Because the bible tells you so?

[rojse]

Logdog?

Any response?

Claiming morality from God is quite a poor base for morality. How do you know what God wants you to do is moral?

A good example of this is God wishing for Abraham to kill his own son (have I got the names right?) and Abraham not doing it. He disobeyed a direct commandment from God, so how did he come up with a moral basis for this, when God gave him a different order.

And the people that claim God supports their morals can have quite different ideas on the same subject. There is always debates about capital punishment, for example, with both sides citing the bible as the source of their morals.

 

[Comprehend]

Claiming morality from God is quite a poor base for morality.

not if God rules the universe.

How do you know what God wants you to do is moral?

God decides what is moral.

A good example of this is God wishing for Abraham to kill his own son (have I got the names right?) and Abraham not doing it. He disobeyed a direct commandment from God, so how did he come up with a moral basis for this, when God gave him a different order.

You are confused on your facts. Abraham didn't disobey God.

And the people that claim God supports their morals can have quite different ideas on the same subject. There is always debates about capital punishment, for example, with both sides citing the bible as the source of their morals.

uh, like I said, I don't claim the Bible as the source of my morals...

 

[rojse]

not if God rules the universe.

God decides what is moral.

You are confused on your facts. Abraham didn't disobey God.

uh, like I said, I don't claim the Bible as the source of my morals...

God gave Abraham a commandment, and he actually wanted to test him, to see what he would do. I am not confused, but if he had obeyed God's orders, would this make him moral?

Well, the Bible was inspired by God, so that needs to be part of your moral basis, doesn't it?

 

[LogDog]

Logdog?

Any response?

I could suggest a good psychiatrist.

 

[Comprehend]

God gave Abraham a commandment, and he actually wanted to test him, to see what he would do. I am not confused, but if he had obeyed God's orders, would this make him moral?

You said Abraham disobeyed, correct?

Well, the Bible was inspired by God, so that needs to be part of your moral basis, doesn't it?

I'll try again...

The bible is not the source of my morality.

 

[Comprehend]

I could suggest a good psychiatrist.

I'll take your lame ad hominem as a no.

I didn't think you had any argument, I was just checking.

 

[LogDog]

I'll take your lame ad hominem as a no.

I didn't think you had any argument, I was just checking.

If there were any evidence to support your assumption that there is a god then we'd have something to bat around and I wouldn't be suggesting that those who claim they get their morality from an invisible sky daddy are delusional in the first place.

Assuming there is a god and he resembles the one depicted in the bible then I'd suggest that he probably isn't the best role model to follow. There are others who don't contradict themselves, are tangible and would never threaten anyone or order them to kill.

When you propose that your god decides what is moral, how do you come to understand his desires without referring to the teachings of your holy book? Is it your position that this god is communicating his desires to you directly? Are you a prophet?

 

[sojourner]

If there were any evidence to support your assumption that there is a god then we'd have something to bat around and I wouldn't be suggesting that those who claim they get their morality from an invisible sky daddy are delusional in the first place.

Assuming there is a god and he resembles the one depicted in the bible then I'd suggest that he probably isn't the best role model to follow. There are others who don't contradict themselves, are tangible and would never threaten anyone or order them to kill.

When you propose that your god decides what is moral, how do you come to understand his desires without referring to the teachings of your holy book? Is it your position that this god is communicating his desires to you directly? Are you a prophet?

If there were any evidence to support your asumption that there is no God, then we'd have something to bat around...

Those who assume God's existence (if they're Christian) view the Bible as part of the foundation upon which morality is built. Informed decisions have to be made as to what God is really like, and what God really expects of us, as followers.

Those who assume God's inexistence do not view the Bible as part of the foundation upon which morality is built. There's no reason to, if God doesn't exist.

Non-believers can be just as moral as believers. But then, morality is not the basis for scriptural writing. Neither is the civil code.

 

[Comprehend]

If there were any evidence to support your assumption that there is a god then we'd have something to bat around and I wouldn't be suggesting that those who claim they get their morality from an invisible sky daddy are delusional in the first place.

Feel free to list all the evidence you have that God does not exist.

Assuming there is a god and he resembles the one depicted in the bible then I'd suggest that he probably isn't the best role model to follow. There are others who don't contradict themselves, are tangible and would never threaten anyone or order them to kill.

Maybe you are not understanding my argument in this thread. I have said a number of times that the bible IS NOT the source of my morality. Somehow you aren't understanding that.

When you propose that your god decides what is moral, how do you come to understand his desires without referring to the teachings of your holy book?

I have already explained this in the thread. try to pay attention.

Is it your position that this god is communicating his desires to you directly?

God communicates his desires for me, to me directly. Just like he does to anyone else who is willing to listen. But I can only get revelation for what I am responsible for, again, just like anyone else.

Are you a prophet?

Nope. I am no different than you.

Rather than asking ridiculous questions, how about you try to answer my point about the OP, you still haven't come up with a response to my argument that the source of my morality is not the bible but God.

Good luck

 

[LogDog]

Feel free to list all the evidence you have that God does not exist.

It is not I who is making the extraordinary claim.

Maybe you are not understanding my argument in this thread. I have said a number of times that the bible IS NOT the source of my morality. Somehow you aren't understanding that.

What argument? All I see is you making another unfalsifiable claim. One that suggest that your god and not the holy book he’s alleged to have inspired is your source of morality. Did you want to add anything to expand upon your claim? It's not every day that I come across a christian claiming that his god communicates to him directly.

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

What about it? How does your claim that god himself is your source of morality differ from what your holy book suggests is good? Is one source better than the other? How do you know that it's the god of christianity who is communicating with you and not Zeus or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I have already explained this in the thread. try to pay attention.

You've made unfalsifiable claims in this thread. Nothing more.

God communicates his desires for me, to me directly.

So are you a person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed?

I am no different than you.

Biologically.

you still haven't come up with a response to my argument that the source of my morality is not the bible but God.

You still haven't explained how what god himself communicates to you is any different from what your holy book suggests is moral. Until you do so, I'm hard- pressed to find anything to respond to.

 

[Comprehend]

It is not I who is making the extraordinary claim.

right. It is you however who is dodging my argument. :sarcastic

What argument? All I see is you making another unfalsifiable claim. One that suggest that your god and not the holy book he’s alleged to have inspired is your source of morality. Did you want to add anything to expand upon your claim? It's not every day that I come across a christian claiming that his god communicates to him directly.

Really?

all Mormons do. You should get out more.

Anyway, allow me to refresh your memory. This is your OP:

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?

In case you don't understand your own argument. You are saying that one must have an independent sense of "good" and must have had it prior to any morality obtained from the bible.

Coincidentally, this is somewhat similar to Kant's Metaphysics of Morals (a priori argument) which I did my senior thesis on for my undergrad philosophy degree.

I asked, in response to your argument. How do you address those who claim their morality comes directly from God? (which effectively nullifies your argument).

You have so far been unable to answer the question. Feel free to take another shot.

You still haven't explained how what god himself communicates to you is any different from what your holy book suggests is moral. Until you do so, I'm hard- pressed to find anything to respond to.

I hope you are kidding.

You honestly don't understand the difference? I didn't think it would need to be explained. The difference is between a primary and secondary source.

I thought the difference would be quite obvious.





EDIT: BTW - I can understand your desperate attempt to make this argument something about me but it has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. It has to do with the possible sources of morality, you point out a problem with the Bible being the source, I point out an alternative source. Since you obviously have no response, I can see how you would resort to such a pathetic distraction from your own OP.

 

[LogDog]

right. It is you however who is dodging my argument. :sarcastic

The theist accepts a normal standard of disproof when he allows that science has disproven a flat earth, but insists on an impossible standard of infallible disproof for his pet god.

As the old saying goes, science proves beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond an unreasonable doubt.

Really?

all Mormons do. You should get out more.

And hang out with mormons? Not going to happen.

Anyway, allow me to refresh your memory. This is your OP:

In case you don't understand your own argument. You are saying that one must have an independent sense of "good" and must have had it prior to any morality obtained from the bible.

Coincidentally, this is somewhat similar to Kant's Metaphysics of Morals (a priori argument) which I did my senior thesis on for my undergrad philosophy degree.

I asked, in response to your argument. How do you address those who claim their morality comes directly from God? (which effectively nullifies your argument).

You have so far been unable to answer the question. Feel free to take another shot.

How does suggesting that you get your morality directly from your god rather than his holy book nullify my argument? Educate me as to the differences between what this god is telling you and what his holy book suggests. Has he clarified the contradictions contained within its pages? Has he flip-flopped on how he would have you treat homosexuals? Does he still hold to the philosophy that the infidel should be put to death? Has he revised his position that women should be submissive to men? Does he no longer promote slavery? Has he stopped ordering people to commit murder? You have so far been unable to answer the question of 'what's the difference'. Will you please do so?

I hope you are kidding.

You honestly don't understand the difference? I didn't think it would need to be explained. The difference is between a primary and secondary source.

I thought the difference would be quite obvious.

I honestly don't. Is the primary source telling you anything different from what the secondary source suggests? If so, what are they? If not, then what difference does it make where you claim to get your morals from?

EDIT: BTW - I can understand your desperate attempt to make this argument something about me but it has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. It has to do with the possible sources of morality, you point out a problem with the Bible being the source, I point out an alternative source. Since you obviously have no response, I can see how you would resort to such a pathetic distraction from your own OP.

What is this alternate source saying?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ah jeez

I Corinthians 2: 13-14, but then you don't believe the Bible.

 

[doppelganger]

I Corinthians 2: 13-14, but then you don't believe the Bible.

Unless of course, you're the one without the Spirit to guide you in understanding. If you were, you wouldn't know it, precisely because you wouldn't understand what you were reading. That wouldn't affect the fact that you think you discern the meaning. It would simply mean that despite what you think, you don't.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Unless of course, you're the one without the Spirit to guide you in understanding. If you were, you wouldn't know it, precisely because you wouldn't understand what you were reading. That wouldn't affect the fact that you think you discern the meaning. It would simply mean that despite what you think, you don't.

What he said.

 

[Comprehend]

How does suggesting that you get your morality directly from your god rather than his holy book nullify my argument?

I'll say it slower...

one... is ..... a ... secondary ....... source...... and ...... the ......other .....is ......a ....primary........source.....

did that help? :sarcastic

Educate me as to the differences between what this god is telling you and what his holy book suggests. Has he clarified the contradictions contained within its pages? Has he flip-flopped on how he would have you treat homosexuals? Does he still hold to the philosophy that the infidel should be put to death? Has he revised his position that women should be submissive to men? Does he no longer promote slavery? Has he stopped ordering people to commit murder? You have so far been unable to answer the question of 'what's the difference'. Will you please do so?

*What* God says has nothing to do with your OP, nor my argument.

All that matters is *how* the morality is obtained. That is what the OP is addressing.

You either do not understand your own OP or you can't defend it in light of my question. Either way looks pretty bad.

I honestly don't. Is the primary source telling you anything different from what the secondary source suggests? If so, what are they? If not, then what difference does it make where you claim to get your morals from?

Ok. I'm now convinced that you really don't understand your own argument.

:biglaugh:

I can't remember the last time I had to teach someone what they were arguing before I could help them understand how my argument defeats it....

Maybe you should go back and think about what the OP is arguing before you continue to embarrass yourself. (just a suggestion).

 

[LogDog]

I'll say it slower...

one... is ..... a ... secondary ....... source...... and ...... the ......other .....is ......a ....primary........source.....

did that help? :sarcastic




*What* God says has nothing to do with your OP, nor my argument.

All that matters is *how* the morality is obtained. That is what the OP is addressing.

You either do not understand your own OP or you can't defend it in light of my question. Either way looks pretty bad.



Ok. I'm now convinced that you really don't understand your own argument.

:biglaugh:

I can't remember the last time I had to teach someone what they were arguing before I could help them understand how my argument defeats it....

Maybe you should go back and think about what the OP is arguing before you continue to embarrass yourself. (just a suggestion).

You claim god is your primary and your holy book is your secondary guide to morality. Fine. What I asked in the OP didn't necessarily revolve around how your morality is obtained but how you came to the conclusion that the guide itself is good and worthy of being followed?

 

[Comprehend]

You claim god is your primary and your holy book is your secondary guide to morality. Fine. What I asked in the OP didn't necessarily revolve around how your morality is obtained but how you came to the conclusion that the guide itself is good and worthy of being followed?

Excellent. Now we are on the same page.

Are you familiar with Kant's a priori argument?

 

[LogDog]

Excellent. Now we are on the same page.

Are you familiar with Kant's a priori argument?

Doesn't it deal with arguments that are based on abstract premises. Ones that are made independent of sensory experiences?

 

[rojse]

Excellent. Now we are on the same page.

Are you familiar with Kant's a priori argument?

I'm not, can you explain please?