Murder is a predefined label, it assumes wrong doing this is a perfect example of your incapability to reason. You should use the word Kill. The very fact that on one hand you bring up how context changes "our" collective judgment of right or wrong shows the disconnect in your brain between subjective and objective.

Define what you mean by objective then show how killing is objectively wrong. This ought to be fun . . .

No, Martin Luther made the first major break from the Catholic church in 1521, the Church of England wasn't founded until 1536.

There were always non-Catholic Christians, they were hunted down during the Inquisition along with Jews and pagans.

The major differences between the protestant denominations are by and large very minor. The largest division is between Calvinism and Arminianism, which I don't believe has been discussed much in these forums.

I do find it interesting that Christians are accused of being both divided and unable to agree and motivated by "blind faith". It seems to me that either Christians think or they don't. Either they agree or they don't. Petty generalizations and stereotypes like these that don't further the debate. It reveals a desire to simply smear Christians and the smear will be changed 180 degrees depending upon the circumstances.

Oh my friend, I think you miss the point.

Murder is killing a person who isn't an imminent threat or being punished for crimes.

Those who can justify murder don't feel it's wrong. An isolated tribe might kill someone who isn't a threat and isn't being punished for crimes, in their eyes, that murder would be justified.

So I won't show why killing is objectively wrong, killing isn't objectively wrong. Killing a fly isn't wrong. Killing a man who is about to murder your wife isn't wrong. But anyone can agree that killing someone who intends no harm and has done no harm is wrong. The isolated tribe from my example earlier would, however, justify killing someone who has done no harm and plans no harm, because that person is an outsider. They have made an exception to what they know is right and then justify it because "he's an outsider". But if one of those tribesmen wandered into my backyard, he wouldn't want me to kill him and if I did, his people would surely want revenge. Hence, they know that killing an outsider is wrong, but they continue to justify their behavior though rationalization without actually reasoning about the morality of their actions.

The adoption of Protestantism, however, was a political rather than a religious move. King Henry VIII had originally married Catherine of Aragon; since she had been previously married to his brother, though, Henry had to get special papal dispensation for the marriage. Marrying the wife of one's brother was incest; it was almost equivalent to marrying one's sister. The marriage, however, produced no male children to occupy the throne at Henry's death. Henry began to doubt both of the marriage and the spiritual validity of the marriage. In the mid-1520's, he met and fell in love with Ann Boleyn, a lady in waiting to Catherine. He wished to annul his marriage to Catherine and marry Ann; not only did he love Ann, he feared leaving the throne of England without a male heir.

In order to marry Ann, the marriage with Catherine had to be annulled by the pope. Circumstances, however, were working against him. First, in order to marry Catherine, he needed special papal dispensation. Annulling the marriage would imply that the first papal dispensation was in error, something the pope was not willing to admit. Second, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, had recently invaded Rome and captured the pope. While the pope was allowed to stay pope, he was the virtual prisoner of Charles. The answer to Henry's request, then, was no and no again.

When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. Rather than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment.

I’m not trying to smear anyone by making the statement that Christians simply can not agree on biblical contextual meaning. Are you going to agree or disagree with this? Simple enough.

No I understand you are taking a situational and subjective thing and trying to claim its objective . . .

____
I will keep posting different definitions since you are incapable of defining what you are arguing for before starting your arguments, its not fault of anyone else that they do not understand your argument when you fail to define the principle idea.

ob·jec·tive (əb-jĕk'tĭv) pronunciation
adj.

1. Having actual existence or reality.
2. Of or having to do with a material object.
3. existing independently of the individual mind or perception

n.

1. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal.
2. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image.

You are going to have to explain why it's subjective. As far as it being situational...it's an example. An example will almost always be situational. Can you explain why you call it "subjective" and "situational"? Can you make some arguments to support that position?

No to mention that someone can be a "blind follower" and still disagree on contextual meaning. That made no sense at all.

Murder . . . . some people would disagree that a particular situation where someone was killed was murder. IE its subjective . . wow hard I know.

So you still have not defined your meaning of objective for us spider. . . I am waiting.

Bushidobillyclub,

Is the sarcasm necessary?

I have already defined it, so I won't again, but I will quote what I already posted for you.

Bushidobillyclub,

Which of those would work for "Objective right and wrong"? Now come one, let's be reasonable and honest.

Did you think I meant that "Right" and "Wrong" are physical objects? I'm sure you didn't, so definition 2 is right out. Definition 1 and 3 are basically the same, but #3 is specifically talking about thoughts. I believe that anyone who was being reasonable, fair and honest would have already understood what I was talking about.

You seem to pride yourself on being intelligent, then shouldn't you act in a reasonable manner? Out of the definitions for "Objective" which you presented, two of them worked perfectly well with what I had posted. I strongly encourage you to remember that you are discussing with PEOPLE. Treat us as you would want to be treated.

EDIT:

From the way I used the word "objective" in my sentences, it was obvious that I was using it as a adjective, so I think that the definitions which were for the word when used as a noun should have been excluded without question or confusion.

How do you know Abra was a christian?

One might be raised by a christian - but what is being raised christian?

Why don’t you ask him yourself instead of bothering me about it?

The point that was clearly made was this was a philosophical debate so whether or not one defines themselves as a Christian (either real or pretend) makes no difference.

Well - since Abra does not know what a christain is and what they believe, I have serious doubts to his claiming to ever being one. I was just curious as to what your criteria for determining he was once a christian was.

So if this debate is not contingent on whether one is truley a christian or not - why site Abra as an example of one? Clearly - he's not.

So you use this definition to try to argue that morals come from god becuase they fit this definition of objective.

Yea I am starting to understand the problems here . . .

The problem with this line of reasoning is that saying an idea is objective and universally true cannot be established as universal and requires the zeitgeist of common law and understanding to interpret to any degree.

You have failed to argue that god must exist becuase morals are objective.

Look if at any time during this particular thread I have offended you spider I apologize, I have not been feeling well today, re reading my comments I do see sarcasm.

It is your opinion that Abra does not know what referring to oneself as a Christian entails. I am not interested in that topic at all. For one thing, how can one successfully discern if someone is a real or a fake Christian? Its totally subjective. You probably don’t accept that Catholics are true because their beliefs diverge from your own.

You would need to address that with Spider as I was responding to him. He brought up the issue.

There is no point in trying to reason together in this thread. There is alot of disrespect.

I have not been very focused on this thread but I never saw anyone become rude or disrespectful. When you joined, if you selected "Christian-Other" on your profile, you should have access to a forum called "Christian Singles". If you want no one to argue, debate or offer any divergent opinion or viewpoints, you can remain there.

I believe in that right and wrong are objective. Morals are how ones belief in right and Wrong are applied. Morals are not objective.

I haven't tried to prove that God exists through the use of this argument.

No, I didn't. I simply encouraged Abra to read Mere Christianity and the Bible. YOU brought up that Abra was a Christian.