morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[SteveII]

Why can't it come from both?

We clearly have a built in moral compass--which the Bible also recognizes: 

Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

In addition to the moral laws/instruction laid out in Exodus/Leviticus and in the NT, there are also other doctrines that lead to conclusions about human value, responsibility, and relation to the natural world.

Would you follow a moral from the book if it didn't agree with your gut?

Depends on the book obviously. I think the Bible is part of God's revelation to us and therefore has that weight behind it. Now if it was filled with commands meant for me which went against my gut, that would be a reason to doubt that it was God's revelation because it does not make sense to build in a moral compass (natural revelation) and then explicitly contradict it in the written revelation.

[Pat Mustard]

Anyone who has had a 2 year old child can attest to the fact that we are born knowing how to sin.

Anyone who has any compassion for children knows that sin is a bullshit idea invented to keep people repressed for the benefit of the few.

[Jackalope]

Anyone who has had a 2 year old child can attest to the fact that we are born knowing how to sin.

Anyone? I can do no such thing.

[Pat Mustard]

Who is teaching a two year old that they a born tainted sinners? You are blowing this way out of proportion!

This is Steve all over. Says x, and then when x comes and bites him on the arse denies he ever said it. I wonder how many times the cock would have crowed for him? Well north of 1,000 at least.

---

And yet the 2 Christians participating in the discussion (Steve and I) are both like "uhhh what?" [...]

What?! The whole 2 christians? Yeah - that's definitely a representative sample...   LOL...
2 christians, out of millions, who also frequent atheist forums, are not particularly bright, or informed, and who - for all we know - could be lying, in order to show their faith in a more positive light (I know, I know - that neeeeeever happens)... Yeah, no more questions about that, then...

What's worse is that Steve brought the whole thing up, by calling toddlers willful sinners (supposedly as a proof for god) and, now that this has been exposed as a callous and hateful attitude, he is rowing back on ever having said same as if the fact that it is documented on this thread that he did is of no consequence.

[SteveII]

Who is teaching a two year old that they a born tainted sinners? You are blowing this way out of proportion!

This is Steve all over. Says x, and then when x comes and bites him on the arse denies he ever said it. I wonder how many times the cock would have crowed for him? Well north of 1,000 at least.

---

What?! The whole 2 christians? Yeah - that's definitely a representative sample...   LOL...
2 christians, out of millions, who also frequent atheist forums, are not particularly bright, or informed, and who - for all we know - could be lying, in order to show their faith in a more positive light (I know, I know - that neeeeeever happens)... Yeah, no more questions about that, then...

What's worse is that Steve brought the whole thing up, by calling toddlers willful sinners (supposedly as a proof for god) and, now that this has been exposed as a callous and hateful attitude, he is rowing back on ever having said same as if the fact that it is documented on this thread that he did is of no consequence.

I have not changed my position one iota. 

Children are not taught how to be selfish, hurtful, disobedient, dishonest etc. yet they are. There is only one possible conclusion--they are born that way. 

Since in Christianity, we call those acts sinful, it follows: children are sinful. Sin is a description of an act/intention/or omission--and not a description of moral responsibility which is why I stated over and over that I do not think that young children are morally responsible for their actions.

I stated over and over that we (and nobody I know) teach young children that they are "tainted sinners". They get age appropriate explanations long after toddlerhood. If you find someone who did not give age appropriate information to the child, that simply calls into question good judgement--not doctrine.

[Zenith]

I have not changed my position one iota. 

Children are not taught how to be selfish, hurtful, disobedient, dishonest etc. yet they are. There is only one possible conclusion--they are born that way. 

What about they are living beings that, like all other creatures, first value themselves (selfishness)? It is the primal instincts of survival and the lack of ability to "read minds" that make them easily understand their own needs but harder to understand the others.

If disobedience is sin, then what is the virtue, slavery?
Why should obeying the "Do what I tell you!" be a virtue?

What if children are not "broken", but rather they grow and learn? And what if social skills are being learned rather than being built into their DNA?

And what if children need to disobey you in order to learn that they have freedom of choice, also so that they learn what happens if they do otherwise?

What if "wrong" does not equal "broken" but rather is an opportunity to learn?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Now if it was filled with commands meant for me which went against my gut, that would be a reason to doubt that it was God's revelation because it does not make sense to build in a moral compass (natural revelation) and then explicitly contradict it in the written revelation.

Commands are obligations to do something and largely I don't have a problem with those. His yoke is light. But some prohibitions do not strike me as obviously wrong. If two guys want to sword-fight in the middle of the night, I really don't care, but at the same time the bible's teaching on homosexuality is clear. So while I may personally not understand the prohibition, I must respect the authority of scripture.

[Regina]

Personally I struggle to understand the amount of atheists who talk about morality being subjective too

There are certain aspects of morality that are, but I think they concern smaller trivial things, like whether it's justified to be rude to people if you're having a bad day or if spending your own money on useless shit you want rather than need is ok. It can also concern what is considered to be the "correct" consequence for a certain action.

When it comes to bigger shit like murder, rape and child molestation though, those are pretty objectively fucking bad. I don't know how anyone can sit there and say there's any subjectivity on that, and that those things can be acceptable within the context of "culture" or a different "societal opinion". Are you going to willingly submit to your own murder and suddenly feel good about having a knife thrust into your stomach, because the person doing it to you thinks it's morally right? Ugh no.

[Silver]

Commands are obligations to do something and largely I don't have a problem with those. His yoke is light. But some prohibitions do not strike me as obviously wrong. If two guys want to sword-fight in the middle of the night, I really don't care, but at the same time the bible's teaching on homosexuality is clear. So while I may personally not understand the prohibition, I must respect the authority of scripture.

I sometimes wonder if you have actually interpreted anything in the bible on your own. Perhaps you simply believe what others have interpreted scripture to mean.

I used to believe what I was told, then I grew up and learned to critically analyze scripture on my own.

There are differing Christian denominations due to the fact that some Christians decided that an interpretation was wrong.

Those Christians had their own personal interpretations.

With so many ways to interpret a clear message from god, it makes me wonder more about man's psyche than god being real.

[SteveII]

I have not changed my position one iota. 

Children are not taught how to be selfish, hurtful, disobedient, dishonest etc. yet they are. There is only one possible conclusion--they are born that way. 

What about they are living beings that, like all other creatures, first value themselves (selfishness)? It is the primal instincts of survival and the lack of ability to "read minds" that make them easily understand their own needs but harder to understand the others.

If disobedience is sin, then what is the virtue, slavery?
Why should obeying the "Do what I tell you!" be a virtue?

What if children are not "broken", but rather they grow and learn? And what if social skills are being learned rather than being built into their DNA?

And what if children need to disobey you in order to learn that they have freedom of choice, also so that they learn what happens if they do otherwise?

What if "wrong" does not equal "broken" but rather is an opportunity to learn?

You are rationalizing their actions, not showing that they are not that way by nature (which is and has been my point for this entire discussion). The fact would still remain that they ALL do these things and Christians (and most people) have defined these things as not acceptable in the long term.