(January 27, 2016 at 1:20 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 12:53 pm)robvalue Wrote: Is pop morality the kind where you don't have slaves and don't kill people based on voices in your head?

I always wondered what it was. How disgraceful.

It's both..

It's whatever a given culture in any given time wants to believe what right and wrong is.

Drich, don't you agree that different cultures times have had that despite their strong Christian morality?

Wouldn't you agree that Midieval/reformation Europe was far more "Christian" and less "relativistic" than our own society? But at the same time isn't ours.. better... puts a higher premium on human life?

I hold to the view that most of this topic is all man made.

Religion is man made, morality is man made, laws are man made.

That being the idea then all of these are subject to change.

The question is why do they change? My guess (since i'm not a scholar on this subject) is that some one some where looked at a current "moral" and asked themselves (thinking for themselves) "Is this particular action the right thing to do? IE slavery. Would I be okay with this if I where on the other end of it?"

my guess is that a moral or law started out with what appeared to be a need. IE slavery to do the work. then as time goes on the suffering of others is experienced by those present. As humans are by nature at least cooperative creatures, it is easy for most of us to feel the suffering of others and see the current moral as needing change.

Also i believe that our understanding of reality changes what we view as moral. for instance homosexuality would be considered bad by some due to
A) not reproducing for the tribe
B) another route for spreading disease
C) fear of what is not understood (the real reason why it is shunned)
D) at the time of Judasim it helped sepperate the actions of their tribe from others.

Now that we have moved out of our tribal existence and have much greater tech to work with most of those are no longer valid.
A) we already have plenty of people on the planet.
B) that's what protection and medical tech is for
C) we understand way more about the phenomena of homosexuality and have come to realize it's just part of nature
D) we are all humans

I for one choose not to live in the bronze age by following a book of morals written for those type of people. It is no longer valid for me.

As for what guides me i simply look at the situation and judge for myself. If i deem that situation is not one that i would consider fair and appropriate if I where on that business end of it then I do not support it.

the universe is always changing. I see no reason why i shouldn't

(January 27, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Because there is a very robust system for determining what is and is not moral. It's called empathy. It is both older and far superior to your christian teaching, because christian teaching render morality arbitrary. In fact the reason you see the changes is because of us moving away from this arbitrary moral system.

Empathy is a joke. It can be manipulated in both directions. People can and have been trained to have it if certain conditions exist and with hold it if they do not.

For example why do you think Osama started with his terror attacks in the 90s? It was because he had empathy for the people of Iraq after gulf war1. Yet showed no empathy for those who did not share his religion/skin color.

What else do you think transcends your current moral value system?

Spoken like a true sociopath. You see in the case of Osama, he used the same moral system you propose, which instead of being built on empathy its built on absolute morals. You see if you use empathy and reason to try to see out another eyes, and then use rational thinking to reason out how to treat them. This works well for a moral system to go through your daily life, and works well when combined with moral utilarianism to apply to larger situations. Unfortunately your Bible falls flat on both counts because it causes suffering on a personal level by stifling expression and on a larger level causes division just like what you named above. Morality utilitarian system ground in rational thought and empathy has the precise opposite effect. It encourages unity for the betterment of everyone and free expression.

How does one distinguish between "pop morality" and "absolute morality" anyhow?

ISIS by its nature is not pop morality. It says that individual conscience or even "choice of thought" is not allowed. It is a throwback to an earlier, more idealistic era, when the mild secularism did not affect the Arab/Muslim world. It is all about "one moral standard" and only it's standard is the correct one.

Pop morality was the days of Saddam Hussein, when the only standard of right or wrong was what Saddam wanted. However.. Saddam was a bit more pious (or enabled piety) more than people realize http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinio....html?_r=0.

Can you not appreciate that religion can somewhat blinker human sensibilities?

(January 27, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: My guiding sense of morality is the so-called (by Christians no less) 'Silver Rule', as opposed to the so-called Golden Rule because I find the negative wording of the sentiment underlying both to be more flexible a tool than the positively worded formulation found in the NT. Now in what possible respect is that "pop morality" since it is millennia old?

I know this Pop Morality trope of yours is one of your favorite hobby horses, and you seem to believe it applies to anyone who doesn't, for example, accept the Bible as normative. However, it misses the mark. You once sent me a PM in which you suggested that my embracing gay rights was an example of Pop Morality. I knew then that a response was pointless since you had already made up your mind that it couldn't be otherwise. But I'll respond here and now. I graduated from High School in 1985. In my senior-year civics class, we were assigned to present a speech to the class arguing in favor of a "controversial" position. I chose for my topic "Marriage Should be Legal for Homosexuals" which proved by a wide margin to be the most controversial subject presented. Now, not that it should matter in the least, but I -- a heterosexual male -- had no personal, self-serving interest in the outcome of the question. I chose my stance based on (1) the law should be applied equally -- i.e., a government license (as such, a secular license) should not be denied to one group of people based on others' disgust or religious bigotry, and (2) such discrimination violates the basic moral insight that one should avoid doing to others that which one finds painful or ethically objectionable. 1985, if you recall, was a time when gay marriage wasn't even on anyone's radar as a live issue. Was my advocacy of this position an example of 'Pop Morality' or was it prescience on my part? The gasps of disbelief among my classmates (not to mention my teacher's reaction: "Well, that certainly was controversial; I wouldn't hold my breath to see that happen in my lifetime if I were you") hardly suggests to me that I was toeing some line of popular morality or political correctness.

The Silver Rule is not an "objective" moral standard by any means, but for people who aren't sociopathic or hypocritically self-serving it provides a decent rough-and-ready standard by which one's actions can be evaluated.

Your silver rule is just another form of train empathy that you borrowed from Christianity. I'm asking if one abandons God/God's righteousness completely what is left to return them to center? what is to anchor someone/you if society sets it's sights say on Children as being sexually viable partners? I asked someone   (red letters are used to spell his name) this question and got no response, so I will ask you since you seem froggy.

Lets say in a few years, while in search of the ever illusive 'gay gene' a pedophile gene is found.. a gene that when active makes certain people only sexually attracted to children. then another scientific break through occurs when mapping brain wave activity that states that children as young as 10 have the mental capacity to be completely responsible for any and all sexual activity, but only if this brain wave/activity is present.. This is studied 100 ways to sunday and low and behold it is true. Children as young as 10 have been properly documented and recorded in having said brain activity...

so then 'Nambla' starts pushing for access to Children but society says no.

Now does your 'silver rule' push you to write another paper putting pedophiles together with children? (in effect Does your 'silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed?) or are their limits? if so why do homosexuals get a pass and pedophiles don't?

I don't pay attention to the opinions on morality of some Christian who justifies slavery and prays for others to get cancer and AIDS.

seen it before, but still a good one:

(January 27, 2016 at 12:53 pm)robvalue Wrote: Is pop morality the kind where you don't have slaves and don't kill people based on voices in your head?

I always wondered what it was. How disgraceful.

No wonder pop music is usually shit.

#turtleyattemptathumorousnonsequiturs

(January 27, 2016 at 1:28 pm)TrueChristian Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 1:20 pm)Drich Wrote: It's both..

It's whatever a given culture in any given time wants to believe what right and wrong is.

Drich, don't you agree that different cultures times have had that despite their strong Christian morality?

Wouldn't you agree that Midieval/reformation Europe was far more "Christian" and less "relativistic" than our own society? But at the same time isn't ours.. better... puts a higher premium on human life?

Again your using the term morality out of the context of this discussion.

Christian Morality is popular morality for Christians.

Morality is not an absolute standard of any kind.

God's righteousness is an absolute.

One can only judge morality against an absolute. otherwise the comparison is not valid. Why? because despite who authors the 'morality' in inherently contains sin. then who's to say my sin is ok and yours is not?

For example It is always wrong to lie cheat or steal according to God. Even by the strictest standard telling a white lie to a bad man to save a life is ok. Or cheating someone who has cheated others/people in Need is ok, or stealing food to save your children from literal starvation/death is ok.

So again 'morality' no matter the source is a corruption of God's perfect standard. It is man's version of righteousness which allows for the use of sin.

This is how the 'church' failed us. it teaches morality rather than righteousness and atonement.
For instance, where in the bible is human life prized? Where in the bible does love for this life exceed the importance of eternal life taught? where then does the 'church' justify it position that you yourself described/use to judge the medieval church?

Now if you use pop morality of the medieval church, it's concern of confession and conversion for eternal life is far closer to the concerns outlined in scripture...

So which is right?

Neither. Why? both use 'morality' (man's ever sliding scale of acceptable evil) as their light and guide posts.
With the medieval church it sold itself to the devil for wealth, power and complete control over everything under the pretense of righteousness.. It like the modern church allows evil to mix in with righteousness to produce a watered down 'morality' that will appeal to more people. From an eternal stand point I would think this water down 'morality' would be far more likely to separate the body of believers from God, because as you put it we put a 'high value' on our lives rather than looking forward to the eternal life promised.

(January 27, 2016 at 1:16 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 12:16 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: More accurately, it is an ever evolving standard. That is why we no longer condone slavery or stoning people to death for blasphemy. Our moral standards move forever forward. Contrast that to the Bible with its dark-ages standard of morality. No wonder so many people have walked (or ran) away from the pews and why it will continue.

but again, who says the direction you are moving is indeed forward? just because you are pointed in a direction doesn't mean that is the way you should go.. after all from a 1940 german perspective burning Jews in ovens was 'moving forward.'

I'm asking that if you leave all standards behind you how it is that you know the direction your going is indeed the correct way forward?

All I can do is use my brain and do my best. Again, it's better than blindly following a so-called standard that is clearly barbaric. I say so-called because the Bible is not really a moral standard. A standard has to be clear and consistent. You and I both know the Bible is neither. That of course is why there are so many Christian sects rather than a single Christian religion. You are forced to interpret the Bible. In the end, you do exactly the same thing I do: You derive your own sense of morality based on your own self-convictions. You have little choice being that you don't really have a standard. The only difference is that you may believe God is whispering in your ear, to guide you. I am under no such delusion.