Morality

[Drich]

You can keep repeating it as many times you like - that does not make it correct.

It doesn't make me wrong either. It simply says I have had to repeat myself without any legitimate response to the contrary.

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.

Wrong. Morality is simply a code of conduct that guides a man's or a society's actions.

...and who sets these standards? Man, or the society he lives in.. Are all societies morality the same? no they are not. Can some societies standards be judged more sinful than others? Even by the non religious?? Yes.

If all of this is true then it can be said:
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.

The moral code determines what is right and what is wrong.

You are making my argument for me.

Therefore, any righteousness depends upon the morality.

Because 'morality' is ever changing, it can not truly be called a standard. It is a variable by the definition of the word. Therefore True Righteousness can not come from adherence to morality, however moral righteousness can.
Moral righteousness would allow for the variances found in the the different versions of morality found in our current and past societies.

Which leaves true Righteousness to be an absolute standard.

Wrong. If morality says that, righteousness says that as well.

If your looking to change the definitions of an absolute standard to fit you personal definition of morality then i guess it would have to. On a side note, Just by this statement I know you have never lived outside of your comfort zone, never been made to adopt another culture as your own. This narrow minded thinking is what makes the rest of the world hate people who live in western societies. (You assume you are right because that is how you live, and not only that everyone should be made to adopt what you believe.)

Wrong. If something like a god of your bible exists, then his morality changes more than a weather-vane.

Do you have an example?

Then you should stop using morality and righteousness as absolute standards.

I am not trying to upset the little world you have created for yourself. I am only speaking to those who want biblical clarity. If you wish to live in your moral world then understand I have no issue allowing you to live and die by whatever standard your wish. I am post for those who mistakenly but feel a rightful want to judge God by the morality they have made for themselves.

Also know it was you who has this overwhelming urge to explain yourself to me. This means anytime you wish you can end this conversation, you can. i am not here to force True righteousness on you nor anyone else.

---

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

3 things

You do understand the meaning of the word "Proverb" do you not?

Did you read what I said about mt 5? (where before that time it was possible to obtain righteousness by your deeds, but after the Sermon Christ gave in Mat 5 it is not.)

Even if any part of the book of "Proverbs" were issued as commands, they would have been issued before the Sermon Christ gave in Mt 5.

Nice try though it shows a legitimate effort to question what is being said!

---

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

Count the "attacks" as blessings and opportunities to turn the other cheek. If you ever prayed for help with patiences or pride things or people like this is how that prayer gets answered.

---

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."

Do you not know your American history? Murder (via Manifest destiny) was not only encouraged but rewarded with money and land. Murder like any other 'moral absolute' can change if the society deems it necessary. Which is the exact point I am making. Because morality is ever changing it can not be considered a true standard. By definition anything ever changing is to be considered a variable not a constant.