pop morality

[Drich]

I've talked to a lot of 'Atheist' and what I found is that most can't believe in God, because they've tested the mold/perception they think God comes in and their idea of God failed. Or better yet if they 'kill the idea of God' then they do not have to live the strict adherence of Life, they think is necessary to be a follower of God. The problem with both types of 'atheist' is that their judgement of God both depend on God fitting in this tiny little box in their perceived/limited understanding. Very few if any of you has considered that God may exist outside the confines of what you understand to be God, or What it means to be Holy. You need God to be a tyrant in order to live in your perceived "freedoms."

What if you are wrong and have it completely backwards? What if your perception of "freedom" are indeed chains, and what you think God is chaining you to is actually true freedom?

To you which person is truly free, and which is not? The person who is forced to think and act a certain way to define their 'morality?' by society's rules? or the person who Righteousness is not tied to the Law, but to the Righteousness of Christ by the atonement He offers?

Again the Law is to show us where sin is in our lives. It is not meant as a measure to live by. It is meant to point us to repentance, and we can not repent if we do not accept our sin/Have an absolute standard to live by.

Morality is the opposite. justifies sin which leads to unrepentance. Which is why we need that absolute standard. Not to force strict adherence, but to identify and repent of sin. With this also comes the added bonus ofnot defining our 'morality' by what society says do or do not do..

I don't adhere to a moral code (derived from empathy) because I wish to be "free" from perceived confines and limitations imposed by "God". Rebellion against and/or rejection of said deity is not and has never been the motivation for "self-righteous"morality"; I simply wish to cause as little harm to others as possible.

It's not what I want, it's what is.That's all.

But again in that one act (do no harm) you are defining your self by your action. Likewise you will define and judge others by their own actions in accordance to your mandate. I purified your 'charge' to "do no harm" from "do as little harm as possible." to show you the self righteousness you built into your one guideline. In that you leave yourself an out (a way reason to do harm) if you feel justified. Which again put you at the center of your own righteousness bubble. Yours is truly a righteousness drivied from self Or rather your is truly self righteousness, as apposed to the righteousness people normally refer to based on popular culture. Without even the checks and balances of culture, someone like you has a far greater chance of following the path of the unibomber or serial killer than someone bound to soceity's ideas of right and wrong.

God and The Law, atonement, redemption; all flights of fancy to someone like me. Could any of these things offer betterment for mankind if they were real and true? Perhaps so.

If someone truly follows this path, then one has to also relinquish the right to judge sin/evil in others. Do you think the world could benfit from that?

But, why should that matter? Giving consideration to an impossible or highly implausible "solution" as an answer to a real word problem doesn't get anyone anywhere, as far as I'm concerned. 

It's only impossible/implausible if you have no contact from God ever. Atonement put you the individual in direct contact with God. No middle man 'prophet/priest/saint/whatever' needed.

You're baffled as to why atheists reject the offer of redemption, as I simply say there is no gift to reject. The entire premise of the OP requires putting the cart before the horse.

because sometimes it is easier to push, than pull.

Just because a process does not conform to how you think it should work, does not mean it is devoid of merit in it's own way of operation.