Morality

[genkaus]

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

No, being wrong makes you wrong.

...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.

A man chooses what moral code he lives by. A society's moral code is chosen by what its members agree on. One society's moral code can be judged according to another society's - which would result in it being regarded as more or less sinful. For example. my moral code says that the christian morality is extremely sinful.

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.

No, all that can be said is that morality is a standard to judge actions and different people may use different standards. There is not indication of any underlying basis.

You are making my argument for me.

And you still don't get it.

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. Morality is not changing - there are simply different moralities. There is morality of one society as opposed to the morality of another, irrespective of whether those societies are separated by space or time. They may share common traits based on their origin, but that does not make them variations of one another. Ergo, there is no absolute standard here.

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.

You are the one changing the definition to suit your purpose.

Here are the accepted definitions of righteousness:

- adhering to moral principles (wordnetweb.princeton.edu)
- noun
1. the quality or state of being righteous.
2. righteous conduct.
3. the quality or state of being just or rightful: They came to realize the righteousness of her position on the matter.

- righteous (Dictionary.com)
— adj
1. a. characterized by, proceeding from, or in accordance with accepted standards of morality, justice, or uprightness; virtuous: a righteous man
b. ( as collective noun ; preceded by the ): the righteous
2. morally justifiable or right, esp from one's own point of view: righteous indignation


Which definition are you using?

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.)

This tells me that you come to this forum just to toot your horn and aren't actually interested in anything anyone else is saying. If you'd actually bothered to read any of the other threads, you'd know that I live in India - not a western society. I'm debating on a forum populated by westerners, which would automatically take me out of my comfort zone and right in the middle of another culture.

In future, please refrain from making any assumptions about me. You just make a fool of yourself. More that usual, that is.

Do you have an example?

Are you allowed to eat shellfish?

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.

No, you are trying to impose your own little world onto everyone else. Forgive us if we don't sit by silently.

Secondly, biblical clarity? Give me a break. I don't see the word "Bible" anywhere in the OP or the title. If you'd prefaced your post by saying, "According to the Bible..." my arguments would've been completely different. I'd have said that the Bible is not a philosophical treatise, it is not a dictionary and any definitions you give from it are not provided explicitly, but can only be inferred or interpreted - which makes them subjective, unreliable and therefore, useless.

And thirdly, what relevance does telling us what the Bible means by morality and righteousness have when a) those definitions are subjective and meaningless, b) not accepted by general populace when talking about morality and c) god's actions are clearly sinful (according to the morality that is accepted by the general populace).

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.

All you are doing is forcing your stupidity on everyone. Sorry, but I'm not going to let that stand either. Countering lies and foolishness under the guise of an intellectual debate is a part of my moral code.