(January 27, 2016 at 2:18 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.  

Why is your god's righteousness absolute?  Why is HIS morality objective?  From what I can tell, it's either "because the Bible says so," or simply because YOU say so.
The Bible reads much differently for you than it does for us.  You assign god absolute righteousness and objective morality because that's what you are forced to believe, even though all evidence points to the contrary.
Morality for your god is every bit as subjective for him as it is for us, and simply telling us that it's not means nothing.  And since your position hinges on that fact, it renders your entire argument moot.


The arbitrary nature of god's punishments alone are a constant reminder throughout the scriptures of the wishy washy nature of your deity.

Quote: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.

I personally have never believed in sin.  Only actions.  Sin is a concept dreamed up by man to identify things that he doesn't like.  Murder, rape, stealing are all sins ... until they're not sin and they're god's will and commandment.  Morality goes hand in hand with the ridiculous sin concept.  It's not real.  It's a word used to define acceptable actions.  There's that word again:  actions.  Look at your god's actions - most of them are deplorable.  The worst thing humans have ever done is use your god's actions (his "righteous morality") as a guideline for our own.  

I'm inclined as usual to chock this thread up to more Christian rhetoric and remind readers that your assertions always work themselves around to one little thing:  

(January 27, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 1:37 pm)loganonekenobi Wrote: 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

all of that is Very nice... now answer the questions I ask.
If you were born In 1920's Germany and grew up under those conditions, would have been a good little German and fell into what the rest of society was doing?

If you don't think so, what is it about your currently value system that would transcend time and space and keep you from marching jews into death camps?

alright but if i had a dime for every time i saw a religious poster avoid a direct question I'dd be rich. Please make sure you phrase it in a straight forward manner.
To answer the question. It does not take an extreme power to understand what hurts others and what you would want done to you.
Its the same value system in martial arts that says you dont beat some one that is down and trying to give up. you dont look for fights to prove your worth. The same one that made me stand against Doctor, police, and staff that wanted me to take blood from a patient that refused the blood draw (she was alert and competent).
The same value that stood me against a far superior commander when he didn't have a pass to the amunition supply. He tried to walk past me until i put the gun near his head and once again asked nicely to stop.
The same value that put me against 6 other boys who where beating up a kid that couldn't defend himself.
The same value that had me stop a man from raping a girl that was passed out. No she wasn't my girl friend.
The same value that tells me to stop and help an elderly or pregnant person with a heavy load or other difficult situation even if im going to be late.
the same one that tells me that being naked is not a shamefull thing and that it does not give anyone permision to assume that he or she is looking for sex. (unlike the normal religious view).
I do not consider my self a genius. I dont think i need to be to know what's right and wrong.
Blood, sweat, and tears all very human things that will tell you clearly the right path.

(January 27, 2016 at 12:04 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: ^ Sorry fellow Christian. But morals are more elastic/changing than you would think. And a strong-judeo Christian value system has not kept values stable.

They change based on people's advancement and growing experinece, not so much the words of the bible.

Christians today embrace secularism of a sort by saying slavery is evil ( allowed in NT) and by saying Jews are worthy of respect (Jews as a people are repeatedly denounced in Acts and letters of NT.)

The "basic constants" of don't rape, don't steal and don't kill have been held by all people for all times (to other people in the society that is) and religious people have always been able to find justifications for the above. See the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs.

Oh, and as to the totalitarian societies you referenced? They do not hold for "pop morality" and have the opposite of the humanist "live and let live" philosophy .

All of them were deeply religious societies (thouhg only one promotes a theistic religion.). In North Korea, the Kim family are almost worshipped as gods, their status almost similar to that of the pre WW2 Japanese emperor, or the "mandate from heaven" Chinese emperors.

The Nazis similarly held they had the "Absolute" truth, and did not tolerate any dissent. They tolerate churches and Christians when they went along with them, and killed/jailed christians who dared contradict them.

So.... the societies you mentioned had a defiicit of "pop morality" rather than an excess

Looking good except...

'The "basic constants" of don't rape, don't steal and don't kill have been held by all people for all times (to other people in the society that is) and religious people have always been able to find justifications for the above.'

The Bible actually does not condemn rape.

---

(January 27, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Drich Wrote:

(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?

Pretty good points there. In that scenario, NAMBLA would have an excellent case. However, I'm not sure why it's relevant to your objective morality because rape and pedophilia are not against the Bible. So as long as it's man on girl rape and not man on boy rape, it's fine in a Biblical sense - brainwave analysis not required.

Drich...it seems that you are putting consenting homosexual adults into the same category as predatory pedophiles. If this is in fact the case, then you sir/ma'am, are a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and I would NEVER buy into your piece of shit god's moral code. If this is not in fact the case, then I'm sorry. But, you're still stupid.

(January 27, 2016 at 10:01 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Drich...it seems that you are putting consenting homosexual adults into the same category as predatory pedophiles.  If this is in fact the case, then you sir/ma'am, are a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and I would NEVER buy into your piece of shit god's moral code.  If this is not in fact the case, then I'm sorry.  But, you're still stupid.  

Don't worry yourself -- he is a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and a piece of shit that refuses to flush, to boot. He's a liar, a hatemonger, and a jackoff. He's also a dumbfuck, an asswipe, and he's so full of shit his eyes are brown.

(January 27, 2016 at 10:15 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 10:01 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Drich...it seems that you are putting consenting homosexual adults into the same category as predatory pedophiles.  If this is in fact the case, then you sir/ma'am, are a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and I would NEVER buy into your piece of shit god's moral code.  If this is not in fact the case, then I'm sorry.  But, you're still stupid.  

Don't worry yourself -- he is a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and a piece of shit that refuses to flush, to boot. He's a liar, a hatemonger, and a jackoff. He's also a dumbfuck, an asswipe, and he's so full of shit his eyes are brown.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

(January 27, 2016 at 10:27 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 10:15 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Don't worry yourself -- he is a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and a piece of shit that refuses to flush, to boot. He's a liar, a hatemonger, and a jackoff. He's also a dumbfuck, an asswipe, and he's so full of shit his eyes are brown.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Sorry. I only have a few smart-sounding words up my sleeve, and I wouldn't want to waste any on dipshits like Drich. [emoji15]

(January 27, 2016 at 10:27 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 10:15 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Don't worry yourself -- he is a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and a piece of shit that refuses to flush, to boot. He's a liar, a hatemonger, and a jackoff. He's also a dumbfuck, an asswipe, and he's so full of shit his eyes are brown.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

You're welcome to do so, at the affordable rate of one dollar per letter. Given this particular subject matter, that expense may run high, so please provide a valid credit card number and two references.

(January 27, 2016 at 10:56 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 10:27 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

You're welcome to do so, at the affordable rate of one dollar per letter. Given this particular subject matter, that expense may run high, so please provide a valid credit card number and two references.

Wait, I want to get in on this. Swearing for profit is like...the American Dream!

(January 27, 2016 at 11:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 10:56 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You're welcome to do so, at the affordable rate of one dollar per letter.  Given this particular subject matter, that expense may run high, so please provide a valid credit card number and two references.

Wait, I want to get in on this.  Swearing for profit is like...the American Dream!

Especially when it's a cuntmuffin like Drich.

That'll be $39, please. Credit or debit?