(April 16, 2012 at 9:35 am)genkaus Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='273199' dateline='1334579345'] ...and who sets these standards? Man, or the society he lives in.. Are all societies morality the same? no they are not. Can some societies standards be judged more sinful than others? Even by the non religious?? Yes.

Quote:A man chooses what moral code he lives by. A society's moral code is chosen by what its members agree on. One society's moral code can be judged according to another society's - which would result in it being regarded as more or less sinful. For example. my moral code says that the christian morality is extremely sinful.

Indeed then by that definition and omission you assessment of morality is the same as the biblical one: Morality is man's attempt to establish a righteous standard based on the sin he or the society he lives in is willing to except Incorporated into that standard. Do you want me to break it down and show you how you have accepted the biblical defination of morality?

Quote:Wrong. Morality is not changing - there are simply different moralities.

So you believe in one's society Morality never changes?

Quote:There is morality of one society as opposed to the morality of another, irrespective of whether those societies are separated by space or time.

I guess that answers my question. Now i will ask, do you think the morality of 1930's and 40's Germany is the same or different as modern day germeny?? Do you think the morality of 1950's and 60' America is the same or different than now? If no then apparently you are not, nor do you know any Jewish, gay, or black people. Because popular morality that governed those societies in those time periods mentioned, are a far cry from where they are now. Murder the 'uncrossable line' in your understanding of morality, was not only encouraged but frequently visited upon these social groups of people. to the tune of millions.

Quote:You are the one changing the definition to suit your purpose.

Here are the accepted definitions of righteousness:

- adhering to moral principles (wordnetweb.princeton.edu)
- noun
1. the quality or state of being righteous.
2. righteous conduct.
3. the quality or state of being just or rightful: They came to realize the righteousness of her position on the matter.

- righteous (Dictionary.com)
— adj
1. a. characterized by, proceeding from, or in accordance with accepted standards of morality, justice, or uprightness; virtuous: a righteous man
b. ( as collective noun ; preceded by the ): the righteous
2. morally justifiable or right, esp from one's own point of view: righteous indignation


Which definition are you using?

You are making my argument for me. either you do not understand what is being discussed here or you are simply not equip to represent your position. If you read my opening Post I identify two understandings of the word morality, one that the popular culture has embraced and the other is a biblically back understanding of the word.

Quote:If you'd actually bothered to read any of the other threads, you'd know that I live in India - not a western society. I'm debating on a forum populated by westerners, which would automatically take me out of my comfort zone and right in the middle of another culture.

Debating in a forum has nothing to do with living in a foreign society and adopting their morality as your own. (As per the orginal comment made) Bottom line is your in India and shout your idea of morality to anyone with an opposing view. If you are not careful you will adopt the mentality that has the rest of the world hating the western culture.

BTW just in case you want to know what I am on about, an example of you being forced to adopt a new culture as your own would be if your family was up rooted and place in a different country to live and force to adopt that culture, that way of living, while having your original trivialized and every aspect taken from you. No you get the best of both worlds as it is now. you can sit where you are comfortable and judge from your chair all that is not what you are accustomed to. way to be enlightened.

Quote:In future, please refrain from making any assumptions about me. You just make a fool of yourself. More that usual, that is.

As I just pointed out your location has little to do with your self righteous attitude. It does not matter where you are from. i identified a behavior in what you have said, that places your work accurately in a category that I described "the reason people of the world hate those in the west."
You can pull the "you don't know me card" if you like, but your word thoughts, and deeds have been spilled out all over this thread. Your own work points to the nature of "who you are" I do not have to assume anything. You told me yourself.

(April 16, 2012 at 8:29 am)Drich Wrote: Do you have an example?

Quote:Are you allowed to eat shellfish?

Yes, shell fish, blood sausage, bacon, ham, hamburger, unshelled fish.. what else you got?

(April 16, 2012 at 8:29 am)Drich Wrote: I am not trying to upset the little world you have created for yourself. I am only speaking to those who want biblical clarity. If you wish to live in your moral world then understand I have no issue allowing you to live and die by whatever standard your wish. I am post for those who mistakenly but feel a rightful want to judge God by the morality they have made for themselves.

Quote:No, you are trying to impose your own little world onto everyone else. Forgive us if we don't sit by silently.

Did I interrupt your thread or create my own? Because I created my own know, that it was not my intention to force anyone to address anything I had said. My comments were pointed to only those who wished to question God's actions by their current understanding of morality.

Quote:Secondly, biblical clarity? Give me a break. I don't see the word "Bible" anywhere in the OP or the title. If you'd prefaced your post by saying, "According to the Bible..." my arguments would've been completely different.

As per my introduction and every post since, My sole purpose here is to answer biblically based questions and to provide biblical clarity.
If you would have read ANY of the other posts in this thread with an open mind, this fact would quickly become apparent.

Quote:And thirdly, what relevance does telling us what the Bible means by morality and righteousness have when a) those definitions are subjective and meaningless, b) not accepted by general populace when talking about morality and c) god's actions are clearly sinful (according to the morality that is accepted by the general populace).

Because of "C" Only a fool judges another outside of his standard of living by his standard of living. My efforts are focused on those who truly seek an honest understanding. In that their "standard" of morality is not a standard at all. but a variable based on time culture and perspective.

Which brings up the bigger question: So how can anyone; let alone God, be judged by what is right today in this part of the world, when tomorrow or just a few thousand miles away all of that can change? In that situation who would be the one to correctly judge God? the guys that says it is ok kill gay people in an earth quake or the guy praying for his gay brother in said quake? That is why if you are to judge God then it has to be by an absolute standard, like the one Given in the bible.

Quote:All you are doing is forcing your stupidity on everyone. Sorry, but I'm not going to let that stand either. Countering lies and foolishness under the guise of an intellectual debate is a part of my moral code.

I honestly don't think you know what is being discussed. Perhaps if you asked a few more questions i could help provide you with a better idea of what is going on.

---

(April 16, 2012 at 9:48 am)tobie Wrote: There are various ( scientific ) explanations on why we humans have morals. Some say that it is a side effect of evolution. Incest, for example, is taboo because it can cause genetic defects, and so will be detrimental to the species ( as seen in any royal family ). The behaviour that generally classifies as moral evolved because they offer some evolutionary benefit.
Other theories and tests suggest that morality is due to empathy, which is also supported by mental illnesses that cause immoral behaviour, such as psychopathy, which is largely characterised by a lack of empathy.

In my opinion, it is much more likely that religion comes from morality, and a lack of understanding of it and other things, than vice versa.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 16, 2012 at 9:48 am)tobie Wrote: There are various ( scientific ) explanations on why we humans have morals. Some say that it is a side effect of evolution. Incest, for example, is taboo because it can cause genetic defects, and so will be detrimental to the species ( as seen in any royal family ). The behaviour that generally classifies as moral evolved because they offer some evolutionary benefit.
Other theories and tests suggest that morality is due to empathy, which is also supported by mental illnesses that cause immoral behaviour, such as psychopathy, which is largely characterised by a lack of empathy.

In my opinion, it is much more likely that religion comes from morality, and a lack of understanding of it and other things, than vice versa.

What do you mean "back to topic" you silly little man? He just gave you a very in-depth and honest analysis of possible reasons why morality exists which is essentially the crux of the subject matter.
Look, if you haven't got a decent response thats *fine*. Just stop crying, take off the dress, man up and just say "fair point".

---

(April 16, 2012 at 9:48 am)tobie Wrote: There are various ( scientific ) explanations on why we humans have morals. Some say that it is a side effect of evolution. Incest, for example, is taboo because it can cause genetic defects, and so will be detrimental to the species ( as seen in any royal family ). The behaviour that generally classifies as moral evolved because they offer some evolutionary benefit.

Other theories and tests suggest that morality is due to empathy, which is also supported by mental illnesses that cause immoral behaviour, such as psychopathy, which is largely characterised by a lack of empathy.

In my opinion, it is much more likely that religion comes from morality, and a lack of understanding of it and other things, than vice versa.

Quote:BUT here in lies the problem
using the bible/gods word as an infallible standand of morality is completey fucked. you have a mind please use it. you know that killing is wrong most of the time, that shit is self evident like CoH is saying.

Again it is wrong depending on where and when you have lived.

Unless you goto an absolute standard which says Murder is always wrong.

Quote: but your god has supposedly killed off entire cities. thats a huge contradiction(insert starburst ad here).

Because death or causing death in of itself is not a sin. It is the unsanctioned taking of life that makes killing Murder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i guess i could've gone a little deeper. i didn't say murder is always wrong, there is most def. times to kill.
but i cant think of a single instance where genocide is moral, which is what god supposedly did. and just accepting that as being ok because it was sanctioned by god says a lot about you. it says you are immoral. by any societal standard. unless there is some society who's entire population is made of psychopaths.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:youve discussed slavery already and came to the conclusion that its an analogy used to understand your faith more. but in reality slavery is not moral, the things slavery have accomplished is not a valid arguement.

"Slavery" is a term used in western societies to describe the actions of men living in dark ages to about the mid 1860's. This is not the biblical definition of the term. If you were to only look at what is being described in biblical slavery you would see that everyone who has a job is a slave, every man who has some sort of monthly payment to be a slave, anyone who is apart of a family to be a slave. Anyone who sins as being a bond servant/slave to that sin. We are all slaves all of the time. Western Society doesn't want any rules or regulations telling the slave owners how to manage the people in their care. Which is infact what the bible has done. You see, all "we" had to do is change the meaning of the word, and people like you will not even look to consider what has been done for any of us under the authority of another. Ironically by doing so you bind yourself tighter to the society that has done so much to enslave you to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i really do understand what your explaining about slavery here. this is first time i have understood the bible in that context. thanks for being the first one to put that into a meaningful explanation, and it does make sense. but what you've done is look at one part and not the other. yes we are slaves to certain things, work, societal norms, familys so on. but there are things in the bible that cant be misconstrued or explained away by analogies or minimized because "slave also meant this". because there are parts that talk about slaves in the exact same context as western society would consider them by any standard.
"The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
there is so much in just this passage,... ethnocentrism, slavery, the idea of land ownership. these are all very western ideas btw.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:the bible supports slavery, but this is not moral, its really self evident. basically mans morality changes as it advances, gods does not and this holds back humanity on a shit ton of levels.

What God has done is freed us. Yes we are now bond to Him but under Him our load is light our burdens are gone. By the standards of society of morals you are bound to act, think, and believe a certain way otherwise you are ostracized. Take the time to read some of your peers comments and tell me this is not true. I made the effort to start my own thread, and look at the need and compulsion to preserve the societal idea of morality. (As to not intrude on anyone elses thoughts) Look at the lengths people have gone to trivialize and dismiss what is being said here.. Why? Because you all are bound like slaves to thinking a very specific way, and if anyone opposes the way any of you think, all of these "enlightened free thinking minds" look to tear apart and destroy anyone or any thing that speaks against your societal masters.

That is why the perservation of "morality" is so important as the king of the good standard. This allows you all to judge any thing and any one not living in your scope of the world.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you've kinda made an ignorance is bliss statement here. not being burdened by thinking and changing and evolving, advancing forward and bringing up your fellow human being to the next level. (which is probably what you think your doing, and makes it s own statement about purpose) bring people up to that next level takes effort and most of the times it requires breaking with societal norms. which i feel like you have forgotten that it is atheism is not in within these norms, you and your beliefs are. atheist are the ones ostracized from society. you just happened to be in atheist territory surrounded, so its understandable you would be defensive, as we are also because we always find ourselves on the defensive. moral evolution has an ebb and flow, its doing that as we discuss it right now. but i would think its safe to say it has progressed forward, maybe even because of the bible, but what you believe in is a hinderance to society moving forward.
you say that god takes away your burdens and lightens your load. i could be wrong but maybe you haven't considered that understanding that there is no god is a gigantic burden lifted off you shoulders, the freeing nature of non belief on your mind is indescribable. you see the world for what it is and things make more sense. a lot also doesn't but not in an ignorance is bliss way. those things you don't understand make you want to know more. (did that sound gay?LOL. o well)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(April 16, 2012 at 9:48 am)tobie Wrote: There are various ( scientific ) explanations on why we humans have morals. Some say that it is a side effect of evolution. Incest, for example, is taboo because it can cause genetic defects, and so will be detrimental to the species ( as seen in any royal family ). The behaviour that generally classifies as moral evolved because they offer some evolutionary benefit.

Other theories and tests suggest that morality is due to empathy, which is also supported by mental illnesses that cause immoral behaviour, such as psychopathy, which is largely characterised by a lack of empathy.

In my opinion, it is much more likely that religion comes from morality, and a lack of understanding of it and other things, than vice versa.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, this
in reality man wrote the bible as a moral code which probably was kinda useful then but society has moved on, or at least is trying to.

so if i could try to summarize where we are at here for you,( ill probably fuck this up but whatev)
you've done your part of explaining that xtains(which autocorrects to stains! holy fuck thats awesome) believe gods morals are the absolute unchanging standard.
you have said that mans morality "changes" , in some way shape or form most here agree. it changes. CoH maintains that its constant, i would tend to agree with that but only the part about "we shouldn't go killing motherfuckers fo no reason an shit". that has more than likely been with us since we've been on earth.
we are saying(or at least i am) moral change is good and necessary.
and also that god doesn't exist so your unchanging standard got no legs...

other problems-
by gods own standards god is immoral
you accept this
you seem to think there is nothing wrong with accepting this
you seem to think that us not accepting this is us conforming to societal norms like slaves
in some fucking kind of paradox, what you believe is the norm(that hurt to type)
we are all bound to societal norms
they change
yours dont

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Indeed then by that definition and omission you assessment of morality is the same as the biblical one: Morality is man's attempt to establish a righteous standard based on the sin he or the society he lives in is willing to except Incorporated into that standard. Do you want me to break it down and show you how you have accepted the biblical defination of morality?

Please, start by providing the bible quotes and verses that define morality and righteousness. Not just verses you think you can interpret their meanings from.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: So you believe in one's society Morality never changes?

No, different moralities are accepted by society in different times.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: I guess that answers my question. Now i will ask, do you think the morality of 1930's and 40's Germany is the same or different as modern day germeny?? Do you think the morality of 1950's and 60' America is the same or different than now? If no then apparently you are not, nor do you know any Jewish, gay, or black people. Because popular morality that governed those societies in those time periods mentioned, are a far cry from where they are now. Murder the 'uncrossable line' in your understanding of morality, was not only encouraged but frequently visited upon these social groups of people. to the tune of millions.

Do you actually understand what I say or are my arguments too subtle and nuanced for your comprehension. Ofcourse they are different. They are two different moralities separated by time - exactly like I said just before.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: You are making my argument for me. either you do not understand what is being discussed here or you are simply not equip to represent your position. If you read my opening Post I identify two understandings of the word morality, one that the popular culture has embraced and the other is a biblically back understanding of the word.visited upon these social groups of people. to the tune of millions.

It seems like you don't read your own posts.

Look back on your original post yourself and see if you used the word "popular" or "biblical" anywhere.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Debating in a forum has nothing to do with living in a foreign society and adopting their morality as your own. (As per the orginal comment made) Bottom line is your in India and shout your idea of morality to anyone with an opposing view. If you are not careful you will adopt the mentality that has the rest of the world hating the western culture.

Read your own damn posts, moron. The original post was me adopting another culture, not another morality. And debating with westerners has a lot to do with adopting - or atleast being familiar with - their culture. I wouldn't be able to debate them well if I know nothing about their culture.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: BTW just in case you want to know what I am on about, an example of you being forced to adopt a new culture as your own would be if your family was up rooted and place in a different country to live and force to adopt that culture, that way of living, while having your original trivialized and every aspect taken from you. No you get the best of both worlds as it is now. you can sit where you are comfortable and judge from your chair all that is not what you are accustomed to. way to be enlightened.

Is that how they do it in your country when someone from another culture comes along? Remind me to stay away from that shithole. Let me tell you something. There are some aspects of my heritage that I like and others that I don't. Those I don't like, I've discarded myself. And those I like, no change in country would make me give that up.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: As I just pointed out your location has little to do with your self righteous attitude. It does not matter where you are from. i identified a behavior in what you have said, that places your work accurately in a category that I described "the reason people of the world hate those in the west."
You can pull the "you don't know me card" if you like, but your word thoughts, and deeds have been spilled out all over this thread. Your own work points to the nature of "who you are" I do not have to assume anything. You told me yourself.

Must I keep reminding you of the arguments you yourself make? You accused me of narrow-mindedness with the premise that I'm based in the West. I'm not based in the West and by your standard, anyone who has lived in the same country his whole life is narrow-minded. You seem to have some sort of allergy to actually opening a dictionary and seeing what words actually mean.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Yes, shell fish, blood sausage, bacon, ham, hamburger, unshelled fish.. what else you got?

You weren't allowed to before. It seems that your god's morality does change.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Did I interrupt your thread or create my own? Because I created my own know, that it was not my intention to force anyone to address anything I had said. My comments were pointed to only those who wished to question God's actions by their current understanding of morality.

And they were wrong. Enter me to point out the errors.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: As per my introduction and every post since, My sole purpose here is to answer biblically based questions and to provide biblical clarity.
If you would have read ANY of the other posts in this thread with an open mind, this fact would quickly become apparent.

Read your own fucking original post, you brainwashed bible-thumper and see if the word bible occurs anywhere in it.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Because of "C" Only a fool judges another outside of his standard of living by his standard of living. My efforts are focused on those who truly seek an honest understanding. In that their "standard" of morality is not a standard at all. but a variable based on time culture and perspective.

A standard of living is not a standard of morality. Your god's standard of morality is clearly inferior to modern man's.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Which brings up the bigger question: So how can anyone; let alone God, be judged by what is right today in this part of the world, when tomorrow or just a few thousand miles away all of that can change? In that situation who would be the one to correctly judge God? the guys that says it is ok kill gay people in an earth quake or the guy praying for his gay brother in said quake? That is why if you are to judge God then it has to be by an absolute standard, like the one Given in the bible.

Because a) Any judgment being passed and accepted is consented to by both parties and b) morality given in the bible is anything but absolute.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: I honestly don't think you know what is being discussed. Perhaps if you asked a few more questions i could help provide you with a better idea of what is going on.

Sure I do. You are providing biblical redefinitions of words such as morality and righteousness according to your subjective interpretation of the bible while completely ignoring their objectively established and accepted meanings, all the while never acknowledging the distinction between the two and therefore laying the basis for future "fallacies of equivocation" whenever morality would be discussed.

I'm correcting you.

I haven't read this thread because I simply can't be bothered.

The identification of the first post "Drich" and last post "genkaus" told me everything I needed to know - the merciless taking apart of a christian, is contained within.

(April 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Yes, shell fish, blood sausage, bacon, ham, hamburger, unshelled fish.. what else you got?

You weren't allowed to before. It seems that your god's morality does change.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Because of "C" Only a fool judges another outside of his standard of living by his standard of living. My efforts are focused on those who truly seek an honest understanding. In that their "standard" of morality is not a standard at all. but a variable based on time culture and perspective.

A standard of living is not a standard of morality. Your god's standard of morality is clearly inferior to modern man's.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Which brings up the bigger question: So how can anyone; let alone God, be judged by what is right today in this part of the world, when tomorrow or just a few thousand miles away all of that can change? In that situation who would be the one to correctly judge God? the guys that says it is ok kill gay people in an earth quake or the guy praying for his gay brother in said quake? That is why if you are to judge God then it has to be by an absolute standard, like the one Given in the bible.

Because a) Any judgment being passed and accepted is consented to by both parties and b) morality given in the bible is anything but absolute.

(April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: I honestly don't think you know what is being discussed. Perhaps if you asked a few more questions i could help provide you with a better idea of what is going on.

Sure I do. You are providing biblical redefinitions of words such as morality and righteousness according to your subjective interpretation of the bible while completely ignoring their objectively established and accepted meanings, all the while never acknowledging the distinction between the two and therefore laying the basis for future "fallacies of equivocation" whenever morality would be discussed.

I'm correcting you.

(April 16, 2012 at 7:08 am)frankiej Wrote:

(April 16, 2012 at 4:15 am)Kratos Wrote: BTW Godless progress is patroned by the demon Astaroth.

I take it you mean the big guy from the Soul Caliber games, yeah?

No Astaroth started out as the Greek Godess Astarte and over time given a sex change and demonized into Astaroth. Set was an ancient Egyption God that had the head of a goat. The new empire had Ra the sun God and Set was demonized probably evolved into Satan. Abrahamic religions have there roots in Egypt.
BTW a big astroid is on it's way called Apophis (the serpent messenger to Set). Was Apophis the serpent in the garden of Eden? Freaky.

Can we have some evidence please?

(April 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm)Kratos Wrote:

(April 16, 2012 at 7:08 am)frankiej Wrote:

(April 16, 2012 at 4:15 am)Kratos Wrote: BTW Godless progress is patroned by the demon Astaroth.

I take it you mean the big guy from the Soul Caliber games, yeah?

No Astaroth started out as the Greek Godess Astarte and over time given a sex change and demonized into Astaroth. Set was an ancient Egyption God that had the head of a goat. The new empire had Ra the sun God and Set was demonized probably evolved into Satan. Abrahamic religions have there roots in Egypt.
BTW a big astroid is on it's way called Apophis (the serpent messenger to Set). Was Apophis the serpent in the garden of Eden? Freaky.

How is it freaky?

(April 16, 2012 at 5:33 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: I haven't read this thread because I simply can't be bothered.

The identification of the first post "Drich" and last post "genkaus" told me everything I needed to know - the merciless taking apart of a christian, is contained within.

Skimmed through myself.

Drich is fun to 'challenge' as answers to specified questions never happens. There appears the common drivel that xtians follow (always amusing and sad) Then the humility which is 'expected' from xtians as they humble themselves before their fairytale, is no where to be had when the match has already been won.

I from other forums would call it the la la la la I'm not listening; syndrome.

Also from Star Trek NG - resistance is futile.