, where do your moral values come from? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right?
When I trace your starting point back as far as I can reasonably go, to origins, how does existence happen? What causes the 'beginning' if you believe there was one. Next, how does something nonliving become living? Then from what is, how do you get what ought to be?
What is my takeaway when various groups of Christians disagree fundamentally about what is and is not against the will of god including whether or not belonging to some of denominations of christianity is against the will of god?
Christianity is a relationship with God, not a denomination. When there are disagreements, they are not on the fundamentals or essentials. Deny those and you are not a Christian or are in serious error and need to revisit His Word. For other non-essential disputes, we also have the Word of God as our guide. That is our appeal. The Bible as our guide reveals there is the right way of interpretation. There is a right way of discerning what is meant. When in doubt we appeal to Scripture and to line upon line, precept upon precept. Anyone can isolate a verse and make it a pretext. We need to take into consideration the whole passage and related teachings, as well as the primary audience of address as well as time references and understand what things meant to that culture in which they lived. We must get what the Author meant and not read in our own private interpretation to understand the Author.
Likewise, to understand what I mean you must get my meaning not anything you want to make it be or else we have failed to communicate. Unlike God, I may be vague or need other words to communicate my meaning. With God's word, if there is a passage that causes difficulty we can reference others that give a clearer meaning to what is being said. Thus, we reference different passages that speak of the same thing.
