Man's morality

[genkaus]

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

Yes

No. Telling you about right and wrong is what technically makes it a morality.

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.

An example of your god's morality changing - something you've expressly denied.

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

Glad we agree that your god's rules are neither good nor moral.

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.

Except, by your own admission, he sis all about forcing his standard upon us - when he chooses to do so is irrelevant.

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

But, according to you, we must do this even if we dont wish any such thing.

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.

But I am making a judgment - and the judgment is that the shift in morality is wrong. It has been made through propaganda and not rational discourse and the given justification is invalid. And don't accuse me of "following the propaganda blindly" without even knowing my political position on the matter - you are the only one who comes out looking like an idiot.

The shift in moral consideration given to suspected terrorists is the perfect example of fear perpetrated by propaganda is an irrational method of changing the society's moral outlook. Its a step backwards in our moral growth.

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

I asked you to look up 'fact', not 'propaganda'. However, notice the use of the word 'or' - indicating that propaganda doesn't always use facts and also notice the absence of any support for your argument that propaganda can change 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

Uh, yes.
The definition says that ideas are false or exaggerated - a part that you conveniently ignore and the part that I address through the word 'misrepresent'.

My statement stands - facts cannot be changed through propaganda.

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

Yes, you did.

a fact is a statement of belief that can be proven or disproved.

If you are going to lie, do a better job.

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??

'Planet' is a classification - not an inherent property. I dentification of Pluto as a planet was incorrect before 1989. That we were not aware of the actual fact and mistakenly taught wrong something incorrect only to correct ourselves later is not evidence that "facts change", much less that they could be done by propaganda.

Is pluto a planet? was this always the case?

No. Yes. And what does this have to do with propaganda?

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.

Except, your god's righteousness also instructs in what 'should be done'. That he goes on to add that "you can't do it" is irrelevant.

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.

If it had nothing to do with standard of behavior then humans cannot fall short of it. If humans cannot fall short of it, then there is nothing to make up for through salvation - which means your argument is dead in water.

That you keep repeating, over and over again, that humans do fall short of achieving it means you accept that it is a standard of behavior - albeit, an impossible one.

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

Which is why there is no such need.