My morality is right in line with God's all moral nature. To sum it up:
# Under theism, God accounts for moral values because he is a perfect being and goodness is part of his nature
# Under theism, God’s commands account for moral duties
# Under atheism, morality is just an evolved convention, in which case it is not actually morality
# If morality is evolved convention, it doesn’t refer to anything objective
# We can imagine moral conventions evolving differently; therefore they aren’t objective
I could see that some Atheists liked to use the word "edited" and "translated" to mean that they totally made it up as they went along, but the editing was the translation! If I say "huevos" in one book and then I say "eggs" in another have I changed the contents of the book? Clearly not, don't play with semantics. Also interpretation does need to be accounted for, especially when you include the social and historical elements of those times. It's easy for someone to say "oh hey look, this passage says if your arm causes you to sin, cut it off. I guess that means we literally need to cut our arms off." Or we can have some insight and think, perhaps this is a metaphor to separate ourselves from temptation if we are fully aware what is tempting us. I see alot of "God is a fairytale" or "the bible is a book created by creative men". But you have to give an argument for why that is the case. You can't translate doubt into reason. As for the main point of this post, it has been said time and time again why it is relevant, but the creator of this post can't seem to get the picture.
