Man's morality

[Drich]

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.

The end result through whim, necessity, or justification through rationality is still change is it not? If 'morality is subject to change then all a people need do is justify a need through the perscribed channel. Hitler's Germany made changes to rational through the means of propaganda. So, What makes you think this soceity is ammune to propaganda that people deem things like IDK killing babies a 'rational' thing to do?

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.

can you viably demonstrate this using any historical examples? Or are you just trying to shift the burden of proof?

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.

Define 'rational basis.' What would be an example of God creating some standard irrationally? Verses what you consider a ration reason for the creation of a standard.

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".

No there is not. The only difference between the rational and having to rationalize something is Extremely trivial. In that the rational is accepted by pop culture, and having to rationalize something is having to find a reason to do something even though it may be taboo to pop culture. Cultures change from social classes to regional groupings or even from generation to generation. 'Rational' is a soft standard that leaders use to manipulate sheep.

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.

Ah, no.. Where did you get this?

The reason Gay sex is forbidden is because it undermines the paradyme God establishes for us to express the different forms of love we are privy to. Through roles assoceiated by gender, and age. God has us play these roles as Father Son Mother daughter so we can have a better understanding of Him, The church, and each other. This will ultimatly helps us connect, respect, interact and love Him in an approperate way. This understanding is key for our seeking salvation and eternal life.

Take away these roles and even the most basic understanding of God is no longer possiable, dooming an indivisual to eternal seperation from God.

God does not care if we are plagued with parasites when our eternal future hangs in the balance.

Rational enough? God forbidding temporary self indulgence in exchange for the tools one needs to seek eternal life?

Except, you are making up differences where none exist - your god's standard falls squarely within the bounds of morality.

Again it doesn't Because (now take the time to read this, this next part ends your arguement) God's morality has NOTHING To Do With our works.

Do you understand what i mean by this? keep reading

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.

Again no. Soceity's morality is works based. One is deemed moral or immoral by his or her acts. God's righteousness/morality has nothing to do with what we do. It is attonement based.

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

yes, do you have proof that it didn't?

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

If you can not see a vast difference between what God has established verses what you consider moral Your either being obstinate or your just plain stupid. you can not fegin ignorance at this point because I have taken the time to point you to Darkstar's thread where i explain this, and have directly explained this to you 3 or 4 times now.

Which-is-why-Jesus-was-talking-out-of-his-ass. Intentions, by themselves, do not affect reality. Actions do.

Let's try this. You have acknoweledged the difference between God's righteousness and your own morality in the above quote. You said that your morality was based on actions, and at the same time acknoweledge that Jesus said it was based on 'intentions' (which is not accurate, but for this discussion proves a seperation) between what you call moral and what God indenifies as moral/true righteousness.

Now given what you just said will you now conceed this point that God's 'morality/righteousness' and what you see as morality is completely different?

If your pride isn't pulling your obstinance strings may we proceed in calling God's "Heart based morality" God's Righteousness, and what you understand to be works based morality as 'man's morality or even just morality?



Before we proceed we must come to this understanding first.