Morality

[genkaus]

Asked and answered.

Incorrectly at that.

Yes you are demanding a glossary or dictionary type of definition when you know good and well little to no words/terms are defined in such away in the bible. This makes your request a red herring. You are attempting to shift the topic being discussed, to something that categorically does not exist in the texts you are demanding they come from.

I'm not asking for anything you didn't promise. You said that the definitions of morality and righteousness you are using were the ones given in the bible. Now put up or shut up.

That is why I posted the references I did. I did not think these things, they were written long before i was born.

But you think you can interpret the definition of morality and righteousness form them. You are wrong.

The principles have been established over and over in these two chapters. God's absolute standard against man's corrupt efforts to apply these standards with the sin he is willing to live with. God's Righteousness, and morality or AKA Self righteousness.

The principles are clearly spelled out in detail. My representation of the christian terms has been satisfied to all of the standards and requirements of the Faith. I do not own any explanation to you or anyone else beyond this. This is a biblical representation of the terms supported by these two chapters. End of story. If you wish to embrace the popular or a given cultural understanding of the words then again, feel free to do so. I am not looking to redefine your favorite dictionary. I am simply looking to give those who wish to ask biblically based or God related question based on morality the incite to do so responsibility.

Let's look at the few details about the passages you mentioned for your "Biblical" definitions of morality and righteousness.

1. In either Levicticus 19 or Matthew 23, the word morality does not appear.

2. The word "righteous" has been used a few times, but only to describe an attribute of men - not god.

3. There is no indication of multiple moral codes.

In short, in the bible passages you provided, there is simply no indication of what "righteousness" means and what "morality" means. So, you definitions aren't even based on the Bible.

Oh, wait. I missed a part.

You say that your representation satisfies the standards of your faith?

Ok then. We all know how pathetic the standards of your faith are. Its not like your standards care about evidence or reality or what is true. The steaming pile of bullshit in the bible is evidence that any outlandish story can get a pass as long as it demeans humanity. So, yes, your definitions do pass your own standards.

They do not pass ours. You haven't even justified that these definitions are biblically based - let alone showing that these are the correct ones.

You say you want us to use these definitions when questioning the bible and your god? For that, you'll have to
a) provide evidence form the bible where these terms are defined or their usage is actually indicated.
b) determine why these terms are applicable where the bible or your god is the subject and not the context of discussion
c) determine how, in conflicting contexts, these definitions would be more exhaustively applicable than the popularly applicable ones.

Right now, by our standards, you are failing miserably in the first step.

God does not have a 'morality.' morality is built from God's Absolute righteous standard. God's righteousness does not Change. In your example it is still a sin to eat shell fish however Atonement allows me to eat whatever i wish.
Atonement allows me to live a moral life rather than demand that i live a righteous one. God's standard of Righteousness did not change the way i obtain it has.

(Maybe next time ask why something is the way it is rather than assume)

You haven't established any of that yet. Until you do so, morality is just a code of conduct. Which means, god's morality changed.

This is a lie. your efforts to this point have only ever pointed back to the OP. If your efforts in the preservation of the Original post were not so complete, and asserted every single time I deviated from what you understood the OP to mean. I would not have any grounds to post this objection.

Since you still haven't corrected the OP, I would still keep pointing to it whenever your deviate from it. Unlike your god, I'm actually going to hold you to your mistakes.

As it is your works and efforts have singularly been directed at holding me to YOUR Interpretation of what was Originally stated. You have no desire to discuss Morality except in so far as a platform to feed your personal pride. (Hence your request that I reset the topic on your terms as away to hide your foolish errors.)*spoiler alert: not going to happen. anyone who cares to read all of this mess can plainly see you are looking for legitimacy to salvage your efforts to this point. I am content in letting your work die on the vine.

For i have in this thread to you and others, conceded that there are indeed two separate standards or understandings of these terms and i have also gone so far as to speak to the divisions of both. But apparently this did not suit your expedition and attempted to hijack this thread to reflect your closed minded effort to dismantle all that has been said in favor of your personal very cultural interpretation of Morality. Truthfully, here you and what you believe about morality is in the minority. Have you failed to see what others have posted? Apparently you are the only one who can not see the divisions I put between God's righteous and Moral standards and the popular interpretation of them. Like it or not my work speaks for itself.

Because of that there isn't a need to do any of this:

Apparently, not content with failing language, you are determined to fail mathematics as well.

Well, putting all your indignant chest-thumping, hand-waving, foot-stomping and brick-shitting aside, the core of your argument fails because
a) you cannot provide acceptable biblical basis for your definition.
b) you cannot provide context where these definitions would be applicable
c) you cannot provide context where the established definitions would not be applicable.
d) you cannot actually acknowledge any difference between established and proposed definitions.
e) you cannot provide context where these definitions would be translated to common usage.

Even for a theist, that is a pretty impressive failure to establish an argument.