Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[Drich]

How does one go about verifying this in scripture?

One reads his bible.

Had god not ordered people to do things in the past without an explicit scriptural reference to it?

In the past, before they had the benfit or perspective of a completed bible God sent men like Elijah, or Moses. They carried the word and works of God and spoke to His people.
Meaning the people knew these men were prophets because of the works they did in God's name.

Or has he stopped doing this the moment we gained the ability to accurately record him doing so?

When would that be? The Modern era?

I'll be charitable and leave aside the rather pathetic Godwin, but don't presume to know my moral code, Drich. My morality has nothing to do with popular vote, and I think you know that; my ethics are developed from a rational consideration of the effects my actions have on other people, and from my personal responsibility and empathy to those around me. The laws of our society aren't passed down from your sky-dictator, but from an evolutionary and social development, designed to maintain and propagate a healthy society.

Which are agree upon by the majority of the people living with in the soceity... (AKA popular VOTE)

Otherwise if it was as you said and we all just came to this 'morality' because it was what was best for the propagation of soceity, then all soceities would have come to relitivly the same 'morality.' They haven't have they? For it seems those in the west have a different idea of 'morality' than those in the mid east and far east.

Because morality varies from culture to culture from even generation to generation with in those cultures, morality can be defined as the standard in which a given soceity collectivly agrees to live under as an attempt to live 'righteously.' Now follow me here; Because this 'rightous living' is not God's Stated Righteousness, but a personal sense of righteousness, Christ rightly identified it as "Self Righteousness."

Making ANY version of Morality (Not God's Righteousness or God's perfect Standard) self righteous standard. So no matter where you believe your high and mighty morality comes from, it still falls far short of where it is supposed to be.

And who are you to talk about "Standards" anyway? You don't have a fucking standard! According to you, god's intent overrules any sense of morality you might have, so all the things that normal people find to be evil- you know, murder, rape, theft, all the big ones- are in your mind conditional on what your god has to say about them, case by case! You've spent plenty of time explaining that to me, you can't then turn around and say you have a standard, objective morality, because you don't.

My, 'standards' are not based off of works. As such I do not measure myself against what other men can see and judge. which allows me to not appeal to others to define who I am as a person. For that I turn to God. If you are happy with washing the outside of your cup (Keeping clean only what other men can see while the interrior festers) as the pharasees did, then that is between you and God.

Which is it? Is your concept of good and evil objective and therefore unchanging, or does your god decide whether each individual act is sinful or not?

God laid out a standard. In this case you shall not Murder. Murder is the unsanctioned taking of life. It is Never ok to Murder. If God gives a Kill order then the taking of life is Sanctioned. Nothing Changes. For even if God gives a kill order against a specific people (As He has only done in OT times.) then it is still not ok to Murder. For you see the focous is off of the act of taking of life and placed on obediance to God. Nothing has changed.

Now, does that have to be specific, like an actual order, or can I do the standard theist thing and just twist around any random passage to mean what I need it to mean?

show me what you have.

I do need to remind you that this is a hypothetical, by the way. Unlike you, I know that all murder is wrong, no matter who orders it.

So, if you had an oppertunity to kill/murder little baby hitler, little baby stallin, and or little baby Hirito you would pass, and doom 100 million people to a terriable death?
Mighty 'moral' of you.

Do you honestly think you're such a monster, you require a threat of eternal torture just to stop yourself from killing people? Because I think you've got Stockholm Syndrome toward an idea. But fine, let me rephrase the question: say you found a scriptural, explicit order for you to kill your family. Would you do it?

every last one.

But for the sake of utility, if not just simple politeness, it would have been great if you had answered the question I asked. Instead, you chose to ignore it completely and go off on some tangent before deciding to tell me what I should have meant, and then expected me to play catch up. It's rude, not to mention completely ineffectual.

If I redefined your usage of a term, that was me telling you you are using the popular defination and not one consistant with how the biblical use if framed.

Said every thug demanding protection money, ever.

...And everyone else looking to hold someone accountable to their actions.
Accountablity, not just used by thugs. ;P

Ooh, I have a bit of a thing about people telling me what I want... And this is a weaksauce argument anyway.

You asked why is their suffering. I described the nature of said suffering. Suffering does not come from fire but from seperation.

Proof? Literally every word you have said in this thread since it started. Every last argument you've made. All of them.

Everything, but at the same time nothing. Or is my usage of the word "but" some how proof? what about thugs? Accountablity? I used all of those words and I fail to see how the 'prove' what I asked you to prove.