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?

First, don't misquote me. I didn't say this, you did.

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.

Now, go and read what I asked for. Then go and read Lev 19 and Mat 23. Then go and read what I asked for once again. Do you see the problem?

I said: "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. "

And then you go and do exactly that. The verses you provided don't even use the use the word morality, much less give its definition. You are trying to tell me what the bible defines morality and righteousness as. Then tell me what the bible defines morality and righteousness as, not what you think it means after reading the bible. I'll make it easy for you: I'm looking to a verse that contains the word "morality" or "righteousness" and proceeds to explain what it means by those words.

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

Not deep at all. If you say you are providing biblical definitions, provide biblical definitions with reference to the source. If you are providing your own interpretations, then say that.

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.

Show me where I've said that.

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.

Show me where I've claimed morality to be absolute. It is not absolute, bu tit is still a standard of judgment.

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)

Since you provided it, you should be able to read it yourself. There is no indication anywhere in the provided paragraph that these definitions are according to the bible. No indication that these are not the accepted and established definitions. No indication that these definitions are not applicable outside biblical context. And no indication of the source.

You still haven't read you own post, have you?

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."

Actually, the reasons for the meandering quality of this debate are:
1. You failed to specify any context of the debate, hoping that we'd somehow divine it from revelation.
2. You keep forgetting your own arguments.
3. You keep assuming arguments that are directly opposite the ones that your opponents gave.
4. You fail to grasp the basic meanings of the words.

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

That's settles then, god's morality changes.

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.

So, once you acknowledge the mistakes made at your starting point, wee can move past that.

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.

I've given you lots of chances to make the corrections. Even in this post, where you restated the original post, you could have acknowledged what you missed the first time around. Can you show me where you have provided the distinction between popular and biblical morality? Can you point out where you have differentiated between biblical and popular righteousness? Can you point out where, before this, you have stated the purpose of the thread and which direction you want it to go? Your ad hominems are nothing more that a desperate attempt to preserve the shattered vestiges of a failed argument.

Start over. Start by defining biblical morality and righteousness along with the definitions that are already accepted. Provide the sources of these definitions. Point out the differences between them. Explain why the established definitions are not applicable to the bible. And then tell us why we should give a shit.