pop morality

[Drich]

Well, even if we were to both agree that the text in the Bible actually represented the true word of the universe's creator, you are exhibiting enormous conceit when you suggest that your words should be considered the correct interpretation of that text (even if only for the purpose of this interaction). That's a major barrier against having a meaningful conversation with you.

How is what I am saying conceited?

I was thinking maybe arrogant, but not conceited.

In that The Idea being what I've brought to you is 'right,' and the popular church is 'wrong' yet I insist I am right...

Which is the case, but where conceit and arrogance is kept in check is with the fact that 'my way' is not the only way. One can still go through religion and find God. It's just a lot harder to do so, but if 'religion' is all God gave you to understand then, that is all that He asks you to maintain.

That said, if things like evidence and proof help you make decisions I can show you the biblical equilivant to everything I've said here. I'm not 1/2 a verse from this book and 2 verses from that one and provide you with a new explanation of how this supposed theology works, type of person. I can show a whole book and several consecutive chapters that establish and outline everything I've said here in this thread.

Again that is the difference between biblical Christianity and Religion/Denominationally based Christianity. With a religion, the bible/ parts of the bible are used to support the religion. In Biblical Christianity what we believe is found in contextually consecutive readings of the bible. We do not scrap together 3 or 4 different verses and then try and justify something like 'free will' or 'original sin.' If Original Sin is never mentioned in the bible as a doctrine, then we do not support or teach it. If free will is not mentioned in the bible then again we do not teach it. If however the bible says we are slaves we must accept and teach that.

We do not make apologies or make excuses for God because society over a period of 5000 years decides to stigmatize His principles. This however is something most denominational churches do. So when they change say slavery to servant hood it opens up holes in their theology. one's that must be accounted for, so they make up more and more and more 'stuff' to cover the holes they create. Next thing you know you have crazy stuff being made 'doctrine' because it has to make the rest of the religion jive.. stuff like your religious leader is without sin or infallible. Or they make up a third destination between heaven and Hell so they can sell a 'ticket' to get out of there. The list goes on and on. Because religion's primary purpose is to worship God through the traditions and ceremonies man has made. Compared to worshiping God with the freedom He has labored to give us. Why? Religion=control. Now don't get me wrong Again, you can still find God in religion, I certainly did. it's just a very tough journey to go through a sanctioned worship process and not get caught in worshiping the method of worship rather than worshiping God.

Yet it is still, by definition, pop morality.

Then you still do not understand Christ did not teach morality. He did not teach works=Heaven. Morality is about assigning a right or wrong value to our works.

The idea of salvation is a very binary moral idea. It doesn't divide the good and the bad. I know that it doesn't mean saved people are necessarily good and that the unsaved are necessarily bad. However, there is a right and wrong, good and bad element in choosing salvation. To refuse salvation is considered a moral failing, a desire not to be more godly (which is a state equivocal with 'good').

this sounds like a church doctrine. because it sounds like one would indeed hear this in church but it is not something the bible teaches.

Again, God is righteous and demands all of us to be or made righteous. Righteousness is absolute perfection in accordance with his standard. something we can not obtain. Because If and when we fail/sin the very first time According to Christ we become blemished and made unworthy. So then enters atonement which covers the 'spot' sin puts on us. The atonement of Christ covers all 'spots' from all sin. This in effect removes all 'wrong.' Leaving only the right.

Now for those who do not choose to accept the atonement offered can they be considered 'morally wrong?' No, why? because again morality as society has adopted the word in relation to God, is a standard that seeks to justify the sins society seeks to accept. If God is Righteous in everything He does. then Man is 'moral' is what he does. This according to Christ is 'self righteousness' as it is a righteousness founded on the individual beliefs of the person or community. So then is one who does not accept atonement immoral to man? No. Man makes God 'immoral' by changing the values God up holds as 'good' to being bad. Then is the man who does not accept atonement Immoral to God? no because again 'morality' is man's standard. To God the one who does not accept atonement is not Righteous.

The difference? No one can be righteous unless they accept atonement, verse morality where everyone is righteous if they can stay with in the current confines of society's version of right and wrong.

So then is their a binary aspect to salvation yes. is it about a moral failing? no. The binary aspect to salvation is a simple as either being 'saved' or not being 'saved.' Righteous before God or Unrighteous. But again, Not according to works we do, but according to the work Christ did, therefore NOT Pop Morality as Pop Morality teaches us to assign value to our works to warrant a 'good person or bad person' judgment.

[loganonekenobi]

sorry "sport" you are only doing what the religious are famous for doing and not really helping the morality situation.
What i posted is not hatemail but testimony. If you dont understand that this happens then you cant connect with many of the people here as to why we are here debating.
If you cant understand how cultural pressure on women to look a certain way objectifies them then how can you say that you have the inside line on morality.
If you dont see the affects that gender stereo typing has on those forced to bear them then how is it I am supposed to believe that the sky daddy's atonement will fix anything if it did not open your eyes.

I attempted to discus moral issues that go outside the normal thinking but instead you labeled these issues as not important. My thinking is that you would never discus such issues with anyone that did not agree on your faith. That is a large wall that no amount of typing will ever get through.

So I will simply return like for like. I will tell you that following the bible is a mind trap design to close the afflicted mind into narrow thinking. I will send you well wishes and good thoughts that you will come to see the "truth" and cast off your chains known as God.

Have a nice day.
may reason shine upon you someday.

[Drich]

sorry "sport" you are only doing what the religious are famous for doing and not really helping the morality situation.

Ahh, no. The 'religious' demand obedience to a give set of rules. I am teaching biblical Christian which is the polar opposite. It is total freedom from said rules. How after all that we have discussed do you still not understand this?

What i posted is not hatemail but testimony.

A testimony is a personal account or experience of in this case Christianity. This is not a testimony concerning Christianity. This is a testimony concerning someone's experience with the christian religion. The difference? a religious act or a religion can be justified even if the core religious rules are not supported by the core values (in this case) found in the bible. To say the core values of biblical Christianity and the religion of christianity are the same, can only be done so through ignorance or hate. Because nothing could be further from the truth.

 If you dont understand that this happens then you cant connect with many of the people here as to why we are here debating.

As witnessed by my above statement I do acknowledge this. but I go a step further and separate religion from the principles that define Christianity. Religion being all the non biblical aspects of worship, which may include the mundane things like grape juice and crackers every Sunday to the things religion demand that the bible expressly forbids. Like forbidding a priest to marry when the bible tells us no one is to forbid marriage.

Again That is why I am teaching from a biblical vantage point rather than a religious one. So when I say "X" is not apart of Christianity I mean "Biblical Christianity" does not condone "X" even if the christian religion does in some shape or form.

If you cant understand how cultural pressure on women to look a certain way objectifies them then how can you say that you have the inside line on morality.

Read this part again "Cul-tur-al Pre-Ssssure"
A woman's looks does not define her righteousness before God in Biblical Christianity. It is why she wants to look that way in her heart that makes her acceptable or evil before God.

If you dont see the affects that gender stereo typing has on those forced to bear them then how is it I am supposed to believe that the sky daddy's atonement will fix anything if it did not open your eyes.

Don't look now but I quickly and easily addressed your 'paradox' concerning a woman's looks.

I attempted to discus moral issues that go outside the normal thinking but instead you labeled these issues as not important.  My thinking is that you would never discus such issues with anyone that did not agree on your faith.  That is a large wall that no amount of typing will ever get through.

I dismissed them because i thought you would be able to see and make the connect for yourself. Because it like everything else is about where our hearts lie in relation to Loving God with all of our being and our neighbor as ourselves.

So I will simply return like for like.  I will tell you that following the bible is a mind trap design to close the afflicted mind into narrow thinking.  I will send you well wishes and good thoughts that you will come to see the "truth" and cast off your chains known as God.

Have a nice day.
may reason shine upon you someday.

You so have no clue what your talking about. Christianity is about Freedom, Freedom from rules to define our righteousness. Morality is about following certain rules. Seriously answer this question if you ignore all others. How can you be 'free' if you lock yourself into following "morality" to define if you are a good person or not?

In other words if your actions define whether you can view yourself as a good or bad person then you are a slave to follow what soceity deems 'moral' no matter if it is moral or not.

Christianity is freedom from this, because we are no longer defined by our actions to determine if we are indeed 'good' before God or not.

So again How can you be free if you chain yourself to society's measure of 'good' and have to follow what society says to be deemed good?

Seriously! I have made this point 100+ times in this thread, and you 'good people' seem to either be too stupid to understand this very very basic concept or you are afraid to accept what I have said here and change from the way you have always viewed and stereotyped Christianity!

Again If society holds they keys to your morality Meaning if Society defines your morality for you, what happens when society makes a turn. I have used historical references via the Inquisition, Manifest Destiny/The slaughter of the native population both in the US and Australia, The slaughter of the Jews, Chinese, Koreans, Russian when society changes it's morality. Those who lived in those societies did not view their deeds as wrong or evil. Because society Changed it's view about a certain segment of the population so too did those in society change their 'morality' which allowed them to murder hundreds of millions.

Those who tie their morality to what society defines as right and wrong are slaves to that society. Whatever the society says is right they will have to adapt and accept otherwise risk being labeled 'immoral.'

That is why I used the example of a societal push towards Pedophilia. If you remember NONE Of you cowards would answer my question, that if pedophilia was somehow scientifically justified and then accepted by society would you stand against it? If I remember correctly Rocket was the only one who said anything, and even then it was only to say 'science would never be used to justify it.'

That my confused atheist is a perfect example of who between us is a slave and who is free. I can and always will say pedophilia is wrong. I don't need society's approval one way or another. I don't need science to tell me what is right and wrong. You on the other hand have to make sure. You have to support homosexuality, You have to support Infanticide, You would also have to support pedophilia if and when it becomes accepted. So then how am I the one bound by 'chains?'

[Athene]

I know that children's bodies aren't physically prepared for sexual intercourse, nor do they have the mental preparedness to understand and accept the ramifications of sexual activity. Personally, I don't believe science will ever "disprove" this, as it they are observable facts. Even so, I would not be convinced otherwise; regardless of whether you think so or not.

[Drich]

I know that children's bodies aren't physically prepared for sexual intercourse, nor do they have the mental preparedness to understand and accept the ramifications of sexual activity. Personally, I don't believe science will ever "disprove" this, as it they are observable facts. Even so, I would not be convinced otherwise; regardless of whether you think so or not.

If I remember correctly Rocket was the only one who said anything, and even then it was only to say 'science would never be used to justify it.'

So.. What? you want me to amend my list to you and rocket avoided my senerio by saying you don't think science will ever justify the claim???

Are you intentionally missing the point I made? The point being if SOCIETY accepted Pedophilia then your morality that is tied to Society would also demand that you would accept Pedophilia otherwise you would be deemed Immoral just like a member of the westbrough baptist for hating Homosexuals.

That's the point! Address that! Don't be a coward and address the what if.. 35 years ago someone like you could also argue that science could never be used to justify homosexuality. So then take that element off the table as it is moot either way and Explain to me how you could maintain the Pedophilia was wrong if it not only became legal, but that celebrities endorsed it and hooked up with kids? Follow the path homosexuality was 'normalized' in the last few years then tell me how you would combat the evil of pedophilia if infact it took the same path!

That is what I have been screaming from the roof tops that none of you has the courage to even acknowledge or address!

Again just like those living in Nazi Germany, when society turned, they too had to follow, because they like you all completely depend on society to define right and wrong, so when society says something very very wrong like pedophilia is now right, you all have nothing to argue that with. You have no way of standing against a corrupt or perverse society. You have to follow society because your identity is chained to what society says is moral or immoral.

You trying to stand against society if it ever accepted pedophilia would be looked at no differently than a 'radical christian' protesting infanticide outside of an abortion clinic or a 'radical chriatian' protest a gay marriage. You would then be the subject of the immorality society levies against Christianity now.

Can you see the danger of unchecked pop morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

This has been mentioned before, but, you're speaking to a group of people who are very well aware of what it means to have a different view of morality, of what is or is not moral, than their society at large.  It would appear that your concerns regarding our specific moralities are unjustified by reference to nothing other than our specific moralities. Your own, however.....seems to have escaped those concerns, even though it matches your description of the flaw you see in others so well.

[Ryantology]

You trying to stand against society if it ever accepted pedophilia would be looked at no differently than a 'radical christian' protesting infanticide outside of an abortion clinic or a 'radical chriatian' protest a gay marriage. You would then be the subject of the immorality society levies against Christianity now.

Can you see the danger of unchecked pop morality?

I think a large part of the problem here is that you seem to think that Christianity is some oppressed minority being ground under the heels of popular secular morality, but in the actual world we live in, Christians are still very much in control of things and legislate their morality to the extent they can get away with doing so. Gaining abortion rights and marriage equality involved long, painful battles against popular morality.

The fact that there are so many Christian sects which can't agree with one another on what the bible says their god actually wants doesn't help.

[Athene]

---

I know that children's bodies aren't physically prepared for sexual intercourse, nor do they have the mental preparedness to understand and accept the ramifications of sexual activity. Personally, I don't believe science will ever "disprove" this, as it they are observable facts. Even so, I would not be convinced otherwise; regardless of whether you think so or not.

---

---

So.. What? you want me to amend my list to you and rocket avoided my senerio by saying you don't think science will ever justify the claim???

Are you intentionally missing the point I made? The point being if SOCIETY accepted Pedophilia then your morality that is tied to Society would also demand that you would accept Pedophilia otherwise you would be deemed Immoral just like a member of the westbrough baptist for hating Homosexuals.

That's the point! Address that! Don't be a coward and address the what if.. 35 years ago someone like you could also argue that science could never be used to justify homosexuality. So then take that element off the table as it is moot either way and Explain to me how you could maintain the Pedophilia was wrong if it not only became legal, but that celebrities endorsed it and hooked up with kids? Follow the path homosexuality was 'normalized' in the last few years then tell me how you would combat the evil of pedophilia if infact it took the same path!

That is what I have been screaming from the roof tops that none of you has the courage to even acknowledge or address!

Again just like those living in Nazi Germany, when society turned, they too had to follow, because they like you all completely depend on society to define right and wrong, so when society says something very very wrong like pedophilia is now right, you all have nothing to argue that with. You have no way of standing against a corrupt or perverse society. You have to follow society because your identity is chained to what society says is moral or immoral.

You trying to stand against society if it ever accepted pedophilia would be looked at no differently than a 'radical christian' protesting infanticide outside of an abortion clinic or a 'radical chriatian' protest a gay marriage. You would then be the subject of the immorality society levies against Christianity now.

Can you see the danger of unchecked pop morality?

---

I'm telling you that I wouldn't care if "science" rejected the claim. As I previously stated, I would not be convinced otherwise. I've repeatedly told you that society doesn't dictate my morality as you believe it does; You refuse to accept that.

Yes, I also mentioned that I don't believe that "science" specifically  will come to disprove or reject the claim that adults having sex with children is wrong. So what? Nature clearly demonstrates that a child's undeveloped physiology is incompatible with adults for the purposes of sexual intercourse. I was simply letting you know that I find your hypothetical nonsensical. That's allowed, right? 

It doesn't matter, because "science" has NEVER been the reason that I consider acts of pedophilia immoral. I consider it so, because it causes direct physical and emotional harm to children. That would be completely observable and knowable to me, despite a shift in "scientific" consensus, or which way society happened to be leaning a given point in time. Whether or not these acts cause harm to children is not a matter of debate or opinion. I've transported and provided pre-hospital treatment to children with genital trauma/sexual penetration injuries as on more than one occasion, and I know for a fact that this is true; The damage is real. I am completely confident in stating that nothing would be capable of convincing me otherwise. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Can I see the danger in unchecked popular morality? Sure. That's why I determine what's moral or immoral through careful self-reflection and consideration of the potential for and existence of harm to others, as opposed to consulting celebrity Tweets. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                      
Many of my moral positions happen to be in line with current society and even some Biblical principles, however some are not. I've never been afraid to adhere those principles that I feel to be morally correct, in spite of facing opposition from the majority. Admittedly, I care very little as to whether people in like or approve me in general, so I'm certain that has significant bearing on the matter. It's true, nonetheless.

[Drich]

---

So.. What? you want me to amend my list to you and rocket avoided my senerio by saying you don't think science will ever justify the claim???

Are you intentionally missing the point I made? The point being if SOCIETY accepted Pedophilia then your morality that is tied to Society would also demand that you would accept Pedophilia otherwise you would be deemed Immoral just like a member of the westbrough baptist for hating Homosexuals.

That's the point! Address that! Don't be a coward and address the what if.. 35 years ago someone like you could also argue that science could never be used to justify homosexuality. So then take that element off the table as it is moot either way and Explain to me how you could maintain the Pedophilia was wrong if it not only became legal, but that celebrities endorsed it and hooked up with kids? Follow the path homosexuality was 'normalized' in the last few years then tell me how you would combat the evil of pedophilia if infact it took the same path!

That is what I have been screaming from the roof tops that none of you has the courage to even acknowledge or address!

Again just like those living in Nazi Germany, when society turned, they too had to follow, because they like you all completely depend on society to define right and wrong, so when society says something very very wrong like pedophilia is now right, you all have nothing to argue that with. You have no way of standing against a corrupt or perverse society. You have to follow society because your identity is chained to what society says is moral or immoral.

You trying to stand against society if it ever accepted pedophilia would be looked at no differently than a 'radical christian' protesting infanticide outside of an abortion clinic or a 'radical chriatian' protest a gay marriage. You would then be the subject of the immorality society levies against Christianity now.

Can you see the danger of unchecked pop morality?

---

I'm telling you that I wouldn't care if "science" rejected the claim. As I previously stated, I would not be convinced otherwise. I've repeatedly told you that society doesn't dictate my morality as you believe it does; You refuse to accept that.

Yes, I also mentioned that I don't believe that "science" specifically  will come to disprove or reject the claim that adults having sex with children is wrong. So what? Nature clearly demonstrates that a child's undeveloped physiology is incompatible with adults for the purposes of sexual intercourse. I was simply letting you know that I find your hypothetical nonsensical. That's allowed, right? 

It doesn't matter, because "science" has NEVER been the reason that I consider acts of pedophilia immoral. I consider it so, because it causes direct physical and emotional harm to children. That would be completely observable and knowable to me, despite a shift in "scientific" consensus, or which way society happened to be leaning a given point in time. Whether or not these acts cause harm to children is not a matter of debate or opinion. I've transported and provided pre-hospital treatment to children with genital trauma/sexual penetration injuries as on more than one occasion, and I know for a fact that this is true; The damage is real. I am completely confident in stating that nothing would be capable of convincing me otherwise. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Can I see the danger in unchecked popular morality? Sure. That's why I determine what's moral or immoral through careful self-reflection and consideration of the potential for and existence of harm to others, as opposed to consulting celebrity Tweets. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                      
Many of my moral positions happen to be in line with current society and even some Biblical principles, however some are not. I've never been afraid to adhere those principles that I feel to be morally correct, in spite of facing opposition from the majority. Admittedly, I care very little as to whether people in like or approve me in general, so I'm certain that has significant bearing on the matter. It's true, nonetheless.

So before i take you down yet again for target lock/focusing on the wrong aspect of the discussion, may i ask you to outline my position in relation to what you said here.

Because you just made/validated my argument for 'self righteousness.'

[Athene]

You know good and well that I was simply responding to ONE of the many countless, exaggerated, and uninformed claims that you make on any given day.... And yes, I believe understand your overarching theme:

You believe that popular morality dictates human behavior and poses an ever-present danger of society being manipulated down a slippery slope of depravity and evil. You believe that the determining one's own morality (if that were possible) would present no less of a danger, as it stems from self-righteousness.

You believe that that Something Else is required: That an unchanging, objective morality, based on strict adherence to the rules specifically set by the God of the Bible, is the only morality capable of preventing inevitable societal free-fall into total moral decay and/or apathy...Or something like that, right?

I'm telling you that there is no Something Else, as far I'm concerned. Your position is dependent on the presupposition that your God actually exists. You know that I, as the majority of users here, do not believe that to be true. As I see it, the Bible contains the same variety of shitty morality you've been railing against this entire thread. There are no books with special properties and there is no Cavalry coming. 
The morality of mere mortals is all there is.

We  try our best, and hope we get it right.
Sucks, I know. 

Nothing to be done about that, though.