No ... it's based on love ... one can not have true love without free choice ... that is ... one can not force one to love another ... God knows this .... we know this. So one can choose to believe in and love God or not.
Oh? How was that determined? Since a woman is biologically programmed to love her child is that not true love?
I have determined stoning stubborn children and homosexuals is wrong.
Definitional use of wrong.
By "wrong," I mean immoral.So by "wrong" you mean nothing more than something that is distasteful to you?
Would it help you if we believed in some alleged authority to whom it is distasteful/wrong?So by "wrong" you mean nothing more than something that is distasteful to you?
Like...stoning them?Do all women truly love their children? Nope. Some do very diabolical things to their children
Do all women truly love their children? Nope. Some do very diabolical things to their children therefore evidentially is not biological.
The 'love hormone' is a biological fact.
In contrast to "divine rules that are written on your heart", biological system are not and have never claimed to be perfect and infallible.well ... the "love hormone" is evidentially corruptible as there are many women who kill their babies.
I have another very important question to ask of everyone.
I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.
If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?
Here's the thing.
Let's say God appears to you and says that you are released from all moral obligations. That is, you can do whatever you want - murder, steal, do whatever you want, and you will not suffer any punishment for it. Not from Human justice and not even from God's justice. You are guaranteed to go to Heaven, no matter what, and in the meantime, you can commit whatever crimes you want, no matter how terrible.
Would you do it?
And don't try to get around it by saying God would never give you such an option or anything like that. Assume that it really is God, and the offer is genuine.
The way I see it, the choices people have when I ask them this are either that they would (in which case the only reason they don't already do those things is out of fear of punishment, and they aren't moral people after all), or that you wouldn't (in which case your morality doesn't come from God since he has just removed any moral obligation he had given you).
The problem with such a view is that it necessarily pits God against "his nature". The only "Moral obligation" that can exist in such a view is that of God's creation towards God... and God's creation does not have "God's nature". So any moral obligation that comes from God's nature must be extrinsic for God's creation.Moral obligation isn't extrinsic to God's nature on the traditional non-Voluntarist view. Your hypothetical assumes that contradiction. Further, as is so common among modern atheists, yours is essentially a fundamentalist view of the promulgation of the law which sees it as an extrinsic add-on, in this case a merely verbal prescriptive dimension.
The problem with such a view is that it necessarily pits God against "his nature".
The only "Moral obligation" that can exist in such a view is that of God's creation towards God... and God's creation does not have "God's nature". So any moral obligation that comes from God's nature must be extrinsic for God's creation.
It is the problem that we talked about earlier: such an objective moral system is only meaningful for infallible beings, even with the common excuse of "free will".
Moral obligation isn't extrinsic to God's nature on the traditional non-Voluntarist view. Your hypothetical assumes that contradiction. Further, as is so common among modern atheists, yours is essentially a fundamentalist view of the promulgation of the law which sees it as an extrinsic add-on, in this case a merely verbal prescriptive dimension.
Extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.
So, you are saying that moral obligation doesn't come from God? I agree with you there. We don't need God to be moral.
Extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.
So, you are saying that moral obligation doesn't come from God? I agree with you there. We don't need God to be moral.
I said moral obligation isn't extrinsic to God's nature. Your hypothetical thus contradicts the very nature of God. For Christians it is similar to saying, "Imagine God, but evil," or "Imagine a circle, but square."