Morality

[Drich]

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

you can also check the rest of the bible and the word morality or moral will not appear as they are new constructs. What we consider "moral" he bible defines as self righteousness. God's standard is righteousness our deviation of that standard is self righteousness. Since we did not like that term we changed it to being up right and or moral.

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

Romans 10:10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel[a] is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

3. There is no indication of multiple moral codes.

Mat 23:23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.[c]

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies[d] the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells[e] in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[f] 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Every single woe to a scribe and Pharisee or blind guide is a law that they have made that undergirds their "moral code" It is counted as a woe because it undercuts the righteousness of God with their own self righteousness/morality.

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.

Have you considered your hard heart will not allow you to understand for the sake of your pride? woe to the man who is made the fool for the sake of his own pride.

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.

Done.

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

Read this thread in it's entirety. there is no "our" it's only you.

[quote='Drich' pid='273758' dateline='1334675709']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.

now you are just pulling my leg right? You can't seriously think any of this?? Tell me the truth do you not understand the most basic concepts of Christianity? or are you trying to see if I do? Because I have been waiting for one of you to ask for scriptural proof of all of this since I got here. I can not give it until you ask for book chapter and verse lest I be ban by a over zealous mods for preaching. So if you want to go down this road make your intentions known. until then here are the cliff notes version:
2Co 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become a the righteousness of God in Him.

For we are not talking about "morality" as being God's standard we define God's standard as being unchanging. That is why Jesus shed His blood on the cross. so we do not have to live out God's complete standard of Righteousness. His blood sacrifice is known as an atoning sacrifice He was beaten and bloodied and ultimately killed so you would not have to be for failing to meet God's standard of righteousness. This atonement allows one to live a 'moral" life and still be found righteous before God if that life has been dedicated to God. Morality in of itself is nothing more than the same self righteousness the Pharisees and the scribes were condemned for. the difference between them and us is the atoning sacrifice of Christ. They did not have it and they self righteousness/morality was used to serve them as Mat 23 points out. Just pull the trigger on Book chapter and verse (using that exact phrase) and i will be more than eager to take this conversation up a notch.

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.

I still contend there were no mistakes. The point of a thread here in the west is to plant a kernel of an idea and then develop it. OP's are generally just a starting point, and because I did not condemn the Idea of two separate moralities or Righteous standards, infact I even alluded to them no "mistake" was made in the OP. The only mistake made here is one basic understanding and protocol of the point or purpose of how a forum works outside of your country of origin.

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.

Uh, no. not on your terms. your efforts have been found wanting. I have shown you and everyone else the great lengths in which you had to go to maintain your farce. No amount of pressure from you will prompt me to justify your failure to address these points in their proper context. If you wish to revisit them then you going to have to work it in the conversation as it stands now. you will not be allowed to strip the conversation down out of the context in which I have labored to frame it just to address each point in the way best suited to your argument.