Morality

[Kratos]

I have posted this definition several times in past posts.

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.

Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.

Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.

Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.

God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.

Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.

That said know that 'morality' is not the universal standard of good. Morality is a constantly changing to suit the the personal or civil righteousness of a community of people. What once was moral could now be considered a crime, and vise versa.

I say that to help those looking to frame questions based on "morality." Most of the time it is used an absolute standard when in fact it is not.

I'd certainly agree with your definition of morality. As you say morality is not always a universal standard, but the crux of morality is - it is an essential element of our anthropological make-up that allows people to function in a social framework, with basic standards of conduct being expected of those we live with. I don't think this is really something theists and atheists would disagree upon.

Many theologians, and, indeed, agnostic or atheistic philosophers, draw from this the concept of natural law. Which basically just means that universally good standards of human conduct in any society can be arrived at via the use of reason. This is sometimes contrasted with positive law, which is law that derives from some kind of authority and is not necessarily universal to all societies. Though obviously the distinction between the two is not always clear.

For St. Aquinas this "Natural Law" is derived from God's creation by the intellect of man, but does NOT require the revelation of the Church or scripture or even a belief in the Christian God. St. Aquinas termed "divine law" those standards of human conduct that come from God and/or the revelation, for example the virtue of Faith.

My essential point here is that morality derived by man from reason, and morality from the revelation of God (what I understand you to term righteousness) are not two competing standards, one exclusive of the other, but rather are complimentary. The divine law can never contradict natural law (though it may contradict positive law), and visa versa.

Very true, it is good to read some well thought out posts. I hope the Godless horde don't attack you with insults as they do me. They even attack the pope, call him a Nazi trying to take over the world, most corrupt etc these people must be maniacs. The pope only talks of peace on Earth and love and forgiveness etc. I have a sneaking suspicion they are a bunch of Marxist Jews to say such heinous things.

Hey, with your lips pressed so tightly to Drich's ass I'm surprised you can actually see your keyboard. Why don't you unclamp your lips from his buttpucker a little bit, that way you'll actually be able to start doing more than saying shit.

As far as the topic of conversation being discussed...I maintain that morality is universal. Killing and murdering is, always has been, and always will be immoral, and has always been considered as such which is why all societies all the way back to the caveman eras did not just wantonly murder one another and why the earliest laws always tended to start with "don't kill each other." The RANGE of those moralities has certainly changed, sure...and for the better. There's a reason we call primitive humans "barbarians."

What fucking planet do you come from? What do you think war and raiding and conquest is? A game of soccer? If we're not killing each other we're getting off watching carnage on tv. If killing has always been sooo immoral why the Hell has it never stopped? Cause we are all fuckin barbarians.
BTW even cannabalism is morally ok in some places.

---

I'm calling troll on Kratos

No I may not conform very well but to call me a troll? I just have points of view that's all.

---

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?

Just a Jim Carrey expression.

[Drich]

[quote='RaphielDrake' pid='273382' dateline='1334607830']
[quote]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". [/quote]

Again not something being discussed by me. If you wish to have a chicken or the egg discussion on morality then by all means... Sorry, I am not interested.

---

[quote='parttimeprojectionist' pid='273417' dateline='1334610459']
[quote]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] you are correct in that "morality says it is never ok to commit geneocide, until it is.. There are many soceities that have committed genocide and moraly justified their actions by doing so.

A simple honest look at world history will confirm that. Which confrimes my orginal assessment. Morality is a


[quote]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]

Indeed, as they were literal slaves they would have been bought and sold, and they were disiplined as slaves. However that is where the simlarities end. There were a whole host of rules and regulations that governed the treatment and welfare of the slave community, and a whole nother set of rule governing jewish slaves. People in those times in exchange for room board, safty of their families, for marriage rights, and land grabs, live stock, to learn a trade, and just about anything else you could imagine sold themselves and their whole families into slavery for up to 7 years at a time as a way to barter for things they wanted from the Haves/rich.

You can not look at one aspect of what you understand to be "slavery" and not look at the whole picture if you want to make an honest assessment.

[quote] 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. [/quote]
Without a solid knoweledge of the standards in which we came how can we know we are moving UP to the next level and not Down to the next level? Or is simple movement good enough in your estimation?

[quote]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. [/quote] Not even close Christianity is the only social group that is acceptiable to be openly bigottedly hateful against.

[quote]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. [/quote]My fazther is an atheist and has never had to defend what he believes to anyone that he himself did not engauge. I on the other hand am subject to "pop quizes" any time i am at home or in public. You have that very same ablity to be anomious if you wished it for yourself. The only reason you all feel challenged is because you challenge those or will not allow those who think differently than you do the freedom to do so.

[quote]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. [/quote]
Then you truly and most sincerily do not understand what i believe. For through the attonement offered by Christ we are free from a works based righteousness, to embrace Morality as we can best understand it. You on the other hand wish to tie your "goodness" to a strict adhearance to your current moral standard. In the name of moving forward into legalistic soceity that demands it's citizens to obey a very tightly defined sense of morality. (Kinda like what they have in India and their cast systems.) That does not allow thought that opposes what has been deemed morally acceptable.

[quote]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.[/quote]If you see God as a burden then you do not understand Christianity and the nature of the life you live without him.

[quote]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)[/quote] One of the reason I answer your questions is because i ran out of questions on my own. I want to know more but there isn't any more that i know to ask. I answer the questions I have asked before or see an interest in asking for the first time. If you are wanting answers then "your pitching for the wrong team."

[Drich]

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?

Lev 19 is a good place to start It shows and explains in detail God's Righteousness (The absolute and perfect standard of God) against the contrast of the morality that governed the people.
The entire chapter is a back and fourth between the standards of God and what men are to do (or how they can be morally responsible) when they fail to meet that standard.

Christ in his woes to The Pharisees Mat 23 show the short comings in the morality of the Pharisees. He points out the hypocrisy and their failed attempt to maintain God's standard, by rewriting their own versions of God's law so they could meet it, and yet they still fail to meet this new lower standard/morality based in the same self righteousness that drives our need to build a low moral standard for ourselves today.

How deep do you want to go because next i can issue reading assignments for you and we can build on principles together.

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

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

Then there is little more to say. If you can not or will not accept the change in the moral disposition of Pre WWII and Post WWII Germany In this most extreme case than you are intentionally being obstinate or you truly do not have a fundamental grasp of the English language.

Either way you have fundamentally ended this conversation.

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 Germany?? 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. Of course they are different. They are two different moralities separated by time - exactly like I said just before.

Then if they are different Morality is not an absolute standard as you have pronounced many times thus far. Morality is a variable by definition.

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

I have posted this definition several times in past posts.

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.

Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.

Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.

Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.

God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.
That said know that 'morality' is not the universal standard of good. Morality is a constantly changing to suit the the personal or civil righteousness of a community of people. What once was moral could now be considered a crime, and vise versa.

I say that to help those looking to frame questions based on "morality." Most of the time it is used an absolute standard when in fact it is not.

I see it just fine why can't you? Maybe if I put it in bold letters for you (that means darker than the other letters)

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 at least being familiar with - their culture. I wouldn't be able to debate them well if I know nothing about their culture.

apparently not, for the idea of a forum is for one (The OP) to start a thread by posting a very general idea and for others to contribute or question the original thread. As we are more than 7 pages into this discussion the original Post has changed and been modified to address and questions concerns or holes that you all have seen fit to bring up. So to default to the original post as if it were some holy unchangeable text must be something that is tied to your culture and/or current understanding of western culture preventing you from "debating them well."

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

Because "morality" is a term that describes Change I would be inclined to agree.

b) morality given in the bible is anything but absolute.

Agree because even morality as per the two verses I left earlier prove " morality even found in the bible is an ever changing standard. (Hence the Rebukes of Christ to the moral standards set fourth by the Pharisees)

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.

absolutely not. this is what happens if you do not read anything besides the OP. Again the point of a thread is to develop and evolve a thought past the original starting points.

I have made every effort to acknowledge Popular morality but your single minded argument will not allow the amendment that i have made to supplement the OP. The amendments don't change the OP it Points to unspoken or underdeveloped areas such as the need to clarify the acknowledgment and segregation between popular morality and biblically identified moral efforts.

The short comings here can be identified by you not allowing the conversation on my end to progress beyond Your Personal Interpretation of the OP. all the while you are gathering and changing information and building onto your current argument. Which seems to be yet another way for an enlightened man to close his mind for the sake of his wounded pride.

[Creed of Heresy]

Kratos, I'm going to drop the contempt I generally feel for you for a brief moment to explain that the reason why warfare is so common is the drive for survival and power, though power is only a means to ensure survival; when you are stronger, you have less risk of being subjugated by outside influences, increasing your odds of survival. The religions of the world have been one of the most common driving influences for war. Not the ONLY reasons...but that's only in modern history. Even still, churches have never hesitated to bless one army or both, calling their reasons for war "divine" and "holy" and "just." War is a plague of humanity but religion has done nothing to suppress it; it has only aggravated it. I will stop short of saying that war is solely caused by religion, because that is simply not true. But religion claims itself to be the righteous guide of humanity and yet there is nothing righteous in almost every single war humanity has waged upon itself. There are a few notable exceptions; drives for independence and freedom, like in the US's war for independence from Great Britain, but those are few and far in between. Drich, you mentioned Manifest Destiny, talking about how it was what resulted in the slaughter of the native Americans. Are you aware WHAT Manifest Destiny even fucking entails? It is basically the "will of Providence;" that the American expansion was THE WILL OF GOD. You shoot yourself in the foot! IT WAS BASICALLY STATING GOD CONDONED THE MURDER OF NATIVE AMERICANS for the goal of expanding American influence! AND YOU TWO STILL CLAIM THAT THE IDEA OF GOD IS A RIGHTEOUS INFLUENCE, ARE YOU FUCKING BENT?! Your argument is that moral standards change; no, not all of them! Clearly the moral standard of belief in god is that you can excuse away murder and genocide by simply saying "god told me to do it," and the only times it changes are only when modern society forces it to change kicking and screaming. So by your "logic" if I show up at your house and club you until you're a vegetable and I state that god told me to do it, you'd be COMPLETELY OK with that, right? I mean, you have no way of knowing whether or not I'm telling the truth [which is basically what faith itself is; believing something even if you don't really know whether or not it's true], so you'll have to take me at my word and have faith that god wanted me to beat you into a state of living death.

The pathetic thing is you probably WOULD. ...Well, except, no, you wouldn't, because you'd be a vegetable, so you wouldn't be thinking anything at all, so you wouldn't even be able to accept it. BUT, if you DID, then you might as well completely do absolutely nothing at all in your life whatsoever. After all if god has a plan for you, it'll happen regardless of what you want or don't want, right? If you really think this way, fine, whatever, good on you, and good luck with that, lemme know how it turns out, but stop trying to pretend that mindset makes any rational sense, because it doesn't and it's insulting in a way no slanderous words I could ever dream up could manage to be to people who value the pursuit of rational thought.

God's supposed righteousness should be universal to everyone if he were real, and it should be universal throughout time. But modern society has evolved past the false righteousness of having human beings owning other human beings like livestock and stoning people to death for minor offenses, in direct contradiction to what is supposedly universal righteousness. That advanced societies considers slavery and murder and genocide and cannibalism as abhorrent while primitive, ass-backwards ones consider those things just par for the course is extremely telling about the stance of what is supposedly god's "righteousness." God's "righteousness" is primitive. And for an all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient deity to be primitive and backwards and crude and immoral to a society thousands of years after he supposedly spoke his last words is the MOST telling.

God is a fictional work by barbarians used to exercise power and give legitimacy to weak rulers and unimaginative men. Nothing more. If he were not, then his righteousness would have been far advanced in comparison to the men who worshiped him. But he is not. He revealed no moral or just laws beyond what was acceptable at the time with only the smallest deviations from the current society...and those deviations were, again, only things meant to control individuals, not guide them along a path of love and knowledge but rather bigotry, hatred, and ignorance.

Game. Set. Fucking match. I tire of arguing this same fucking point to every last theist who gets on this forum. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone with a functioning brain and an iota of inquisitive thought and yet every time you ridiculous, blinded fools come onto this site I am exposed to the sickening thought that there are tons of people who apparently lack a functioning brain and/or even an iota of inquisitive thought, who believe whatever tripe if it guarantees them even the smallest inkling of some comfort that there will be life after death.

You trade your curiosity and potential for false comforts. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Both of you. You need lies to feel safe and secure. For someone who realized the lies to be precisely what the are, and who finds comfort in just the joy of experience and life itself, who can live without delusion...you guys are perhaps the most pathetic kinds of individuals. And it makes me unbelievably sad to think that you guys are the majority.

I hope you really learn to question your faiths some day. But if not...then I pity you for your wasted potential.

[Reforged]

Kratos, I'm going to drop the contempt I generally feel for you for a brief moment to explain that the reason why warfare is so common is the drive for survival and power, though power is only a means to ensure survival; when you are stronger, you have less risk of being subjugated by outside influences, increasing your odds of survival. The religions of the world have been one of the most common driving influences for war. Not the ONLY reasons...but that's only in modern history. Even still, churches have never hesitated to bless one army or both, calling their reasons for war "divine" and "holy" and "just." War is a plague of humanity but religion has done nothing to suppress it; it has only aggravated it. I will stop short of saying that war is solely caused by religion, because that is simply not true. But religion claims itself to be the righteous guide of humanity and yet there is nothing righteous in almost every single war humanity has waged upon itself. There are a few notable exceptions; drives for independence and freedom, like in the US's war for independence from Great Britain, but those are few and far in between. Someone mentioned Manifest Destiny, talking about how it was what resulted in the slaughter of the native Americans. Are you aware WHAT Manifest Destiny even fucking entails? It is basically the "will of Providence;" that the American expansion was THE WILL OF GOD. You shoot yourself in the foot! IT WAS BASICALLY STATING GOD CONDONED THE MURDER OF NATIVE AMERICANS for the goal of expanding American influence! AND YOU TWO STILL CLAIM THAT THE IDEA OF GOD IS A RIGHTEOUS INFLUENCE, ARE YOU FUCKING BENT?!

[Kratos]

---

Kratos, I'm going to drop the contempt I generally feel for you for a brief moment to explain that the reason why warfare is so common is the drive for survival and power, though power is only a means to ensure survival; when you are stronger, you have less risk of being subjugated by outside influences, increasing your odds of survival. The religions of the world have been one of the most common driving influences for war. Not the ONLY reasons...but that's only in modern history. Even still, churches have never hesitated to bless one army or both, calling their reasons for war "divine" and "holy" and "just." War is a plague of humanity but religion has done nothing to suppress it; it has only aggravated it. I will stop short of saying that war is solely caused by religion, because that is simply not true. But religion claims itself to be the righteous guide of humanity and yet there is nothing righteous in almost every single war humanity has waged upon itself. There are a few notable exceptions; drives for independence and freedom, like in the US's war for independence from Great Britain, but those are few and far in between. Drich, you mentioned Manifest Destiny, talking about how it was what resulted in the slaughter of the native Americans. Are you aware WHAT Manifest Destiny even fucking entails? It is basically the "will of Providence;" that the American expansion was THE WILL OF GOD. You shoot yourself in the foot! IT WAS BASICALLY STATING GOD CONDONED THE MURDER OF NATIVE AMERICANS for the goal of expanding American influence! AND YOU TWO STILL CLAIM THAT THE IDEA OF GOD IS A RIGHTEOUS INFLUENCE, ARE YOU FUCKING BENT?! Your argument is that moral standards change; no, not all of them! Clearly the moral standard of belief in god is that you can excuse away murder and genocide by simply saying "god told me to do it," and the only times it changes are only when modern society forces it to change kicking and screaming. So by your "logic" if I show up at your house and club you until you're a vegetable and I state that god told me to do it, you'd be COMPLETELY OK with that, right? I mean, you have no way of knowing whether or not I'm telling the truth [which is basically what faith itself is; believing something even if you don't really know whether or not it's true], so you'll have to take me at my word and have faith that god wanted me to beat you into a state of living death.

The pathetic thing is you probably WOULD. ...Well, except, no, you wouldn't, because you'd be a vegetable, so you wouldn't be thinking anything at all, so you wouldn't even be able to accept it. BUT, if you DID, then you might as well completely do absolutely nothing at all in your life whatsoever. After all if god has a plan for you, it'll happen regardless of what you want or don't want, right? If you really think this way, fine, whatever, good on you, and good luck with that, lemme know how it turns out, but stop trying to pretend that mindset makes any rational sense, because it doesn't and it's insulting in a way no slanderous words I could ever dream up could manage to be to people who value the pursuit of rational thought.

God's supposed righteousness should be universal to everyone if he were real, and it should be universal throughout time. But modern society has evolved past the false righteousness of having human beings owning other human beings like livestock and stoning people to death for minor offenses, in direct contradiction to what is supposedly universal righteousness. That advanced societies considers slavery and murder and genocide and cannibalism as abhorrent while primitive, ass-backwards ones consider those things just par for the course is extremely telling about the stance of what is supposedly god's "righteousness." God's "righteousness" is primitive. And for an all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient deity to be primitive and backwards and crude and immoral to a society thousands of years after he supposedly spoke his last words is the MOST telling.

God is a fictional work by barbarians used to exercise power and give legitimacy to weak rulers and unimaginative men. Nothing more. If he were not, then his righteousness would have been far advanced in comparison to the men who worshiped him. But he is not. He revealed no moral or just laws beyond what was acceptable at the time with only the smallest deviations from the current society...and those deviations were, again, only things meant to control individuals, not guide them along a path of love and knowledge but rather bigotry, hatred, and ignorance.

Game. Set. Fucking match. I tire of arguing this same fucking point to every last theist who gets on this forum. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone with a functioning brain and an iota of inquisitive thought and yet every time you ridiculous, blinded fools come onto this site I am exposed to the sickening thought that there are tons of people who apparently lack a functioning brain and/or even an iota of inquisitive thought, who believe whatever tripe if it guarantees them even the smallest inkling of some comfort that there will be life after death.

You trade your curiosity and potential for false comforts. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Both of you. You need lies to feel safe and secure. For someone who realized the lies to be precisely what the are, and who finds comfort in just the joy of experience and life itself, who can live without delusion...you guys are perhaps the most pathetic kinds of individuals. And it makes me unbelievably sad to think that you guys are the majority.

I hope you really learn to question your faiths some day. But if not...then I pity you for your wasted potential.

---

Very long interesting post ,but my belief in God/s are not the ones made up by people. I know that the names of Gods correlate to the sophistication of a civilization. Like the ancient God "A" pronounced arrrhhh from mesopotamia comes from a very primitive people that may have spoken in simple short words, to long complex named Gods in more advanced times. People have used Gods to represent everything but you tend to focus on the evil side. But I think there is something out there I just use God/s because I don't know what it is. How do you explain the ability to see the future? And other psychic powers. I cannot work it out scientifically where does the knowledge come from?

[FallentoReason]

But I think there is something out there I just use God/s because I don't know what it is. How do you explain the ability to see the future? And other psychic powers. I cannot work it out scientifically where does the knowledge come from?

How do you explain rain? If this wasn't the 21st century but some other past time chances are you would have answered with 'god'.

I don't understand this need to want to give everything a reason right here right now. This is especially true with trivial events that play in our favour, like my friend finding his wallet after praying and later claiming it was God's doing that he was able to find it.

Have you ever considered alternative explanations that are actually tangible to reality? Like rain being a part of the cycle that water follows instead of a god blessing the village every now and again?

[genkaus]

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?

First, don't misquote me. I didn't say this, you did.

Lev 19 is a good place to start It shows and explains in detail God's Righteousness (The absolute and perfect standard of God) against the contrast of the morality that governed the people.
The entire chapter is a back and fourth between the standards of God and what men are to do (or how they can be morally responsible) when they fail to meet that standard.

Christ in his woes to The Pharisees Mat 23 show the short comings in the morality of the Pharisees. He points out the hypocrisy and their failed attempt to maintain God's standard, by rewriting their own versions of God's law so they could meet it, and yet they still fail to meet this new lower standard/morality based in the same self righteousness that drives our need to build a low moral standard for ourselves today.

Now, go and read what I asked for. Then go and read Lev 19 and Mat 23. Then go and read what I asked for once again. Do you see the problem?

I said: "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. "

And then you go and do exactly that. The verses you provided don't even use the use the word morality, much less give its definition. You are trying to tell me what the bible defines morality and righteousness as. Then tell me what the bible defines morality and righteousness as, not what you think it means after reading the bible. I'll make it easy for you: I'm looking to a verse that contains the word "morality" or "righteousness" and proceeds to explain what it means by those words.

How deep do you want to go because next i can issue reading assignments for you and we can build on principles together.

Not deep at all. If you say you are providing biblical definitions, provide biblical definitions with reference to the source. If you are providing your own interpretations, then say that.

Then there is little more to say. If you can not or will not accept the change in the moral disposition of Pre WWII and Post WWII Germany In this most extreme case than you are intentionally being obstinate or you truly do not have a fundamental grasp of the English language.

Either way you have fundamentally ended this conversation.

Show me where I've said that.

Then if they are different Morality is not an absolute standard as you have pronounced many times thus far. Morality is a variable by definition.

Show me where I've claimed morality to be absolute. It is not absolute, bu tit is still a standard of judgment.

I have posted this definition several times in past posts.

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.

Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.

Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.

Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.

God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.
That said know that 'morality' is not the universal standard of good. Morality is a constantly changing to suit the the personal or civil righteousness of a community of people. What once was moral could now be considered a crime, and vise versa.

I say that to help those looking to frame questions based on "morality." Most of the time it is used an absolute standard when in fact it is not.

I see it just fine why can't you? Maybe if I put it in bold letters for you (that means darker than the other letters)

Since you provided it, you should be able to read it yourself. There is no indication anywhere in the provided paragraph that these definitions are according to the bible. No indication that these are not the accepted and established definitions. No indication that these definitions are not applicable outside biblical context. And no indication of the source.

You still haven't read you own post, have you?

apparently not, for the idea of a forum is for one (The OP) to start a thread by posting a very general idea and for others to contribute or question the original thread. As we are more than 7 pages into this discussion the original Post has changed and been modified to address and questions concerns or holes that you all have seen fit to bring up. So to default to the original post as if it were some holy unchangeable text must be something that is tied to your culture and/or current understanding of western culture preventing you from "debating them well."

Actually, the reasons for the meandering quality of this debate are:
1. You failed to specify any context of the debate, hoping that we'd somehow divine it from revelation.
2. You keep forgetting your own arguments.
3. You keep assuming arguments that are directly opposite the ones that your opponents gave.
4. You fail to grasp the basic meanings of the words.

Because "morality" is a term that describes Change I would be inclined to agree.

That's settles then, god's morality changes.

absolutely not. this is what happens if you do not read anything besides the OP. Again the point of a thread is to develop and evolve a thought past the original starting points.

So, once you acknowledge the mistakes made at your starting point, wee can move past that.

I have made every effort to acknowledge Popular morality but your single minded argument will not allow the amendment that i have made to supplement the OP. The amendments don't change the OP it Points to unspoken or underdeveloped areas such as the need to clarify the acknowledgment and segregation between popular morality and biblically identified moral efforts.

The short comings here can be identified by you not allowing the conversation on my end to progress beyond Your Personal Interpretation of the OP. all the while you are gathering and changing information and building onto your current argument. Which seems to be yet another way for an enlightened man to close his mind for the sake of his wounded pride.

I've given you lots of chances to make the corrections. Even in this post, where you restated the original post, you could have acknowledged what you missed the first time around. Can you show me where you have provided the distinction between popular and biblical morality? Can you point out where you have differentiated between biblical and popular righteousness? Can you point out where, before this, you have stated the purpose of the thread and which direction you want it to go? Your ad hominems are nothing more that a desperate attempt to preserve the shattered vestiges of a failed argument.

Start over. Start by defining biblical morality and righteousness along with the definitions that are already accepted. Provide the sources of these definitions. Point out the differences between them. Explain why the established definitions are not applicable to the bible. And then tell us why we should give a shit.

[Creed of Heresy]

Wait. Psychic powers? Ability to predict the future?



So do you also believe in the ability to pray terminal illnesses away, too? Despite scientific studies having shown that prayer actually has a slightly detrimental effect? You know, doing the OPPOSITE? Or maybe you believe in miracles, even though those seem to be reserved exclusively for non-amputees, right? Maybe you believe in the abilities of gypsies to see someone's fate by looking at crystal balls? Unicorns? Fairies? Elves, maybe? Santy Claus? Wow, and I thought it hard enough to take you seriously...

[Kratos]

But I think there is something out there I just use God/s because I don't know what it is. How do you explain the ability to see the future? And other psychic powers. I cannot work it out scientifically where does the knowledge come from?

How do you explain rain? If this wasn't the 21st century but some other past time chances are you would have answered with 'god'.

I don't understand this need to want to give everything a reason right here right now. This is especially true with trivial events that play in our favour, like my friend finding his wallet after praying and later claiming it was God's doing that he was able to find it.

Have you ever considered alternative explanations that are actually tangible to reality? Like rain being a part of the cycle that water follows instead of a god blessing the village every now and again?

Maybe so, but I do feel a sense of spirituality. I think there is more than just science and mathematics. I think there is knowledge out there and some people can tune into it. Some may call it inspiration. Some people could be tuning in without realizing it.