What are examples of a qualitative smart objective?

Is Christian objective morality internally consistent? If not, what would be some clear examples of internal inconsistency?

• A little bit of background: The popular version of the Euthyphro Dilemma asks "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? Both alternatives would lead to problems. The first one implies(among other issues) that the definition of what is good exists somehow outside of God, so he wouldn't be the creator/source of it (even though he is the creator of all things), and just a "messenger" of what is good. The second one implies (among other issues) arbitrarity. If God commands genocide of newborns, this action becomes good by definition, rendering the idea of "good" inconsistent, even meaningless. It seems that the leading solution to the dilemma (and the one which I'm most interested in) is the one attributed within Christianity mainly to St. Augustine(and the reaffirmed by later theologians), who rejects the dichotomy and says it's neither option. God himself is good, God and good are one the same. His nature represents/embodies what morally good, all good emanates from him, and He can't ever be evil because he can only act in accordance with his own nature. Also, as a corollary, nobody is good on its own, men can only be somewhat good insofar as they try to reflect or imitate God's nature. Which's why evil, within Christian thought, tends to be defined as absence of God. Ok, so, the problem. If everything that God does is good, how were all the horrible things he did in the OT as good as the cures performed by Jesus? Doesn't that reflect an internal contradiction in Christian Morality and undoes the assumed objectivity of Christian morals? If not, are there other examples internal inconsistency? Obs: Notice that merely comparing Christian morals to any secular definition of the term 'morally good', such as for example "what maximizes the well-being of conscious creatures" wouldn't answer the question. Saying that Christian morals are bad because of incompatibility with an external standard, as strong a point as it might be, alone isn't a demonstration of internal inconsistency.

• Answer:

  I've never met an internally-consistent moral system. The problem is that moral systems are made up of rules: never do x; always do y... But because the real world is fuzzy, a perfect moral system would need rules like "never do x, except if a, b or c is true, but not if a and c are true at the same time." The system would have to posit an individual rule for every situation. We're supposed to refrain from blaspheming and honor our parents? What if our parents tell us to blaspheme? Even if the system is boiled down to a heuristic, like The Golden Rule, it fails (or becomes perplexing) in various situations: should a masochist do unto others as he'd have them do unto him? Should an extrovert drag introverts onto the dance floor? We deal with this in the real world by using courts, juries, and judges who freely admit that they use a mixture of rules and subjective judgements: those judgements are necessary when rules conflict or don't easily map on to the present situation. The only religious, objective moral system I could imagine is a similar one, in which God acts as a hands-on judge. In other words, if you ran into a contradiction, you'd say, "God, I'm trying to follow your rules, but my dad just told me to blaspheme  What do I do?" And God would tell you. This may be one of the reasons some people "pray on it." Maybe they feel this is exactly the system we have: general rules that help us get by in most situations and prayers for when God needs to clarify or break a tie.