Something you’ll have a field day with, I’m sure.

If, however, we agree that morality is determined by the desirability of the outcome, we’ve rejected the notion that morality can only come from some magical being arbitrarily defining right and wrong for us (or as Vox would put it, specifying the rules of the game). Vox claims that the only way we can have a valid and workable moral system is if we get it from a Scriptural list of rights and wrongs, and thus we can’t say that morality is determined by the desirability of the outcome. At that point, the moral question (how do we know what’s right and what’s wrong) and the soteriological question (what must I do to enter heaven) become two different issues. For example, if we get into heaven through faith in the blood of Christ cleansing us from our sins, the good or evil of our deeds is no longer tied to our salvation, and hence must be judged under different terms.

“Vox is confused here on two counts. First of all, he confuses the moral question (”How do I know what is right and what is wrong?”) with the soteriological question (”How do I get into heaven?”).”

The fact is, Vox is not confused at all. The two questions, from the Christian perspective, are in fact one and the same.

Think about it. There is no basis, at all, for drawing a line between the two questions. What determines right or wrong in the first place is the desirability of the outcome. Hence, getting into Heaven, being the most desirable outcome, is the basis for determining whether any given deed is right or wrong.

DD: “Instead, we are forced to rely on what men say God’s will is – and no, it does not help that some other men have gotten together and voted to declare certain of their brethren to be infallible and inspired prophets and apostles.”

Good observation. Until Vox actually manages to prove that God exists, then all that so-called god-given morality originates from mortal men.