Man's morality

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Even you can't be this thick. Very well, god - aka ma Kali - bids you end your dance with Maya and leave this mortal coil. Why do you not obey god's command?

---

---

I always preferred Ganesha


Not for any theistic reasons, I just like elephants

[Angrboda]

Even you can't be this thick. Very well, god - aka ma Kali - bids you end your dance with Maya and leave this mortal coil. Why do you not obey god's command?

---

---

I always preferred Ganesha


Not for any theistic reasons, I just like elephants

It's not a toomah.

[genkaus]

This is only true IF you have an absolute unchanging standard in which to judge by.

No, what is required is an objective standard to judge by - it doesn't have to be absolute or unchanging.

Otherwise right and wrong become subjective to the whims popular culture.

As opposed to subjective whims of your god?

60 years ago it was considered a kindness to hand out unwashed hospital blankets, cigeretts, and 'out of date' food to the homeless. Now these 'kind acts' are almost criminal.

What one generation/culture says is ok, can trivially be abhoared by another.

Its not trivial if the abhorrence has a rational basis.

Here is where you are wrong. I have said over and over what is in the bible has ABSOLUTLY Nothing to do with 'morality.' What is in the bible establishes a fixed point concerning God's righteousness. That makes 'morality' mans standard, which is tied to nothing more than pop culture. Which means man can deem God's law 'immoral' at will, allowing us to bock at anything we don't like. Making it one's 'moral obligation' not to conform to God's law.

Here is where you are wrong. The biblical morality may be irrational, insane and inhuman, but it is a morality nonetheless. Your attempt at redefining your god's morality as something other than morality is pointless.

No. Why? Because in God's economy 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with our acts anymore. Rather our acts hold no value in of themselves. This is what seperates God Righteousness from man's 'moral' soceity.

It is also what makes your god's morality a futile exercise - the purpose of morality is to dictate actions and your god ends up with negating the value of those actions.

A lie, a Murder, giving to the poor, helping or even 'Healing' people means nothing by itself. What asigns value to these acts "Good or bad" (as you understand them) is the condition of one's heart. That is what attonement means. All of your deeds are wiped out and what is left is the condition of your heart. Yes we still follow God's law and yes we still do good deeds, but not as a means to an end, but because when you fill your heart with love for someone it pours out deeds that the one you love finds favoriable.

Your 'morality' is a form of legalism that binds and defins the person by the works he does or does not do. Jesus identified this legalistic behavior in the pharisees, as 'only washing the outside of your cup. While then inside was still dirty.'

Actually, it is the other way around. The purpose of the cup is to drink from and the purpose of morality is to dictate the works. It stands to reason that the inside of the cup should be clean and the works be given the primary importance within morality. Your supposed god's reversal of negating the works is equivalent to keeping the inside of the cup dirty while the outside looks pretty.

You do understand the concept of attonement right? With attonement we do not have to 'fix' anything.

Do you? Atonement is the supposed 'fix'. Whether or not it is the right fix is what is being discussed.

Remember when God works with us, He works with what we have. If Genocide was the only tool that could be used to acomplish ALL of what God was trying to accomplish, then why shouldn't He use it?

And where did this ridiculous rule come from? Especially since within your own mythology, your god has shown no such reservations?

Your answer will be morality based. To which I will ask what authority does man's morality have over God?

According to you, when he is working with us, he has to work with what we have - and what we have are moral systems which judge his activities as immoral. You cannot have it both ways - either he is bound to act within human means and thus comes under the judgment of human morals or he is not bound, in which case he contradicts his own morals.

We kill babies by the friggen Millions every year to prevent a life style change, and yet you have questions concerning the 'morality' about killing one baby that is directly responsiable for the deaths of 60 million people?

That's news to me. We kill babies?

This is why your 'morality' is a meaningless crap standard. You are washing the outside of your cup to maintain 'a woman's right to choose', but at the same time if you were to commit the very same act on a baby who would grow up to be responsiable for 60 deaths, you find yourself in a grey area. From here I could say alot of negitive things about the people who think this way, but I believe my point has been made.

This is why your god's morality is a crap standard. It warps your mind to the extent that you cannot differentiate between the inside and the outside of the cup. The right of a person to choose what happens to his/her body is sacrosanct. Whether that person is a woman with a parasite growing inside her or whether it is a newborn. Which is why violating a baby's right to his own life and body with the justification that it'd do the same to others in future is a moral grey area and removing it from the womb is not.

Because in this life sin abounds, and we are bound to it. If God were to stop all sin He would have to end all of us.

He dodn't have a problem with it before.

If God did not care Jesus would not have died for our sin.

Self-aggrandization is not a sign of caring.

Read what I just wrote to Darkstar. Most of what you bring up here has already been answered there.

Darkstar didn't raise the same points as me. Specifically, he didn't raise the issues regarding the irrationality of your god's morality, the inherent hypocrisy of your position and the existence of objective or rational morality. So no, none of my points have been answered there.

If you are unable to answer them, what makes you think I'll accept your pretense that you have?

[max-greece]

Drich keeps posting something along the lines of:

We kill babies by the friggen Millions every year to prevent a life style change...

As far as I can see no-one has picked him up on this so I guess I should.

I am assuming he is referring to abortion.

Now if we are referring to abortion then the only way the word Baby could be applied is to late term abortions (over 20 weeks) at which point a baby could be technically viable (I think the current premature record is around 22 weeks). Prior to this the "baby" is more a potential baby or, technically a foetus.

Do Drich's numbers stand up?

No. According to the research about 9000 late term abortions (over 20 weeks) were carried out in 2008 in the US.

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml...ss6015a1_w )

Now that is way too many but one does wonder how many of those late term abortions would have been performed earlier were it not for social/religious pressure delaying the decision.

Leaving that aside for a moment if this is Drich's main tool for proving how evil our human morality is lets take a look at the abortions God carries out - conveniently renamed miscarriages to protect the guilty party.

For example here (http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyco...riage.html)

It states:

"Spontaneous abortion (SAB), or miscarriage, is the term used for a pregnancy that ends on its own, within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The medical name spontaneous abortion (SAB) gives many women a negative feeling, so throughout this article we will refer to any type of spontaneous abortion or pregnancy loss under 20 weeks as miscarriage."

It then goes on to state:

"American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. "

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfact...istics.htm offers us rather different stats. Higher actually. Apparently upto 70% of all fertilized eggs fail to result in pregnancy.

I think you will find that God's abortions outnumber ours by a massive margin.

As ever God's morality is worse than ours (even assuming he actually exists).

As ever Christians are so blinded by their faith they fail completely to hold him culpable for his crimes. That's the maltheistic magic at work.....

[Drich]

But you would expect the parent to follow a moral standard.

Do you understand the purpose of an analogy? Merrium-webster says: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way.

Using a parent/Child analogy in this instance compares God's Authority to dictate rules to his children that may not apply to Himself. The content of the rules and how they apply to our social structure is not being examined, because it does not apply unless one first accepts the authority of God.

The theist sees man as a mortal and relatively weak creature who cannot impose his will in the way that god can.

Kinda like a child is a 'weak creature' that can not impose his will as a parent can?

Even the young child may eventually grow strong enough to overcome his parents, even if he is still of an age where they expect him to be subservient.

..and so do we now while we draw breath in this life. we are expected to follow in God's expressed will, yet we have the freedom to be outside of it, and still have the option to seek redemption.

Man has no such option when it comes to god. We are forced to accept whatever god does, regardless of what type of action it is.

what are you talking about? Have you never read the parable of the prodigal son?
I can post a link if you like.

And if that is the case, then god cannot serve as an example for us.

You do know the parent child dynamic I used did not orginate with me correct? Jesus first used this example.

We cannot be "perfect" like he is.

Not by our deeds, which is why Christ died. Because He died and we accept why He died we can take on the 'perfection' of Christ. When I stand before God my sin and short commings are not seen. Chirst's works are seen in place of mine. Therefore I become perfect as He is perfect to the Father.

He is not a "father" in any sense that we understand the word.

Actually the role of 'father' in man mimics the role God the Father has. 'We' are given this role so we may know and understand God. It is when we are not faithful to our Roles as Fathers, or as a soceity redefine the role of the father/family the we do not understand how God the Father is truely a Father.

I think that "lord" or "king" are the proper terms, as it identifies his relationship with us much more accurately than "father."

He is indeed, to some.

He commits acts that we would consider horrifying were they committed by a parent on his child.

Maybe because He clearly states that not all are His Children. Christ makes this distinction in 1/3 of the parables He tells.

Nor can we properly describe our relationship with him as loving in any way.

Take a step back and try and look at this from an objective perspective. God is a Father, who protects and Loves His Children. Not all are His Children. Therefore should He be required to 'protect/love' Those who hate and look to do His children harm? Would you welcome in to your Home to care for and even love some little monster looking to prey on your kids?

"Fear" is more appropriate. A loving parent doesn't do some of the things that god is described as doing in the Bible.

They do to the people looking to kill thier kids.

That he is free to do so because he is powerful enough does not make him a loving father, but it does make him a fearful king.

Those who do not know Him are the only ones who need fear Him. He is the King who shows no mercy to those who hurt his family.

---

I guess you haven't bother to read any of the other post concerning this. the vast majority of what you bring up here has been discussed two or three times already.

Drich keeps posting something along the lines of:

We kill babies by the friggen Millions every year to prevent a life style change...

As far as I can see no-one has picked him up on this so I guess I should.

I am assuming he is referring to abortion.

Now if we are referring to abortion then the only way the word Baby could be applied is to late term abortions (over 20 weeks) at which point a baby could be technically viable (I think the current premature record is around 22 weeks). Prior to this the "baby" is more a potential baby or, technically a foetus.

Do Drich's numbers stand up?

No. According to the research about 9000 late term abortions (over 20 weeks) were carried out in 2008 in the US.

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml...ss6015a1_w )

Now that is way too many but one does wonder how many of those late term abortions would have been performed earlier were it not for social/religious pressure delaying the decision.

Leaving that aside for a moment if this is Drich's main tool for proving how evil our human morality is lets take a look at the abortions God carries out - conveniently renamed miscarriages to protect the guilty party.

For example here (http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyco...riage.html)

It states:

"Spontaneous abortion (SAB), or miscarriage, is the term used for a pregnancy that ends on its own, within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The medical name spontaneous abortion (SAB) gives many women a negative feeling, so throughout this article we will refer to any type of spontaneous abortion or pregnancy loss under 20 weeks as miscarriage."

It then goes on to state:

"American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. "

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfact...istics.htm offers us rather different stats. Higher actually. Apparently upto 70% of all fertilized eggs fail to result in pregnancy.

I think you will find that God's abortions outnumber ours by a massive margin.

As ever God's morality is worse than ours (even assuming he actually exists).

As ever Christians are so blinded by their faith they fail completely to hold him culpable for his crimes. That's the maltheistic magic at work.....

http://www.numberofabortions.com/
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us...tatistics/
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/01/abort...abortions/

---

I'm like the clap. I'm the gift that keeps on giving. You're like the clap, too, but in a different way.

In that I will not go away, even though you have told yourself repeatedly that your above such things? get it?

---

Why should God come to you when He has declared that all should seek Him?

DERP DERP DERP

Prove that god wants us to seek him, please.

How does one Prove that there is no treasure where a treasure maps says treasure is hidden? One can intelectually discuss whether or not a given map has merrit, but the only way to 'prove' the vality of a map is to follow it's instructions and see for yourself.

The bible is our map. In luke 11 Christ says we are to Ask, SEEK, and Knock for the God the Holy Spirit.

I sought as instructed and I found God.

[Drich]

No, what is required is an objective standard to judge by - it doesn't have to be absolute or unchanging.

This very concept is what eventually lead to jews being put into camps, Indians on reservations, the trail of tears, the civil war, all Japanese Americans into camps, and every other 'morally justified' act we as a soceity of people have morally justified. Because there aren't any absolutes, we are free to lower the bar any time we deem it nesesary, or when ever it is benfits us to do so. (abortion)
All of man's morality is based on selecting the lessor of two evils, or even seeks justification to select the greater evil when we can justify our want. With out an absolute or never changing standard one can not possiably know how far his morality has fallen. For like with the death camp Nazis, Abortion doctors, whatever evil you elect to live with is your new upper bar. If you feel you can justify your deeds then nothing you do will ever be wrong. Which is why there were men who could send 100's of scared people into gas chambers at a time. This is what 'morality' looks like with out an absolute standard to compare it to.

As opposed to subjective whims of your god?

Do you have an example of a 'subjective whim?' What makes God's command subjective or a whim?

Its not trivial if the abhorrence has a rational basis.

That's my point! In your value system ANYTHING Can Be Rationalized!!! Which means anything good or bad can be accepted like wise anything true good, or bad can be vilified! For example the righteous command to not have Gay sex is now vilified, while something as truly monsterous like killing babies (after they been de-humanized and labled fetuses) is celibrated.

Here is where you are wrong. The biblical morality may be irrational, insane and inhuman, but it is a morality nonetheless. Your attempt at redefining your god's morality as something other than morality is pointless.

I have not redefined anything. i have simply pointed out the differences between what this soceity defines as morality and what God had orginally outlined. I use different terms only to avoid confusion. In the end man is the one who has redefined 'morality' and the fact that God's standard is absolute and has not changed, proves that man is the one who is changing things.

No. Why? Because in God's economy 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with our acts anymore. Rather our acts hold no value in of themselves. This is what seperates God Righteousness from man's 'moral' soceity.

It is also what makes your god's morality a futile exercise - the purpose of morality is to dictate actions and your god ends up with negating the value of those actions.

Which again shows you that YOU are the one who has redefined 'morality.' Which is why I use a different word.

Actually, it is the other way around. The purpose of the cup is to drink from and the purpose of morality is to dictate the works. It stands to reason that the inside of the cup should be clean and the works be given the primary importance within morality.

Which-Is-Why-Jesus-said-to-The-Pharisees- that- their-practices-in-'morality'-was-only-washing-the-OUTSIDE-of-the-cup. He means your actions only affect how others view you, while your insides can still remain unclean. For instances, Abortion has become a woman's 'moral' right to choose what to do with 'her body.' This act of 'morality' is an example of washing the outside of one's cup. because it is acceptable to all who see it, but on the inside one has to make the desision to justify the taking of a human life.

Your supposed god's reversal of negating the works is equivalent to keeping the inside of the cup dirty while the outside looks pretty.

not even close. When God shifted the focous from what you do to why you do it the 'internal' reason is what get merrit while the external (what people can see and judge) takes a back seat.

Do you? Atonement is the supposed 'fix'. Whether or not it is the right fix is what is being discussed.

AGAIN, It is not 'WE' who 'fix it.' God 'fixes' it through attonement.

And where did this ridiculous rule come from?

Not a rule an observation. If you read the bible it clearly shows over and over God working with people on their level with something they can understand. When God takes things into his own hands (and we can not comprhend what is going on) we get explainations like what is found in the book of revelation.

According to you, when he is working with us, he has to work with what we have - and what we have are moral systems which judge his activities as immoral.

We also 'HAVE' God's expressed will in His law, which is found in the bible.

You cannot have it both ways -

oh, but i do.

either he is bound to act within human means and thus comes under the judgment of human morals or he is not bound, in which case he contradicts his own morals.

ah, on. To you want to try again?
Your arguement fails because 'we' have our laws our 'morality,' and whether you accept it or not we also have God's laws. God has proven over thousands of years that he can and will work with us with what He has given us through scripture, and He has shown us that He will not work with those who hold to their own 'morality' over His own.

That's news to me. We kill babies?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-22249-page-6.html
post #53

This is why your god's morality is a crap standard. It warps your mind to the extent that you cannot differentiate between the inside and the outside of the cup.

Just in case your still confused: mat 23:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[f] 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The outside are the 'moral acts everyone can see.' The Inside are the desires of the heart and true reasons you do something.

The anaology is use to illustrate that 'good deeds' are meaningless without value to God with out the right reasons behind them. and attonement says sin it without value to God as well. Everything hings on the reason why you do what you do and not the stuff 'good or bad' (or what you think is good or bad.) That is why the cup anaology is used.

The right of a person to choose what happens to his/her body is sacrosanct. Whether that person is a woman with a parasite growing inside her or whether it is a newborn. Which is why violating a baby's right to his own life and body with the justification that it'd do the same to others in future is a moral grey area and removing it from the womb is not.

You've illustrated my point very well, thank you.

Because in this life sin abounds, and we are bound to it. If God were to stop all sin He would have to end all of us.

He dodn't have a problem with it before.

If He did elimate all of us then who is having this discussion?

Self-aggrandization is not a sign of caring.

Do you have 'proof' of this self aggrandization?

[Angrboda]

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"
~ Anton Chigurh

[MindForgedManacle]

Dammit, who gave Apo another rep? Me liked it at 69. ;(

---

Since going through 12 pages is not gonna happen, lemme ask you some things Drich:


Does God do anything? If so, what directs the way God does in fact act? Clearly, it's going to be based on what God thinks is good. That is morality, there is no escaping it, save for not understanding what language is, because that's the concept that the word 'morality' refers to.

God and you appealing to God's nature as being what goodness is, is just a value judgement. Assuming God exists (you haven't even tried to do that as far as I know), why does God think himself to be good? Is it impossible for him to have done otherwise? If not, it's arbitrary because he had to. If so, it's arbitrary because he could have chosen not to. This is the nonsense and contradictions that you're incoherent view on morality and goodness leads to.

Further, the fact that God apparently views himself to be the only is irrelevant to what is actually good, because that's just a subjective value judgement by God. There's nothing binding about a meer value judgement by a single being that could be such; it doesn't make sense.

[Tonus]

Do you understand the purpose of an analogy?

Yes. I am pointing out a significant flaw in the one you used.

Using a parent/Child analogy in this instance compares God's Authority to dictate rules to his children that may not apply to Himself. The content of the rules and how they apply to our social structure is not being examined, because it does not apply unless one first accepts the authority of God.

But neither exists in a vacuum. If you are going to make the comparison, I think it bears noting where it breaks down.

what are you talking about? Have you never read the parable of the prodigal son?

The prodigal son could have formed an army, marched to his father's home and taken it by force, killing any who barred his path, including his father. Humans cannot do this to god.

You do know the parent child dynamic I used did not orginate with me correct? Jesus first used this example.

A flawed concept remains flawed regardless of who originates it.

Not by our deeds, which is why Christ died. Because He died and we accept why He died we can take on the 'perfection' of Christ. When I stand before God my sin and short commings are not seen. Chirst's works are seen in place of mine. Therefore I become perfect as He is perfect to the Father.

When Jesus said those words (Matthew 5:48) he was specifically referring to individual thoughts and deeds (Matthew 5:1-47). I don't see a context in which he would have been referring to his ransom sacrifice.

Actually the role of 'father' in man mimics the role God the Father has.

I would hope not, considering how he treats his children!

Maybe because He clearly states that not all are His Children. Christ makes this distinction in 1/3 of the parables He tells.

Oh. So he's either the loving father or the abusive step-father? That's almost a slight improvement, I suppose.

Take a step back and try and look at this from an objective perspective. God is a Father, who protects and Loves His Children. Not all are His Children. Therefore should He be required to 'protect/love' Those who hate and look to do His children harm? Would you welcome in to your Home to care for and even love some little monster looking to prey on your kids?

God massacred a lot of people in the Bible, and it does not appear as if all (or even most) of them were seeking to harm his children. Some were simply defending themselves from invasion by those children, and not the other way around. I don't see how this explanation holds up.

I guess you haven't bother to read any of the other post concerning this. the vast majority of what you bring up here has been discussed two or three times already.

I'm sure it has. DeistPaladin had suggested a topic with links to such discussions in the past but it was not well received. I have no qualms if people dismiss my questions by saying they've been answered; that's just life on the interwebs. I appreciate that you answered anyway.

[WesOlsen]

How does one Prove that there is no treasure where a treasure maps says treasure is hidden? One can intelectually discuss whether or not a given map has merrit, but the only way to 'prove' the vality of a map is to follow it's instructions and see for yourself.

The bible is our map. In luke 11 Christ says we are to Ask, SEEK, and Knock for the God the Holy Spirit.

I sought as instructed and I found God.

The analogy is so vague and masked in pseudo-poetic guff that it demonstrates precisely diddly squat. I tried chatting to god and I felt and saw nothing, so what's going on there? Was I not sincere enough? How exactly did you find god? Did he speak to you or explain something, or did you just confuse some adrenaline and seretonin for some sort of divine apparition? Personal salvation stories don't impress me in the slightest. Life is the actual treasure. The only treasure map is the one we slowly craft, together, using the evidence we uncover along the way, so that we may better understand what the treasure is composed of and how it arrived in its current form. If that means shunting childish notions of a fairy godmother out of the way as the centuries progress then tough biscuits.