Because the bible tells you so? (morals, Moses, America, experience)

[Ringer]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

People seem to have a good idea what is right and wrong, even if they don't have any religion.

I would agree with that and I believe that this viewpoint is also supported biblically.

Romans 2:14-15
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,

The law of God has been written on the hearts of all. That is why as we mature from birth we are able to distinguish naturally between right and wrong. Even those across many cultures who have never heard of the gospel message will share very similar morals.

[logician]

Theists have no corner of morality, which comes from within, not without.

[rojse]

I think that morals are merely a product of our own upbringing.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by rojse

The Bible says many contradictory things. It says that you should love your neighbour, but it also says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You can make your own morality from it, be it good or bad.

This view comes from an incomplete understanding of scripture.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

This view comes from an incomplete understanding of scripture.

Whether that is true or not (most likely), many other people have managed to find that same interpretation. Does that mean that every single person that cites the bible for the idea of "eye for an eye" is at fault for this interpretation, the Bible is at fault for being so unclear in refuting this idea in later chapters or passages, or it is the fault of the Church for not proving the idea incorrect and telling everyone their theological conclusions?

[LogDog]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

This view comes from an incomplete understanding of scripture.

How do you determine when someone has come to a "complete understanding" of the scriptures? Are we to assume from your assertion that you have one? If not, is there someone who you and your christian buddies could agree upon that does?

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by rojse

Whether that is true or not (most likely), many other people have managed to find that same interpretation. Does that mean that every single person that cites the bible for the idea of "eye for an eye" is at fault for this interpretation, the Bible is at fault for being so unclear in refuting this idea in later chapters or passages, or it is the fault of the Church for not proving the idea incorrect and telling everyone their theological conclusions?

Silly. An eye for an eye is a matter of law. Love thy neighbor pertains to people in need. Again, incomplete understanding.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by LogDog

How do you determine when someone has come to a "complete understanding" of the scriptures?

Well usually when they make silly statements, like the one I referenced, it gives a good clue.

Originally Posted by LogDog

Are we to assume from your assertion that you have one?

Yes.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Silly. An eye for an eye is a matter of law. Love thy neighbor pertains to people in need. Again, incomplete understanding.

And how did it originally become a matter of law? Because people believed it to be true.