So you have just decided in your own good wisdom that what they believe in just another version of the religion. Just like the IRA's version is another version of Christianity. It didn't ever occur to you that it may not be another version but it may just be a crazy made up interpretation of something that they made up themselves. Why does it have to be one alternative that is another version of the same religion.
There are many reasons: The adherents self-identify as members of the religion; they rely on the same sacred texts; apart from some fundamental differences, the core teachings are similar; the same prophets and saints are revered; the same rituals and symbols, etc.
I thought religion was suppose to be good to others and promote love and kindness.
You thought wrong.
Isn't that how its suppose to be. How do you know its not a crazy idea that ISIS made up as they went along and just used a bit of the religion and twisted the truth of it by mixing it with man made interpretations of influenced by hate and cruelty. Isn't hate something that doesn't come from religion.
No. Hate can be religiously motivated, as ISIS aptly demonstrates.
Then if thats the case why do they also acknowledge that there can be many versions of morals like ISIS, the IRA's and all the other versions you have just been defending with abortion. I was stating that the common majority of beliefs in Muslims was that of the people who are living good lives with good morals. But you were saying this doesn't prove anything. ISIS version of moral belief can be just as valid and have expert opinion behind it to make them believe that they are just as right. You argued that other religions who believe that abortion is ok have their version of morals that say the opposite of what those who say abortion is wrong. So all this isn't having some common well established moral standards. Its dividing them and allowing many different versions.
You're confusing the two senses of the word again.
Well thats where the confusion is because I'm not making the claim. I am stating a truth based on my moral position which is what I believe to be the objective moral truth. We have to have a standard to go by so we can make some judgements about things. So we can say this is definitely wrong and that is right. But Ill revert back to what you said earlier about abortion. You said that some religions can think that abortion is OK with their moral views just like other religions say that its wrong with their moral views. They both cant be right at the same time. Who is right and who is wrong.
You seem to have forgotten the point of that example. It was not to argue over which moral position on abortion is the right one, but to illustrate how individuals with similar values can still hold different moral positions on the issue.
Well thats what you were saying before with abortion. You were giving me examples of religions that said that abortion was morally OK. Yet we both knew we had religions that said it was morally not OK. So you were implying that we can have some saying its OK and some saying its not at the same time. I was saying no you cant and that they were not saying it was OK but were actually still saying it was wrong and they were all agreeing. The truth is there is only one moral truth and that is Gods. But people try to side step the truth by adding this subjectivity and then we begin to have all these many versions.
How do you determine which version is God's? How do you determine that a particular religiously based moral claim is true?
A moral position that killing is wrong is a truth that can stand the test of time and what different people may think. I believe its a truth from God and not a man made thing. It hasn't been formulated or developed over time so that we have eventually come to a realization that killing is wrong. Its just in us from the beginning. When Cain killed Abel in the beginning he knew without having to be pointed out that he had done wrong. There wasnt a time where we were killing and each other and then we gradually eveolved to think killing was wrong. Its always been wrong and we have always know that. Thats the moral truth of God which is eternal.
The value of life has always been known as well. But we can have a different view of what is valuable. Like I said with life and non life. If its seen as just a egg with no life then it cant have any value. But then there has to be an assessment of what is life to find out the facts. Many religious people say that life starts at conception. So life is valuable from the beginning. So if someone doesn't think there is any life then abortion can be justified. But we also have to assess are they believing that the fetus is not life to justify their actions of having an abortion. So here we can see if there is any value and this can apply to many things like euthanasia and the death penalty. But the value is going to be similar is it life. Does it have a value of life or no life.
Not sure where you're going with this.
C. S lewis's argument for morals being from God is probably the best explanation I can think of.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality namely my idea of justice was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.*
CS Lewis Moral Argument | Atheology
You've posted this before, but I don't see how it answers the question. How does God serve as an explanation for morality?
My interpretation of the bible is what it says. Its not some matrix book that we can get several different versions from. Its quite easy to understand. The parables of Jesus are written in a way so that it is easy to understand. Its like a cake receipt. You dont have different versions of the receipt otherwise you will get a flat or burnt cake. If all else fails follow the instructions on the back of the pack.
But the Bible isn't like a recipe book. People have varied interpretations of the text, hence why we have Biblical hermeneutics. You didn't answer my question: do you consider your interpretation of the Bible infallible?
Upvote
0