Man's morality

[Drich]

Morality is man's attempt to establish a code of conduct to live his life by. It is a set of principles to be used to evaluate and guide his actions and those of other humans.

Which is why It varies from soceity to soceity from generation to generation and from even person to person.

It is not based on a preconceived notion of righteousness or sin - quite the reverse, in fact, what one regards as righteous is determined by the moral system.

With in the micro construct of morality itself (if there is no God) I agree. However Because God exists, God determines what true righteousness is.

You claim that at some point, your god came up with a set of principles that could be used to guide and judge human actions (after making similarly unsubstantiated claims about there being a god and him giving two shits about human existence). Even if that was the case - and it is a BIG IF - then those principles would form god's morality.

The word/defination of the word would apply as stated in your arguement. I have simply seperated Righteousness and morality as a way to reduce confusion. To show there there is indeed two standards of right and wrong. God's version/Righteousness and man's version 'Morality.' I only assigned 'morality' to Man simply because of how this word is used on this site to defend the actions of Man and to judge God. If it makes you feel any better I am not opposed to switching the words when talking to you.

Whatever is righteous according to that morality would be god's righteousness. And since sin is defined as something that goes against god's morality, anything that goes against that morality would be sinful by definition.

How so? What do you believe the defination of sin is?

Saying that man's morality - something that is not dictated by your god - does not match up to your god's morality is trivial and pointless.

Indeed, Man's morality is very pointless.

Your god's morality does not match up to man's morality either.

agreed.

And why would man's morality even need to achieve your god's standard of righteousness?

When I was an Atheist, I used my 'morality' as a judgement day defense strageity. In that if their was a God, and if I were a moral person (If my right doings out weighed my wrongs.) to condemn me to Hell would therefore make God immoral. I hid behind my 'works' as if they actually meant something.

Because your god's morality said so?

Nuupe. I like the rest sought 'morality' because I needed a righteousness apart from God. a righteousness I could control so I could justify whatever I wanted to do. A righteousness centered on Self, or rather a Self righteousness. Fore you see, a Self righteousness mixed in with some pride not only allows you to live apart from how God has called for you to live, but it allows demands that you speak against the way God has commanded we live. to the point the we Judge God Himself, against our own self righteousness daring Him to throw a righteous/moral person such as yourself into Hell.

Which is why I keep saying God's Righteousness is not based on the acts man's morality is founded on.

Thus showing that your god's morality is an inadequate standard to live by. Using s rigid and unchanging set of principles that shows no consideration to the context actions take place in is not a standard people can use to guide their whole lives. It would be irrational to do so. Which is why they shouldn't. Which is why they don't.

Which is why He also provided attonement, or do you (and the people you mentined) not know of the New Testament and Christianity?

A much smarter principle than a code blind to context.

Indeed it is, but only if you wish to live in your own version of righteousness/morality. Because if morality is an ever sliding scale then nothing one can ever do is truly wrong. Death camps, Genocide, Abortion, Manifest Destiny, small pox blankets, etc..

But then, your god's morality is not a universal standard of good either. How could it be, if it is not universally accepted.

Your arguement fails here. A standard does not have to be accepted in order for it to be viable. Here we use inches feet yards and miles to measure distance. It is the standard measure of the united states whether you personally accept it or not. Like wise if you put yourself under God's standard or not It is the standard God will use to judge everyone in this realm.

As it happens, a constantly changing and reasonable moral system is much better than one that is unchanging and unreasonable - which is what your so-called god's morality is.

again only in a perpetual state of self righteousness. As the indivisual 'selves' change, so too does the righteousness.

Again, to point back at hitler. Popular 'morality' Changed to include genocide, which was appearently fine if you were of anglo decent, but what of everyone else? This is the ultimate end of all popular morality. The destruction of all who do not conform to the popular social model currently accepted.

I say that to help those looking to frame questions based on "morality." Most of the time it is used an absolute standard when in fact it is not. To say "God is not moral" is not the insult you think it is. That is like a death camp nazi saying a German citizen is not 'moral, because he is hiding Jews from the Gestapo. Why? Because your morality like the death camp nazi's morality is based on ever declining scale. The fact there is so much distance between what you think is right and what God has declared as righteous only points to how far you and your 'morality' has fallen beyond true righteousness.

I say this to help those momentarily confused by your ramblings. Only within a theistic context are the questions regarding morality assume it to be an absolute standard. That's because, within that context, the morality refers to your god's morality, which, according to you, is an absolute standard.

When atheists say "god is not moral", what they are actually saying is that your god fails to follow his own morality.

Uh, no. What you are saying is God does not measure up to 'my/your' own personal version of Rightouesness/self righteousness.

That he fails to live up to his own standard of righteousness. Though, I have to agree, such an argument is pointless, because the first principle of your god's morality seems to be that whatever he does is moral by definition. Apparently, your god is a

Oh, good so you do have book Chapter and verse that sets a standard of Righteousness that dictates How God is suppoed to act? If not what do you mean "By his own standard?"

Are you so naive to believe that God has to play by our rules? I am giving you the benfit of the doubt here, but just incase you do believe this, allow me to ask, does everyone in our soceity 'play' by the same rules as everyone else? Or are there people in authority that are not governed by the same laws as the rest of us? Are there people who can open carry firearms? who can run red lights, who can kick down your front door, who can detain you, imprision you, who can force their will on you, who have been given permission to hunt people down? These activities are bann by our laws for the average citizen, and yet there are those who get paid to do these very things to other people.

At some point there is a division of power. God is the ultimate point of this division of power. His creation, His direction, His Authority, puts Him in a place over us. Just like our goverments and those who police us.