Because the bible tells you so?

[LogDog]

To claim that your source of morality comes from the teachings of the bible and that those teachings are "good" suggests that you had a concept of what good was before you read the teachings.

If you claim that your morality came from the teachings of the bible, how did you come to the conclusion that those teachings were good in the first place?

 

[rojse]

The Bible says many contradictory things. It says that you should love your neighbour, but it also says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You can make your own morality from it, be it good or bad.

 

[meogi]

To claim that your source of morality comes from the teachings of the bible and that those teachings are "good" suggests that you had a concept of what good was before you read the teachings.

Can't someone's idea of good change? Does it matter what their concept of good was beforehand? It's obviously changed to the good of the Bible. Perhaps they thought their previous concept of good was wrong, and that the divine concept of good provided by God is better?

If you claim that your morality came from the teachings of the bible, how did you come to the conclusion that those teachings were good in the first place?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I assume they'd come from their parents, who probably also got their teachings from the Bible. And so on and so forth until God (through Moses) introduced the idea.

If not from parents, likely from faith. If you accept the Bible as divine, then it is good to you, and you will live your life accordingly. So yes, because the Bible tells you so.

 

[Comprehend]

To claim that your source of morality comes from the teachings of the bible and that those teachings are "good" suggests that you had a concept of what good was before you read the teachings.

If you claim that your morality came from the teachings of the bible, how did you come to the conclusion that those teachings were good in the first place?

What about those of us who claim our source of morality is God?

 

[Ever learning]

The Bible says many contradictory things. It says that you should love your neighbour, but it also says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You can make your own morality from it, be it good or bad.

That is so true.
As for my own Morals, not only based on the bibles teachings but also on what I have learnt and experienced.

 

[BucephalusBB]

If you claim that your morality came from the teachings of the bible, how did you come to the conclusion that those teachings were good in the first place?

Your moralities come from the law then? I am curious, wich law are you following then?
Would you prefer a law like in america, china or my netherlands? and wich of these laws have the right morals really? How did you come to the conclusion one of these laws were wrong for you and wich ones were right?

 

[UnTheist]

What about those of us who claim our source of morality is God?

...Through the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible is not a moral book. We don't get morality fromt he Bible.

 

[Comprehend]

...Through the Bible.

No. Through direct revelation from God.

 

[ChristineES]

I think we are born with some basic morals, other morals we learn from our family, yet more from school and from our peers, and finally we can find some morals in the Bible or other religious texts. The Old Testament wasn't really written to teach morals, but to teach about people who follow God, how they went about it. The New Testament was about Jesus and His teachings.
People seem to have a good idea what is right and wrong, even if they don't have any religion.

 

[Ringer]

People seem to have a good idea what is right and wrong, even if they don't have any religion.

I would agree with that and I believe that this viewpoint is also supported biblically.

Romans 2:14-15
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

The law of God has been written on the hearts of all. That is why as we mature from birth we are able to distinguish naturally between right and wrong. Even those across many cultures who have never heard of the gospel message will share very similar morals.

 

[logician]

Theists have no corner of morality, which comes from within, not without.

 

[rojse]

I think that morals are merely a product of our own upbringing.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The Bible says many contradictory things. It says that you should love your neighbour, but it also says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You can make your own morality from it, be it good or bad.

This view comes from an incomplete understanding of scripture.

 

[rojse]

This view comes from an incomplete understanding of scripture.

Whether that is true or not (most likely), many other people have managed to find that same interpretation. Does that mean that every single person that cites the bible for the idea of "eye for an eye" is at fault for this interpretation, the Bible is at fault for being so unclear in refuting this idea in later chapters or passages, or it is the fault of the Church for not proving the idea incorrect and telling everyone their theological conclusions?

 

[LogDog]

This view comes from an incomplete understanding of scripture.

How do you determine when someone has come to a "complete understanding" of the scriptures? Are we to assume from your assertion that you have one? If not, is there someone who you and your christian buddies could agree upon that does?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Whether that is true or not (most likely), many other people have managed to find that same interpretation. Does that mean that every single person that cites the bible for the idea of "eye for an eye" is at fault for this interpretation, the Bible is at fault for being so unclear in refuting this idea in later chapters or passages, or it is the fault of the Church for not proving the idea incorrect and telling everyone their theological conclusions?

Silly. An eye for an eye is a matter of law. Love thy neighbor pertains to people in need. Again, incomplete understanding.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How do you determine when someone has come to a "complete understanding" of the scriptures?

Well usually when they make silly statements, like the one I referenced, it gives a good clue.

Are we to assume from your assertion that you have one?

Yes.

 

[rojse]

Silly. An eye for an eye is a matter of law. Love thy neighbor pertains to people in need. Again, incomplete understanding.

And how did it originally become a matter of law? Because people believed it to be true.

 

[ChristineES]

I am not sure if you can explain the Bible to those who read it and don't believe in it. They understand the words, anyone who reads a bible must have a degree of intelligence. They just don't see it the same way a person who does believe in it will.

In a simplistic way I can use Harry Potter. When I read Harry Potter, I am reading a modern fairy tale. Some people understand it like it is the Occult. While a third person, who believes in magic (usually a child) will see it as something that can happen. It is a point of view. Everyone sees everything from a different point of view.