Man's morality

[genkaus]

I have posted this definition several times in past posts, I thought it needs to be brought up again because of how all the noobs seem to understand and misuse the word.

I've corrected your definition several times in the past but clearly I need to do it again. At the very least, so that no noobs are confused by your misunderstanding and misuse of the word.

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 is man's attempt to establish a code of conduct to live his life by. It is a set of principles to be used to evaluate and guide his actions and those of other humans. It is not based on a preconceived notion of righteousness or sin - quite the reverse, in fact, what one regards as righteous is determined by the moral system.

You claim that at some point, your god came up with a set of principles that could be used to guide and judge human actions (after making similarly unsubstantiated claims about there being a god and him giving two shits about human existence). Even if that was the case - and it is a BIG IF - then those principles would form god's morality. Whatever is righteous according to that morality would be god's righteousness. And since sin is defined as something that goes against god's morality, anything that goes against that morality would be sinful by definition.

Saying that man's morality - something that is not dictated by your god - does not match up to your god's morality is trivial and pointless. Your god's morality does not match up to man's morality either. And why would man's morality even need to achieve your god's standard of righteousness? Because your god's morality said so? So fucking what?

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.

Thus showing that your god's morality is an inadequate standard to live by. Using s rigid and unchanging set of principles that shows no consideration to the context actions take place in is not a standard people can use to guide their whole lives. It would be irrational to do so. Which is why they shouldn't. Which is why they don't.

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

A much smarter principle than a code blind to context.

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.

But then, your god's morality is not a universal standard of good either. How could it be, if it is not universally accepted. As it happens, a constantly changing and reasonable moral system is much better than one that is unchanging and unreasonable - which is what your so-called god's morality is.

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. To say "God is not moral" is not the insult you think it is. That is like a death camp nazi saying a German citizen is not 'moral, because he is hiding Jews from the Gestapo. Why? Because your morality like the death camp nazi's morality is based on ever declining scale. The fact there is so much distance between what you think is right and what God has declared as righteous only points to how far you and your 'morality' has fallen beyond true righteousness.

I say this to help those momentarily confused by your ramblings. Only within a theistic context are the questions regarding morality assume it to be an absolute standard. That's because, within that context, the morality refers to your god's morality, which, according to you, is an absolute standard.

When atheists say "god is not moral", what they are actually saying is that your god fails to follow his own morality. That he fails to live up to his own standard of righteousness. Though, I have to agree, such an argument is pointless, because the first principle of your god's morality seems to be that whatever he does is moral by definition. Apparently, your god is a Tautological Templar.

[genkaus]

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.

We've covered this before as well. If a standard of what is 'good' is referred to as morality, then your so-called god's standard is a form of morality as well. And as far as I can see, your god's standard is far inferior to the one we've developed.

On the other hand, glad we can all agree on the fact that your so-called god is, in fact, immoral.

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.

Thus further demonstrating the irrational and self-contradictory nature of your so-called god's morality. If the list of ought-nots is not going to be sufficient in the first place, then what's the point in making such a list? That's like giving the students a test and then declaring that they won't pass no matter what their score is.

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.

The purpose of the thread is a shoddy attempt at rationalizing one of the favorite Christian special pleading - that somehow your god is exempt from his own standard of moral behavior. You attempt to do so by claiming that your god's standard s somehow not a form of morality, when, in fact, it is one by definition.

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

I agree. Plato's metaphysics is a much more subtle and much, much more intelligent attempt at stacking the deck than your shoddy rationalizations.

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.

Or - as it is known in advertizing circles - "creating a need". You see this all the time - from big pharmaceutical companies to small-time conmen. Apparently, religion is where it started.

You take something innocuous and trivial, advertize it as a BIG problem, show how impossible or, at least, difficult the correction is and then 'offer' a much simpler solution and see how people lap it up. You see those ads of an average-bodied girl who can't get boys because she is not a size zero and everybody calls her fat. And then you see her dieting and exercising and none of it works. And then she buys this exercise belt which can give her a workout while she sits on her ass and in three weeks - Selena Gomez.

That's what your religion is trying to peddle. You take something trivial as the basic condition of being human, you declare that state of existence insufficient and sinful according your hypothetical god, you come up with this elaborate and nearly-impossible-to-follow set of rules to live by to 'correct' that condition (and in case someone does seem capable of following them, you declare that following those rules wasn't enough to begin with) and then you offer this much simpler method of accepting Christ. The only problem is, this scheme doesn't work if we don't buy into the initial bullshit premise.

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.'

The stuff that your god made is also known as 'morality'. Just because is is so much inferior to our own does not mean it doesn't fit the definition.

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.'

No, he got the point pretty well. You say that because we are different and changing, our morality keeps changing as well and that since your god remains the same, his morality remains the same. So what?

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.

How do you not see the contradiction of your own god's morality here?

Telling one what one ought to do and then saying that what one does doesn't matter is simply ridiculous. I agree with you completely. Your god's morality and our morality are world's apart. Ours is a sane and rational system that is designed with basic human nature and needs in mind. Yours is dictated by arbitrary whims of an imaginary being which, by your own admission, "wouldn't work anyway".

[Esquilax]

Who gave Drich the Definition Arbiter's crown?

[genkaus]

Who gave Drich the Definition Arbiter's crown?

He's working under the delusion that his bible qualifies as a dictionary.

[max-greece]

Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.

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.

---

Sorry Drich but this makes no sense whatsoever.

I have bolded out the problem.

Righteousness says its always a sin to lie.
God lies.

And this is not a problem???????

[Angrboda]

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.

Thus further demonstrating the irrational and self-contradictory nature of your so-called god's morality. If the list of ought-nots is not going to be sufficient in the first place, then what's the point in making such a list? That's like giving the students a test and then declaring that they won't pass no matter what their score is.

Kant makes some good points about the relationship between pragmatism of moral duties and the morality of those duties. In particular, he argues that a duty which is incapable of being fulfilled is not a duty at all, moral or otherwise, that a duty must be capable of being realized to invoke an ought. God's morality, according to that specific phase of Kant's ethics, then doesn't qualify as moral at all. And I think he's right. We don't fault a lioness for eating a human being, for she cannot possibly be conscious of any imperative not to do so, or at least would not, in her natural state, be cognizant of such. She has no duty to be more "moral" and not eat a human, and to claim that she has "sinned" by not living up to our standards of goodness is not only wrong, it is evil itself. To punish the lioness for not being more ethical is as absurd as to claim that we "fall short" of god's standard; the standard does not apply unless you first equivocate on multiple things, including its relevance as a duty. We have no prima facie duty to god on account of him having such standards, such standards aren't moral, nor do we have any justification of any duty toward god based on his standards alone. This simply doesn't work; his standards, and our duty to them, can only be justified elsewhere and elsewise, thus the story of Job, which, for all its appeal, portrays a fascist and ethically bankrupt monster of a god.

[genkaus]

Kant makes some good points about the relationship between pragmatism of moral duties and the morality of those duties. In particular, he argues that a duty which is incapable of being fulfilled is not a duty at all, moral or otherwise, that a duty must be capable of being realized to invoke an ought. God's morality, according to that specific phase of Kant's ethics, then doesn't qualify as moral at all. And I think he's right. We don't fault a lioness for eating a human being, for she cannot possibly be conscious of any imperative not to do so, or at least would not, in her natural state, be cognizant of such. She has no duty to be more "moral" and not eat a human, and to claim that she has "sinned" by not living up to our standards of goodness is not only wrong, it is evil itself. To punish the lioness for not being more ethical is as absurd as to claim that we "fall short" of god's standard; the standard does not apply unless you first equivocate on multiple things, including its relevance as a duty. We have no prima facie duty to god on account of him having such standards, such standards aren't moral, nor do we have any justification of any duty toward god based on his standards alone. This simply doesn't work; his standards, and our duty to them, can only be justified elsewhere and elsewise, thus the story of Job, which, for all its appeal, portrays a fascist and ethically bankrupt monster of a god.

Does Kant say anything about the theoretical impossibility of followong a moral system vs the practical impossibility of doing so?

As far as I can tell from Drich's arguments, it is not literally impossible for a man to live up to god's morality. He believes Adam and Eve to have done so and I think he'd argue that Jesus had done so as well. So, while a person may be theoretically capable of living upto god's morality, for all intents and purposes, it'd unreasonable to assume that he'd do so in his long and varied life. Thus, the assumption that it is practically impossible for a man to live up to god's morality.

If this argument is correct, then it means that god's standard does qualify as a moral standard, albeit one extremely difficult to adhere to.

However, the crux of Drich's argument - the part that's the dumbest of all - is where he says "it doesn't matter either way". What's the point of giving a person an impossible task to perform and, in the end, saying that even if he does manage it, it wouldn't make any difference?

[Angrboda]

According to Drich's theology, sin is "how you appear to God." It is completely divorced from works. If God feels you've disappointed him, it doesn't matter what you have or have not done, you have sinned. This is the foundation of Christianity, resting on the son of God's sacrificing himself to atone for the disappointment God has felt since Eve got a little peckish in the garden. I can't imagine a more morally bankrupt philosophy, ignoring that God promises not to engage in trans-generational blaming, and then kills his own son as an attempt to appease his lust to do so anyway.

[max-greece]

According to Drich's theology, sin is "how you appear to God." It is completely divorced from works. If God feels you've disappointed him, it doesn't matter what you have or have not done, you have sinned. This is the foundation of Christianity, resting on the son of God's sacrificing himself to atone for the disappointment God has felt since Eve got a little peckish in the garden. I can't imagine a more morally bankrupt philosophy, ignoring that God promises not to engage in trans-generational blaming, and then kills his own son as an attempt to appease his lust to do so anyway.

Its interesting as this is where Christianity and Judaism part. Jews, in the absence of Jesus the scapegoat have their sins weighed against their Mitzvah's (good deeds). If the balance tilts in your favour - you're in.

This is why Christians see man as entirely evil - excepting the influence of God. There is no concept in Christianity for good deeds outside of God. That's why they always thank God for things that have fuck all to do with him.

To a Christian - what is the opposite of sin? It appears there isn't one.

[Godlesspanther]

It's pretty simple, really. Those who adhere to man's morality want the world to be a better place with liberty, justice, human rights, equality, progress, quality of life for all of us. That is what we strive for. Those who think that they are adhering to god's righteousness want the world to be way more fucked up than it already is.