Your complaint, in that case, is that they use God as the justification rather than explaining it in terms of their own values.
Seems much more efficient to use God because the explanation in terms of values will be long and drawn out. And maybe they are not good with words but they feel what they do is right.
I’m saying the actual value is “God said so”
I don’t have any numbers about how many Christians think of it in those terms but I think that it’s a very small minority.
How many do you think understand the morality behind the 4th commandment, keeping the Sabbath Holy? “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
But previously you said that men wrote the Bible and attributed it to God.
So those men thought that giving workers a day of rest was fair, reasonable and morally correct.
So what if they wrote it thousands of years ago. Who cares that they phrased it in those particular terms. It’s a idea that is still applicable today and lots of people agree with it.
Indeed they are attributing the reason to god. They don’t know why god values the sabbath as holy, maybe on a superficial level, but if they don’t value it the same as god, how do they know what that reason is, or value is? They are merely accepting god’s notion that the Sabbath must be holy, it is not really their value, but their god’s value, and that is good enough for them. That is not how morality is formed. That is adopting someone else’s morality… it is not being true to their values, they are blindly following. “Think for yourself, question authority”.
If the reason is good and true then why does it matter to you whether or not it comes from (christian) god?
It doesn’t if it is good and true, from my judgment.
Then you technically agree with Christians and their God when those reasons are good and true, according to both of you, and you agree. However you disagree on the source of that reason.
You never explained, argued, or justified your reasoning when it comes to the source of those “good and true” reasons/judgments. Why are christians wrong to attribute some of those reasons to their god?
Agreeing with morality is one thing. Being persuaded because it comes from an almighty being that will damn you to eternal punishment is another.
Why are Christians wrong to attribute some of those reasons to their god? Because it isn’t their morality, it isn’t how moral judgments occur. It has also changed, there’s a claim that it’s objective because it comes from an all knowing being, but then when it comes down to it, the morality is tossed aside for other greater morality that the “Christian’s” perceive, such as not condoning slavery anymore, even finding it morally wrong. Which contradicts their faith, contradicts the basis of some of the moral system they agree to. Yet they in turn, may take the morality such as keeping holy the sabbath as good, simply because God says so.
Christians are devout followers, how can anybody make a morality “theirs”. That doesn’t make sense. To practice a morality, is to make it yours, is to own it. One of the big tenets of Christianity are to practice what you preach, expressed by their Lord in flesh form, Christ. Christianity, literally, is the practice of emulating their Lord’s superior, and “perfect” to them, moral behaviors.
God is meant to be the final arbiter and retribution of godliness, good and evil, and sin. In Christianity it is unjust and immoral to presume that humans can “equal” their god’s judgement.
So if someone arrives on their own independently, somehow, from others, to values that you WWW disagree with strongly the values can be correct, perhaps. But if they believe in values because they got them from someone else, the values themselves are not correct?
Most people, most Christians, will not simply say that it good because God says so or it is bad or evil because God says so. They also will tend to explain why, in down to earth, humans terms. They may be wrong or write, but while it may happen on occasion, most Christians will say that their values and God’s values match and this is implicit in the way they argue against abortion. They do not just say that God says so. They say because the fetus has a soul, as one example amongst many. They will call it a baby and emotionally explain why they want to protect babies. They will refer to bad feelings in almost mothers who aborted. (note, I am not anti-abortion, I am simply saying what I encounter in discussions with Christians. They almost always will explain in practical terms why something is good. IOW they will show that their values and God’s match. Yes, it does happen that Christians will say ‘Because God said so.’ Period, end of discussion. But I find this very rare.
I imagine you now saying that they say that a fetus has a soul because it is in the Bible. But this makes it seem like there is some, for the modern secular person, clear development stage for the fetus to baby, where they think, now we must consider it a person. It is possible to believe that once the life has started it is a person AND to find this coincides with the Bible. Or, in the reverse order, one is exposed to the Bible and then decide that this makes sense, about the baby. Of course in real life deciding oneself and learning morals from others are not neat packets. My point is that you are writing as if it is mutually exclusive. One can either have one’s own values or follow some version of God’s values. And that is simply not the case.
Just as you may, for example, end up with many values your parents had, conscously or not. They can be both theirs and yours.
And with your 20 years of talking to Christians I cannot understand how you did not notice that they JUSTIFY God’s moral laws all the time. They explain why they are good rules. They do this all the time. They do it here. Yet if someone who did not have contact with them read your posts it would be as if all they answer is with an appeal to authority. This is not grounded in reality.
Let me ask you, is this a belief on your part or something you know. Do you know that they do not share the values of their God or is it a belief on your part? Or is it a fairly well justified belief but not knowledge? Or is it a not so well justified but potentially correct belief?
Yes.
But: “WWW”? … WW III ANGRY is not the World Wide Web ( 
), although he probably wants to be, but he is not … - … not yet. 
Yes you got it, I suppose. But correct is Uccisore’s word, not mine.
Moreno, it depends on the moral situation and judgement. Most people have values that coincide with Christian values already, such as Killing or murder is bad, and stealing is bad, basic stuff. Of course that stuff is justified reasonably, by Christians, by not appealing to authority. Its when you get to the Bibles questionable morality, in which you’ll find these answers that apply to “because God said so”. This is not justified, and it can’t be justified because they don’t understand the morality or values of the moral situation. I’m not saying its all an appeal to authority, I don’t think that would be the case by my OP - as it specifically explains general Christian morality has become separated from this “objective Christian morality” over time. Today, people don’t kill adulterers regardless of what the Bible says. 400 years ago, that was a different story, because of what the Bible says.
By understanding and agreeing with a morale system, it becomes their moral system. You don’t necessarily need to practice a morality to make it your morality, remember, morality is a judgment of what is good or bad morally, and often we can go against even what we think is good or bad, morally. That goes for everyone, whether you’re Christian or not. While God is meant to be the final arbiter of good/evil, in Christianity morality has changed quite a bit the past 2,000 years as I’ve already pointed out. That is why this “objective” morality can be seen to not really hold water. If a morality was objective and pure, and one has received the “holy spirit” as is “gifted” to us from “God” to guide us in our actions nad understanding through subsequent generations after Jesus’ visit, then there ought not be any change to this morality of “God’s”. Of course, that really isn’t the case. We used to punish harshly, as might seem worthy for God, for any broken morality such as adultery. After all, God is going to punish much harsher in the afterlife, so its “best” to have a deterrent now, under guidance of this “holy spirit”.
Objective does not mean unchangeable. Since the world changes continuously, objective means being in synch with these changes.
That is demonstrated by evolution … changes in the environment determine which animals and plants survive, which produces changes in the characteristics of the animals.
This is true for Christians but not for Moslems.
In islamic societies killing adulterers has been increasing.
How would an objective perfect morality require change from a Christian POV?