pop morality

[drfuzzy]

---

Yes, I read that drivel. It's the same bullshit about atheists on which we've corrected you numerous times. It's absolutely astounding to me that you keep repeating the same drivel despite such corrections. You're either learning-disabled or just too dismissive of our shared humanity to actually listen to us.

And, when you previously posted that same horse-hockey about homosexuality being such a bad thing in our society, I pointed you to the finding of the US Supreme Court, where they noted that the active repression of homosexual behavior is NOT "deeply rooted in American society and tradition", but a fairly recent phenomenon. Of course, homosexual people often were murdered by Christians in the name of Gawd (thus the term "faggot", a bundle of sticks, to remind them that the could be burned alive), but I hardly count that as any sort of moral behavior. 

As for abortion, I challenge you to find a mention of it outside proto-feminist literature, pre-1940. It, too, was not something that was considered morally reprobate on the level you're describing. These have become causes celebre only in relatively recent times.

What you are really whining about is not the loss of morality but the loss of Christian privilege, in which your cult once had the power to (locally, and occasionally via legislation) push its wacko religious ideologies onto others, and now you lament that atheists can freely speak out about not accepting your bullshit, and you can't oppress us for it or continue to use government money/power to promote your cult's message.

Finally, and most importantly, your post #652 doesn't even remotely address what I raised, namely the fact that human empathy is a better marker for the treatment of one another than any ideology-- every one of the historical examples you named in that list, as-always trying to tie us to Hitler per your usual fascination, is an ideology that was able to override our natural human empathy and play upon our tribalism and xenophobia in order to turn some out-group into The Dangerous Other™ who needed to be stopped/destroyed. Christianity most certainly belongs on that list of ideologies capable of overriding our human empathy, as do Nazi Fascism and Marxist "we claim to be communist but aren't really" dictatorships.

In other words, you've won the argument for us by acknowledging that human empathy-based morality is the standard, the standard from which we must be corrupted by ideology in order to sink to the levels of depravity you described. You simply think that your Christian ideology is The Only Right One™ out of the many, despite the reams of evidence that it causes people to do harm as a result of that corruption. To us, you're just one out of the many ideologies against which skeptical thinking may inoculate people before they fall victim to such ideologies that can dehumanize others and remove us from our empathy-based morality.

As I said before, your Jesus guy figured it out... even if he was just paraphrasing the Golden Rule from others who figured it out before him.

---

Oh glob..

I thought you were one of the 'smart ones.' You can seriously be reading my posts and still retain such a large content diffency unless you are just scanning for keywords to build a strawman/what you think I am trying to argue from just a quick skim read.

So let me explain my first paragraph which is what in post  652 that renders your whole last post and the one before it completely moot.

---

Please take time to read this again:
Ah!! There in lies the problem. You think I am suggesting we exchange one set of principles for another.

I'm not. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What I am saying is we need an unchanging standard, so that we can always Identify sin/Know wrong, so then we always have the option to repent of it, and find redemption. What self righteousness does, is lower the bar so rather than push one to repentance.. we look to justify sin rather than turn from it.

Strict adherence is not the key. repentance is, we can't/won't ever repent if we feel justified in sin. If we learn to repent we will also learn to find the freedom from the 'strict adherence of the law' that "moral people" have to have inorder to maintain their 'morality.' This 'strict adherence that bind moral people to the law (and subsequently why they tend to be constantly changing the law to fit their sinful appetites) is the total opposite of what Christ offers. Christ is offering righteousness Despite one's sins not because of our perceived 'righteousness.'

---

You last two posts just like all the posts of Thena Are under the assumption that I am trying to push Christian 'morals' over pop morality/empathy based morals.

Understand 'smart guy' I'm not. As you pointed out All morals are corrupt, unchecked 'christian morals' are what incited the Dark ages, witch burnings, the inquisition, whatever you said about 'fags.' All the 'bad stuff' is a direct result of taking 1/2 of what God has done and then trying to make it fit a 'moral' standard of living.

What I am saying is all 'morality' is bad, no matter who sponcers it or how it is founded. because all 'morality' is based on a righteousness (in this case a gold standard of good) other than God's. God's standard of righteousness can be found in his completed law. All of the Law of the OT, along with the extension of the law Jesus himself added to include thought. Which is Impossible for any of us to follow. Which is why God provided atonement. atonement allows us grace from the sins we being slaves to sin can not help but to commit. The only catch being we have to repent, before we can accept atonement that gives us grace/freedom from the law.

However we can not repent if our 'morality' says it is ok to commit certain sins. That is the only reason we need God's standard. so we know when to repent/turn from our sin. It is not meant for us to try and live by to define our 'morality/worthiness' for heaven. God's law is only to show our sin. So again we can repent of it and be free from trying to live a 'moral' life. meaning a life defined by our actions.

So you see while you are busy trying to define who you are by how you live your life/what deed your 'morality' tells you to do or not do. A Christian's 'righteousness' is found completely separate and apart from the things he does or does not do. My 'righteousness' is defined by the life Christ lived, not the one I live. for I put on his 'morality/righteousness' and die to my own when I accepted the atonement He offered me.. That means I am free from the laws of man and God as a means to define my own righteousness.

So again you whole argument is moot as I am not trying to replace one morality with another as you seem to think. I am trying to free you from following any version of morality to define who you are before God.

Can anyone make ANY sense out of that yammering stream-of-consciousness self-contradictory wall of text that I never should have bothered to read?  So, Drippy, a Christian's "righteousness" has nothing to do with his actions? Really? Well, actually I can believe that.  I have met a few preachers that obviously believed as you do: they raped children all week, then talked to their imaginary friend the ceiling, who told them everything was ok, and they were good to go out on Sunday morning and tell everybody in the pews that if they weren't good xtians they were gonna burn in hell forever.  Riiight.  
   Not that I believe you're capable, but could you maybe distill that drivel above into one LOGICAL paragraph - in plain English?