Man's morality

[genkaus]

We covered this in the OP. Man has a standard of what is 'good' apart from God. From what I have seen on this board and in life, this standard is often refered to as 'morality.' God's standard and this 'moral' standard clashes, therefore God is not what you considered to be 'moral' because He will not bend to the standard of Man.

We've covered this before as well. If a standard of what is 'good' is referred to as morality, then your so-called god's standard is a form of morality as well. And as far as I can see, your god's standard is far inferior to the one we've developed.

On the other hand, glad we can all agree on the fact that your so-called god is, in fact, immoral.

Which differs from what I've said how? God's standard of "what we ought to do" and our own standard of "what we ought to do" is completely different.

What we say we 'ought to do' is based completely on works.

What God says, is none of our works will ever be enough, so we should seek redemption.

Thus further demonstrating the irrational and self-contradictory nature of your so-called god's morality. If the list of ought-nots is not going to be sufficient in the first place, then what's the point in making such a list? That's like giving the students a test and then declaring that they won't pass no matter what their score is.

Again the purpose of this thread is to point out that 'morality' is not a meaningful standard, so to use it to judge God is pointless. It's like measuring vast distances in space with Micrometers. Even if it were possiable the final number/result would be beyond usable comperhension.

The purpose of the thread is a shoddy attempt at rationalizing one of the favorite Christian special pleading - that somehow your god is exempt from his own standard of moral behavior. You attempt to do so by claiming that your god's standard s somehow not a form of morality, when, in fact, it is one by definition.

Uh, no. Plato's metaphysics has nothing to do with sin and redemption.

I agree. Plato's metaphysics is a much more subtle and much, much more intelligent attempt at stacking the deck than your shoddy rationalizations.

That said You've again missed the point of a righteous standard. It is not there for us to strictly live by. but, according to Christ to identify the need for redemption in our life. It should follow because we can not ALWAYS tell the truth or always live by this standard we must then seek a righteousness apart from the Law God gives. This is what redemption, and Christ's death on the cross was all about. Christ did not die to replace one set of rules with another set.

Or - as it is known in advertizing circles - "creating a need". You see this all the time - from big pharmaceutical companies to small-time conmen. Apparently, religion is where it started.

You take something innocuous and trivial, advertize it as a BIG problem, show how impossible or, at least, difficult the correction is and then 'offer' a much simpler solution and see how people lap it up. You see those ads of an average-bodied girl who can't get boys because she is not a size zero and everybody calls her fat. And then you see her dieting and exercising and none of it works. And then she buys this exercise belt which can give her a workout while she sits on her ass and in three weeks - Selena Gomez.

That's what your religion is trying to peddle. You take something trivial as the basic condition of being human, you declare that state of existence insufficient and sinful according your hypothetical god, you come up with this elaborate and nearly-impossible-to-follow set of rules to live by to 'correct' that condition (and in case someone does seem capable of following them, you declare that following those rules wasn't enough to begin with) and then you offer this much simpler method of accepting Christ. The only problem is, this scheme doesn't work if we don't buy into the initial bullshit premise.

God's option is the only absolute. The other choice is to make stuff up as we go. This making stuff up is what is known as 'morality.'

The stuff that your god made is also known as 'morality'. Just because is is so much inferior to our own does not mean it doesn't fit the definition.

Missed the point on this one too. If we are all different and always changing then it stands to reason our 'morality' is always different and is always changing. Meaning if we tie our morality to soceity's standards alone then we are bound to go where ever soceity leads. This is true for accepting gay marriage, and shunning slavery, and is also true for rounding up jews and putting them in death camps as well. There are no boundries. We learned this leason just 2 or 3 generations ago and we have already forgotten it. Every Great soceity that has not fallen to an enemy has fallen to it's own declining 'morality.'

No, he got the point pretty well. You say that because we are different and changing, our morality keeps changing as well and that since your god remains the same, his morality remains the same. So what?

Again no. You believe 'morality' to be work based. In the things you think and do. God has set a standard that none can obtain through work thought or deed. Therefore we must seek the righteousness provided through attonement. This means God's righteousness and your 'morality' are worlds apart.

How do you not see the contradiction of your own god's morality here?

Telling one what one ought to do and then saying that what one does doesn't matter is simply ridiculous. I agree with you completely. Your god's morality and our morality are world's apart. Ours is a sane and rational system that is designed with basic human nature and needs in mind. Yours is dictated by arbitrary whims of an imaginary being which, by your own admission, "wouldn't work anyway".