(June 16, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(June 15, 2015 at 10:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: There is, of course, a larger issue at play here too, which is this: how did you determine that god was good? If you're using god's morality as your epistemological road map, what criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that it was the correct map to follow? There had to have been some; you've clearly concluded that god is good, so how did you get to that point? You can't have used god's morality to determine god's morality, because the evaluation that it is good had to have happened before you had concluded that evaluation. I don't even need to point out the circular reasoning involved there, as a simple matter of chronology, you could not have come to the conclusion before you came to it.
Still would rather like an answer to this one, if you have a moment.
Like I said, unless we were brainwashed or have a mental disorder, I think we all instinctively know what is moral and what is immoral. We all know why it is immoral to hurt other people. Christianity reafirms that this is immoral, and helps me understand *why* it is. If Christianity taught that torturing children is good, for example, it would completely go against my gut instinct and I would never give it a second thought..
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
