Morality

[genkaus]

Indeed then by that definition and omission you assessment of morality is the same as the biblical one: 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. Do you want me to break it down and show you how you have accepted the biblical defination of morality?

Please, start by providing the bible quotes and verses that define morality and righteousness. Not just verses you think you can interpret their meanings from.

So you believe in one's society Morality never changes?

No, different moralities are accepted by society in different times.

I guess that answers my question. Now i will ask, do you think the morality of 1930's and 40's Germany is the same or different as modern day germeny?? Do you think the morality of 1950's and 60' America is the same or different than now? If no then apparently you are not, nor do you know any Jewish, gay, or black people. Because popular morality that governed those societies in those time periods mentioned, are a far cry from where they are now. Murder the 'uncrossable line' in your understanding of morality, was not only encouraged but frequently visited upon these social groups of people. to the tune of millions.

Do you actually understand what I say or are my arguments too subtle and nuanced for your comprehension. Ofcourse they are different. They are two different moralities separated by time - exactly like I said just before.

You are making my argument for me. either you do not understand what is being discussed here or you are simply not equip to represent your position. If you read my opening Post I identify two understandings of the word morality, one that the popular culture has embraced and the other is a biblically back understanding of the word.visited upon these social groups of people. to the tune of millions.

It seems like you don't read your own posts.

Look back on your original post yourself and see if you used the word "popular" or "biblical" anywhere.

Debating in a forum has nothing to do with living in a foreign society and adopting their morality as your own. (As per the orginal comment made) Bottom line is your in India and shout your idea of morality to anyone with an opposing view. If you are not careful you will adopt the mentality that has the rest of the world hating the western culture.

Read your own damn posts, moron. The original post was me adopting another culture, not another morality. And debating with westerners has a lot to do with adopting - or atleast being familiar with - their culture. I wouldn't be able to debate them well if I know nothing about their culture.

BTW just in case you want to know what I am on about, an example of you being forced to adopt a new culture as your own would be if your family was up rooted and place in a different country to live and force to adopt that culture, that way of living, while having your original trivialized and every aspect taken from you. No you get the best of both worlds as it is now. you can sit where you are comfortable and judge from your chair all that is not what you are accustomed to. way to be enlightened.

Is that how they do it in your country when someone from another culture comes along? Remind me to stay away from that shithole. Let me tell you something. There are some aspects of my heritage that I like and others that I don't. Those I don't like, I've discarded myself. And those I like, no change in country would make me give that up.

As I just pointed out your location has little to do with your self righteous attitude. It does not matter where you are from. i identified a behavior in what you have said, that places your work accurately in a category that I described "the reason people of the world hate those in the west."
You can pull the "you don't know me card" if you like, but your word thoughts, and deeds have been spilled out all over this thread. Your own work points to the nature of "who you are" I do not have to assume anything. You told me yourself.

Must I keep reminding you of the arguments you yourself make? You accused me of narrow-mindedness with the premise that I'm based in the West. I'm not based in the West and by your standard, anyone who has lived in the same country his whole life is narrow-minded. You seem to have some sort of allergy to actually opening a dictionary and seeing what words actually mean.

Yes, shell fish, blood sausage, bacon, ham, hamburger, unshelled fish.. what else you got?

You weren't allowed to before. It seems that your god's morality does change.

Did I interrupt your thread or create my own? Because I created my own know, that it was not my intention to force anyone to address anything I had said. My comments were pointed to only those who wished to question God's actions by their current understanding of morality.

And they were wrong. Enter me to point out the errors.

As per my introduction and every post since, My sole purpose here is to answer biblically based questions and to provide biblical clarity.
If you would have read ANY of the other posts in this thread with an open mind, this fact would quickly become apparent.

Read your own fucking original post, you brainwashed bible-thumper and see if the word bible occurs anywhere in it.

Because of "C" Only a fool judges another outside of his standard of living by his standard of living. My efforts are focused on those who truly seek an honest understanding. In that their "standard" of morality is not a standard at all. but a variable based on time culture and perspective.

A standard of living is not a standard of morality. Your god's standard of morality is clearly inferior to modern man's.

Which brings up the bigger question: So how can anyone; let alone God, be judged by what is right today in this part of the world, when tomorrow or just a few thousand miles away all of that can change? In that situation who would be the one to correctly judge God? the guys that says it is ok kill gay people in an earth quake or the guy praying for his gay brother in said quake? That is why if you are to judge God then it has to be by an absolute standard, like the one Given in the bible.

Because a) Any judgment being passed and accepted is consented to by both parties and b) morality given in the bible is anything but absolute.

I honestly don't think you know what is being discussed. Perhaps if you asked a few more questions i could help provide you with a better idea of what is going on.

Sure I do. You are providing biblical redefinitions of words such as morality and righteousness according to your subjective interpretation of the bible while completely ignoring their objectively established and accepted meanings, all the while never acknowledging the distinction between the two and therefore laying the basis for future "fallacies of equivocation" whenever morality would be discussed.

I'm correcting you.