I'm glad to hear it. But can you condemn Hitler's choice? By your logic it was, after all, his choice. If you answer "yes, I can condemn it" then answer how, since all morality is a "personal choice."
Yet despite the fact that we chose different morals, I don't see how the objective truth of, e.g., 2 + 2 = 4 no longer holds for Hitler as well as for me.
Perhaps I have not explained myself well. Of course the physical laws of the universe apply to everyone. That is how God constructed the universe. But that is not what I am talking about. I believe that God has put in place moral truth that is eternal, and as human beings we suffer when we try to violate it.
How about "harm" as a legal concept? Do you honestly think that harming someone to the point of taking their life is a concept that is rendered invalid in the absense of God?
I don't think it takes as much moral hand-wringing to answer these questions as you seem to think. I think you simply like hearing yourself propound seemingly intelligent sophistry.
I can condemn it because I have the freedom to condemn whatever I choose. I do condemn Hitler's choices because by my morality they were abominable. That's how. Easy, isn't it?
I believe that God has put in place moral truth that is eternal, and as human beings we suffer when we try to violate it.
How do you measure that? I mean, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao all lived long and fruitful lives, implementing their choices freely. Their moral choices were antithetical to mine. On the other hand, I know of many good peaceful hardworking and kind people whose lives, though short and miserable, barely conflicted with my morals at all.
Does that mean Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, who suffered relatively little, were following God's moral truth and all those other young diseased people I know were receiving God's wrath for not following his moral truth? Are you saying Mao is a good guy and I'm a bad guy?