Man's morality

[Darkstar]

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.

Okay. But, from this it does not immediately follow that the laws in the Bible serve as a good standard.

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.

Sigh. *Righteous* yardstick, then?

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.

Then what use it this so called righteousness if it has nothing to do with our actions?

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.

Whatever that means... Accepting Jesus is all that matters?

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.'

So acts mean...nothing?

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.

What do you think will happen if you google 'religion of peace'? You don't get Christian groups calling for the execution of those who insult Jesus, do you?

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.

While that isn't the same as putting Muslims in camps, I won't deny that the US denied habeas corpus to suspected terrorists.

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.

So you don't care that god's rulebook is flawed? Or...is that because it isn't a rulebook?

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?

He could also use magic to do something totally unorthodox. I think you are selling his omnipotence short. He sure didn't hold back against Sodom and Gomorrah.

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

He doesn't have to care...if he exists.

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?

Two things: 1. FETUS (not that arguing this back and forth will get us anywhere)
2. Where did I say I had questions about its morality? I specifically said that was not the reason for my hesitation, but rather that I could never know if killing baby Hitler would somehow cause something even worse to happen.

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'

At least I'm washing part of my cup. You said acts don't matter, so who cares, right?

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.

So if they get reincarnated...why the outrage?

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

Okay, I guess I have seen a little of that. I thought you were talking about twelve year olds or something.

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.

I have never actually seen any of those shows, though I have heard of most of them. I don't watch a lot of television.

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.

Why would people want to see that?

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.

So you should at least try to follow god's absolute standard, to show him you care, and even if you fail, you're still saved...right? Or is that not it? I keep getting the impression that you are suggesting that there is no need to even try. I don't even recall you ever trying to defend the law as legitimate (even if it doesn't need to be followed/can't be perfectly adhered to).

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.

Allowing gay marriage does not in any way dismantle marriage and family. The fact that your morality is based purely on how many people you can convert unnerves me a bit. I keep getting the "Christian serial killer goes to heaven, atheist philanthropist goes to hell" vibe from you. You would really prefer a society in which gays were violently persecuted if it helped spread you religion?

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?

Not really, no. Do you mean:
A: God's righteousness is just some standard he made so we would need saving.
B: God's righteousness is a standard we should try to follow; when we inevitable fail Jesus will save us because we tried
C: God's righteousness is a perfect standard, but we shouldn't bother even trying to follow it.
D: None of the above.

The bottom line: If our acts in relation to god's righteousness do not matter, as you have claimed multiple times, then why do you bother condemning abortion?