Man's morality

[Drich]

No, what is required is an objective standard to judge by - it doesn't have to be absolute or unchanging.

This very concept is what eventually lead to jews being put into camps, Indians on reservations, the trail of tears, the civil war, all Japanese Americans into camps, and every other 'morally justified' act we as a soceity of people have morally justified. Because there aren't any absolutes, we are free to lower the bar any time we deem it nesesary, or when ever it is benfits us to do so. (abortion)
All of man's morality is based on selecting the lessor of two evils, or even seeks justification to select the greater evil when we can justify our want. With out an absolute or never changing standard one can not possiably know how far his morality has fallen. For like with the death camp Nazis, Abortion doctors, whatever evil you elect to live with is your new upper bar. If you feel you can justify your deeds then nothing you do will ever be wrong. Which is why there were men who could send 100's of scared people into gas chambers at a time. This is what 'morality' looks like with out an absolute standard to compare it to.

As opposed to subjective whims of your god?

Do you have an example of a 'subjective whim?' What makes God's command subjective or a whim?

Its not trivial if the abhorrence has a rational basis.

That's my point! In your value system ANYTHING Can Be Rationalized!!! Which means anything good or bad can be accepted like wise anything true good, or bad can be vilified! For example the righteous command to not have Gay sex is now vilified, while something as truly monsterous like killing babies (after they been de-humanized and labled fetuses) is celibrated.

Here is where you are wrong. The biblical morality may be irrational, insane and inhuman, but it is a morality nonetheless. Your attempt at redefining your god's morality as something other than morality is pointless.

I have not redefined anything. i have simply pointed out the differences between what this soceity defines as morality and what God had orginally outlined. I use different terms only to avoid confusion. In the end man is the one who has redefined 'morality' and the fact that God's standard is absolute and has not changed, proves that man is the one who is changing things.

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.

It is also what makes your god's morality a futile exercise - the purpose of morality is to dictate actions and your god ends up with negating the value of those actions.

Which again shows you that YOU are the one who has redefined 'morality.' Which is why I use a different word.

Actually, it is the other way around. The purpose of the cup is to drink from and the purpose of morality is to dictate the works. It stands to reason that the inside of the cup should be clean and the works be given the primary importance within morality.

Which-Is-Why-Jesus-said-to-The-Pharisees- that- their-practices-in-'morality'-was-only-washing-the-OUTSIDE-of-the-cup. He means your actions only affect how others view you, while your insides can still remain unclean. For instances, Abortion has become a woman's 'moral' right to choose what to do with 'her body.' This act of 'morality' is an example of washing the outside of one's cup. because it is acceptable to all who see it, but on the inside one has to make the desision to justify the taking of a human life.

Your supposed god's reversal of negating the works is equivalent to keeping the inside of the cup dirty while the outside looks pretty.

not even close. When God shifted the focous from what you do to why you do it the 'internal' reason is what get merrit while the external (what people can see and judge) takes a back seat.

Do you? Atonement is the supposed 'fix'. Whether or not it is the right fix is what is being discussed.

AGAIN, It is not 'WE' who 'fix it.' God 'fixes' it through attonement.

And where did this ridiculous rule come from?

Not a rule an observation. If you read the bible it clearly shows over and over God working with people on their level with something they can understand. When God takes things into his own hands (and we can not comprhend what is going on) we get explainations like what is found in the book of revelation.

According to you, when he is working with us, he has to work with what we have - and what we have are moral systems which judge his activities as immoral.

We also 'HAVE' God's expressed will in His law, which is found in the bible.

You cannot have it both ways -

oh, but i do.

either he is bound to act within human means and thus comes under the judgment of human morals or he is not bound, in which case he contradicts his own morals.

ah, on. To you want to try again?
Your arguement fails because 'we' have our laws our 'morality,' and whether you accept it or not we also have God's laws. God has proven over thousands of years that he can and will work with us with what He has given us through scripture, and He has shown us that He will not work with those who hold to their own 'morality' over His own.

That's news to me. We kill babies?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-22249-page-6.html
post #53

This is why your god's morality is a crap standard. It warps your mind to the extent that you cannot differentiate between the inside and the outside of the cup.

Just in case your still confused: mat 23:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[f] 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The outside are the 'moral acts everyone can see.' The Inside are the desires of the heart and true reasons you do something.

The anaology is use to illustrate that 'good deeds' are meaningless without value to God with out the right reasons behind them. and attonement says sin it without value to God as well. Everything hings on the reason why you do what you do and not the stuff 'good or bad' (or what you think is good or bad.) That is why the cup anaology is used.

The right of a person to choose what happens to his/her body is sacrosanct. Whether that person is a woman with a parasite growing inside her or whether it is a newborn. Which is why violating a baby's right to his own life and body with the justification that it'd do the same to others in future is a moral grey area and removing it from the womb is not.

You've illustrated my point very well, thank you.

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.

He dodn't have a problem with it before.

If He did elimate all of us then who is having this discussion?

Self-aggrandization is not a sign of caring.

Do you have 'proof' of this self aggrandization?