(September 16, 2012 at 12:50 am)IATIA Wrote: Have you actually read the bible? The murder and mayhem done in the name and at the command of that tyrannical monster is beyond any atrocities committed by man alone. That monster of the bible is sick and demented.

If you have read the bible from cover to cover then you must agree as such.

I will try and simplify this respectfully if I over simplify something it is not to be taken as a sign of disrespect.

God does not live to a good standard in order to be considered good. "Good" is a term that can be defined as 'God like.' Now put out of your mind your current understanding of Good. Now substitute it for Anything God decides to do. Whatever that is God's 'good' standard or Righteousness. Even if it is smashing babies against rocks or killing entire races of people. Why? Because Good is not a universal standard in which to measure God. God is the good standard.

Now you may ask why can god do these things but when you do them it is considered evil. In short, you are not God. God reserves the right to be able to do with His creation whatever is in His will.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: This would have made a good arguement if you lead with it, but as it is this effort seems like a desperate attempt to salvage your personal pride.

The validity of an argument is not changed by the time of its making. Besides, I don't need to salvage anything, I am winning this argument.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: Only if you wish to also dismiss an accurate protrayal of the relationship between righteousness and 'morality.'

An accurate portrayal would be that they are synonymous.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: Defination1B says otherwise. Can't you admit when you are wrong and been shown to be a fool for argueing reference material? If no, then simply remain silent. It is better to be thought of as a fool, than open say/write something and prove everyone right. The Lexicon plainly says Righteousness is an attribute of God. Defination 1B Nothing elses needs to be said here.'

Where is definition 1B is morality mentions? Don't embarrass yourself by trying to muddle the issue. That the bible states that being righteous (morally upright) is an attribute of god was never disputed. What is being disputed is your statement that being righteous and being moral are two different things.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: Nuh-uh.

Yeah-uh.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: I have pointed out several times in this thread that 'Morality" Is mans attemp at his own version of righteousness. I even pointed to the 'Self Righteousness' needed to judge God. to which you have even given a heart felt example.... Do you still need me to spell it out for you or do you get it yet???

I need you to give me evidence to support the statement that "morality is man's attempt at righteousness", which would lead you to conclude that it is something other than righteousness. Everywhere, in the bible, in the lexicon and in the dictionary, there has been no statement that would lead to that conclusion. Your repeating it doesn't make it so.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: Man's Morality is what the bible/Christ refers to as Self righteousness. This behaivor is catagorically condemned across the board by Christ through several parables that he taught. For the sin we are willing to accept or to incorperate into our lives like gossip, white lies or even something as big as homosexuality, has been deemed unacceptable by God and His stated righteousness. So inorder for one to accept these sins as accepted or moral behaivor, then one must have a righteousness apart from God. this 'righteousness' is often derived from one's self or the community in which he chooses to live.

Show me where morality is referred to as something different than righteousness. All your statement says is that a man's righteousness (morality) - which he'd correctly refer to as his self-righteousness - is different from god's righteousness (morality)- which god would refer to his self-righteousness. Our morality may be unacceptable to your god's righteousness (morality) and his morality is unacceptable to us.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: No it is not for i have just shown you where man's 'Morality' differs from God's stated righteousness. therefore the two words are Not ALWAYS synomous. There are 'moral acts to be considered righteous, but not all of man's morality is compatiable with Godly Righteousness. Therefore the two words can not be used interchangably. Not by an honest man anyway.

No, you haven't shown that because you have shown no instance where morality was used distinctly and irreconcilably for righteousness. Every instance that have been given show that the words can and are used interchangeably.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: Indeed it does in that all the things listed must comply with the standards of God. Read the defination and the suplimentary materials on the linked page again.

Sorry, the lexicon makes no indication that the other things must comply to god's standards. Your bible does - but that is irrelevant to the discussion of ethics.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: Not even close. The on page defination does not support your assertion. reset and try again this time use the on page definations and commentary. otherwise know your commentary will be rightfully trivilized and dismissed.

Yes it does - since in common understanding the words are used synonymously and your lexicon provides no contradiction.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: So you believe yourself to be on par with God?

Ofcourse not. I'm much better than your god. After all, I'm not an egomaniacal, genocidal lunatic.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: And because God has the authority to dictate righteousness, you do as well?

It is because I believe that no one has the authority to dictate righteousness to anyone else that I am so much better than your god.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:41 am)Drich Wrote: Goodluck with trying to sell God on that one.

I have no need to sell a figment of imagination on anything. Those who buy that figment should know that by now.

---

(September 16, 2012 at 1:03 am)Drich Wrote: I will try and simplify this respectfully if I over simplify something it is not to be taken as a sign of disrespect.

God does not live to a good standard in order to be considered good. "Good" is a term that can be defined as 'God like.' Now put out of your mind your current understanding of Good. Now substitute it for Anything God decides to do. Whatever that is God's 'good' standard or Righteousness. Even if it is smashing babies against rocks or killing entire races of people. Why? Because Good is not a universal standard in which to measure God. God is the good standard.

Now you may ask why can god do these things but when you do them it is considered evil. In short, you are not God. God reserves the right to be able to do with His creation whatever is in His will.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why not only the god of bible is sick and demented, but his followers are as well.

@Drich

hock:

Yeah right. It all just falls in with it's "Love me or I will rip your heart out and cast you into the lake of fire".

It is quite obvious that you are fully brainwashed and beyond any help that can be had. I am sorry for you, but cheer up, things could be worse. You could have been a participant in one of it's games.

[quote='genkaus' pid='337111' dateline='1347772262']
[quote]Where is definition 1B is morality mentions? Don't embarrass yourself by trying to muddle the issue. That the bible states that being righteous (morally upright) is an attribute of god was never disputed. What is being disputed is your statement that being righteous and being moral are two different things. [/quote]
Then if you are making the claim that Righteousness and morality are the same then show me. Showm me one place where morality is mentioned in the bible. I have told you where God has identified righteousness apart from His own as personal or self righteousness. Now you show me where your version of morality/righteousness (because you can used them interchangably) is recognized and accepted by God.

[quote]Yeah-uh. [/quote]
This is what your arguement is reduced to if you can not support it with the correct data.

[quote]I need you to give me evidence to support the statement that "morality is man's attempt at righteousness", which would lead you to conclude that it is something other than righteousness. Everywhere, in the bible, in the lexicon and in the dictionary, there has been no statement that would lead to that conclusion. Your repeating it doesn't make it so. [/quote] Here is the simple logic that man's morality and God's Righteousness are two different things.
Morality is subjective and subject to change from culture to culture or even from generation to generation. God's righteousness Does not Change. The fact that morality is subject to change puts morality in a different catagory than unchanging righteousness of God.

Christ tells several parables and condemns those who change God's will/law or abuses His grace to their own gain. I can give you the parables to read indivisually and explain them or you can read this commentary on self righteousness or 'morality created outside of the Express will of God.
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVartic...usness.htm


[quote]Show me where morality is referred to as something different than righteousness. [/quote]Again you first show me where the bible even identifies and accepts 'morality.'

[quote]All your statement says is that a man's righteousness (morality) - which he'd correctly refer to as his self-righteousness - is different from god's righteousness (morality)- which god would refer to his self-righteousness. Our morality may be unacceptable to your god's righteousness (morality) and his morality is unacceptable to us. [/quote]
My statement says that their is a difference between morality and God's Righteousness. To tie that back into the OP "God is immoral" completes what it is I have to say. In that it does not matter how 'moral' man chooses to judge that actions of God. Because his standard is corrupt.

[quote]No, you haven't shown that because you have shown no instance where morality was used distinctly and irreconcilably for righteousness. [/quote]Because morality is not even recognized by the bible. You are claiming equal footing then it is on you to show that the bible claims this. I am saying morality is such a crap standard that their is no mention of it outside of the break down of self righteousness which is condemned.

[quote]Every instance that have been given show that the words can and are used interchangeably. [/quote]then show me
Proove it. Book Chapter and Verse Please.

[quote]Yes it does - since in common understanding the words are used synonymously and your lexicon provides no contradiction. [/quote]see the above statement.

[quote]And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why not only the god of bible is sick and demented, but his followers are as well.[/quote]Which is why you have been given this life, so you can choose whether or not you want to spend eternity with a beng like this. Subsequently this is also why once you make that choice you will be held to it for eternity.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: Then if you are making the claim that Righteousness and morality are the same then show me. Showm me one place where morality is mentioned in the bible. I have told you where God has identified righteousness apart from His own as personal or self righteousness. Now you show me where your version of morality/righteousness (because you can used them interchangably) is recognized and accepted by God.

It's not actually. Which lends even more credence to my claim. Because morality and righteousness mean the same thing, the translations use the same word wherever both are applicable.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: This is what your arguement is reduced to if you can not support it with the correct data.

Actually, if you look one post back, that is what your argument was reduced to. I just responded in kind.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: Here is the simple logic that man's morality and God's Righteousness are two different things.
Morality is subjective and subject to change from culture to culture or even from generation to generation. God's righteousness Does not Change. The fact that morality is subject to change puts morality in a different catagory than unchanging righteousness of God.

You should really learn some logic. That should stop you from making these embarrassing mistakes. Here's your argument in a different form.

Morality is subjective and subject to change from culture to culture or even generation to generation. My "way of life" Does not Change. The fact that morality is subject to change puts it in a different category that unchanging "way of life" that is mine.

NO, IT DOESN'T. It is just another type of morality. If it is dependent on the entity, like god's righteousness is dependent on the fictional being, then it is subjective. Being unchanging does not objective make. In fact, if morality is dependent upon the individual identity of the society/generation/culture/person then you should not expect it to change unless the identity changes as well. Thus, your god's righteousness neatly fits into the category of morality.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: Christ tells several parables and condemns those who change God's will/law or abuses His grace to their own gain. I can give you the parables to read indivisually and explain them or you can read this commentary on self righteousness or 'morality created outside of the Express will of God.
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVartic...usness.htm

Don't bother. I don't give a shit about what some bronze age carpenter supposedly said.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: Again you first show me where the bible even identifies and accepts 'morality.'

It doesn't, because it means the same thing as righteousness.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: My statement says that their is a difference between morality and God's Righteousness. To tie that back into the OP "God is immoral" completes what it is I have to say. In that it does not matter how 'moral' man chooses to judge that actions of God. Because his standard is corrupt.'

And that is why your statement is wrong. There is no difference between morality and god's righteousness because god's righteousness is a type of morality. And to establish a particular one as corrupt. you first have to prove that it is.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: Because morality is not even recognized by the bible.

Because, since it means the same thing as righteousness, two different words are avoided so as not to confuse stupid readers like you.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: You are claiming equal footing then it is on you to show that the bible claims this.

I'm saying that the bible claims no such thing. I'm sayaing that the dictionary does and neither the bible, nor the biblical lexicon contradicts.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: I am saying morality is such a crap standard that their is no mention of it outside of the break down of self righteousness which is condemned.

And I'm saying that you are wrong since self-rigteousness and righteousness are simply two other words for morality.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: then show me
Proove it. Book Chapter and Verse Please.

Not in the bible you moron, but everywhere else.

Quote:Yes it does - since in common understanding the words are used synonymously and your lexicon provides no contradiction.

see the above statement.

(September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am)Drich Wrote: Which is why you have been given this life, so you can choose whether or not you want to spend eternity with a beng like this. Subsequently this is also why once you make that choice you will be held to it for eternity.

That's a steaming pile of crap. I wasn't given life, since there is no giver. I simply had it. And I won't hold on to it for eternity.

Hi Drich,

I know the discussion has moved on a bit but I've only just caught up. I have a further response which undermines your argument entirely.

Quote:God is not the source of morality. God is the source of true Righteousness. Morlity is man's attempt at said Righteousness.

All that does is make my sentence read like this: "if God is the source of righteousness then righteousness isn't objective as it's subject to God's will; if righteousness is not subject to God's will then it may or may not be objective but God can't be the source."

...which still leaves you with the problem of special pleading.

Quote:That makes God's express will absolute and unchanging

No it doesn't because God has changed his mind, according to the bible, on a number of matters. If he can change his mind about one thing, he can change his mind about anything. Consequently God's will is relative and changeable.

Quote:God does not live to a good standard in order to be considered good. "Good" is a term that can be defined as 'God like.' Now put out of your mind your current understanding of Good. Now substitute it for Anything God decides to do. Whatever that is God's 'good' standard or Righteousness. Even if it is smashing babies against rocks or killing entire races of people. Why? Because Good is not a universal standard in which to measure God. God is the good standard.

Now you may ask why can god do these things but when you do them it is considered evil. In short, you are not God. God reserves the right to be able to do with His creation whatever is in His will.

Then by your own definition, God is immoral. This type of totalitarian dictatorship can only be immoral. You can try shifting the goalposts by saying 'we should be arguing if God is righteous' but that fails due to a fallacy of definition.

I think the burning question now is would Drich smash babies heads on rocks if he thought God commanded him to do so. I'm pretty sure, however, that I already know the answer.

(September 16, 2012 at 11:53 am)Faith No More Wrote: I think the burning question now is would Drich smash babies heads on rocks if he thought God commanded him to do so. I'm pretty sure, however, that I already know the answer.

I would be more interested in the thoughts going through his head whilst he is dashing the babies heads.

God is good; God is just?

[quote='Ben Davis' pid='337206' dateline='1347806281']
[quote]All that does is make my sentence read like this: "if God is the source of righteousness then righteousness isn't objective[/quote]What do you mean objective?
[quote]
No it doesn't because God has changed his mind, according to the bible, on a number of matters. If he can change his mind about one thing, he can change his mind about anything. Consequently God's will is relative and changeable.[/quote]Then please provide Book Chapter and verse to set the precident for God Changing what He deems righteous.

[quote]Then by your own definition, God is immoral.[/quote]Again, So What? Morality is a man made standard. So what if you can judge God immoral? Who are you? (Note I have alread gone down this road with another, and you should know any answer you give will only renforce the self righteousness needed for man to have his own version of righteousness, apart from God..