Man's morality

[Drich]

Might makes right, hm?

In the entire History of Man Might has always made 'right.'

That would apply to any law. Obviously someone will break the law at some point.

Which is why God provies attonement.

It's the fact that we did justify this act for more than 30 years, which made it moral
Did it? Can something go from being moral to immoral? I wouldn't think so, just our perception of it. In the case of a partial birth abortion, we would be dealing with an actual developed baby, as opposed to a fetus. I don't know why anyone ever supported it in the first place.[/quote] Seriously? If there wasn't support for PBA who performed these abortions? Who elected to have them? Why did a law have to be enacted in order to stop them in the US?

Are we dehumanizing egg cells too? What if I kill an egg cell and a spermatozoa? Then is it murder?

Are babies egg cells?

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.[/quote]

Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”

I guess this doesn't count? Or is it because the fetus has sinned?

Absolutly not. Because i asked you to explain YOUR Morality, not examine Hosea 13. Can you answer this question without appealing to a red herring?

I meant morally, not in terms of how the abortion was carried out. Removing a fetus that is undeveloped is one thing, directly killing a viable fetus is another. Killing a viable fetus that survives an abortion would, or at least should be considered infanticide.

But, it's not or wasn't till just a few years ago. Again the viablity of a baby/fetus only has to do with whether or not the mother wants the child. If the child is unwanted the person in side the mother is deemed a fetus no matter what stage of development it was in, and therefore ripe for any abortion proceedure the 'doctor' deemed nessary. Infanticide only applies to wanted pre birth babies.

Again not do get into too deep to abortion it self but I am pointing to the sliding scale of man's 'morality' and justification of Something as Henous as killing babies. This is why i say man's standard is crap, and why YOU can not use the passage in Hosea to judge God. Why? Because the moral standard you are trying to use says God is 'immoral' for killing dump truck load of babies. While the soceity who has set this 'moral standard' literally killed Millions of babies every YEAR, and continues to do so. While God killed a people before they could change the course of 'History.'

I guess you're right that they can't be aborted. I was just curious, as "heartbeat" could not work as a universal definition of life.

A Heart beat only needs to be the human standard of Life as that is the focous of our conversation.

I won't disagree with that.

(You agree with the Golden rule becoming obsolete according man's morality if given enough time)
Then you agree that with out absolutes, man's morality becomes a declining standard. If then Man's Morality can be identified as a declining standard then how can one consider it to even be a true standard at all? It's not. All 'morality' is the current level of perversion generation/current cultrue is willing to allow or restrict.

Or any outside source, really. Though they might be using a different yardstick to determine morality by. One must be careful when developing one.

That's just it. No matter how careful one is, without a true standard to measure by, or a fix point like a bull's eye to shoot for, your just throwing darts at a blank wall. If you play darts without a board then you can claim no matter where the dart lands it is a bullseye, and where ever my darts lands to be out of bounds.

Like it or not this is what you did when you quoted hosea 13. You ignored your own culture's standardless venture into infanticide that tallies literally into the millions, but used that same soceity's baseless standard to deem God 'immoral' when at best there was maybe a couple of hundred, lets say a couple of thousand women and their babies put to death...
Again, Death is not the 'immorality' I am discussing here. It is the right to claim the 'moral high ground' when there is not only blood on your hands, but blood enough (from dead babies) to fill lakes. Even so, this hyprocrisy does not seem to register with you or any of your peers who have tried this 'moral high ground tatic.'

If Abortion was immoral, then it would not be legal.

Being a douchebag isn't illegal.

We are not talking about trying to hook up with your GF's sister, or talking on your phone durning a movie. We are talking about Killing babies.
If Killing babies was not morally justified (by changing the staus of said babies to fetuses) It would not be legal.

I don't think that is what the article was saying. I am pretty sure that it was arguing for easier access to early abortions to reduce late term abortions.

that was the final spin yes, but if you read the 'facts' of the study' it points to the reasons late term abortions were needed for low income women. None of which changes with easier access. The vast majority/71% of late term (5 months or later) Simply did not know they were prego.

To which I will not disagree. Yet, if you continue to insist that god's righteousness is better because it is absolute (barring god's nonexistence), I will continue to argue that being absolute is not necessarily a good thing. Something that is absolute and in error can never be amended.

I whole reason for this thread is to point out that 'man's morality' is based on works, which many of you assume God's righteousness is also based on works/what you do. It's not. God's righteounsess is a standard so pure none of use can ever hope to reach it. Therefore we must seek the attonement Christ offers. When we do this then we take on the 'morality' of Christ. Meaning we become as sinless/blamless as Christ is to the Father.

I consider this better because I do not try and fool myself with the idea that I am 'basically a good person.'

---

Ah - but WHERE did you get those claims about the Morality of GOD?

The bible

Certainly NOT from the bible - since the gods "morality" wavers and changes constantly.

How so?

YOU see - that is the problem. WE have actually read the bible and can clearly see the LACK of morality in many of the things the god supposedly did -

such as?

Example - it is accepted that a BABY cannot sin - they are not of age to be morally responsible.

responsiable for what?

WE also accept that killing people who have done NOTHING to deserve killing is called MURDER.

Ah, no. Killing someone for personal reasons is called Murder. If God sanctions the death then it is not murder.

So - where were all the Babies and young children taken in the fairy tale of the great flood?

They Drowned.

Or the Sodom and Gomorrah destruction?

They burned.

You cannot say that the god KNEW that all of them would sin - since they are supposed to have FREE WILL - and therefore can only be judged based on what they actually did.

If you went back in time
and had a chance to kill hitler as a baby would you? After All He does have 'free will,' but at the same time you have fore knoweledge of what he would do with his 'free will.' Now, what would you do if you had a foreknoweledge of an entire race of hitlers?

In the fairy tale of the Passover, what did the average Eldest child of the Egyptians do to deserve to be Killed?

Why do you assume they did anything? What makes you think they were being held responsiable for anything? The bible clearly states why they were being killed, and it has nothing to do with your persuposition. God Gave the power to pharroh to choose the last plague. The death of the first born was what he chose.

- regardless of age. Since they were not in control of their Pharaoh - nothing is the correct answer.

Indeed. Just wondering, do you not live in a world of consenquence? If a drunk driver slams into your car at 100 mph and no one is wearing their seat belts does no one in your car die because they did not deserve it? The leader of their country thought he could select something God could not possiably accomplish. He was wrong and all those under him paid the price for HIS 'drunk driving.' It has nothing to do with what they did or did not deserve.

And remember - some of then would have been babies and children as well.

So?

Any god who "inspires" a psalm that says
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock." - is certainly not moral - of any type

AGAIN, That is what this whole thread is about. Have you read the OP yet?

God can not be judged 'moral' by the standard of man. If he were to be, then man would be judge immoral. See the above abortion post I made out to Dark star, It better answers why this whole arguement is completely invalid.

---

There is no doubt that there are people who were atheists (did not believe in any sort of gods) and had a religious conversion and are now believers. People can and do have profound changes in their thinking. I do, however, think that ex-atheists are rare. Usually I suspect that this declaration is a lie. Here are the reasons:

1. Most (but not all) of the "ex-atheists" can't provide a description of their lack of faith that seems sincere and is consistent with descriptions from current atheists.

Fallacy of composition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
example:If someone stands up out of his seat at a baseball game, he can see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up they can all see better.

If a runner runs faster, she can win the race. Therefore if all the runners run faster, they can all win the race.
Your saying:
If an current Atheist believes X about God, then all who were Atheist also have to believe X about God.

2. The numbers don't work. Atheists are a growing population in most countries. If all these "former atheists" were genuine, we would see the opposite trend.

Argumentum ad populum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This on is pretty self explainatory. You took a premise and based your conclusion on what you felt the majority think/does.

3. Religion follows fads. I remember back in the 70s-90s there were all these "ex-satanists" -- after the satanic panic bullshit ran its course and the new atheist movement took hold all these "ex-satanists" vanished and "ex-atheists." started appearing.

This 'Base rate fallacy' is easily explained away. If there was a surge of Satanists, then there would be more people who worship satan that could potentially be converted. Likewise is there are more atheists, then that would broaden the pool of likly converts as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
Example: John is a man wearing outstanding goth inspired clothing with long black hair who listens to death metal. How likely is it that he is a Christian and how likely is it that he is a Satanist?
If people were asked this question, they would likely underestimate the probability of him being a Christian, and overestimate the probability of him being a Satanist. This is because they would ignore that the base rate of being a Christian (there are about 2 billion in the world) is vastly higher than that of being a Satanist (estimated to be in the thousands).[2]

You stated that Satan to Christian conversion spiked when there were more satanists, You also stated that this trend continued with Atheist to Christian conversions, then you asked how likly was this to actually to happen based on the avaiable evidence. You in asking your question underestimated the probablity of Satanist/Atheist to Christian conversions, because you ignored the popularity of these two anti-God groups and the pool of potential converts, while over estimating the probablity of people simply making things up.

4. It's a cheap ploy "I used to be an atheist just like you so i understand where you are coming from." Bullshit.

'Appeal to probablity'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.

This one is pretty self explainatory. You simply assumed this was the case, you do not have any real evidence.

---

I am not one who will say something just because people want to hear it.

This appears to be the exact opposite of what you said earlier this week, when you stated you were here because you thought there were people who wanted to hear your message, and you were simply "pandering" to their needs.

Your statement is not accurate. I am here for those looking for answers and clarity concerning God. I am not here for those seeking me or my message.