Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Morality
April 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2012 at 10:24 pm by Drich.)
(April 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Where exactly does repentance fit into your doctrine? Repentance is the cornerstone of accepting the atonement offered by Christ.
Quote: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)
To answer your question directly lets put your verse back into it's original context:
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
"Perfection" according to Mat 5 is love for your enemies, it has nothing to do with keeping the law perfectly. Lev 19 only goes to verse 37 in the NKJV your reference in not valid.
(April 14, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: You are discussing morality. yes
Quote: You are making the claim that the bible is the institution of morality
No. The bible contains the Righteousness of God. This has nothing to do with "morality."
Quote:and that christian morality is based off of a book
off of the bible yes, but as such still falls far short of God's righteousness.
Quote: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.
Agreed, perhaps you should take the time to read the OP.
Quote:Is that not what you are arguing?
nope.
Quote:That biblical morality is superior?
nope.
Quote: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.
all of this is fine if you are just looking for an opportunity to soap box your personal beliefs, but if you wish to be apart of the conversation,take the time to understand the definitions I posted in the OP. You have no idea what is actually being discussed.
Quote:Or maybe I'm missing the point entirely.
(April 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm)Cinjin Wrote: (April 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='Cinjin' pid='272443' dateline='1334421969']
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.
Quote: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.
My original response was speaking to the second half of your inquiry. If a comment does not fit 1/2 of the context you are looking at, then may i suggest that you take in the whole of what is being said.
Quote: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.
yup agreed, but not for what is written in the bible.
Quote:Standard rhetoric.
Then perhaps there is a measure of truth to this statement.
Quote: The point is, you will do the will of god no matter what atrocity is required and THAT is what is nauseating and terrifying.
Let's frame this principle in reality. In that God doesn't command atrocities, but love for Him and our "neighbors."
does that make you nauseated? the fact that we are commanded and care for those who hate us? For it takes the same fanatical devotion to 'love' someone who spitefully hates you, and uses every opportunity to put you down and say derogatory things about you. as it does to smash planes or kill babies.
God requires fanatical devotion. There is nothing wrong with that. Right and wrong is determined how that devotion is harnessed and used.
(April 14, 2012 at 6:57 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: (April 14, 2012 at 1:59 am)Phil Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='272243' dateline='1334382916']
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.
Quote:Er... alittle harsh but yes. Otherwise correct.
Then you like you friend does not understand what is being discussed.
Quote:Are you saying God can be immoral but righteous at the same time?
Yes because morality is the standard of man and Righteousness is the standard of God.
Quote: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?
Not just Egypt if you read your bible and yes it was a righteous act.
(April 14, 2012 at 7:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: 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? The Expressed Will of God. (His Word and Deeds see the bible for more detail)
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 3:36 am
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: I have posted this definition several times in past posts.
You can keep repeating it as many times you like - that does not make it correct.
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: 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 Incorporated into that standard.
Wrong. Morality is simply a code of conduct that guides a man's or a society's actions.
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.
Wrong. The moral code determines what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, any righteousness depends upon the morality.
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.
Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.
Wrong. If morality says that, righteousness says that as well.
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.
Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.
Wrong. If something like a god of your bible exists, then his morality changes more than a weather-vane.
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: That said know that 'morality' is not the universal standard of good. Morality is a constantly changing to suit the the personal or civil righteousness of a community of people. What once was moral could now be considered a crime, and vise versa.
Half-right. Morality is the standard to determine what is good and righteous.
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: 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.
Then you should stop using morality and righteousness as absolute standards.
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 3:49 am
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2012 at 4:13 am by FallentoReason.)
Drich Wrote:Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve. Proverbs Wrote:
The book of Proverbs suggests otherwise.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 63
Threads: 1
Joined: April 7, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 4:15 am
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2012 at 4:36 am by Kratos.)
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: I have posted this definition several times in past posts.
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 Incorporated into that standard.
Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.
Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.
Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.
God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.
Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.
That said know that 'morality' is not the universal standard of good. Morality is a constantly changing to suit the the personal or civil righteousness of a community of people. What once was moral could now be considered a crime, and vise versa.
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.
Excellent philosophy, how true. I can't see any fault, brilliant, very wise.
God at the top is the only one righteous. The Almighty is righteous and lesser beings work by the axiom that might makes right.
BTW Godless progress is patroned by the demon Astaroth.
(April 14, 2012 at 12:10 pm)Drich Wrote: (April 14, 2012 at 2:36 am)Cinjin Wrote: (April 14, 2012 at 2:20 am)Drich Wrote: You seem to be missing a bit of the equation. In that God's righteousness is not/Can not be obtained by our efforts. It is a gift given to all who believe in the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
That means righteousness is still obtainable even if you lie to the German officer to save your friend/family.
So after saving your god's chosen people, I have to ask forgiveness for not telling the truth?? And only then do I get the righteousness? I often lied to my grandmother as a kid. I would tell her that I was going to the arcade when I was really going to play football because she was terrified that I would get seriously hurt playing that sport. There was no malicious intent in that lie ... therefore there is no sin, unrighteousness, etc etc.
If you and/or your god think there is, that's your business, but I know many Christians who do not think the way you do. Are you a true Christian or are they?
... let me just guess ...
You guys twist things to suit your own arguments or if you prefer a formal evaluation you have created a straw man fallacy rather than address the biblical definitions I have post at least a dozen times.
Sin is anything not in the Expressed will of God
Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin
Not all sin is evil but all evil is sin.
(April 14, 2012 at 7:17 am)Thomas Kelly Wrote: People,
A link below of a definition in Oxford Dictionaries website I guess.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...q=morality
Do you not understand the point or purpose of this thread?
You can not take a popular understanding or concept and directly compare it to the standard of God. Why because it would be a dishonest comparison.
If the Standard of God has been known for 1000's of years then it would not be difficult to change the standard to suit a sense of self righteousness to persecute God.
If you are going to honestly compare a 2000+ year old understanding of God then you have to use the same comparative standard of morality.
Don't let these commies get to you, types like these gave Adolf a right headache.
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 5:05 am
(April 16, 2012 at 4:15 am)Kratos Wrote: BTW Godless progress is patroned by the demon Astaroth.
If that is the case you'd better step away from your computer as it is a product of demon inspired progress.
Hypocrite.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 63
Threads: 1
Joined: April 7, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 5:29 am
(April 16, 2012 at 5:05 am)Zen Badger Wrote: (April 16, 2012 at 4:15 am)Kratos Wrote: BTW Godless progress is patroned by the demon Astaroth.
If that is the case you'd better step away from your computer as it is a product of demon inspired progress.
Hypocrite.
Well God created demons so they can't be all that bad. A lot of them were Gods that were demonized during conquests.
Posts: 1123
Threads: 18
Joined: February 15, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 5:54 am
I'm sure Drich is overjoyed that you in particular are leaping to praise his arguments.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
Posts: 46
Threads: 1
Joined: April 16, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 6:29 am
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2012 at 6:30 am by King_Charles.)
(April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: I have posted this definition several times in past posts.
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 Incorporated into that standard.
Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.
Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.
Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.
God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.
Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.
That said know that 'morality' is not the universal standard of good. Morality is a constantly changing to suit the the personal or civil righteousness of a community of people. What once was moral could now be considered a crime, and vise versa.
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.
I'd certainly agree with your definition of morality. As you say morality is not always a universal standard, but the crux of morality is - it is an essential element of our anthropological make-up that allows people to function in a social framework, with basic standards of conduct being expected of those we live with. I don't think this is really something theists and atheists would disagree upon.
Many theologians, and, indeed, agnostic or atheistic philosophers, draw from this the concept of natural law. Which basically just means that universally good standards of human conduct in any society can be arrived at via the use of reason. This is sometimes contrasted with positive law, which is law that derives from some kind of authority and is not necessarily universal to all societies. Though obviously the distinction between the two is not always clear.
For St. Aquinas this "Natural Law" is derived from God's creation by the intellect of man, but does NOT require the revelation of the Church or scripture or even a belief in the Christian God. St. Aquinas termed "divine law" those standards of human conduct that come from God and/or the revelation, for example the virtue of Faith.
My essential point here is that morality derived by man from reason, and morality from the revelation of God (what I understand you to term righteousness) are not two competing standards, one exclusive of the other, but rather are complimentary. The divine law can never contradict natural law (though it may contradict positive law), and visa versa.
Posts: 63
Threads: 1
Joined: April 7, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 6:55 am
(April 16, 2012 at 6:29 am)King_Charles Wrote: (April 14, 2012 at 1:55 am)Drich Wrote: I have posted this definition several times in past posts.
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 Incorporated into that standard.
Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.
Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.
Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.
God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.
Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.
That said know that 'morality' is not the universal standard of good. Morality is a constantly changing to suit the the personal or civil righteousness of a community of people. What once was moral could now be considered a crime, and vise versa.
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.
I'd certainly agree with your definition of morality. As you say morality is not always a universal standard, but the crux of morality is - it is an essential element of our anthropological make-up that allows people to function in a social framework, with basic standards of conduct being expected of those we live with. I don't think this is really something theists and atheists would disagree upon.
Many theologians, and, indeed, agnostic or atheistic philosophers, draw from this the concept of natural law. Which basically just means that universally good standards of human conduct in any society can be arrived at via the use of reason. This is sometimes contrasted with positive law, which is law that derives from some kind of authority and is not necessarily universal to all societies. Though obviously the distinction between the two is not always clear.
For St. Aquinas this "Natural Law" is derived from God's creation by the intellect of man, but does NOT require the revelation of the Church or scripture or even a belief in the Christian God. St. Aquinas termed "divine law" those standards of human conduct that come from God and/or the revelation, for example the virtue of Faith.
My essential point here is that morality derived by man from reason, and morality from the revelation of God (what I understand you to term righteousness) are not two competing standards, one exclusive of the other, but rather are complimentary. The divine law can never contradict natural law (though it may contradict positive law), and visa versa.
Very true, it is good to read some well thought out posts. I hope the Godless horde don't attack you with insults as they do me. They even attack the pope, call him a Nazi trying to take over the world, most corrupt etc these people must be maniacs. The pope only talks of peace on Earth and love and forgiveness etc. I have a sneaking suspicion they are a bunch of Marxist Jews to say such heinous things.
Posts: 5654
Threads: 133
Joined: May 10, 2011
Reputation:
69
RE: Morality
April 16, 2012 at 7:08 am
(April 16, 2012 at 4:15 am)Kratos Wrote: BTW Godless progress is patroned by the demon Astaroth.
I take it you mean the big guy from the Soul Caliber games, yeah?
|
