Part 3

[Lemonvariable72]

I don't know how I missed this post.

Leaving aside presupposition for the moment, in order to come to the conclusion that "God" is morality personified - or deified - you would need to assess its actions and intentions against your own inbuilt moral compass.

Why is our 'inbuilt moral compass' any sort of accept standard in which to judge what is right and what is wrong?
Our 'compasses' are so subject to our inbuilt self righteousness our 'compass' can justify all sorts of evil. Or do you think the whole nation of Nazi Germany fought against their compasses daily and lost daily? What about 18th and 19th century America on which Nazi Germany was modeled? Hitler view the Jews as we viewed the Native americans. It was our and their 'moral obligation' to wipe out the people who were a plague on our lands, thus keeping us from our 'manifest destinies.'

It's like when someone tries to argue that there's a better way of discovering truth than the scientific method, failing to realise that they have to use that very method to determine what that better way would be and whether it works.

Actually it's not because the scientific method is not subject to generational changes. 'Morality' is. The Scientific is an absolute, pop Morality is an ever changing variable.

Taking what I actually described of my morality in account, I judge "God"'s morality as vastly inferior. The character is vengeful, vain, vindictive, petty, spiteful, murderous, bloodthirsty and just plain not nice. I am none of those things, at least by nature.

Says the suspect who is about to go before the judge, that will convict him.

I've said this before. Who cares what 'morality' a inmate subscribes to, they are still outside the confines of any real tangable standard to begin with. So what if they wont rat out a partner.. Look at all of the crap they are willing to do!!

You judging God means nothing. because with out power and authority to impliment your morality any thing you believe amounts to little more than the rantings of an angry inmate awaiting trial. And again so what if an inmate judges the Judge 'immoral.' who is going to listen to him another inmate about to be judged?

We've gone over this ground of where do our morals come from if not imposed by an external agency so many times before. For now, I'd just add this. Don't you think it belittles the glory of your god's creation that you believe happened, to hold that it was incapable (for whatever reason) of creating a species that was self-maintaining?

No.

One that requires - no, needs - a sense of morality imprinted into its psyche instead of being an emergent property of its nature?

Nazis? The Cowboy part of Cowboys and indians? "self regulating" huh?? How is that imprint working for you so far?

again Man's morality is truly based on his capacity to justify his own self righteous deeds/wants. To this end he is even willing to rewrite the words of God. Which makes your morality a joke, for you are as moral as society mandates, when society falls so too falls your idea of morality.

Examples can be found is the war torn parts of this world. or even in our literary works. Lord of the flies, The Road, I am ledgend, none of these writters are so diluted as to think as you do. That our 'inner morality' is self sustaining. They all understand that our morality is based on the circumstances our society affords, and once society crumbles so goes pop morality. Which means 'Morality' as being discussed here is not a standard but a variable based on other variables.

God's Righteousness however was born out of a time the writters of those novels fear, and yet still maintains itself despite the current status of pop culture.

---

Your dog analogy does not work. A better one would be:
You found my dog and tell me so. But I do not believe you. I ask for evidence and you say you have none. Therefore I am forced to conclude that you do not in fact have my dog.

'Your analogy does not work. I will not tell you why, I will just throw out a red herring and see if you will follow that!'

Oh, you guys! you kill me.

---

And yet there you illustrate my point perfectly. You've presupposed your conclusion and stopped there. Your journey consists of that one singe step and no others.

Three steps actually. And it contain many more steps but those steps will be between you and God to figure out. Yes, God is really that involved.

No it's not foolish, because in your scenario it's me making the assertion that I have a dog. So it's up to me to show you what it looks like. Care to show me what you god looks like? Or even that there is one?

I have. I've shown you what God needed to look like for me. But it does you no good because that is not what God needs to look like for you. If God as presented to me is not what your looking for then you will not see God.

That is why I said it is your dog. You need or lost something, so you need to know what it is your looking for before I can even begin to help you find it.

Example, do you need direct contact with God. Do you need to resolve some moral or ethical demila, do you need to work past some sort of logical paradox.. etc... Again, What do you need?

You mean righteous acts like murdering gays?