pop morality

[Drich]

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.

But again your final synopsis did not include the changes/corrections I made. You made a conclusion that directly violated one of my statements of correction.
[

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.

then open your book to leviticus for the law, and then to Romans to reconcile the Law with atonement. The book of romans is the gospel explained. My study on it a few weeks ago is a break down of every precept in that book. In that you have your 'evidence for God's will.'

 The bible is a story about a what men think god is and nothing more.

Actually it's what we are responsible for.

 It is one such story among many.  All lack confirmation.

confirmation is the wrong word, because if you want to confirm the bible all one has to do is follow it. I think your looking for the word "Vet." To vet is to scrutinize to your or some standard you want the bible to meet. That way you can raise or lower the bar rather than hold all religion to the same standard, because if and when the bible meets your requirements you are free to also shift the goal posts back in the conversation. for example:

 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.

To doubt the authenticity of Christ is to doubt every single other figure in ancient history before him period, and after him for 1500 years, as Christ alone has more manuscript documentation than any other figure dominating those time periods..

See that is proof... In providing proof all one need do is count the manuscripts that mention or talk about Christ and compare that with the next most popular historical figure. to which their can be no arguement, as it is a matter of documentation.

However, Vetting allows you to place an artificial standard on Jesus that you do not have to place on any other figure. you could in the process of 'vetting' claim that all documentation concerning Christ is religious and religious texts don't count for some arbitrary reason. Then make the claim that their are no secular text that concern Christ knowing full well (or in your case not) that if a text did mention Christ in detail it would be considered to be a religious text, and dismissed.

This way you can have your cake and eat it too.

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.

Not according to me, because according to me/The bible we are all meant to suffer no one escapes it. Therefore while suffering is not a pleasant thing it is apart of our spiritual maturity and a needed part of a well balanced life.

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."  

But can't you also see that a 'moral consensus' makes provisions for infanticide? Death marches, Death camps, slavery? why do you think I was referencing the Nazis? Again do you think they thought they were 'immoral?' of course they didn't! they thought it was their moral obligation to kill all Jews!

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.

all this statement says is you have deluded yourself with the propaganda society floats out there to deem itself better than all other societies.. The type of person who mindless accepts that their society is the best, is the very type of person Germany used to march Jews into gas chambers. I have shown at least 4 major examples of heinous acts/war criminal acts that current western society has adopted and deems 'moral.' You/people like you, don't even question societal values because society has changed the status of the people involved and like the jews ceased being human, if one is not human then it is ok to suck their brains out via vacuum tube inserted at the base of their skull. Again My point is current soceity's morality is not if any different than that of the Nazis. We simply don't know any better because we/YOU believe the propaganda hook line and sinker.

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.

To live apart From God's law means Christian's are not judged by it. The Law's purpose is to show we all fall short and will never be able to live by the perfect standard God set. For the honest person this means we have to seek another way to Righteousness. for the self righteous this perfect standard sets them up with an opportunity to invent their own 'morality'/moral consensus in that they never have to admit sin, they just keep lowering the bar to fit the evil they want to live with, into their lives.

For the Honest the gospel gives them the opportunity they need to redeem their sins and find the righteousness they seek, not in of their own works, but a gift from God so none of us can boast.

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.  

Oh, my goodness... seriously?!?!

I said We currently use slaves period. Meaning right now. The food in your fridge was grown and cultivated by slaves if you yourself did not grow it. Check those little stickers on your out of season apples or celery (Product of central/south America= 19th century style plantations) The people of the world could not afford to eat what it does if not for slave labor.

We need slave labor, ALL society was built and is maintain on slave labor. we have never created a society/money based economy that is not built on slave labor.

But, the problem is we are not willing to admit it. that allows companies who own/use slaves free reign to do what they will, because their is no mandated over site, just so you can pretend all slavery is bad and people who advocate it in one form or another are less than you. that is a mighty high price for someone to pay, just so you can pretend you are evolved beyond the need of slaves.

I used this example to show you how this society has adopted slavery on one hand, while still pretends to hold the high moral ground. Just because it changes the defination of slavery. For example when you say the word you actually means by definition Chattle slavery. Chattle slaves are what most of you picture black americans in the south had to endure. This is only one form. Even The most loose definition of the word identifies a slave as one who works disproportionately hard and long hours for very little pay. (People who don't make a living wage, but can have their incomes subsidized with housing food or services.) That was the idea of slavery in the bible., and could be the way modern slavery works today, but doesn't because we value our pride/idea that our soceity has evolved beyond all aspects of slavery.

That is what I said.

In that slavery is not morally a good or a bad thing. it is just how some people have to live. what makes it bad is when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, because soceity does not care enough to enforce basic rules.

This is the hypocrisy in modern slavery. You all are doing more harm pretending to hate all slavery, yet benefiting from it, but if you were to just admit your dependence and enforce basic human rights, we could truly live in a better world, but again you all are so evolved that you will never admit your own evil practices. because you have a 'moral consensus' and everything you do is 'good.'

Again the purpose to all of that is to show hypocrisy, to show you your 'moral consensus' is no different that the moral consensus of the Nazis or ISIS. it simply befits you where they other two may not.

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.

Wow... just wow.. My defination of slavery is "limited" because it includes aspects and broadens the defination beyond your narrow scope... yeah, maybe while your looking up the word slave you should also look up the word 'limited.'

As far as the rest goes, what do you think it will take to ever stop abortion?

Nothing right? why??? "because it is all perfectly moral.."

Now what if I ask what would it take to stop Killing babies?

The first thing your mind will have to do is reassure itself that what you are killing is not a person/baby (Remember like the Nazis you have to strip these children from their humanity/human rights then you can do whatever you want) You are killing a fetus, and killing a fetus is not killing a baby, but what if science re-identifies a fetus as a baby? So then I ask how long before we stop killing babies?
I would say not very long, but until then we will be grinding up 6000 babies aday. Why? because again this all has been morally justified. Meaning the real danger is coming to a moral consensus about something rather than to identify sin as sin. Because if and when an evil like infanticide is morally justified this sin will never leave us unless a stronger soceity forces us to see our evil ways... like we did with germany.


[