Happy Atheist Forum

If Christians believe morality is a set of standards or rules set by God - then why do they not agree with each other on what exactly those morals are?

If morals are not relative but are instead universal and imposed by God - why are those morals practiced and interpreted in so very many ways by Christians?

Really good point. Christianity is the largest religion but Christians don't really understand how alone they are in having company of those who share all of their beliefs. There are over 3,000 (or is it 4,000?) sects of Christianity. Some of which don't consider others "True Christians" and Christians themselves say there will be a lot of surprised, disappointed people when they learn they didn't quite believe the right way when to get into heaven after they die.

I think your point is perhaps the strongest argument against the existence of a God.

Christians and theists for that matter believe God to have revealed himself in different ways. In reference to the Bible, Christians interpret passages differently which leads to different views on certain moral issues. I'm not sure how this effects objective morality, it only shows that if objective morality is true, they can't all be right. I don't see how everyone (or every Christian) having the same set of morals is necessary for morality to be objective. I would appreciate clarification :]

It's been my experience that many Christians believe other Christian sects are wrong and only their religion has the strait line to God and Heaven. So they all think the others are wrong even though they are interpreting the same book. Heck look at protestants and catholics in Ireland reading the same book believing in the same god folowing the same morals and warring because they aren't doing it exactly the same way.

It is all about interpretation. Even a disagreement about the meaning of single word in a single verse can cause a schism in a Christian church. Also, the biggest problem that Christians encounter when (or if) they read the Bible is which parts of the Bible they should take literally or figuratively. Separating facts from fiction is a tough job for those who believe that the Bible is the word of God.

It must be easy for a deeply religious person to stick his/her head in the sand when it comes to confronting this topic.
"I'm right and the other fake believers are wrong la la la la la la la la la la la la la..."

It's either that or:

"God works in mysterious ways." (This one pisses me off no end).

Quote from: "karadan""God works in mysterious ways." (This one pisses me off no end).

QFT

It's an euphemism for "willful ignorance", to which I wish we could reply as a society: "Well, ok, but you don't get to vote or hold a job in management. Oh, and forget university, we need the room for folks who want to learn."

A typical Christian response to this question is that God's univeral/absolute/objective morality can not be known to humanity as we are unable to comprehend or even understand it. Which seems kinda silly because if this so-called universal morality can not be comprehended and is effectively pointless and irrelevant to humanity (pre-afterlife atleast) then how is it anyway absolute or objetive?

Sounds like a cop-out as well as a form of Yahweh Apologism to me.

Quote from: "ryan-blues"A typical Christian response to this question is that God's univeral/absolute/objective morality can not be known to humanity as we are unable to comprehend or even understand it. Which seems kinda silly because if this so-called universal morality can not be comprehended and is effectively pointless and irrelevant to humanity (pre-afterlife atleast) then how is it anyway absolute or objetive?

Sounds like a cop-out as well as a form of Yahweh Apologism to me.

It is? It seems to me that most christians think that they can know for instance that rape, is objectively wrong, regardless of any society which deems it right. As I mentioned before, most christians think that objective moral truths can be found in the Bible (gods revelation). That has been my experience anyway.

QuoteIt must be easy for a deeply religious person to stick his/her head in the sand when it comes to confronting this topic.
"I'm right and the other fake believers are wrong la la la la la la la la la la la la la..."

It's easy for anyone to shy away from discussing issues. There are lazy people in every walk of life. It is a copout, which is why you can't really ever take those people seriously. If they don't know why they believe what they believe why should you believe what they believe ect. The people you need to discuss issues with are the people who know what they believe and why they believe it. If you are somehow assuming all religious people are ignorant regarding their religious beliefs then by all means, live with that mentality. It is however, in my opinion a pretty ignorant position to take. (Not that you do have that mentality)

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"It is? It seems to me that most christians think that they can know for instance that rape, is objectively wrong, regardless of any society which deems it right.

Which is amazing to me because when they THINK they know what is objectively wrong, then it is clear to me that they are using their own human ability to reason and rationalize to distinguish between right and wrong.  I like that, because they tend to use their own human capacity to think, rather than rely upon some ancient text to tell them.

Many theists also tend to define their religion based upon their own determination as to what is moral, rather than the reverse.  Another good trend.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"As I mentioned before, most christians think that objective moral truths can be found in the Bible (gods revelation). That has been my experience anyway.

Agreed.  That is the real problem.  While they tend to define their religion based upon their own determination as to what is moral, they fail to recognize that fact and look for evidence in the Bible to confirm their morality.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"As I mentioned before, most christians think that objective moral truths can be found in the Bible (gods revelation). That has been my experience anyway.

Agreed.  That is the real problem.  While they tend to define their religion based upon their own determination as to what is moral, they fail to recognize that fact and look for evidence in the Bible to confirm their morality.

If I am understanding you correctly (let me know if I'm not) you are claiming that christians don't understand that instead of basing their morality off of the Bible, they are basing it off of their own conscience, and the problem is that they don't understand this? Again, I can only speak from experience but from what I have seen Christian seem to base their beliefs off of the Bible, their conscience (or lack therof) while influenced by the Bible, has another source. From what I have seen Christians are all to ready to admit this, maybe even throwing out passages to defend this view.

QuoteRom. 2:15-16 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

But that's just my experience, What's yours?

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"If I am understanding you correctly (let me know if I'm not) you are claiming that christians don't understand that instead of basing their morality off of the Bible, they are basing it off of their own conscience, and the problem is that they don't understand this? Again, I can only speak from experience but from what I have seen Christian seem to base their beliefs off of the Bible, their conscience (or lack therof) while influenced by the Bible, has another source. From what I have seen Christians are all to ready to admit this, maybe even throwing out passages to defend this view.

My position is not fully developed on this point, so forgive me if I do not explain it clearly.

The vast majority of christians that I have met appear to have an innate sense of morality and "know" what is right.  This makes sense to me as it is the same sense that I think most humans have innately.  Part of being human means that we have an inner moral compass.  A large portion of these folks shop around for religions that fit with their innate sense of what is right.  They visit several different churches and christian sects and join a church based upon what feels comfortable to them.  If they find themselves in a church that teaches something that is innately wrong to them, they will leave that church and find another.  They are definining their religion based upon their innate sense of morality, not the reverse.

Now, they will never tell you this because they do not appear to understand that they have an innate understanding of their own morality.  They would be entirely uncomfortable with such an admission.  Rather, they want to be able to point to an authority that backs up their morality.  It is this compulsion that causes them to search the bible for an interpretation of a biblical passage that confirms their morality.

It has been my impresssion that the vast majority of religious people meet the above description.  They choose their religion based upon their own morality, not the reverse.  They merely use the bible as a crutch to support their own moral identity and to claim authority from some higher power.

Of course, there are those who never change churches and have never entertained the thought that other sects may have a more comfortable sense of morality to them.  Those folks, imho, are lazy, unquestioning sheep.  They get suckered into sticking with a particular religion simply because exploring such issues and risking a change in their life would be more uncomfortable than the alternative of sticking with something with which they are familiar (the devil they know).  Perhaps, they were raised in that church, all of their family and friends go there, they enjoy the fellowship that they experience with the church, and the church does many good things in their community.  It is a warm and fuzzy place.

Imho, the fact remains that they overlook the fact that they have their own inner sense of morality and accept the trappings of religions as a concession.  It is easier to not question and to defend.

Your statement appears to confirm this impression, but does not recognize it.  When you say

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Christian seem to base their beliefs off of the Bible, their conscience (or lack therof) while influenced by the Bible, has another source.

They SEEM to base their belief off of the bible as they want to give that impression.  However, you say that their beliefs have "another source."  If you are saying that the "another source" is their inner morality, then I would agree.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"From what I have seen Christians are all to ready to admit this, maybe even throwing out passages to defend this view.

That is what is so exasperating to me.  They may readily admit that they determine their religion based upon their inner sense of morality, but then they "thow out passages" in an attempt to provide their morality with credibility.

Which is it?  The bible determines their beliefs, a situation in which throwing out passages makes sense, or they have "another source" (inner moral compass) that determines their beliefs, a situation in which throwing out bible passages makes no sense to me.  Perhaps, because I do not recognize the Bible as an arbiter of morality.  Yet, they cling to the belief that the Bible is an arbiter of morality.  It makes no sense for them to make such a claim.

QuoteThat is what is so exasperating to me.  They may readily admit that they determine their religion based upon their inner sense of morality, but then they "thow out passages" in an attempt to provide their morality with credibility.

When they admit this they admit that they as well as anyone else can act morally without adhering to the Bible. All they are claiming by using passages like this is that morality is in part based off of inner conscience.  

QuoteWhich is it?  The bible determines their beliefs, a situation in which throwing out passages makes sense, or they have "another source" (inner moral compass) that determines their beliefs, a situation in which throwing out bible passages makes no sense to me.  Perhaps, because I do not recognize the Bible as an arbiter of morality.  Yet, they cling to the belief that the Bible is an arbiter of morality.  It makes no sense for them to make such a claim.

I don't understand why it couldn't be a combination of both. Child rape for example is so horribly wrong that most people's conscience would be a strong enough indicator of why humans shouldn't preform this sort of act. However, there are acts which are much less morally clear (instinctively).

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"most people's conscience

I think you and I agree on this.  There are plenty of sources to gauge or which may serve as a reference or guide to what is moral or not.  If I am faced with a moral dilemma, I may, like many of us, look for guidance from the outside.  I may ask family and friends.  I may even look to the Bible and other sources for guidance.

The difference is that I do not assert that the Bible is the ultimate authority and use the Bible as proof that my inner moral compass is correct.  THAT is what I find troubling.

You know, its the whole "The Bible is God's infallible word" view that I take issue with.   They present passages as irrefutable proof of their morality and cling to it.

Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

Quote from: "Godschild"Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

In English we like to put a space after the period of a sentence. Like this.  

Quote from: "Godschild"Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

You know, this supposedly "universal" moral code isn't nearly as universal as you think. Have a real peek at other cultures' ideas about the finer points of morality for a real shock.

Even if morality were more even among cultures, the common thread is human social instinct. There is no need at all to posit a god to explain similarities among mores.

Quote from: "Godschild"Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

Sooooo, where exactly is the standard that your God has given?

If you cannot support that statement, then your God is irrelevant, regardless of whether he exists or not.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Godschild"Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

In English we like to put a space after the period of a sentence. Like this. :up:

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Godschild"Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

You know, this supposedly "universal" moral code isn't nearly as universal as you think. Have a real peek at other cultures' ideas about the finer points of morality for a real shock.

Even if morality were more even among cultures, the common thread is human social instinct. There is no need at all to posit a god to explain similarities among mores.

That's exactly why I referred to mans law and all its fallacy and the need for Gods morality and its wonderful stability.

Quote from: "Godschild"Glad to see that's the only thing you have a problem with. Will try to do better in the future but no promises.

Oh no... I don't agree with any sliver of your argument. I'm an Ethical Nihilist. However I also know that trying to get a religious person to see things from my perspective is impossible. So I'm not even going to bother

Quote from: "Godschild"

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Godschild"Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

You know, this supposedly "universal" moral code isn't nearly as universal as you think. Have a real peek at other cultures' ideas about the finer points of morality for a real shock.

Even if morality were more even among cultures, the common thread is human social instinct. There is no need at all to posit a god to explain similarities among mores.

That's exactly why I referred to mans law and all its fallacy and the need for Gods morality and its wonderful stability.

That's not the subject of my post.

You claimed morality comes from this "god" thing, and that morality was universal. I pointed out that there is no universal morality, and that similarities among social mores are the result of human social instinct.

In fact, if we were to choose to believe the "bible" thing about this "god" thing's morality, we'd still have slavery, killing of teens and children who are disobediant, and the wholesale slaughter of heretics.

I'll take a dynamic human morality over a stagnant deity's morality any day - at least something that can be changed can be improved.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"

Quote from: "Godschild"Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

Sooooo, where exactly is the standard that your God has given?

If you cannot support that statement, then your God is irrelevant, regardless of whether he exists or not.

Can you answer my question Godschild?

You made an assertion and I would love to see how you can rationalize your statement.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Godschild"Glad to see that's the only thing you have a problem with. Will try to do better in the future but no promises.

Oh no... I don't agree with any sliver of your argument. I'm an Ethical Nihilist. However I also know that trying to get a religious person to see things from my perspective is impossible. So I'm not even going to bother

First of all I'm not religious I am a christian who has a relationship with Jesus and I understand that you can not understand this. I say this this so that you and others might understand that christianity is not a religion even though it is labled that way so if you don't mind please refer to christianity as a relationship and not a religion. Oh yeah you should express your self even if no one will listen.

Quote from: "Godschild"First of all I'm not religious I am a christian who has a relationship with Jesus and I understand that you can not understand this. I say this this so that you and others might understand that christianity is not a religion even though it is labled that way so if you don't mind please refer to christianity as a relationship and not a religion. Oh yeah you should express your self even if no one will listen.

I'm sorry if you don't like the word religion but the definition fits Christianity.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion)

Quote from: "GodsChild"First of all I'm not religious I am a christian who has a relationship with Jesus and I understand that you can not understand this. I say this this so that you and others might understand that christianity is not a religion even though it is labled that way so if you don't mind please refer to christianity as a relationship and not a religion. Oh yeah you should express your self even if no one will listen.

I've heard this claim before. It's utterly ridiculous. If someone asked you what your religion was you would not respond: "None." Furthermore a relationship must run two ways. I cannot have a relationship with a wall. Unless Jesus is talking to you (and I'm assuming you're sane) you do not have a relationship. Although I suppose it is possible to interact with an imaginary friend. But again many religions consist of the practice of talking with their deity. Saying that yours is different because it does so too does not set you apart but only confirms you're all the same. Or attempts to redefine religion.

Look here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2889&hilit=not+religion+relationship+that+s+not+religion+relationship

It really doesn't matter how athiest,agnostics,ethical nihilist and ect. define christianity it is a relationship with the living Triune God of the Bible. There is only one God and no other that's why christians and Jews have a relationship with a supreme deity. All others practice religion including those who do not believe in God.YES I do tell others I'm a christian and I live in a relationship with God and that means I do not practice a religion.Oh yeah they look at me like I'm crazy but they like you do not understand so whats a christian to do.I'm perfectly sane just a sane as you are I have no imaginary friend and I do not talk with the wall I walk in life with a real living God who loves me and takes care of me.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"

Quote from: "Godschild"Morality does not come from a book just as laws do not come from a book.Morality comes from who God is and laws come from what man decides fits the moment.Gods morality is universal and unchanging mans law fits the time in which he lives continually changing and different from one place to the next.God has given man an eternal,universal and unchanging standard to live by if he so chooses,man keeps man guessing what is correct or incorrect ripping the substance and stability out of life.For me and my household we choose the stability of God we worry not about Him changing for He has promised He want change and for several thousand years now He has not.

Sooooo, where exactly is the standard that your God has given?

If you cannot support that statement, then your God is irrelevant, regardless of whether he exists or not.

Can you answer my question Godschild?

You made an assertion and I would love to see how you can rationalize your statement.

It's getting late I will give you an answer soon,thanks for holding me to my statements.

Quote from: "Godschild"It really doesn't matter how athiest,agnostics,ethical nihilist and ect. define christianity it is a relationship with the living Triune God of the Bible. There is only one God and no other that's why christians and Jews have a relationship with a supreme deity. All others practice religion including those who do not believe in God.YES I do tell others I'm a christian and I live in a relationship with God and that means I do not practice a religion.Oh yeah they look at me like I'm crazy but they like you do not understand so whats a christian to do.I'm perfectly sane just a sane as you are I have no imaginary friend and I do not talk with the wall I walk in life with a real living God who loves me and takes care of me.

It is you who is not even making an effort to understand. I know what you're saying (trust me, I was once a Christian) but you should see where the flaws are at, as I have pointed out.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Finsolence%2Ffacepalm.jpg&hash=71424f8331d7bc6ec87b359725495becf37872fe)

Quote from: "Godschild"It really doesn't matter how athiest,agnostics,ethical nihilist and ect. define christianity it is a relationship with the living Triune God of the Bible. There is only one God and no other that's why christians and Jews have a relationship with a supreme deity. All others practice religion including those who do not believe in God.YES I do tell others I'm a christian and I live in a relationship with God and that means I do not practice a religion.Oh yeah they look at me like I'm crazy but they like you do not understand so whats a christian to do.I'm perfectly sane just a sane as you are I have no imaginary friend and I do not talk with the wall I walk in life with a real living God who loves me and takes care of me. :facepalm:  Godschild the only reason some (not many really) Christians are suddenly shying away from the word religion is because they know it has negative connotations in the minds of a growing minority of people who are tired of the religious bs.  Dictionary definitions of words are not created by atheists, agnostices ect...we are a minority.  The majority creates the definitions.  Religion applies to christianity.  You  can call it a relationship if you want but unless you can prove Jesus or God is real...I'm not going to call it a relationship anymore than I'd call a child's talking to an imaginary friend a relationship.

Why can't it be a relationship and a religion? I mean, like I said, do they really think they're the first and only ones to talk to their god?

Quote from: "Sophus"Why can't it be a relationship and a religion? I mean, like I said, do they really think they're the first and only ones to talk to their god? :D

Also Whitney the imaginary friend a child talks to could be God working in His special way with a child,God says we must believe and trust as a child does.

You make a lot of assertions but don't really argue for them.

Quote from: "Sophus"You make a lot of assertions but don't really argue for them.

Par for the course, is it not?

Quote from: "Godschild"Christianity . . . is completely unique and the only one that truely has a living God no matter what you may believe. Our relationship with God depends on our response to Gods grace and has nothing to do with earning any part of the relationship.

Can you or God show me?  If you can't show me, can you really show yourself?

Forgive me, but I think you're giddy with a belief you know cannot be proven wrong, and not because it is right, but because you believe that it should only manifest in death and dreams.  Small coincidences, to you, represent providence, that otherwise only represent nature.  It has been said that the bowels of the universe do not speak to man, except as man.  I agree.  If there is an all-powerful God, he isn't talking to you.  He wouldn't use a flawed, esoteric, ancient and unrevised, semi-relevant book or the feelings in your gut to talk to you.  I'm sorry.  You're wrong for many reasons, ranging from the philosophical to the scientific, but the one that nobody wants to say to you or any other believer is the most obvious.  It's common sense.  Look around you.  Look with your eyes.  Buy thermal goggles, an EM gauge, and a barometer if you like.  Do you see God?  Or is God only apparent to you from the pressure in your chest that begs you to shrug me off?  Is God only apparent to you in the part of your mind that insists that God must be visually there, hiding right behind the veil of reality?  Are you only with God because you feel like you are?

If you have that uneasy pressure in your chest right now, be honest with yourself about what it is.  Be honest with yourself about what you see, and what you feel.  Feelings are not observations of the universe, they are not some transcendent contact between you and God, they do not convey information.  They are only the status of your mind.  The only thing you're feeling is a disdain for the information I'm providing you, not God pulling on you trying to protect you.  It is hard to bear the truth sometimes, but to me it is important.  Whether you face it or not, I wish you well.

Feel free to answer with indignance.  I have not been very considerate in my writing.  I have been civil, though, and ask you be as well.

Peace.

Quote from: "Sophus"You make a lot of assertions but don't really argue for them.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Sophus"You make a lot of assertions but don't really argue for them.

Par for the course, is it not?

I'm not sure what you mean by your statement. I thought I made myself quite clear. If you mean the existance of God why should I argue that. God Himself does not try to prove His existance through His own word "the Bible". When Jesus was on earth He did not come to prove God the Father but to reveal His nature. Now you tell me why that is if you can. Most of you claim to be former christains so someone should know.

Quote from: "Godschild"

Quote from: "Sophus"You make a lot of assertions but don't really argue for them.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Sophus"You make a lot of assertions but don't really argue for them.

Par for the course, is it not?

I'm not sure what you mean by your statement. I thought I made myself quite clear. If you mean the existance of God why should I argue that. God Himself does not try to prove His existance through His own word "the Bible". When Jesus was on earth He did not come to prove God the Father but to reveal His nature. Now you tell me why that is if you can. Most of you claim to be former christains so someone should know. lol

The whole "objective morality comes from God" argument is one I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding. It may simply be there is no understanding it but I'm not quite ready to admit defeat yet.

If objective morality (I do not believe there is any such thing tbh) is supplied by God, what is necessary to live by thie objective morality?

Do you simply have to read and understand the Bible? Well that kind of depends on how you feel about stoning people, animal sacrifices, genocide, etc. Clearly, the Bible is not in itself a reasonable source for an objective moral code, as anyone who obeys a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible would certainly be punished by society. Even most fundamentalist leave out large portions of the old testament. It seems to me that either God has changed his mind since then (and somehow communicated this to most followers), in which case even God does not have objective morality, or that Christians apply secular morality to the Bible, in which case their morality is not objective or really from the Bible.

Do you have to accept God as your creator and Jesus as your saviour? This is clearly is not sufficient either as plenty of practising Christians, including those in positions of responsibility within their church, do very bad things. Plenty of atrocities in hostory have been motivated by religion, no matter how controversial the interpretation of that religion may be.

Other points that are apparent to me are that non-Christians, including those who have never even heard of their God, are fully capable of following (and generally do follow) a comparable moral code and that even animals in most cases do not just kill for the sake of it.

I do not believe for a second that any form of morality is imposed upon us by any god figure but I am still curious about the mentality that tries to justify this claim.

"Godschild" has made it clear he is here only as a character witness, to claim a personal relationship with the Triune god of the Christian bible, not to discuss the reasons for his belief or to answer objections. Unfortunately he's on a fool's errand because this is a secular discussion forum on religion, after all.

You won't find a more eager and willing debating opponent and intellectual apologist for Christianity than William Lane Craig. You can be sure that he knows the philosophical history of any objection you can think of, and has already attempted to give a reasonable, fact-based apology for the Christian position.

In the 3rd edition of his book "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", on pages 172 - 183, he gives the most comprehensive and coherent defense of the proposition that objective morality comes from the Christian god, can only come from the Christian god, and since, as he claims, objective morality is an undeniable fact of the human social condition, ergo the Christian god exists. QED.

As a secular humanist, scientific naturalist and atheist, I agree with Craig that there is an objective basis for morality, namely our genetically inherited sentiments of social rights and wrongs, molded and adapted within natural limits by the cultures in which we were raised. Our sentiments of right and wrong evolved by natural selection. Craig implicitly uses a definition of "objective" morality begs the question of god's existence.

Look for the non-sequiturs in Craig's tightly reasoned arguments, the subtle question-begging in which Craig effectively resorts to the same appeal to undeniable personal experience that "Godschild" starts and ends with.