Morality

[Drich]

Where exactly does repentance fit into your doctrine?

Repentance is the cornerstone of accepting the atonement offered by Christ.

If we cannot be perfect then why would God call on us to be perfect if we are unable to do so? (Matt 5:48, Lev 19:45)

To answer your question directly lets put your verse back into it's original context:

Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

"Perfection" according to Mat 5 is love for your enemies, it has nothing to do with keeping the law perfectly. Lev 19 only goes to verse 37 in the NKJV your reference in not valid.

---

You are discussing morality.

yes

You are making the claim that the bible is the institution of morality

No. The bible contains the Righteousness of God. This has nothing to do with "morality."

and that christian morality is based off of a book

off of the bible yes, but as such still falls far short of God's righteousness.

My counterpoint is that morality and the golden rule [yes, they DO tie in together, I shouldn't have to explain how, considering that's elementary level of moral understanding] are based in biological altruism; the idea of morality was NOT invented by the Abrahamic religions, yet like most things, religion has absconded with it and claimed it to be of its own workings.

Agreed, perhaps you should take the time to read the OP.

Is that not what you are arguing?

nope.

That biblical morality is superior?

nope.

I counterpoint that it is INFERIOR because it is a bastardization of NATURAL morality in the senses of, again, biological altruism which science has already proven to exist in both the wild AND in human civilization, and in fact it is IMMORAL in the sense that a schizophrenic can have the voices in his head shriek at him to go on a murderous rampage and if we let our society adhere to Christian morality rather than the morality of law [which was largely written in the name of common sense and human rights, not the bible, despite whatever you may attempt to claim], he could be considered innocent because "god" told him to do it and therefore he could not only be considered innocent, but doing the right thing. This is the problem with Sharia-law-run countries in the middle east; if you do something and you use the quran to justify it as an act in the name of god you're basically innocent, even if that means torturing and murdering a woman as a "punishment" for being raped. What you are proposing as moral superiority is no different especially because this same book of yours says that stoning a child for not wanting to do his chores is A-OK. The fact that you yourself think that this kind of shit is perfectly fine and moral is very telling about you as a person. And it tells nothing good.

all of this is fine if you are just looking for an opportunity to soap box your personal beliefs, but if you wish to be apart of the conversation,take the time to understand the definitions I posted in the OP. You have no idea what is actually being discussed.

Or maybe I'm missing the point entirely.

---

[quote='Cinjin' pid='272443' dateline='1334421969']

I just got a little nauseous. This sentiment is what makes Christians frightening and Muslims terrifying. Why you may ask? Because "god's will" is decided by the person wielding the weapon in question and most often, when the violent "hand of god" has completed the atrocity, you'll hear the words, "blessed be the name of the Lord."

That would be true if as you believe there was no God.

That is not a legitimate response as it does not have any frame of reference to what I said. I said your statement makes me nauseous ... whether or not I believe in god has no bearing on whether or not that statement is true or not. It's a statement of how I and 20 million other non-believers feel.

My original response was speaking to the second half of your inquiry. If a comment does not fit 1/2 of the context you are looking at, then may i suggest that you take in the whole of what is being said.

Nope. The will of men professed as god's will is in your bible ... and the religious nuts DO smash babies, stone women and crash planes into buildings.

yup agreed, but not for what is written in the bible.

Standard rhetoric.

Then perhaps there is a measure of truth to this statement.

The point is, you will do the will of god no matter what atrocity is required and THAT is what is nauseating and terrifying.

Let's frame this principle in reality. In that God doesn't command atrocities, but love for Him and our "neighbors."

does that make you nauseated? the fact that we are commanded and care for those who hate us? For it takes the same fanatical devotion to 'love' someone who spitefully hates you, and uses every opportunity to put you down and say derogatory things about you. as it does to smash planes or kill babies.

God requires fanatical devotion. There is nothing wrong with that. Right and wrong is determined how that devotion is harnessed and used.

---

[quote='Drich' pid='272243' dateline='1334382916']
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

Pretty much your definition precludes any and all people who do not believe in sin (in other words your god and your bible) from being members of a society so please swallow a large glass of sulfuric acid you bigoted moron.

Er... alittle harsh but yes. Otherwise correct.

---

Then you like you friend does not understand what is being discussed.

Are you saying God can be immoral but righteous at the same time?

Yes because morality is the standard of man and Righteousness is the standard of God.

According to your Bible God killed countless children in Egypt. Does this mean that even though this was blatantly immoral by any standard that it was still righteous because God did it?

Not just Egypt if you read your bible and yes it was a righteous act.

---

Morality is man's attempt to establish a righteous standard...Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.

If what you are arguing is that apparent morality is not the same as actual morality then I don't disagree. You define the absolute moral standard as God's Righteousness. That doesn't get you very far. According to you what is the basis of God's Righteousness and how do you recognize it?

The Expressed Will of God. (His Word and Deeds see the bible for more detail)