Man's morality

[Drich]

This is probably correct to some extent, but again, this wouldn't mean it was moral.

This is only true IF you have an absolute unchanging standard in which to judge by. Otherwise right and wrong become subjective to the whims popular culture.

60 years ago it was considered a kindness to hand out unwashed hospital blankets, cigeretts, and 'out of date' food to the homeless. Now these 'kind acts' are almost criminal.

What one generation/culture says is ok, can trivially be abhoared by another.

Here is the recurring and fundamental disagreement I keep seeing. You keep asserting that the 'righteousness' found in the Bible is an absolutely perfect moral yardstick. If this were even remotely true, your argument would be valid. But it isn't even remotely true.

Here is where you are wrong. I have said over and over what is in the bible has ABSOLUTLY Nothing to do with 'morality.' What is in the bible establishes a fixed point concerning God's righteousness. That makes 'morality' mans standard, which is tied to nothing more than pop culture. Which means man can deem God's law 'immoral' at will, allowing us to bock at anything we don't like. Making it one's 'moral obligation' not to conform to God's law.

It happened with the Nazis

If lying is always wrong, should you admit to knowing where Jews were hidden?

No. Why? Because in God's economy 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with our acts anymore. Rather our acts hold no value in of themselves. This is what seperates God Righteousness from man's 'moral' soceity.

A lie, a Murder, giving to the poor, helping or even 'Healing' people means nothing by itself. What asigns value to these acts "Good or bad" (as you understand them) is the condition of one's heart. That is what attonement means. All of your deeds are wiped out and what is left is the condition of your heart. Yes we still follow God's law and yes we still do good deeds, but not as a means to an end, but because when you fill your heart with love for someone it pours out deeds that the one you love finds favoriable.

Your 'morality' is a form of legalism that binds and defins the person by the works he does or does not do. Jesus identified this legalistic behavior in the pharisees, as 'only washing the outside of your cup. While then inside was still dirty.'

Not unless literally everyone was doing it (as in, all Christians waging some sort of violent campaign against gays).

lol, this was not the case in the days weeks or even months after 9/11. Granted the religion was Islam, but the horroific events were limited to one day perpertarited by a handful of men. Now spread events like that over a few years by a few dozen radicals, but the thing is they can not be seperated from the rest of Christianity. Then what?
According to revelation something like this is comming.

If more were to come, the government might keep a closer eye on Christian groups, but putting them in camps would be too much. Are they putting American Muslims into camps now?

We put Japanese into camps in WWII and we 'detained' some arab people right after 9/11 and held them for several days before pulling their visas and sending them home. According to my memory and the local news, Osama's brother, and his family lived near disney, and with in a day or two he was 'held' for questioning. It's my understanding that 24 hours is the limit before one has to be charged or released. He and his family was held for a year.

The home is for sale I just looked it up. It's a 2 million dollar 'fixer upper.'

And with flawed absolutes you have a broken system that can never be fixed.

You do understand the concept of attonement right? With attonement we do not have to 'fix' anything.

Because the best plan an omniscient being can come up with is one involving genocide? You have to remember that he saw this stuff coming millennia in advance and could have changed the course of history in any way at any time if he wanted to.

Remember when God works with us, He works with what we have. If Genocide was the only tool that could be used to acomplish ALL of what God was trying to accomplish, then why shouldn't He use it?

Your answer will be morality based. To which I will ask what authority does man's morality have over God?

I think this is more of a "we don't know how that would actually affect history" thing than it is a "is it moral to kill a baby to preven the holocaust".

We kill babies by the friggen Millions every year to prevent a life style change, and yet you have questions concerning the 'morality' about killing one baby that is directly responsiable for the deaths of 60 million people?

This is why your 'morality' is a meaningless crap standard. You are washing the outside of your cup to maintain 'a woman's right to choose', but at the same time if you were to commit the very same act on a baby who would grow up to be responsiable for 60 deaths, you find yourself in a grey area. From here I could say alot of negitive things about the people who think this way, but I believe my point has been made.

I imagine they wouldn't get along well. I don't think Hitler would accept being a follower. But again I'm thinking this through more than you had wanted.

Oh, that's what you were doing.. Then maybe check into Hitler's life before he became chancellor, before you persume to speak for the man.

I don't think it would really matter. You speak of what god supposedly wants, but I ask this: do you think god wants people to stop having abortions?

Is it a sin? (yes) Or do you think God wants us to not have the option to sin?

He sure hasn't done anything to stop them.

Because in this life sin abounds, and we are bound to it. If God were to stop all sin He would have to end all of us.

Maybe he doesn't care?

If God did not care Jesus would not have died for our sin.

Or maybe these fetuses are all going to heaven early and he's happy?

These Babies all repersent souls/People to be put on this earth to choose their eternial destiny, just like you, I and everyone else. If these souls die before they have that chance I Believe that God simply gives them another.

With these kinds of things, the best that can be done is speculation.

indeed

A agree that sexualizing young kids is bad, but I don't see a lot of that.

so no TV repersenting highschoolers in provoctive outfits, no movies, no magazine ads?

This is probably because I don't view the kind of media that would potentially show it (I honestly have no idea how prevalent it is).

For even those who do have become desensitized to it. Once one become numb to seeing a kid or what is supposed to repersent a teen dressed in a sexual way, and all the shock value is gone then soceity can choose to continue to push the other boundries back as well.

As for incest, I have no idea what you're talking about.

It wasn't the last Adam sandler movie maybe the one before it where the big reveal had to do with incest, last weeks south park featured an incest scene, Arrested Development has an on going 'thing' bewteen two of its characters, Boardwalk empire, Game of thrones, Dexter, Brothers and sisters, Lost, Veronica Mars, Nip tuck all have had incest as a reoccouring them or at the very least focoused an episode's plot point on the subject.

To have all of this attention and money spent to produce these instances signifies a grown trend. 'hollywood' is simply giving the people what it wants to see.

How vague. And I notice you haven't actually defined what this "best" is. Is the gay relationship, or the beating people is a gay relationship better?

better for whom? I live in a society where gay relationships are better than beating gay people. So for me now this is what is 'better.' If I lived in the other soceity where beating Gays was better then i would be inclinded to say beating them was better...

So which one would i rather live in? The one that afords me the best oppertunity to tell people about God. On one side fear of a beating may drive people from expermenting with gay sex, but on the other they could just burn inside for it, which would invalidate and 'religious' stuff they did.. As i have already pointed out is God's goal for you in not to get you to try and earn your way into heave by not doing A,B,C and doing 1,2,3 God wants your heart.

On the otherside accepting gay people means the soceity 'morals' shift in such a way as to now incorperate and justify this new life style, which will lead to the abandoment of the instutitions God established (marriage, family) and the recreation of the new gay version of it. But on the other hand there, allowing people to embrace their 'vice' will allow a great many to hit bottom, and earnestly seek God.

So which is better? I honestly don't know. I can only be faith to the reality God has placed me in and do my job.

What you have presented is not the standard but the 'justification', that is, how you are supposedly allowed into heaven. Yet this doesn't say anything about what actually is right or wrong, in fact it condones the mob mentality you keep decrying.

The mob mentality is not the complete issue. I believe in finding balance in all that we do. Sometimes there needs to be the occasional witch hunt as history shows. The problem is when you up root all absolutes there is no way to re center yourself. There is no way to find your way home. With out a true and absolute point of reference the best you can hope for is going around in circles. but what usally happens as with so many people lost in the thick woods. The go deeper and deeper in with no way of finding their way out.

I suppose if by 'standard' you meant 'the standard by which people are judged, post Jesus' then it would be correct. But Jesus also noted the importance of the laws. I realize that you say that following the laws is not necessary (as it is impossible), but you can still be saved if you accept Jesus. Yet, you use the laws as a standard by which to judge human morality (not that the Bible isn't technically human morality as well). And I agree with neither the laws (well, not all of them, anyway), nor the idea of an absolute standard for so many specific rules.

Do you now understand what I am talking about when I say God's righteousness is not based off the works your/man's morality is?

---

Bring your god out that I may examine him. No god, no moral standard.

Why should God come to you when He has declared that all should seek Him?

---

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.

Read what I just wrote to Darkstar. Most of what you bring up here has already been answered there.