Morality

[Paul the Human]

I guess you should realize that no one is going to click your links. I guess maybe if you have evidence to support your claims, you should post it in your own words.

I guess I don't even know what claims you are trying to make. You should maybe be more clear I guess.

[Tobie]

---

People,

I guess some people may have complained that I have posted evidence and not used other words apart from the evidence.

I guess some people want the evidence as pure as possible.

May be someone will question the assertions in the evidence also I guess I advise such a person that the reason may be in testing like may have been proven to you in the thread in Bible Unlocked Thread from this forum I Guess.

Part of the evidence I guess.

Chapter XIII.—Superiority of Christian Morality.

'But let this be our study, that if those who err do not commit murder, we should not even be angry; if they do not commit adultery, we should not even covet another’s wife; if they love their neighbours, we should love even our enemies

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi....xiii.html

And for more divine knowledge go to this forums thread Bible Unlocked Thread I from the link below I guess.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12314.html

I guess a moderator of this site instructed me not to post more links of evidence alone, maybe if you approve of me posting more you will tell your opinion to the moderators.

It may be to your advantage in the future.

---

Oh please enlighten us, how will this be to our advantage?

You could actually tell us how your "evidence" supports your argument, instead of just posting a random link to some christian site that doesn't tell us anything.

[Drich]

I say that to help those looking to frame questions based on "morality." Most of the time it is used an absolute standard when in fact it is not.

Says who?

You just did right here:

I think most would agree morality is definitely relative according to the society which creates it.

I have said the same thing. Because it changes from society to society generation to generation, it by definition can not be an absolute standard. For absolute standards never change.

Righteousness is the application of an absolute morality which appears absurd during changes in the moral zeitgeist.

Perhaps from a pop culture perspective.

There are some relative morality which are universal, murder has always been one of these things,not because of righteousness, but because some rules simply cannot persist in a successful society in order for it to survive.

Wrong again murder in the right circumstance was sanctioned by various societies; Rome, 1940's Germany Even in the United States Manifest destiny demanded the murder of millions of Native Americans on a private and on a governmental level.

What made murder ok then and what makes it not ok now is the "moral" justification of the popular culture. which makes morality a variable standard and not an absolute one.

---

How do you define gods "righteousness"?

Righteousness is the perfect standard of God.

What does that mean to you?

It means to obtain God's righteousness through my actions, I would have to live a life with out sin. As Jesus demonstrated in Mt 5 it is not possible.

Another question.

If you had to lie in order to save the lives of others would you do so?

without question, because I am a moral man. (not a righteous one through my work thought or deeds.)

Even though it means committing a "sin"

Yes, that is what atonement is for. Atonement is the gift of God's Righteousness bestowed on any and all who accept it. That means one can live a "moral" life and is not forced to live a righteous one, as the only way to obtain true or God's righteousness.

And if not, why not?

Why indeed, anyone claiming true righteousness is a liar or mentally disturbed. Again Christ in MT 5 raise the bar so high we do not have any choice but to seek atonement. Before Christ "completed the Law" it was hard but still possible to live righteously. However since Christ included the attitudes and condition of one's heart to the Expressed Will of God/Righteousness it is all but impossible to truly live righteously. Therefore we must seek atonement. If we have atonement and one does not lie to save his friend's life then he commits murder by the way of his own self righteousness.

---

[quote='Drich']
Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.

This is the problem that people have with your ultimate standard of morality as it attempts to make black and white issues out of very gray ones.

So I ask you this question. Is it always wrong to sin, or in other words, is it a sin for me to lie even when it will save someone's life?

Check out my last post for more detail.

In short it is always wrong to sin, but atonement offered through Christ washes away that sin.

We by the works and words of Christ in Mt 5 we are in a constant state of sin which makes it impossible to obtain righteousness any other way besides atonement. The Atonement Christ offers is a gift, not one that any of us deserves, (By our works) yet it is still offered to all who would accept it.

That means there are no grey areas, we are in God's expressed will or we are not. Grey areas allow us to justify our deeds. if we do this then we do not need to seek atonement. If we do not seek atonement then no matter what we decide in life we will be judged unworthy of God, by the way of the sins we have explained away.

---

You are still saying that the lie told to save lives is a sin, which is what Cinjin was saying.

Indeed it is. To lie is to sin no matter what.

A sin is defined as anything not in the Expressed Will of God. We are told by God (You shall not lie)

Therefore any lie for any reason is a sin.

(Maybe you should ask will God still love you if you lie) If you decide to ask this then read the last two posts.

---

I just got a little nauseous. This sentiment is what makes Christians frightening and Muslims terrifying. Why you may ask? Because "god's will" is decided by the person wielding the weapon in question and most often, when the violent "hand of god" has completed the atrocity, you'll hear the words, "blessed be the name of the Lord."

That would be true if as you believe there was no God.

However "God's will" is clearly printed in our bibles. If we were to smash babies or planes into buildings then I would not be here talking to you.

That said, it is the will of God that has me seek and save those who I can, that I answer questions and turn the other cheek (for the most part) when you guys go off reservation, it is also God's will that I forgive as I have been forgiven which is why I took the time to write out the second half of my illustration, and why I do not gloat when I can. God's will is very clearly spelled out in the bible, for any and all who seek it. a perversion of that will in the name of God is not only the fault of the one who speaks it, it is the fault of the one who blindly follows.

I agree blind devotion is freightening, but it is the will of God that every man be held accountable to his actions.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In short it is always wrong to sin, but atonement offered through Christ washes away that sin. - Frodo
Where exactly does repentance fit into your doctrine? If we cannot be perfect then why would God call on us to be perfect if we are unable to do so? (Matt 5:48, Lev 19:45)

[NoMoreFaith]

I say that to help those looking to frame questions based on "morality." Most of the time it is used an absolute standard when in fact it is not.

Says who?

You just did right here:

I think most would agree morality is definitely relative according to the society which creates it.

I have said the same thing. Because it changes from society to society generation to generation, it by definition can not be an absolute standard. For absolute standards never change.

So why are you getting pissy? I agreed morality was relative? I think you are getting clouded in your judgement and how you respond merely because I have a history of calling you out on bullshit. The point is, who usually uses it as an absolute standard? Not many atheists would say there was an absolute standard. We agree.

There are some relative morality which are universal, murder has always been one of these things,not because of righteousness, but because some rules simply cannot persist in a successful society in order for it to survive.

Wrong again murder in the right circumstance was sanctioned by various societies; Rome, 1940's Germany Even in the United States Manifest destiny demanded the murder of millions of Native Americans on a private and on a governmental level.

So, I state Murder is usually confirmed as a universal morality, and you equate it that I said Murder was an absolute?

Once again, I charge that you are letting our prior disagreements cloud your judgement. Thats what relativity is defined as. The watching world and recipients of your examples probably didn't see it as moral

The only issue here that we disagree on, is that righteousness is something illusionary, although by all means absolute in your mind.
That you believe strongly in it; If that works for you, but its still derived solely from the bible, and that isn't a compliment.

Also, please read up on quoting, it makes your posts a little difficult to read. Cheers.

[Creed of Heresy]

You are discussing morality. You are making the claim that the bible is the institution of morality and that christian morality is based off of a book written by a bunch of dudes about a man half a lifetime after the man had died [by the way I could write the same amount of text as the four gospels put together in a quarter of the time about a fantasy character BY MYSELF, there's no excuse for four people taking decades to write something about a guy long since dead, the resurrection myth notwithstanding]. My counterpoint is that morality and the golden rule [yes, they DO tie in together, I shouldn't have to explain how, considering that's elementary level of moral understanding] are based in biological altruism; the idea of morality was NOT invented by the Abrahamic religions, yet like most things, religion has absconded with it and claimed it to be of its own workings.

Is that not what you are arguing? That biblical morality is superior? I counterpoint that it is INFERIOR because it is a bastardization of NATURAL morality in the senses of, again, biological altruism which science has already proven to exist in both the wild AND in human civilization, and in fact it is IMMORAL in the sense that a schizophrenic can have the voices in his head shriek at him to go on a murderous rampage and if we let our society adhere to Christian morality rather than the morality of law [which was largely written in the name of common sense and human rights, not the bible, despite whatever you may attempt to claim], he could be considered innocent because "god" told him to do it and therefore he could not only be considered innocent, but doing the right thing. This is the problem with Sharia-law-run countries in the middle east; if you do something and you use the quran to justify it as an act in the name of god you're basically innocent, even if that means torturing and murdering a woman as a "punishment" for being raped. What you are proposing as moral superiority is no different especially because this same book of yours says that stoning a child for not wanting to do his chores is A-OK. The fact that you yourself think that this kind of shit is perfectly fine and moral is very telling about you as a person. And it tells nothing good.

Or maybe I'm missing the point entirely.

[Cinjin]

I just got a little nauseous. This sentiment is what makes Christians frightening and Muslims terrifying. Why you may ask? Because "god's will" is decided by the person wielding the weapon in question and most often, when the violent "hand of god" has completed the atrocity, you'll hear the words, "blessed be the name of the Lord."

That would be true if as you believe there was no God.

That is not a legitimate response as it does not have any frame of reference to what I said. I said your statement makes me nauseous ... whether or not I believe in god has no bearing on whether or not that statement is true or not. It's a statement of how I and 20 million other non-believers feel.

However "God's will" is clearly printed in our bibles. If we were to smash babies or planes into buildings then I would not be here talking to you.

Nope. The will of men professed as god's will is in your bible ... and the religious nuts DO smash babies, stone women and crash planes into buildings.

That said, it is the will of God that has me seek and save those who I can, that I answer questions and turn the other cheek (for the most part) when you guys go off reservation, it is also God's will that I forgive as I have been forgiven which is why I took the time to write out the second half of my illustration, and why I do not gloat when I can. God's will is very clearly spelled out in the bible, for any and all who seek it. a perversion of that will in the name of God is not only the fault of the one who speaks it, it is the fault of the one who blindly follows.

I agree blind devotion is freightening, but it is the will of God that every man be held accountable to his actions.

Standard rhetoric. The point is, you will do the will of god no matter what atrocity is required and THAT is what is nauseating and terrifying.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I could write the same amount of text as the four gospels put together in a quarter of the time about a fantasy character

...all four with the an equal level of symbolic density consistent with the OT? I doubt it. While you're at it write a piece of poetry more beautiful that the Koran. I'm sure our Muslim brothers would be impressed.

...morality and the golden rule [yes, they DO tie in together, I shouldn't have to explain how, considering that's elementary level of moral understanding

And it's obvious to me that God exists, I shouldn't have to explain that, should I? The link between morality and the golden rule is most certainly intuitive, but you have not proved that they actually do tie together and why.

...are based in biological altruism...again, biological altruism which science has already proven to exist in both the wild AND in human civilization

Evolution is amoral. Biological altruism is the kin selection of 'selfish genes' (E.O.Wilson). Nothing more, nothing less. If anything evolutionary psychology has shown us that what appears to us as moral may actually be anything but.

[Reforged]

Morality is man's attempt to establish a righteous standard based on the sin he or the society he lives in is willing to except

Pretty much your definition precludes any and all people who do not believe in sin (in other words your god and your bible) from being members of a society so please swallow a large glass of sulfuric acid you bigoted moron.

Er... alittle harsh but yes. Otherwise correct.

---

Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.

Are you saying God can be immoral but righteous at the same time?

According to your Bible God killed countless children in Egypt. Does this mean that even though this was blatantly immoral by any standard that it was still righteous because God did it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Morality is man's attempt to establish a righteous standard...Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.

If what you are arguing is that apparent morality is not the same as actual morality then I don't disagree. You define the absolute moral standard as God's Righteousness. That doesn't get you very far. According to you what is the basis of God's Righteousness and how do you recognize it?