Man's morality

[Drich]

So the rules are essentially pointless?

Paul tells us if not for the 'rules' we would not know sin. If we did not know of sin then we could not see a need for attonement/redemption thereby sealing our fate. In short the Crazy high standard of God is to point out the need for salvation.

Only if you redefine 'right' as 'what god wants'.

In the scope of eternity, that is the only 'right' that matters.

In a sense, I suppose. But it gets trickier when figuring out how to treat wrongdoers. For example, someone might want to get away with doing something bad, so they should let others also get away with it?

Hence Honor amongest theives. which is a principle in concept only. Because ultimatly a theif will sell out a brother if in the end it belfits himself. If you think about it this honor' is akin to man's morality. fore it too is a practice that only truly works in concept only.

I should clarify: I did not think that a baby could be aborted at birth legally. And they can't.

not since 2005, but before then back to 1973 it was perfectly legal, and morally acceptiable, It was GW Bush who made it illegal, but give it time. articals like this on:http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/11/27/the-gop-s-late-term-abortion-strategy-is-backfiring.html are building a 'moral arguement that says killing babies is not only justifiable but a moral mandate for low income women who need this option. Based off of the studies of "Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport who are professors in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences in the School of Medicine at the University of California in San Francisco. "

Whether late term abortions are currently being performed or not, for the sake of this arguement is not the issue. It's the fact that we did justify this act for more than 30 years, which made it moral, then the scales of morality were pushed back in 2005, which are being challenged again, which only proves my point further. That 'morality' is not a standard that means anything. It is just the current popular system of belief. It is self righteousness inacted or played out by the people. This self righteousness whether it leans to the right or left is still self righteousness, and it means little to God, because no matter what we still have fail to meet the standard we have been told to submit to.

What if that baby were patient zero for the next zombie apocalypse?

and what if he were the next Hitler? Or what if as Hitler said babies who do not meet certain physical standards or cultrual back grounds are not really human but human roaches who are a plague of the country, and if we do not kill them we will all die -or- what if a baby that get's it brain sucked out would have provided the zombie vaccine, and God used the Zombie apocalypse to punish a race of baby killing people?

Or one even better What if God knew that one such Child would exist, or better yet a whole race of them would be spawn from a particular tribe or people, wouldn't He then be 'morally obligated' (Per your standard) To kill that baby or whole race of people to save 5000 years of people yet to come?

I like what if's, I can play this game all day. But in the end it is just a game. At some point you have to put games down and look at reality. In the Real world God tasks us to be responsiable to what we have been given. If that means we are given a child then we must be responsiable for it, come Hell or High water.

I don't actually mean to suggest that any such thing is likely, but rather that even this judgment is technically not absolute. I would not argue that "killing babies is generally not immoral" but rather that a partially developed fetus isn't what one might consider a baby.

EXACTLY, That Is Why The Babies Are Dehumanized In This Proceedure.

Another Example If A Man assaults a pregnet woman and the baby dies it is then refered to as a baby and the man is charged with Murder (It happened near where I live a few years ago) A baby's status/humanity has nothing to with gestation, but whether or not it is wanted by the mother. So tell me some more about this self righteous 'morality' you all use to judge God.


(A fetus that, if born naturally at that moment, could survive outside the womb, is a different story.)Actually it is not. There are many who lived, and they have heroundous stories where after the proceedure they were discarded in the trash bin, and then left to die, only to be rescued by a janitor or nurse. Google saline abortion survivors. I heard one guy speak, he has chemical burn scars over the majority of his body. I don't remember his name but He should be hard to find. He has reaserched this and has terriable numbers for the survival rates a few years ago.

If I took this at face value, does that mean that a fetus that does not yet have a heartbeat can be aborted?

It completely depends on your morality.. I am not trying to have an abortion discussion here. I am using abortion to illustrate the potential evil of morality.

Also, does this mean that organisms without a circulatory system (or more specifically, a heart within said system) are not really alive?

They can't be aborted, so how does that even tie into any part of this conversation or are you just reaching?

Under the right circumstances, yes. And no, I don't mean WWII concentration camps.

Those camps are examples of how a soceity will decline morally if left unchecked. Meaning if there are not any absolutes.

I'm pretty sure it existed before Christianity. It also basically seems like common sense.

It is still an absolute, no matter who you wish to credit with the orgins. In a soceity with declining morals 'common sense' becomes less and less common. At some point, the 'golden rule' will also become obsolete.

I am pondering whether you actually meant 'apart', or have again made 'a part' into one word. Opposite meanings, really. I would agree that if you merely think the golden rule is inconvenient, then it would be apart of morality.

No, the other one; "a part."

On the other hand, I wouldn't say that the existence of abortion shows how all of society is immoral (though the illegal partial birth method is rather sickening, and I personally would not encourage late term abortions unless absolutely necessary).

That's just it. I am saying the self righteousness that spawns morality, means that 'soceity' is NEVER Immoral unless judged so by a higher power or in the case of WWII Germany a Stronger league of nations.

If Abortion was immoral, then it would not be legal. Such is the case of partial birth abortions now. But again according to the links I posted there are studies underway to justify the 'morality' of partial birth abortions.. If we have another term or two with an obama like president partial birth abortions will be one's 'moral obligation' in a woman's right to choose as it has been for more than 30 years.

Again I say all of this to say that there is a very distince difference between Man's morality and God's righteousness. God's Righteousness is based in attonement and Grace, while our moralities are based in action. In God's ecconomy there is attonement for a woman to have an abortion, where as in man's morality depending on when you have an abortion, what week of gestation the BABY is in, What part of the world your located in and ultimatly your personal reasoning an abortion may be legal or illegal. Again I am not here to judge the act one way or another. I am just pointing out that man's morality is based on acts he wants to justify for himself, while God's Righteousness says Killing babies is always wrong, and yet with God even though it is wrong there is still forgiveness, where as the man I spoke of earilier Got life for killing a 'wanted fetus.'

---

24 A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, 25 for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? 26 To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Which by itself may be considered proselytization, thus I shall elucidate. My moral philosophy is the toil of hands and heart and thus I am satisfied, yours, however, is the the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. To me, to ridicule. Which provides a modicum of amusement.

Oh, and by the way...

and if the toils of your hands and heart are found to be morally objectionable by other people?