Man's morality

[Drich]

So, if I understand correctly, the laws are effectively without meaning, and accepting Jesus is all that matters?

No Again Paul says the purpose of the Law is to identify the need for attonement/Redemption. It's like a back stage pass at a concert. No one is allow back stage without it, but once you have it your allowed to go back stage.

So righteousness does tell you about right and wrong, but is technically not morality,

Yes

and doesn't need to be followed to the letter.

No one can earn this 'righteousness' by trying to follow the letter of the Law. It can only be given and accepted.

Am I understanding this correctly?

For the most part.

Okay, that answers my above question. So this means that committing genocide in god's name is preferable to doing good deeds in your own?

It depends on what the bible says about genocide. If we were OT Jews Yes, but Being NT Christians No. What we 'do' must still fit with in the confines of what God wants.
If God say do not murder and you kill in His name your still in sin.

But are the rules actual a good (albeit unattainable) standard on how to live, or are they just arbitrary?

They are Good according to what God wants for us.
They do not always fit the modern defination of the word 'good/moral.'

God is still (supposedly) omnipotent. He could just use magic if he really wanted to.

Indeed He could. But truthfully what is magic? Magic is only magic to those who do not know how the 'trick' was done. 2000 years ago an asprine was magic, but not so much now. One of the things we must do as believers is be willing to acknoweledge the man behind the curtain, and stop looking for the smoke and fire show. The smoke and fire isn't/should be the qualifier of a work of God. It is the fact that He can put smoke and fire (pull a lever) and make things happen.

How did he flood the world, for example? Where did all of that water come from?

From rain and well springs (beneth the ground) according to Genesis.

So more might makes right?

Absolutly

God can force his standard on us, so that makes it legitimate?

Yes!

Except that he can't really force it on us. Or at least doesn't (if he exists).

This life is not about 'forcing us' to do anything. In this life we are free to express what it is that is in our hearts. Accountablity comes after this life is over.

*cough*fetus*cough*
But still, if they aren't really being lost, then what is the big deal?

To a degree your right, Now ask yourself this when you wan to argue God's 'morality' when He gives the order to wipe out babies or has the jew wipe out a whole people if He has the power to plug them back in some other place at some other time.

So why is it wrong for us to do this? Because we are not God and we can not plug babies in some place else. Not to mention He said don't do this.

Both. Love can lead to sincerely heartfelt affections, but also to bitter jealousy.

So maybe now you can answer why God can be Jealous, if someone points out that jealousy is not a Godly trait.

If you love someone, but have a funny way of showing it, they may not be so appreciative.

We are not just talking about funny here. I am asking if you love someone will you do the things they hate? Would you cheat on them? would you put yourself before them? would you screw them over to profit on a deal of some sort? would you steal from them? Of course not. Not if you knew what it is to love, and wanted to express that to them.

But it isn't really, is it? You seem to say that intentions trump actual actions in the eyes of god. You used this as justification to lie about knowing where Jews were hiding to Nazis, even though this breaks god's rule(s) against lying. Yet, if we simply have good intentions and try to be personally good, we will fall back on human morality, something you clearly detest.

You are 100% correct, all except on my stance on morality. I am not against morality as a standard. In fact in the OP I say Morality is the measure or standard of sin we are all willing to live with. Meaning we all have a morality and it all contains some sin. Because it does, it becomes a crap standard in which to try and judge God with or even judge our selves against. If we know and understand what morality is, then we can use it to help navigate our lives. However the people on this website tend to see morality as an absolute standard in which everything is measured, which can not be the case because it is ever changing.

So you're at least considering that the serial killer is better?

I don't have the benfit of hind sight so I can not say which one is better. If that serial killer killed a patient zero in the Zombie apocalypse, or a hitler in the making or some other world wide trageity, then I do not think anyone would say from a historic pov that ther serial killer should have been stopped before hand if we absolutly knew. That is why I am content with what I have.

Where is the heart of a person who justifies killing a baby? Is it with the want and will of God? Is it with being faithful to the gift of life God has given you? or is it with self? how this baby will negitivly change the way you would have to live your life?

I suppose in the case of someone who devotes their life to the Judeo-Christian god, this logic would be sound.

Absolutly, fore if a person truly wishes to serve and worship God then it is by His standards we must yield our actions.

---

Is that like something he's known for. I was wondering why he seemed so afraid to engage me in debate.

Seems to be. Whenever he's asked direct, probing questions about certain nastier aspects of Christianity or areas like philosophy, he has this trange habit of sidestepping the question.

example?

The only time i differ is when I have already answer a given question two or three times. If your peers failed at a given point by asking the same question over and over, what makes you think you will be sucessful when you ask the same question? Especially if you have even bother to read how your peers have already tried and failed.

---

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

What was America's/western europe Terrorist policy Pre-9/11?
What is it now?

Before 9/11 we activly sought to ajudicate terrorists, now we shoot them and activly hunt them down chasing them from their homes. we justified a 13 year war to do this... Not saying this was wrong or right, just showing you a fundamental change in 'morality' given circumstance and the 'right' propaganda. What is scarry is you did not even notice the huge paradyme shift in our collective morality. We went from everyone gets a day in court to villifing and dehumanizing a given people, and spending trillions of dollars to hunt them down and kill them with out a trial. "All are guilty by assoceation"

Again not making a right or wrong judgement, just pointing out a shift in 'morality' that was justified by an event and made right by propaganda (not always a negitive word. It describes a movement or idea that pushes or supports political ideals or support of a leader.) Not all propaganda is false, this may have very well been the case here. even so it is still propaganda, and you followed it blindly.

Wrong - you ignorant buffoon.

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

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Facts cannot be changed through propaganda. The very purpose of propaganda is to misrepresent and lie about facts.

uh, no.
ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.
It does not say these 'facts' are always false. In all four definations the core undersanding of the word always centers around a goverment or political leader supplying information to control/support a given movement or thought process.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

A fact is not a "statement of belief",

Why did you quote "Statement of belief"? I did not say a fact was a statement of belief.

I said a fact is a statement that can either be prooved or disprooved.
Pluto was a planet in 1989, Now pluto is not a planet anymore. In 1989 when we taught pluto was the last planet in our solar system did it mean we were not teaching facts, rather statements of belief? or did we teach facts, and the prooving process of planetary status change, declassifying pluto from planetary status??

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.

Is pluto a planet? was this always the case?

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.

That is where you are wrong. Morality is about what 'should be done.' Righteousness according to God says there is nothing you can do to acheave this standard.

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"

Again no. If you would actually take time to read what I have been writting for 16 pages or even just read what I have been writting to you, you would know that 'Righteousness' has nothing to do with a standard of behavior.

That is why there is a need to seperate morality from God's righteousness.