Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[Statler Waldorf]

Why? If you can't demonstrate the distinction then we have a problem.

I already did, arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade the opponent, if you still don’t see the distinction then that sounds more like a personal problem to me.

Wrong again, I find it very fortunate - having led to my very fortunate life.

Compared to what?

Why would I give a shit about divine command theory Stat?

…possibly because that’s what this thread is about, no?

I just take it for what it is, a book, and try to understand what the people writing it might have been attempting to convey - with their admittedly different frame of reference.

Now we are getting somewhere; you assume that scripture is not the Word of God ahead of time, use that assumed position to interpret scripture and then try and use your interpretation to argue that scripture is not infallible. That’s conveniently but also fallaciously circular.

I'm always impressed by the things you manage to read into your verses.

…derive from, not read into. I am impressed by what you seemingly miss in such verses.

I don;t see what you see in that verse Stat. How did you determine which was the lesser moral law?

There’s a moral hierarchy to God’s commandments given in the Old Testament and later reinforced by Christ in the New Testament; we use scripture to interpret scripture.

By reference to gods people, doing gods commands...presumably those are the good folks, and gods commands are the right ones...it really never rises above this criticism Stat.

No, there’s no such thing as a “good person” (Romans 1 and3).

Hardly, but I appreciate the christian urge to insist that others stick with biblical morality.

It was not a “Christian urge” it was a logical one, if you’re going to logically critique Biblical morality you are not allowed to use a different standard of morality to do so, that’s fallacious because it’s a form of equivocation and bait and switch.

Unfortunately I don't give any sort of primacy to your morality, nor do I think that biblical morality is in any way different than any other morality

You don’t see a difference between a theonomic standard of morality and an autonomic one? That’s absurd.

Similarly, whether or not god feels that they don't is irrelevant - as he is not "the transcendent moral law giver" either.

Actually He is, but nice try.

To be blunt Stat, you did, but I appreciate that you felt the need to use more syllables than I.

You mean “than me” rather than “than I” right? Sorry, I had to do that.

Well, it may seem a trivial point to you, but not to me. We're obviously free to hold separate opinions on what is or is not trivial with regards to morality - or the various justifications given for any of it's incarnations.

When the OP is dealing with Divine Command Theory, and you openly admit you didn’t jump into this thread in order to discuss Divine Command Theory then anything else you want to discuss in this thread is by definition trivial because it’s not relevant to what we were discussing. I’d be happy to discuss anything you wish to, but when you’re objecting to my posts that are relevant to the OP upon irrelevant grounds I am going to point it out to you.

The people described in the book are not present in the region until centuries later.

Assertion.

Two of the cities described did not exist at the time, two of the cities described (one amusingly, being jericho) had apparently been abandoned long - long before any conquest narrative.

Assertion.

Hilariously, we see that the walls of jericho fell often - but not at this time.

Assertion.

So...either there was no invasion - there was an invasion sans destruction and violence, or there was an invasion at some altogether different time.

And yet another assertion. Whew! I was worried you might actually have something other than baseless assertions to back that position up, I am sure relieved you didn’t.