Morality

[Creed of Heresy]

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.

Hey, with your lips pressed so tightly to Drich's ass I'm surprised you can actually see your keyboard. Why don't you unclamp your lips from his buttpucker a little bit, that way you'll actually be able to start doing more than saying shit.

As far as the topic of conversation being discussed...I maintain that morality is universal. Killing and murdering is, always has been, and always will be immoral, and has always been considered as such which is why all societies all the way back to the caveman eras did not just wantonly murder one another and why the earliest laws always tended to start with "don't kill each other." The RANGE of those moralities has certainly changed, sure...and for the better. There's a reason we call primitive humans "barbarians."

[parttimeprojectionist]

drich- i actually respect your approach to christianity. its very uhh how do i put this,"direct"??. maybe thats sounds wierd but whatever. you havent changed religion to fit your world view, youve changed your world view to make religion work with it. dont meet too many of your type.
BUT here in lies the problem
using the bible/gods word as an infallible standand of morality is completey fucked. you have a mind please use it. you know that killing is wrong most of the time, that shit is self evident like CoH is saying. but your god has supposedly killed off entire cities. thats a huge contradiction(insert starburst ad here). youve discussed slavery allready and came to the conclusion that its an anaology used to understand your faith more. but in reality slavery is not moral, the things slavery have accomplished is not a valid arguement. the bible supports slavery, but this is not moral, its really self evident. basically mans morality changes as it advances, gods does not and this holds back humanity on a shit ton of levels.

[Drich]

You can keep repeating it as many times you like - that does not make it correct.

It doesn't make me wrong either. It simply says I have had to repeat myself without any legitimate response to the contrary.

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.

...and who sets these standards? Man, or the society he lives in.. Are all societies morality the same? no they are not. Can some societies standards be judged more sinful than others? Even by the non religious?? Yes.

If all of this is true then it can be said:
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.

The moral code determines what is right and what is wrong.

You are making my argument for me.

Therefore, any righteousness depends upon the morality.

Because 'morality' is ever changing, it can not truly be called a standard. It is a variable by the definition of the word. Therefore True Righteousness can not come from adherence to morality, however moral righteousness can.
Moral righteousness would allow for the variances found in the the different versions of morality found in our current and past societies.

Which leaves true Righteousness to be an absolute standard.

Wrong. If morality says that, righteousness says that as well.

If your looking to change the definitions of an absolute standard to fit you personal definition of morality then i guess it would have to. On a side note, Just by this statement I know you have never lived outside of your comfort zone, never been made to adopt another culture as your own. This narrow minded thinking is what makes the rest of the world hate people who live in western societies. (You assume you are right because that is how you live, and not only that everyone should be made to adopt what you believe.)

Wrong. If something like a god of your bible exists, then his morality changes more than a weather-vane.

Do you have an example?

Then you should stop using morality and righteousness as absolute standards.

I am not trying to upset the little world you have created for yourself. I am only speaking to those who want biblical clarity. If you wish to live in your moral world then understand I have no issue allowing you to live and die by whatever standard your wish. I am post for those who mistakenly but feel a rightful want to judge God by the morality they have made for themselves.

Also know it was you who has this overwhelming urge to explain yourself to me. This means anytime you wish you can end this conversation, you can. i am not here to force True righteousness on you nor anyone else.

---

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

3 things

You do understand the meaning of the word "Proverb" do you not?

Did you read what I said about mt 5? (where before that time it was possible to obtain righteousness by your deeds, but after the Sermon Christ gave in Mat 5 it is not.)

Even if any part of the book of "Proverbs" were issued as commands, they would have been issued before the Sermon Christ gave in Mt 5.

Nice try though it shows a legitimate effort to question what is being said!

---

[quote='Drich' pid='272243' dateline='1334382916']
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.

Count the "attacks" as blessings and opportunities to turn the other cheek. If you ever prayed for help with patiences or pride things or people like this is how that prayer gets answered.

---

As far as the topic of conversation being discussed...I maintain that morality is universal. Killing and murdering is, always has been, and always will be immoral, and has always been considered as such which is why all societies all the way back to the caveman eras did not just wantonly murder one another and why the earliest laws always tended to start with "don't kill each other."

Do you not know your American history? Murder (via Manifest destiny) was not only encouraged but rewarded with money and land. Murder like any other 'moral absolute' can change if the society deems it necessary. Which is the exact point I am making. Because morality is ever changing it can not be considered a true standard. By definition anything ever changing is to be considered a variable not a constant.

[NoMoreFaith]

We agree Drich. Morality is not an absolute standard. There is no absolute standard to compare it to. Even "universal" morality, such as murder, is ever changing. I think almost everyone agrees with that. You only have to look at any declaration of war to see that.

Does that give you the freedom to act as you will? No, you must conform to the socially acceptable standards set by society, or face penalties for contravening them, whether being a social pariah, or physically locked up.

Righteousness, is merely a figment of your imagination derived from the bible. Lovely. Now is there a point?

[FallentoReason]

3 things

You do understand the meaning of the word "Proverb" do you not?

Did you read what I said about mt 5? (where before that time it was possible to obtain righteousness by your deeds, but after the Sermon Christ gave in Mat 5 it is not.)

Even if any part of the book of "Proverbs" were issued as commands, they would have been issued before the Sermon Christ gave in Mt 5.

Nice try though it shows a legitimate effort to question what is being said!

Ah, yes I see what you're saying. My mistake!

[Zen Badger]

I'm calling troll on Kratos

[Drich]

drich- i actually respect your approach to Christianity. its very uhh how do i put this,"direct"??. maybe thats sounds wierd but whatever. you havent changed religion to fit your world view, youve changed your world view to make religion work with it. dont meet too many of your type.

That is too bad. i don't know if that means you should get out more or if that means there are fewer of us than is needed.

BUT here in lies the problem
using the bible/gods word as an infallible standand of morality is completey fucked. you have a mind please use it. you know that killing is wrong most of the time, that shit is self evident like CoH is saying.

Again it is wrong depending on where and when you have lived.

Unless you goto an absolute standard which says Murder is always wrong.

but your god has supposedly killed off entire cities. thats a huge contradiction(insert starburst ad here).

Because death or causing death in of itself is not a sin. It is the unsanctioned taking of life that makes killing Murder.

youve discussed slavery already and came to the conclusion that its an analogy used to understand your faith more. but in reality slavery is not moral, the things slavery have accomplished is not a valid arguement.

"Slavery" is a term used in western societies to describe the actions of men living in dark ages to about the mid 1860's. This is not the biblical definition of the term. If you were to only look at what is being described in biblical slavery you would see that everyone who has a job is a slave, every man who has some sort of monthly payment to be a slave, anyone who is apart of a family to be a slave. Anyone who sins as being a bond servant/slave to that sin. We are all slaves all of the time. Western Society doesn't want any rules or regulations telling the slave owners how to manage the people in their care. Which is infact what the bible has done. You see, all "we" had to do is change the meaning of the word, and people like you will not even look to consider what has been done for any of us under the authority of another. Ironically by doing so you bind yourself tighter to the society that has done so much to enslave you to it.

the bible supports slavery, but this is not moral, its really self evident. basically mans morality changes as it advances, gods does not and this holds back humanity on a shit ton of levels.

What God has done is freed us. Yes we are now bond to Him but under Him our load is light our burdens are gone. By the standards of society of morals you are bound to act, think, and believe a certain way otherwise you are ostracized. Take the time to read some of your peers comments and tell me this is not true. I made the effort to start my own thread, and look at the need and compulsion to preserve the societal idea of morality. (As to not intrude on anyone elses thoughts) Look at the lengths people have gone to trivialize and dismiss what is being said here.. Why? Because you all are bound like slaves to thinking a very specific way, and if anyone opposes the way any of you think, all of these "enlightened free thinking minds" look to tear apart and destroy anyone or any thing that speaks against your societal masters.

That is why the perservation of "morality" is so important as the king of the good standard. This allows you all to judge any thing and any one not living in your scope of the world.

---

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='273204' dateline='1334580859']

We agree Drich. Morality is not an absolute standard. There is no absolute standard to compare it to. Even "universal" morality, such as murder, is ever changing. I think almost everyone agrees with that. You only have to look at any declaration of war to see that.

Don't tell me there are 4 or 5 of your friends who do not see things that way. why not address them.

Does that give you the freedom to act as you will? No, you must conform to the socially acceptable standards set by society, or face penalties for contravening them, whether being a social pariah, or physically locked up.

I agree for we all christian and atheist alike are bound to morality in one form or another.

[genkaus]

It doesn't make me wrong either. It simply says I have had to repeat myself without any legitimate response to the contrary.

No, being wrong makes you wrong.

...and who sets these standards? Man, or the society he lives in.. Are all societies morality the same? no they are not. Can some societies standards be judged more sinful than others? Even by the non religious?? Yes.

A man chooses what moral code he lives by. A society's moral code is chosen by what its members agree on. One society's moral code can be judged according to another society's - which would result in it being regarded as more or less sinful. For example. my moral code says that the christian morality is extremely sinful.

If all of this is true then it can be said:
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.

No, all that can be said is that morality is a standard to judge actions and different people may use different standards. There is not indication of any underlying basis.

You are making my argument for me.

And you still don't get it.

Because 'morality' is ever changing, it can not truly be called a standard. It is a variable by the definition of the word. Therefore True Righteousness can not come from adherence to morality, however moral righteousness can.
Moral righteousness would allow for the variances found in the the different versions of morality found in our current and past societies.

Which leaves true Righteousness to be an absolute standard.

Wrong. Morality is not changing - there are simply different moralities. There is morality of one society as opposed to the morality of another, irrespective of whether those societies are separated by space or time. They may share common traits based on their origin, but that does not make them variations of one another. Ergo, there is no absolute standard here.

If your looking to change the definitions of an absolute standard to fit you personal definition of morality then i guess it would have to.

You are the one changing the definition to suit your purpose.

Here are the accepted definitions of righteousness:

- adhering to moral principles (wordnetweb.princeton.edu)
- noun
1. the quality or state of being righteous.
2. righteous conduct.
3. the quality or state of being just or rightful: They came to realize the righteousness of her position on the matter.

- righteous (Dictionary.com)
— adj
1. a. characterized by, proceeding from, or in accordance with accepted standards of morality, justice, or uprightness; virtuous: a righteous man
b. ( as collective noun ; preceded by the ): the righteous
2. morally justifiable or right, esp from one's own point of view: righteous indignation


Which definition are you using?

On a side note, Just by this statement I know you have never lived outside of your comfort zone, never been made to adopt another culture as your own. This narrow minded thinking is what makes the rest of the world hate people who live in western societies. (You assume you are right because that is how you live, and not only that everyone should be made to adopt what you believe.)

This tells me that you come to this forum just to toot your horn and aren't actually interested in anything anyone else is saying. If you'd actually bothered to read any of the other threads, you'd know that I live in India - not a western society. I'm debating on a forum populated by westerners, which would automatically take me out of my comfort zone and right in the middle of another culture.

In future, please refrain from making any assumptions about me. You just make a fool of yourself. More that usual, that is.

Do you have an example?

Are you allowed to eat shellfish?

I am not trying to upset the little world you have created for yourself. I am only speaking to those who want biblical clarity. If you wish to live in your moral world then understand I have no issue allowing you to live and die by whatever standard your wish. I am post for those who mistakenly but feel a rightful want to judge God by the morality they have made for themselves.

No, you are trying to impose your own little world onto everyone else. Forgive us if we don't sit by silently.

Secondly, biblical clarity? Give me a break. I don't see the word "Bible" anywhere in the OP or the title. If you'd prefaced your post by saying, "According to the Bible..." my arguments would've been completely different. I'd have said that the Bible is not a philosophical treatise, it is not a dictionary and any definitions you give from it are not provided explicitly, but can only be inferred or interpreted - which makes them subjective, unreliable and therefore, useless.

And thirdly, what relevance does telling us what the Bible means by morality and righteousness have when a) those definitions are subjective and meaningless, b) not accepted by general populace when talking about morality and c) god's actions are clearly sinful (according to the morality that is accepted by the general populace).

Also know it was you who has this overwhelming urge to explain yourself to me. This means anytime you wish you can end this conversation, you can. i am not here to force True righteousness on you nor anyone else.

All you are doing is forcing your stupidity on everyone. Sorry, but I'm not going to let that stand either. Countering lies and foolishness under the guise of an intellectual debate is a part of my moral code.

[Coveredone]

I approximate what is known as the Golden Rule was, is and will be what should be used in judging morality.

[Tobie]

There are various ( scientific ) explanations on why we humans have morals. Some say that it is a side effect of evolution. Incest, for example, is taboo because it can cause genetic defects, and so will be detrimental to the species ( as seen in any royal family ). The behaviour that generally classifies as moral evolved because they offer some evolutionary benefit.

Other theories and tests suggest that morality is due to empathy, which is also supported by mental illnesses that cause immoral behaviour, such as psychopathy, which is largely characterised by a lack of empathy.

In my opinion, it is much more likely that religion comes from morality, and a lack of understanding of it and other things, than vice versa.