pop morality

[Drich]

Why is your god's righteousness absolute?

Because that is the standard in which all are judged.

 Why is HIS morality objective?

Again he does not deal in 'morality' as defined by this discussion.

 From what I can tell, it's either "because the Bible says so," or simply because YOU say so.

The Bible reads much differently for you than it does for us.  You assign god absolute righteousness and objective morality because that's what you are forced to believe, even though all evidence points to the contrary.
Morality for your god is every bit as subjective for him as it is for us, and simply telling us that it's not means nothing.  And since your position hinges on that fact, it renders your entire argument moot.

Again God does not deal in morality as morality is an incomplete/ever changing standard. God's standard is righteousness. It differs from morality in that God's standard of Righteousness does not Change.

Why does this matter you ask? Because if morality is ever changing then how can it be used to judge an unchanging standard??

For instance let's say you went back to Ye Old'e english rules and measures, and you wanted a yard of cloth, a yard being 3 ft. a foot being your literal foot length... Now what if you went to a modern textile-monger and order a yard of cloth, and he is using modern imperial standard measure, and he cut off a literal 3ft by his absolute measure and you take it and it fall short against your size 18 clown foot, or your 'luckie' wife goes in with her lady's size 7 and measure out a yard and finds the imperial standard to big?? If 'we' are to use any form of "morality" to judge God, then who's morality do we use? Ours here and now? what about the 'morality' of our greatest generation? why not 'current' Syrian moral values?

Righteousness is not a works based standard. so to judge a works based standard against a gift, one that can never be earned is trying to compare apples and oranges.. what will really blow your mind is when you finally figure out that God's 'measure' is to take all restriction off all works based morality puts on, it would be like when you ask for a yard of cloth, God's plan is for you to be accepted as a son, so that he simply hands over the keys to the store allowing you to take or give as you have been blessed. What he is asking in return is to put down the idea that your 'work' will ever be good enough to earn your rights to the store.

The arbitrary nature of god's punishments alone are a constant reminder throughout the scriptures of the wishy washy nature of your deity.

such as?

One can only judge morality against an absolute. otherwise the comparison is not valid. Why? because despite who authors the 'morality' in inherently contains sin. then who's to say my sin is ok and yours is not?

For example It is always wrong to lie cheat or steal according to God. Even by the strictest standard telling a white lie to a bad man to save a life is ok. Or cheating someone who has cheated others/people in Need is ok, or stealing food to save your children from literal starvation/death is ok.

So again 'morality' no matter the source is a corruption of God's perfect standard. It is man's version of righteousness which allows for the use of sin.

This is how the 'church' failed us. it teaches morality rather than righteousness and atonement.
For instance, where in the bible is human life prized? Where in the bible does love for this life exceed the importance of eternal life taught? where then does the 'church' justify it position that you yourself described/use to judge the medieval church?

Now if you use pop morality of the medieval church, it's concern of confession and conversion for eternal life is far closer to the concerns outlined in scripture...

So which is right?

Neither. Why? both use 'morality' (man's ever sliding scale of acceptable evil) as their light and guide posts.
With the medieval church it sold itself to the devil for wealth, power and complete control over everything under the pretense of righteousness.. It like the modern church allows evil to mix in with righteousness to produce a watered down 'morality' that will appeal to more people. From an eternal stand point I would think this water down 'morality' would be far more likely to separate the body of believers from God, because as you put it we put a 'high value' on our lives rather than looking forward to the eternal life promised.

I personally have never believed in sin.  Only actions.  Sin is a concept dreamed up by man to identify things that he doesn't like.  Murder, rape, stealing are all sins ... until they're not sin and they're god's will and commandment.  Morality goes hand in hand with the ridiculous sin concept.  It's not real.  It's a word used to define acceptable actions.  There's that word again:  actions.  Look at your god's actions - most of them are deplorable.  The worst thing humans have ever done is use your god's actions (his "righteous morality") as a guideline for our own.  

Here is where your understanding falls short... Sin while descibes 'action' also encompasses thought. This is for one reason only. to show all are subject to sin all the times. Therefore we must 'seek a righteousness Greater that our greatest most religious people could ever attain on their own.' Meaning we must seek God righteousness, which is simply given to us if we accept it. Which makes all other action moot.

I'm inclined as usual to chock this thread up to more Christian rhetoric and remind readers that your assertions always work themselves around to one little thing:  

I know you'd like to try and place your typical straw man/circular thought exist strategy close, but if you honestly look at what i am saying here your approach will not allow you to leave this topic so easily. you are trying to have a who's morals are greater debate, and I'm trying to tell you God is not judge us nor commands us in the bible to live by a 'moral' standard.