Man's morality

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thank you for this, Drich. Your post makes me glad that I'm moral and not righteous.

Boru

[max-greece]

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.

But Drich - God lies like a drunken sailor on shore leave:

1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

[Raven]

1 John 3 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 3
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

These jokers need to make up their minds already. Do we or don't we?

[Drich]

Okay, then by your own completely made up definition of morality, God necessarily isn't moral. It is "man's attempt..." after all.

We covered this in the OP. Man has a standard of what is 'good' apart from God. From what I have seen on this board and in life, this standard is often refered to as 'morality.' God's standard and this 'moral' standard clashes, therefore God is not what you considered to be 'moral' because He will not bend to the standard of Man.

Further, you don't seem to know what morality is, and you speaking on it demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge on what it is. Morality refers to 'how we ought to do', and nothing else.

Which differs from what I've said how? God's standard of "what we ought to do" and our own standard of "what we ought to do" is completely different.

What we say we 'ought to do' is based completely on works.

What God says, is none of our works will ever be enough, so we should seek redemption.

Then God is not moral.

Again the purpose of this thread is to point out that 'morality' is not a meaningful standard, so to use it to judge God is pointless. It's like measuring vast distances in space with Micrometers. Even if it were possiable the final number/result would be beyond usable comperhension.

Further, this is just an example of Christianity ripping off Plato's metaphysics.

Uh, no. Plato's metaphysics has nothing to do with sin and redemption.

And if no man can achieve it and God created man, it necessarily follows that man cannot achieve it because God did not want them to.

Adam 'achieved it,' and for a time so did Eve.

And if a gunman comes to you asking if your family is home, I do oh so hope you keep to your standard.

The Drich family are not victims, we can and will go down in a hail of lead, smoke and lots of noise.

That said You've again missed the point of a righteous standard. It is not there for us to strictly live by. but, according to Christ to identify the need for redemption in our life. It should follow because we can not ALWAYS tell the truth or always live by this standard we must then seek a righteousness apart from the Law God gives. This is what redemption, and Christ's death on the cross was all about. Christ did not die to replace one set of rules with another set.

Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.

If there are two choices and only those two choices, clearly you will pick the one that more aligns with your values.

God's option is the only absolute. The other choice is to make stuff up as we go. This making stuff up is what is known as 'morality.'

What is considered good is by definition based on what one (even if they're God) considers to be moral.
Because morality is about what one should do, it will necessarily be dependent on one's in-built values. This is just as true for God as it is for any person.

Missed the point on this one too. If we are all different and always changing then it stands to reason our 'morality' is always different and is always changing. Meaning if we tie our morality to soceity's standards alone then we are bound to go where ever soceity leads. This is true for accepting gay marriage, and shunning slavery, and is also true for rounding up jews and putting them in death camps as well. There are no boundries. We learned this leason just 2 or 3 generations ago and we have already forgotten it. Every Great soceity that has not fallen to an enemy has fallen to it's own declining 'morality.'

And what is the distance between what God says is right and what is actually right? Oh wait, that's what morality is you numbskull.

Again no. You believe 'morality' to be work based. In the things you think and do. God has set a standard that none can obtain through work thought or deed. Therefore we must seek the righteousness provided through attonement. This means God's righteousness and your 'morality' are worlds apart.

But hey, we already knew Drich was dull and rarely knew what he was talking about, much less on issues of moral ontology, on which he is a complete novice.

Maybe that is the problem with using fancy words you had to google for your post. You have confuse yourself, and that had you loose sight of the most basic sunday school understanding of sin, attonement, and Righteousness. leaving you open for correction in your basic understanding of Christian theology.

---

Uh....

MMMhmmm.

---

Trying to create a ruleset that applies to every situation is a fool's errand; there will always be exceptions (as the section I bolded demonstrates).

Which is why Christ died to give us attonement. I frees us to obtain righteousnesss without having to maintain a given standard.

The fact that morality is adaptable can function as a double edged sword sometimes, but ultimately the ability to make revisions puts it ahead of something that will be wrong forever. Just because it doesn't change doesn't mean it was right in the first place.

The fact that you depend on your actions alone to define your moral character will always mean you will fall short outside your soceity, the time frame in which you live/generation, and or even the region in which you live. With Morality there are not absolutes it is just a general concensus/feeling of what the 'crowd' your with thinks is right or wrong.

If your right and wrong are determined by the mob of people your currently in then you are subject to whatever perversions tickles the fancy of the majority. Whether that be the acceptance of Gay marriage and the shunning of slavery, or rounding people up and putting them in death camps, the driving principle is exactly the same. The only thing that seperates a soceity that accepts gay marriage and one who puts gay people in death camps (along with anyone else they deem unworthy) is a simple majority 'feeling' of it being the 'right' thing to do. One man change right in wrong in 1930's germany with a unified sense of entitlement inhearent to that generation and a liberal use of propaganda.. This soceity is ripe with entitlement, all we need now is a leader to role that entitlement in with some well placed propaganda, and 'we' can be the next reich.

You can post whatever definition of morality you want, but it doesn't make you correct.

Do you dispute the fact that God's righteousness, and Man's morality are two seperate standards?

---

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

You're right. There's not a human in history who has managed to do the appalling acts of "righteousness" performed by your god. The genocide of the world being at the top of the list.

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.

...except of course for when your god changes it to suit his actions.

Man's Morality is on a sliding scale always identified by the lessor of two evils.

Your god's morality is on a sliding scale, always defined by the gullible fucktard interpreting the Bible.

You like the other two I have answered so far, believe morality to be a works based standard. God's righteousness is not a standard we can obtain though works.. That makes you whole arguement invalid.

---

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.

But Drich - God lies like a drunken sailor on shore leave:

1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

What man deems 'immoral' or moral is all based off of works. In God's righteousness the acts themselves have no meaning, it is what we do in relation to a given command/act that places us in or outside of God's expressed will/righteousness.

---

1 John 3 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 3
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

These jokers need to make up their minds already. Do we or don't we?

3 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God![a] Therefore the world does not know us,[b] because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

It's amazing what a little context will do for clarity.

[Whateverist]

Do you dispute the fact that God's righteousness, and Man's morality are two seperate standards?

No, I completely agree. The latter is something we're all familiar with while the former means god only knows what. Man's morality seems appropriate for my uses. I'll let you attend to tossing God's salad for him, maybe get yourself a better seat in the next life and all that.


Oh, and don't feel bad about not responding to my last post. I assume you agree with me.

[Drich]

Do you dispute the fact that God's righteousness, and Man's morality are two seperate standards?

No, I completely agree. The latter is something we're all familiar with while the former means god only knows what. Man's morality seems appropriate for my uses. I'll let you attend to tossing God's salad for him, maybe get yourself a better seat in the next life and all that.


Oh, and don't feel bad about not responding to my last post. I assume you agree with me.

You in your last post as well as this one was just soap boxing your opinions. Nothing that I remember you say conflicted with Scripture, so what is there for me to say? right or wrong you are entitled to your opinion, and in the intrest of eventually getting out of here I'd just as soon allow you your time on the soap box.

[Angrboda]

What man deems 'immoral' or moral is all based off of works. In God's righteousness the acts themselves have no meaning, it is what we do in relation to a given command/act that places us in or outside of God's expressed will/righteousness.

And you know this how? Your book saying something is so doesn't make it so, even if it weren't bloody fucking ambiguous in the bible. And no, I don't depend on our little fourth grade reader to interpret the text for us. You showed at Christmas last year with your inept and incompetent attempt to defend a bollocksed up interpretation of bohu (here) that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to interpreting ANY text, much less a holy text. I worship She who destroys, and she shows me that all your words are Maya. Prove my god wrong. I dare you.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Quick question, what about Woman's Morality?

[Darkstar]

Trying to create a ruleset that applies to every situation is a fool's errand; there will always be exceptions (as the section I bolded demonstrates).

Which is why Christ died to give us attonement. I frees us to obtain righteousnesss without having to maintain a given standard.

Eh? I thought that was called grace or something. Like some kind of magic metaphorical pixie dust that lets you into heaven if you have enough of it (or do only Catholics think that?). You still wouldn't be adhering to god's standard, though, even if you got a pass to heaven.

Also, you response seems to imply that god made his standard impossible to follow on purpose. And, if I might speculate a bit, not merely impossible because no one would be good enough to follow it, but impossible because it is flawed.

The fact that morality is adaptable can function as a double edged sword sometimes, but ultimately the ability to make revisions puts it ahead of something that will be wrong forever. Just because it doesn't change doesn't mean it was right in the first place.

The fact that you depend on your actions alone to define your moral character will always mean you will fall short outside your soceity, the time frame in which you live/generation, and or even the region in which you live.

So? You already said you will always fall short of god's standard too, so why is this relevant?

With Morality there are not absolutes it is just a general concensus/feeling of what the 'crowd' your with thinks is right or wrong.

And why is this bad? And before someone invokes Godwin's law, the Jews did not agree that their being killed was moral. Of course, a community could agree that people outside their community be mistreated and still be internally consistent, but that's a whole other can of worms.

If your right and wrong are determined by the mob of people your currently in then you are subject to whatever perversions tickles the fancy of the majority. Whether that be the acceptance of Gay marriage and the shunning of slavery, or rounding people up and putting them in death camps

Called it.

the driving principle is exactly the same. The only thing that seperates a soceity that accepts gay marriage and one who puts gay people in death camps (along with anyone else they deem unworthy) is a simple majority 'feeling' of it being the 'right' thing to do.

Or, you know, human empathy. The golden rule is a pretty good moral yardstick in most cases.

One man change right in wrong in 1930's germany with a unified sense of entitlement inhearent to that generation and a liberal use of propaganda.. This soceity is ripe with entitlement, all we need now is a leader to role that entitlement in with some well placed propaganda, and 'we' can be the next reich.

You did it twice?

Do you dispute the fact that God's righteousness, and Man's morality are two seperate standards?

Well, I would like to, since I don't believe in god and consider 'his' standard to simply be an outdated human one, but I imagine you would disagree.

Then we get to the part where you know god is right because he's omniscient and would never lie (and we know these because he told us, and we know they're true because he wouldn't lie, and we know he wouldn't lie because he told us, and we know he was telling the truth because he wouldn't lie, and...)

[Whateverist]

Quick question, what about Woman's Morality?

All a bunch of scheming whores. What morality?