Man's morality

[genkaus]

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

Wrong. A rational moral system would not be changed by propaganda.

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.

Wrong - you ignorant buffoon.

Go look up the definition of a fact in the dictionary.

Facts cannot be changed through propaganda. The very purpose of propaganda is to misrepresent and lie about facts. A fact is not a "statement of belief", it is a description of things as they actually are. That is why your statements are wrong - any and all 'rational' cannot be changed through propaganda.

Explain, how so?

That was the explanation.

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?

I'm not talking about my morality, you moron, I'm talking about any morality. Every morality, even your god's, dictates one's actions - that is true by definition. Whatever other differences there may be between your god's morality and my own, they are similar in that aspect

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

I asked for Proof, not a statement requiring faith.

One doesn't require faith to know that humans have existed and have been acting according to one set of principles or the other long before your bible came into existence - only knowledge of history.

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

You haven't redefined anything - but you are trying to. Your failure does not negate the attempt.

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.

Taking two synonymous words to refer to two ideologies which are fundamentally similar and separate in content and then treating them as completely separate, thus creating an artificial distinction between those synonyms - that is your attempted redefinition.

Morality and righteousness are synonymous in the sense they both dictate what should be done. Your attempt here is to use morality to refer to "standard of behavior with focus on deeds" and use righteousness to refer to "standard of behavior as dictated by your god" - and that addendum constitutes an attempt at redefinition, albeit a pathetic one. If you truly wanted to treat those words as synonyms, then there would be no need to refer to your god's morality as anything other than your god's morality.

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.

Even if that was the case - which it isn't owing to the non-existence of your god, souls or hell - that still wouldn't make your god's morality any more true than man's.

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.

Thus perfectly demonstrating the subjective and whimsical nature of your god's morality.

---

The word SATAN in ancient sanskrit (FAR Older than the bible mind you) means "Truth".

Ummm... no it doesn't.

---

Righteousness does not have anything to do with what we understand to be 'good.' Righteousness is the standard in which we must obtain (though attonement offered by Christ) to enter Heaven.

Because 'we' generally ascribe 'good' with moral behavior we can think that good people go to heaven and bad people goto Hell. The truth? There will be NO 'Good People" in Heaven at all.

This is why it is so deperatly important to seperate God's true righteousness for our own self righteous 'morality.'

A perfect example of your attempted redefinition.