posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:23 AM
I'm not sure why you always allude to me "playing games", when I'm just trying to get you to clearly state your beliefs, but.... HUZZAH! We can
finally answer your question!
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I will say it one more time, I'm growing tired of your games, and I have made this crystal clear in the past, do you agree that Jesus the man had
perfect morals? If so, how can you say no-one can achieve it when you believe in a man that did?
Yes, Christ exemplified moralistic perfection. However, he did this, DESPITE being human. Human nature prevents us from realizing that perfection,
but his divinity overruled that.
When discussing communism with radicals (over the course of decades, those guys just don't give up, lol,) I always point out that two truisms of
human nature is that we are lazy ("what is the least amount of work that I can do") and greedy ("what is my share of this?"). That, as I see it,
is the root of "original sin" and that which keeps us from achieving what Christ could do, as he was without those traits.
In 'my' subjective moral point of view, no I don't think it was moral. I have clearly stated that I do not deny the fact that they thought
it was moral.
And you have answered your own question -- God's acts, which you deem to be immoral, are not immoral, because as a God of righteousness, those
actions were moral, by definition. The disconnect is that your subjective morality disqualifies you as a judge of anyone else's morality, because
you have agreed that it's just a matter of opinion.
Bummer that you didn't opt for "absolute morality, sourced by God", 'cause I had a pretty good counter to that, too
Despite the flippancy of that last line, I appreciate your honesty in coming to recognize your position on morality. Many people cannot do that --
I've had atheists argue me to near death that their subjective view of morality was objective, after all.