Man's morality

[genkaus]

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

And god to god and religion to religion. Face it, your god's morality is no more objective than the rest.

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.

Wrong - even if god existed. "True righteousness" would require a morality based on objective facts of nature and your god is not required for determining it.

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.

Why would you need to redefine anything if not to obfuscate the issue? The definitions as they stand work just fine. There are, in fact, many standards of right and wrong, all of them called morality and one of them - supposedly - is dictated by your god. There is no need to switch any words around to explain this simple concept.

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

According to you, it is anything that goes against what you consider to be your god's morality.

Indeed, Man's morality is very pointless.

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? This was a pretty simple sentence. Man's morality is very significant, since it determines one's life on earth. Saying "it is not the same as god's morality" - that's pointless and trivial. Further, unless given any evidence of your god's existence, your so called god's morality is what ends up being pointless.

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.

You were an atheist and you believed in crap like judgement day?

And yes, by the standards of human morality, your so called god is immoral - very much so. And there doesn't need to be a judgement day for us to know that.

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.

So, basically, because your god said so.

That's the gist of the garbage here.

That's what it boils down to - an imaginary threat. God has dictated that y'all should follow his orders and live like he said or he'll throw you in hell - how dare any of you think for yourself and come up with your own principles to live by?

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

And that defeats the purpose of having morality in the first place. Irrationality cannot be corrected by more irrationality.

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..

And why would contextual morality be a sliding scale?

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.

That still doesn't make it a universal standard - which was my actual argument and which you failed to acknowledge. A standard does have to be accepted in order for it to be viable - the standard of measurement you mentioned is viable precisely because it is accepted.

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

Unless, ofcourse, that particular morality is based on objective, rational principles.

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.

And luckily, the secular morality has moved beyond your god's or Hitler's destructive morality.

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

Uh, no. What I am saying is that god does not measure up to his own personal version of self-righteousness. If I meant otherwise, I'd say it.

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?"

No more that what Christians like you keep telling me.

Are you so naive to believe that God has to play by our rules?

Let's start with playing by his own rules first.

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.

That's the advantage of having contextual morality over absolute morality. And yes, everyone in society has to play with same rules and operate under the same laws - ideally. And that includes people in authority. Everyone can carry open fire-arms - with proper permits. No one can kick down your door, detain you or imprison you - without just cause. These activities are not banned for average citizens.

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.

Except, that is not the case with government or police.

That is the difference between a tyranny and a free society. If authority is not bound by the rules they created themselves - as you claim your god to be - then the authority is a hypocrite and you are living in a tyrannical society.

Further, this proves my point regarding your god not following his own morality. It is irrelevant whether or not the government is similarly corrupt - that would not change the fact of your god's corruption.