Man's morality

[Drich]

The difference being it is not possible to rationally justify any and every arbritrary change.

All that is needed is circumstance and the right propaganda, and anything that was off the moral table gets put on it.

Hitler's Germany made changes to rational through the means of propaganda.

That's not a change through rational means.

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the word. As it applies here Merrium/webster: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings. What do you think the purpose of propaganda is? It is to Change fact. Fact does not have to always equal truth. a fact is a statement of belief that can be proven or disproved.

Propaganda changes fact, which then changes reason/rational accordingly. Therefore my statement rings true. Any and all 'rational' can be changed given a circumstance and the right propaganda.

It isn't immune - yet. But its getting there. Once we eliminate this irrationality called Christianity, we'll be closer to not accepting any and every ridiculous proposition as 'rational'.

Explain, how so?

Sure. Hilter believed he was working according to the absolute standards of your god. In fact, most of the similar horrific acts are committed under that belief.

Not correct what you have relayed is atheist propaganda. which has help change your rational, and beliefs in the legitmacy of Christianity. See how that works?

Back on topic: Hitler started out using the church and paralelled his message with the church to win favor with church goers, once he came to power and started straying from the absolutes in the bible He bann Church/religion for all of his officers, and regulated/changed the church to reflect nazi beliefs for everyone else. (He tried to use the church but it backfired and the absolutes found in the church turned the people against Him.) so it was bann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesiz...rint.shtml
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/hi...h0033.html
Here is the actual Nazi letter seperating Germany/Nazis from the established church and calling for attendance is a state sponcered version:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rim5.htm
Here is a letter declaring that Nazi officals/officers leave the church. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/koehler.htm

Why? Because Nazi doctrine seperated itself from God's righteousness, and anyone looking to serve God would see the difference and condemn the acts of the state. Hitler was trying to do in a dictatorship what this generation has already done in 'freedom.' Remove absolutes from man's morality so he could have complete control over the hearts and minds of the german people. This soceity is ripe for that kind of control. All that is needed is a catlyst and a leader, and the fourth reich will begin.

My Morality is not defined by whether or not it values your works, it is defined by whether or not it dictates it - and your god's morality does. The difference that you are trying to "make up" is that negating the value of works (an irrational proposition for a morality) somehow exempts your god's morality from being a morality. It doesn't.

There i fixed your statement. Now that it reads correctly can you at least acknoweledge a difference between your morality and God's?

Sure. Humans were moral long before your bible came into existence.

I asked for Proof, not a statement requiring faith.

Oh, I see a BIG difference between what your god has established as morality and what I regard as moral. But your redefinition is not about that. Its about redefining god's morality as something else altogether.

I have not redefined anything i am simply illustrating a contrast between the two versions.

If you think you can slip in your attempt at redefinition unnoticed, try doing a better job of it.

Maybe you do not know the difference between redefining something and the seperation of the two versions which is what I done here.

To redefine is to change the meaning so it applies to the whole/every application of the word. Two draw contrast in this instance is to seperate two distinct standards from one another so as to not confuse one standard with the other each time the word is used.

I did this from the beginning by calling man's morality morality simply because you all have adopted the word to fit your perceived 'good deeds.'

I labled God's requirements Righteousness because the two words an synomns, with enough distinction to seperate two seperate ideologies.

I'll acknowledge that there is a big difference between your supposed god's morality and my morality. What I call moral/true righteousness is not what your supposed god supposedly regards as moral/true righteousness. But that has been my position from the beginning

The reason I identify God's morality/righteousness as "True" is because that is the Only Standard that we will be judged by. Anyone following man's 'morality' will be cast into Hell along with his prized standard. That Makes God's standard a True standard. In that He has the final word by which souls are measured.

---

That's not answering the question because that's true and trivial of ALL sentient things. What directs what God chooses to do? I already know the answer, but I'm waiting for you to give it.

His Will Directs God to do what He does. God is not controled by a set of rules. The rules reflect what God does. (What you think you know, is backwards) for if God was subject to a standard of right and wrong, then that would mean God is not the Alpha and Omega. The Term means He is the first and last word/authority on all things. Meaning if God saw fit to have us kill and eat our first born, the rules of right and wrong would change to accept His will. Again that is what it is to be Alpha and Omega. There are no rules or standards above Him. He is the orgin of all rules and standards.

Er, no. 'Doing good' is YOUR description of what God does.

No. The bible says Whatever God does is considered to be 'Good.' The difference? "doing good" subjugates the do gooder to the rules of 'good.' while If you Are the standard of Good then everything you do no matter what it is becomes 'good.'

For example if God does 'good' then there is a paradox with what God did to Job and smashing babies against the rock. Now conversly if God is the standard of good then what happened to Job and the babies against rocks Becomes a 'good' act.

So you've basically just agreed with me unwittingly, or tried to throw up a smokescreen to disguise that. You just said that God's morality is based off of his unchanging will (which are his actions founded in his values, like us), only with the irrelevant caveat that they don't change. Big woop. Values are by definition subjective, regardless of it they're God's values.

If this is true then you surly must have a biblical example of God's values changing...

There is no 'absolute standard' of good, necessarily.

In your system of belief in man's morality no of course their isn't if there were it would not be subject to change.

which is the very point of the thread. thank you.