Man's morality

[genkaus]

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)

Wrong. The bar of objective morality cannot be lowered on a whim or by necessity. It has to be justified rationally. As a matter of fact a lot of events here were the result of applying your god's morality.

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.

No, that's what morality looks like when people mistakenly believe there is an absolute standard.

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

The fact that it is subject to his desires and that no rational basis for his commands is given indicates that his supposed morality is nothing more than his subjective whims.

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.

There is a big difference in "ratioanilizing something" and something "being rational". Specifically, if you have to try and rationalize it, it isn't rational to begin with. And the irrational - like your god's commands - cannot be rationalized. For example, the irrational command to subvert a person's freedom and autonomy by preventing him from having sex with whoever he desires (and who desires him back) or to continue histing a parasite within her body were truly monstrous and could not be rationalized no matter how hard the bible-thumpers try. Which is why, eventually, the rational standard of allowing both has to come into force.

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.

Except, you are making up differences where none exist - your god's standard falls squarely within the bounds of morality. The real difference between society's morality and your god's morality is that, by and large, society's morality tends to be sane, rational and directed towards specific goals - while your god's morality is insane and irrational.

Also, you have any proof that your god's morality came first?

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

No, it shows me that your pathetic attempts at redefinition aren't working.

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.

Which-is-why-Jesus-was-talking-out-of-his-ass. Intentions, by themselves, do not affect reality. Actions do. They are the inside of the cup which remain significant while "intentions" are just window-dressing. For instance, abortion has become a woman's 'moral' right to choose. This act of morality is like washing the inside of the cup because it indicates actual respect for female autonomy instead of just lip-service about how much women are respected within religion while being treated as livestock.

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.

What a person does is what actually matters because that is what affects the reality of his existence. That is the inside of the cup because that is what affects the quality of the tea in it. The intentions are the outside because they are not going to affect the tea no matter how clean they are.

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

Thus defeating the purpose of his own morality.

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.

If its not a rule, then your argument of god being bound to act by human standards fails completely.

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

Something which you admit as being meaningless - given that you are not required to abide by it.

oh, but i do.

Which is why your position is illogical.

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.

And if he chooses to work with us then he is subject to our morality. That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

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

I see fetuses being aborted - no babies.

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.

And since the purpose of morality is what you do and not the intentions behind it, the analogy fails.

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

He supposedly eliminated most.

Do you have 'proof' of this self aggrandization?

Your theology.


Also, you still haven't addressed the points I made in my previous post. Once again, pretending you've answered them doesn't work here.

---

no.Actually it is not a yes or no matter. Because what is 'good' Describes what God does.

Only within the context of his own morality. Which is precisely what makes is subjective.

Being the alpha and Omega means He is the standard in which all things are measured. That means there is not a standard in which to measure God against that means anything other than What He Himself does.

Reality disagrees. Given that we have many other moralities by which we measure your god and find him sorely lacking.

ah, no. God's 'Morality' is based off of His unchanging Will for us. Which means God's 'morality' is different from yours because yours changes.

Its also different because mine is rational, based on reality and makes sense, while your god's morality is irrational and insane.

God is the defination of 'good' because This is His creation and He set the standard.

That's what he says.
Actually, that's what you say he says.
Not buying it. At either level - that this is his creation or that that means he gets to set the standard.

Ah, i see your problem. Please answer my questions. If God is not an absolute standard of good, then what is that standard? Standard as being defined as: something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality.

To begin with, there doesn't need to be an absolute standard.
Secondly, an authority is not necessary to establish a standard if it is based on something objective - existence of day and night to measure time.
Thirdly, any "standard of good" is, by definition, morality. So the idea of god being the standard is nonsensical.

Finally, given the rational premises required for existence of morality, one of the measures of good would be allowance of freedom and autonomy - an account on which your god fails miserably.

For in order to judge something good or not good one must have a system of rule or measure to weigh the variable against. So again what standard can one use to judge God?

Answered.

Now keep in mind a standard is meaningless unles those who use it have the ablity to stand behind it and enforce it.. So again how can you without an enfoceable standard determine whether or not God is good or bad?

Wrong. Enforcement is not necessary for the standard to be meaningful. After all, e judge fictional characters like your god according to moral standards and no one pretends that enforcement there is possible. The purpose of a standard is to facilitate judgement - not enforcement.