Morality

[Drich]

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?

Lev 19 is a good place to start It shows and explains in detail God's Righteousness (The absolute and perfect standard of God) against the contrast of the morality that governed the people.
The entire chapter is a back and fourth between the standards of God and what men are to do (or how they can be morally responsible) when they fail to meet that standard.

Christ in his woes to The Pharisees Mat 23 show the short comings in the morality of the Pharisees. He points out the hypocrisy and their failed attempt to maintain God's standard, by rewriting their own versions of God's law so they could meet it, and yet they still fail to meet this new lower standard/morality based in the same self righteousness that drives our need to build a low moral standard for ourselves today.

How deep do you want to go because next i can issue reading assignments for you and we can build on principles together.

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

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

Then there is little more to say. If you can not or will not accept the change in the moral disposition of Pre WWII and Post WWII Germany In this most extreme case than you are intentionally being obstinate or you truly do not have a fundamental grasp of the English language.

Either way you have fundamentally ended this conversation.

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 Germany?? 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. Of course they are different. They are two different moralities separated by time - exactly like I said just before.

Then if they are different Morality is not an absolute standard as you have pronounced many times thus far. Morality is a variable by definition.

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

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 see it just fine why can't you? Maybe if I put it in bold letters for you (that means darker than the other letters)

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 at least being familiar with - their culture. I wouldn't be able to debate them well if I know nothing about their culture.

apparently not, for the idea of a forum is for one (The OP) to start a thread by posting a very general idea and for others to contribute or question the original thread. As we are more than 7 pages into this discussion the original Post has changed and been modified to address and questions concerns or holes that you all have seen fit to bring up. So to default to the original post as if it were some holy unchangeable text must be something that is tied to your culture and/or current understanding of western culture preventing you from "debating them well."

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

Because "morality" is a term that describes Change I would be inclined to agree.

b) morality given in the bible is anything but absolute.

Agree because even morality as per the two verses I left earlier prove " morality even found in the bible is an ever changing standard. (Hence the Rebukes of Christ to the moral standards set fourth by the Pharisees)

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.

absolutely not. this is what happens if you do not read anything besides the OP. Again the point of a thread is to develop and evolve a thought past the original starting points.

I have made every effort to acknowledge Popular morality but your single minded argument will not allow the amendment that i have made to supplement the OP. The amendments don't change the OP it Points to unspoken or underdeveloped areas such as the need to clarify the acknowledgment and segregation between popular morality and biblically identified moral efforts.

The short comings here can be identified by you not allowing the conversation on my end to progress beyond Your Personal Interpretation of the OP. all the while you are gathering and changing information and building onto your current argument. Which seems to be yet another way for an enlightened man to close his mind for the sake of his wounded pride.