dobbie wrote:I say that biblical objective moral values are almost always inferred.
Moreover, a good chunk of "objective moral values" that Christians agree with are, in fact, not found in the bible (except perhaps through a rather elaborate interpretation of very generic or otherwise unrelated commands).
There's nothing in the bible forbidding a person owning another person as property, like a farm animal, yet most Christians would agree that this is something abhorrent, and would most probably agree that being against it is an "objective moral value".
The bible does not forbid having sex with your own child (IIRC there are prohibitions of all kinds of other incestual and non-incestual types, but a curious omission on having sex with your own child), yet most Christians would agree that this is also abhorrent, and being against it is an objective moral value. (Many Christians will argue that it's indirectly forbidden by the principle that you must not commit adultery. However, this does not explain why other forms of incest are explicitly forbidden but not this. If "do not commit adultery" were enough to forbid all of them, why are they explicitly stated separately?)
Related to that, there's nothing in the bible that forbids you from marrying your own child (which would bypass the "do not commit adultery" loophole) yet, once again, most Christians would consider it abhorrent.
The majority of Christians (but not all of them, especially in the US) would agree that death penalty is abhorrent, yet there's nothing in the bible that would forbid such a punishment.
Rape is not dealt with directly. There are only indirect passages and commandments dealing with specific cases of rape, but not a concrete and definitive stance on all form of rape.
There are tons and tons of things that most Christians agree are absolute morals, yet are not found in the bible.