pop morality

[Jenny A]

@ Dritch I went to some effort to understand you.  Above is your recognition that I do indeed understand.  I think most of the rest of us do too. We just think you are wrong.

If you do understand my position, it doesn't mean your logic or final conclusion is correct.
Besides if you will note I had to make several key changes to your understanding. (I said NO Several times) Your last post suggests that you did not incorporate those changes into your final conclusion, because as this post seems to suggest you feel that you are 'close enough.

Yes you did.  I gave you that opportunity by summarizing what I thought your position was.  You clarified.  That is how we reach understanding.  And I did pay attention to that clarification.

[

Your first error is in thinking that there is a god and you personally understand his will.

and this is evidenced by what?? Wishful thinking on your part?
God's will is not a mystery. It is laid out in our very own language word for word. All any need do to know this will is to study and read the bible.

Surely, you've been on this site long enough to know what I desire is evidence.  The bible is a story about a what men think god is and nothing more.  It is one such story among many.  All lack confirmation.  I freely admit, I think yours is an ugly story.  I don't wish for it to be true.  But whether I or you wish it, there is not evidence of it.

Your second error is in thinking that a being who would create the system you describe is worthy of worship.

and what is this empty assertion based on? Snips and snails and puppy Dog tails? Boy oh boy, someone really thinks highly of her opinion to just put it out there and not back it with anything.. As if her word was enough to just 'wake someone up.'
So Sorry Jen-a, but people who are not related to you don't generally work that way. It would be pretty difficult to get me to just blindly follow your direction on a good day, but here God has directly given me sooo much, their is next to nothing you could do to change my mind on that.

God, according to you has planned a world in which people suffer randomly, and in which he punishes people for not obeying a law "purposely" (your word) designed to be impossible to obey.  If you find that admirable and worthy of worship, there's no arguing with you.  I, however do not.

 Your third error is in thinking that the fact moral consensus changes over time makes it valueless.

---

:Roflol:

---

Seriously... just for a moment think about what you just said...
" that the fact moral consensus changes over time (doesn't) makes it valueless"

If it had value why would it need to change? What happens to the 'old moral consensus? does it still retain value? So what will happen to the current 'moral consensus' when it changes again will it retain any value, what so ever?

So then what value is their in the current 'moral consensus' outside the fact that it is the current moral consensus?

...And that's what i am talking about when I trivialize 'pop morality.' it only has value to those who currently live by the standard.. What's more (the reason I bring up the Nazis) no culture or society deems themselves evil by their own pop moral standard. Not even the Nazis.

So again, If two completely polar opposite standards stand in complete contradiction to one another, are you saying both retain equal value?

What if right now the Nazi standard was the way of the world outside of history books. could this 'morality' be ever truly deemed just?

My question is then how do we know we are selves haven't already crossed the Nazi line of pop morality?
(Doing truly EVIL things and morally justifying them.)

Seriously?  You can't see the value in the consensus that keeps us all from each others throats (to the extent we aren't at each other's throats), the consensus that makes civilization possible.  If you throw out moral consensus, life is in the words of Thomas Hobbs, "nasty, brutish, and short."  

We have this moral consensus, because it works.  Evolution has given us empathy, a sense of fairness, and reason.  These three are sufficient to create societies that work.  They worked where Jesus and Yahweh were never  heard of and work where there have never been heard of.  Morality exists in every society because without it, there is no society.  

But the moral consensus changes with society.  The needs of illiterate agrarians who live in multi-generational family units differs from that needed by industrialized nations.  Travel between nations and across the globe, adds complications.  As does mass communication, birth control, excess food (a rather new thing), the ability of people to destroy the planet, and so on.

 Your fourth error is in thinking atheists don't believe in god for the purpose of avoiding god's stricter law. 

This is your 4th error. I don't think atheists even know what I am talking about when I say "we are to live apart from God's law as Christians. If they did they would not accuse me of 'thinking atheist dont believe in God's law to avoid a stricter law.'

(tell me again how you understand my position)

If you think I don't understand, you should clarify plainly.  I certainly don't understand what you mean by living "apart from God's law as Christians."  If you mean you don't have to follow god's law by being Christians, then what is the point of the law other than to force people to god?  It's of no value here on earth.  If that's not what you mean, explain it, or shut up about it.

My only concern is that you appear to believe genocide and slavery are necessary or even morally neutral. Other than sociopathic positions like that, I have no interest in god's law absent credible evidence of god. To the extent you and others believe such things, I think your god story is morally abhorrent and a danger to society.

Do you understand my position? Have you tried to understand it?

No. What I have said IS THIS CULTURE HAS ADOPTED SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE, But Relabled it so it seems 'morally just.' Which is extremely dangerous because without being honest with  ourselves we put no terms or limits on slavery or our genocidal war.

OOOOkay.  That's new and different.  You spent several posts arguing that slavery in the U.S. South was good because of Hitler (can't really follow your argument there but you really did make the argument).  You also said that slavery and genocide are morally neutral under god's law.  

Any justification for slavery and genocide (absent an unchanging god's law) can be fought as immoral, and arguments (not to mention) used to stop that behavior.  But if we just say, oh god's law says it's okay, then we will never end it. And god's law certainly allows it, if that law is the law of the Bible.  Or are you really just suggesting that employment is slavery, in which case, I suggest your understanding of all of what slavery entails is rather limited.

I am waving the flag, bring attention to how this society is actively participating in no restriction Slavery and is gearing up for a genocidal war, and in your mind I'm the one who endorses it?? What kind of broken mind do you have?
The problem little miss doesn't thinks she wrong, is that without owning your immoral behaivor/Changing your immorality to judtify your actions, you are making it ok to literally do the things you yourself claim is immoral!

How can you not see that?

Better include some signage with that flag.  CLARIFY.  What slavery?  Which war?  What the hell are you talking about?