Christians, do you believe that there is an objective moral standard independent of God?

What use or benefit is a moral system that has no persuasive power; one that is, in the end, grounded in authority alone and not reason?" What's persuasive about objective morality is that if it exists it must be reasonable. Incidentally, it is only the moral objectivist that can assert a binding moral imperative because he believes there is a tangible truth value of "good" or "evil" attached to moral acts.

The relativist can assert no such "ought". Objective morality is not divinely decreed (in answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma) it is derived from God's nature which is good. God can not choose his nature.

EDIT: Great question! Here's my best attempt at a response... It was in response to Neitzche's assertion that "everything we have come to know as good...may very well be evil." that the great GK Chesterton quipped the often misunderstood quote; "When a man ceases to believe in God he does not cease to believe in everything, rather he will believe anything." Good and evil are tangilble and recognizable and so most everyone recognizes them.

Your quest for a eutopian ethical society is your properly informed and functioning conscience being drawn by Natural Law. It is a participation in the divine nature "the good". It is the law written in the heart of both theist and atheist alike.

Rape isn't wrong to do because society recognizes it...Rape is wrong to do period and therefore most people recognize it. The fascinating thing about trumpeting the validity of objective morality is that the physical evidences point to the relativist stance. It is undemonstrable as the affirmation of the validity is intuitive knowledge.

Once you accept the possibility that morality may be objective, I highly recommend challenging the moral teachings of the church that claims infallibilty in teaching them. ;-) Peace; Dear Dogma.

I'd suggest that this is why the 'rock' upon which so many churches claim to be built is so clearly subject to so much alteration. The Catholic philosophy of the dark ages, for instance, made massive strides in moral philosphy, while always basing itself principally on the same text. The recent decision that limbo doesn't exist equally proves this point.

Of course, this relies on the absolute ignorance, and absolute, dogmatic devotion to the proclamation from the leadership of the vast majority of the population, while the clergy set about the tasks of deciding what the rest of us ought to believe in. It is for this reason that enlightenment is the erosion of faith.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.