Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[John V]

You seem to be arguing with a Christian stereotype in your head, rather than with the real people in the thread.

[FallentoReason]

You seem to be arguing with a Christian stereotype in your head, rather than with the real people in the thread.

I'm thinking either that or you're retreating because I'm onto something. Isn't the most fundamental and glaringly obvious statement that could ever be made about religion is that god(s) give the believer a set of objective morals? Am I missing something here????

[John V]

I'm thinking either that or you're retreating because I'm onto something. Isn't the most fundamental and glaringly obvious statement that could ever be made about religion is that god(s) give the believer a set of objective morals?

No. A religion could merely involve worship with no metion of morals.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does yours?

[Godscreated]

You seem to be arguing with a Christian stereotype in your head, rather than with the real people in the thread.

I'm thinking either that or you're retreating because I'm onto something. Isn't the most fundamental and glaringly obvious statement that could ever be made about religion is that god(s) give the believer a set of objective morals? Am I missing something here????

Yes you are missing the big something, Love.
When did God ever say that DCT was part of His commandments.
The reason I mentioned Pharisee, you are being dogmatic with this, the commandments God gives are to man with the knowledge that man will find himself in difficult situations that require love to be part of his action. God is omniscient He understands our motives.

[The Grand Nudger]

Been reading frodos posts haven't you..lol.

Pack it up fellas, he said love, it clearly means something and has established his (non)point beyond argument.

[Statler Waldorf]

I've given a similar situation to people, before, though with them being the almost direct cause of somebody's death. It goes like this:

If someone broke into your house in the middle of the night and your wife and children were able to fit in the closet - but there wasn't enough space for you, so you wait for the intruder.
The intruder has a gun and asks where the rest of your family are.

We say that you have two choices; tell the intruder where your family is hiding; or lie and say "They're out of town for the weekend."

If you lie, you have sinned and when the intruder murders you - you go to hell, but you have saved the lives of your family.
If you don't lie, you have caused the death of your wife and children.

My scenario seems a lot more harsh, but you may take it how you will. Tell me what you think.

Scripture actually addresses such situations very explicitly. In the 2nd Chapter of Joshua, Rahab givers Israeli spies safe harbor and deceives their pursuers in order to save their lives; because of this act she finds favor with God’s people and she and her family are spared when the Israelites take over Jericho. Simply because Christians have a view of situational ethics doesn’t mean that Biblical morality is not objective, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[The Grand Nudger]

Excellent, so..harboring fugitives - say, a convicted felon sentenced to death- is objectively good. I'll alert everyone who ever plans to pull a prison break to seek solace in the houses of the religious.
(if you want to use the word explicitly, that would only establish that it's okay to house isreali spies - and only for Rahab-...btw, you'll need to find a different word to use..you know, one that implies a measure of ambiguity and malleability.....lol - something along the lines of subjective, or relative)

[Godscreated]

Been reading frodos posts haven't you..lol.

Pack it up fellas, he said love, it clearly means something and has established his (non)point beyond argument.

Are you starting to learn something after all this time, wellilb.

[Statler Waldorf]

Excellent, so..harboring fugitives - say, a convicted felon sentenced to death- is objectively good. I'll alert everyone who ever plans to pull a prison break to seek solace in the houses of the religious.
(if you want to use the word explicitly, that would only establish that it's okay to house isreali spies - and only for Rahab-...btw, you'll need to find a different word to use..you know, one that implies a measure of ambiguity and malleability.....lol - something along the lines of subjective, or relative)

I see your ability to reason hasn’t improved any during my hiatus, that’s unfortunate but not surprising.
1. Your example about the convicted felons is irrelevant because we are discussing whether the Biblical concept of morality justifies deceiving someone in order to save an innocent person’s life, not a convicted criminal from apprehension by the authorities, try to stay on topic. I realize you’d be the guy telling the Nazis where the Jews were, but that is not relevant to this discussion.
2. You’re apparently unaware that the word explicit has multiple meanings, I was using it to mean given in realistic detail, which Joshua 2 does.
3. You apparently do not understand what an objective standard is.
4. You’d be well served by relinquishing some of the pointless sarcasm and taking such discussion a bit more like an adult.