(February 1, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: Here's the problem with your "moral anchor..."

The German removal of empathy was systematic over a period of 20+ years in that the were being forced to pay for damages cause by WWI that would take them way beyond their life times. Alot of the figure heads/the people that were blamed were the Jews. Because they held pominate positions that did not seem affected. They were not made to endure such hardships.

Now imagine if 'we' were made to feel greater than our great depression level economic down turn brought on by a terrorist act.. Like for instance a nuke was detonated in NYC and the city was uninhabitable. this would destroy our economy. and it would be decades before we recovered.

Imagine your level of 'empathy' after say 25 years of standing bread lines for food, watching your children starve to death and die, poison in the air and water all because of "Radical Muslims".. How long would you have empathy for them? What if DC was next? The maybe LA... How many cities? How many lives would it take before you understood that your 'terrorists' were attempting genocide on people like you?
Now what if as with 9/11 the Muslim community as a whole did not condemn these acts or again as with 9/11 it took years for any of them to say anything condemning?
What then would you say when you found out in the Koran it is permitted to them to condemn and deny their faith and pledge alliance to a foreign government as a means of infiltration?
or never mind all of that,
Let's say you suffered only as much than the typical German citizen after WWI, due to a religious act of terror, do you still think your empathy would be intact?

You can only judge the Germans because you have no Empathy for them. Now who's the sociopath?

I have already conceded that empathy can be undermined by experience and propaganda. It is still the guiding force behind morality.
Further than this,
I fail to see your point. And as to me judging the germans, I can use my empathy to place myself in their position at that time and can see how the constant lowering of how jews were seem coupled with fear of what would happen if you went against the authorities would make them act in a way that I judge with my own unwarped empathy as evil without them necessarily being evil people themselves. You seem to think I was demonising germans en masse, but that is far from the case. British people went along with the Nazis in Jersey, even building their own concentraton camp so it can happen anywhere. I fear that the fear mongering from the right wing evangelicals is going to bring on just this sort of evil in the US.

(February 1, 2016 at 12:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 11:44 am)Drich Wrote: Again sport your are arguing with Historical fact not me.
And skin color or color variation if consistent is enough to add a sub species, not to mention hair consistancy and a genetic predisposition to be bigger and stronger than some other races.

Perfect example would be the fact that the American walking hound is about 16" bigger than a beagle has a different hair make up and has a different color variation. Therefore they get a different subspecies classification.

Aside from the physical appearances, their are indeed medical/genetic differences between 'black people' and other races. Ever heard of sickle cell? why do only black people get this affliction? Because their genetic make up is different and it is susceptible to this disease when others are not. This genetic difference sets them apart and makes them unique. Now 100 years ago this difference was indeed recognized accepted and cataloged. Again, that's history, Politically correct or not. It wasn't till Hitler tried to use these genetic differences to justify genocide, that triggered a compromise in our scientific integrity in an effort to try and unify all of under one house or banner.

The point of all of this was to show how even the mighty 'science' serves pop morality, by withholding up popular truth so that society can push propaganda and agenda.    

It is in the bible, but so is the 'morality'/changes the jews made.
God's absolutes are absolutely in the bible, But as Jesus pointed out not all the laws the Jews made were of God.
Study, the church or a question to the right person/google will show you where to find God's law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape


Not true. Their were commands detailing the minimum age one could be to be married. (which wasn't until they were considered to be adults.) to have sex with someone before they were confirmed to be an adult was punishable by death. (God's law) which if you or your source material just did a 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' google search I could see how one would assume that.

Which subsequently how we know marry to be a virgin. Joseph took her to be his wife, but they were not married. This means he took responsibility (provided for her fed her) till she was old enough to be married. back then that was the only reason to wait to get married. 
I already did that. Deut 22 Read the chapter for context. If you do you will find the only context in which man is permitted to have sex with a woman. And it does not come in the form of a thou shalt... It simply says "a man may marry a woman to have sex with her..." That's the 'permission" Not "thou must be married to have sex."



Again not true.

The command is no one is to have sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage. or rather a Marriage is the only place to have sanctified sex. which means all other sexual encounters are forbidden. Deu 22 backs into this command by saying a man can marry a woman for the purpose of having sex. This is the only command that sanctifies it in the OT all other examples are forbidden.

The problem here is the same as your 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' claim.. You were looking for an expressed command using the terminology of today. while the terms were not formlized in the OT the principles were indeed spelled out.


That is why you fail.

The truth is right there but because it is not worded in a way to tickle your ears, you'd rather read a lie that is interesting.

If you want to have this debate on what Chapter 22 says, read chapter 22. Otherwise I will leave this ya,huh nut, uh argument to you to complete on your own.


maybe if you read a bible you could actually speak intelligently about it, that way you would not have to rely on anti God web sites and bloggers who hate the bible and God to give you a wrong slanted view of it. So that when you get up on your high horse/soap box and begin to arrogantly bestow all the injustices of God, someone who has book chapter and verse won't make you look like a 'stupid head' by contradicting all of the moral points you were so eager to make.


I have read the entire Bible - that's why I'm an atheist.  Duh.

1. As expected half of Deuteronomy 22 has nothing to do with sex.  And also as expected, there's no age of consent given in the chapter, which is exactly what we were supposed to be talking about.  Remember I said pedophilia is not outlawed in the Bible, and you're like, "Yes it is, read this chapter that has the famous passage about a rape victim marrying her rapist.  Viva la Absolute Morality."

2. Regarding Hitler using actual science to determine that his race was superior, I gave you a nudge to present me with the science.  I'm arguing with history, not with you... OK... so what science did he cite as the reason for Jews being swines or whatever he called them?  What science did he cite for Africans being whatever he called them?

3. I showed in the OP you said that the Bible is the source of absolute morality... you later backpedal and say that the Torah is a perversion of absolute morality... I ask where in the Bible I can find this absolute morality... you tell me to google it.  Sir, you're the one making the claim here.  If you don't tell me where the Bible gives absolute morality, you're not backing up your own claim.
[/quote]

....

Before I spend another minute chasing you down this rabbit hole, you do know that for a Christian The precepts found in the NT are the law explained through the lens of atonement right? and that unless one is an OT Jew trying to follow the OT law to it's letter (including being born a OT Jew) that the rules do not apply under the Covenant of atonement?

I have no problem showing book chapter and verse, breaking the passage down into the hebrew and helping understand the syntax and composition of it all... that said unless you are a OT jew tring to live under that law, then know one can only be condemned by that standard. Why? Because the Law's only purpose is to show sin. It is not a standard to try and live by (morality.)

....

Before I spend another minute chasing you down this rabbit hole, you do know that for a Christian The precepts found in the NT are the law explained through the lens of atonement right? and that unless one is an OT Jew trying to follow the OT law to it's letter (including being born a OT Jew) that the rules do not apply under the Covenant of atonement?

I have no problem showing book chapter and verse, breaking the passage down into the hebrew and helping understand the syntax and composition of it all... that said unless you are a OT jew tring to live under that law, then know one can only be condemned by that standard. Why? Because the Law's only purpose is to show sin. It is not a standard to try and live by (morality.)
[/quote]
Surely the two things are so intermingled as to be not worth mentioning any difference, (in the OT/NT) can something be a sin but still moral? I think not, this would mean that distictions are irrelevant.

(February 1, 2016 at 1:29 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I have already conceded that empathy can be undermined by experience and propaganda. It is still the guiding force behind morality.Further than this,
I fail to see your point.

I didn't say it wasn't the guiding force. I am point out the dangers that manifest in Nazi Germany because they had no absolutes to guide them/bring them back to center.

I am pointing out that 'morality' will ALWAYS shift to evil at one point or another, and when a society takes off it's divine training wheels (nothing to keep them up right) their is nothing to stop that society's empathy to be manipulated into evil.

Quote: And as to me judging the germans, I can use my empathy to place myself in their position at that time and can see how the constant lowering of how jews were seem coupled with fear of what would happen if you went against the authorities would make them act in a way that I judge with my own unwarped empathy as evil without them necessarily being evil people themselves. You seem to think I was demonising germans en masse, but that is far from the case.

Nope. I am not trying to evoke emotion to manipulate your thinking. I am simply pointing out parallels.

Quote: British people went along with the Nazis in Jersey, even building their own concentraton camp so it can happen anywhere. I fear that the fear mongering from the right wing evangelicals is going to bring on just this sort of evil in the US.

Concentration camps are not the issue, neither is putting people in them. We did the same here on masse to All Japanese people and the people of Japanese held countries. It is the same thing we also did with the Iranians in 1970's when our relationship with them went to pot (till we could send them home.)

The issue is how those people were treated in the camps, and what we did with them after the threat was over/how we neutralized the threat, verses how a country who has taken God our of their morality made a similar decision.
We've also turned potential threats away at the boarders many many times.

(February 1, 2016 at 1:03 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 31, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I'm getting the same tune.  

"Objective morality comes from only the Bible"

So slavery is ok?

"Those laws are not the real objective standard."

But you said it's in the Bible...

If Paul is the new Moses then women who speak in church are blasphemers... women who don't cover their heads are a shame to the church. Right. I can see how this is a good objective morality that leads to optimal happiness.

What is the difference between the absolute standard of God and 'morality'?

If you knew this distinction, I don't think you could make this argument and not feel stupid. If you don't know this distinction then why make this claim?

I'm just confused on why the absolute standard of God changes as humanity progresses...

---

Quote:1. As expected half of Deuteronomy 22 has nothing to do with sex.  And also as expected, there's no age of consent given in the chapter, which is exactly what we were supposed to be talking about.  Remember I said pedophilia is not outlawed in the Bible, and you're like, "Yes it is, read this chapter that has the famous passage about a rape victim marrying her rapist.  Viva la Absolute Morality."

2. Regarding Hitler using actual science to determine that his race was superior, I gave you a nudge to present me with the science.  I'm arguing with history, not with you... OK... so what science did he cite as the reason for Jews being swines or whatever he called them?  What science did he cite for Africans being whatever he called them?

3. I showed in the OP you said that the Bible is the source of absolute morality... you later backpedal and say that the Torah is a perversion of absolute morality... I ask where in the Bible I can find this absolute morality... you tell me to google it.  Sir, you're the one making the claim here.  If you don't tell me where the Bible gives absolute morality, you're not backing up your own claim.

Quote:....

Before I spend another minute chasing you down this rabbit hole, you do know that for a Christian The precepts found in the NT are the law explained through the lens of atonement right? and that unless one is an OT Jew trying to follow the OT law to it's letter (including being born a OT Jew) that the rules do not apply under the Covenant of atonement?

I have no problem showing book chapter and verse, breaking the passage down into the hebrew and helping understand the syntax and composition of it all... that said unless you are a OT jew tring to live under that law, then know one can only be condemned by that standard. Why? Because the Law's only purpose is to show sin. It is not a standard to try and live by (morality.)

Please explain WTF sin is if it is not violation of the OT laws.  Because it seems quite clear that's exactly what sin is.  Turns out that you recognize the Torah was written by a bunch of savages, so you conclude that Jesus must've died for something else?  But what?  Are you saying this:

1. Jesus tells us that his father made garbage laws, and Jesus invents new ones
2. Jesus dies for our transgressions against the new laws he invented

Does that sum it up?

(February 1, 2016 at 1:57 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: ....

Before I spend another minute chasing you down this rabbit hole, you do know that for a Christian The precepts found in the NT are the law explained through the lens of atonement right? and that unless one is an OT Jew trying to follow the OT law to it's letter (including being born a OT Jew) that the rules do not apply under the Covenant of atonement?

I have no problem showing book chapter and verse, breaking the passage down into the hebrew and helping understand the syntax and composition of it all... that said unless you are a OT jew tring to live under that law, then know one can only be condemned by that standard. Why? Because the Law's only purpose is to show sin. It is not a standard to try and live by (morality.)

Surely the two things are so intermingled as to be not worth mentioning any difference, (in the OT/NT) can something be a sin but still moral? I think not, this would mean that distictions are irrelevant.
[/quote]

I have gone to great lengths to show you how indeed something can be a sin and still be found moral. That is the WHOLE POINT OF DEVELOPING MORALITY!!!

God's Sin standard is SOOOO High, we can not live by it and be found righteous. So what do the self righteous do? (Meaning those who seek a righteousness apart from God/from with in themselves and each other)
They create a standard that allows for some sin/Minor sin and still allows them the oppertunity to 'feel' righteous, because they keep this amended law. This Acts based standard that is less than God's perfect standard is 'Morality.'

The Jews did it, Christians do it, Society does it and each time, each generation it gets further away from this standard.

Example: Robin Hood Steals from the rich and gives to the poor. By all social moral standards Stealing from corrupt rich people is perfectly ok, Especially when the proceeds go to those dying of starvation.

However By God's perfect standard it is always a sin to steal period. Therefore Robin no matter how well intentioned is in sin.

Which is the ONLY purpose of the Law. To show we are all in sin, and need redemption. The law was never purposed for us to live by it. only to show need.

(February 1, 2016 at 2:13 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 1:03 pm)Drich Wrote: What is the difference between the absolute standard of God and 'morality'?

If you knew this distinction, I don't think you could make this argument and not feel stupid. If you don't know this distinction then why make this claim?

I'm just confused on why the absolute standard of God changes as humanity progresses...

---

Quote:1. As expected half of Deuteronomy 22 has nothing to do with sex.  And also as expected, there's no age of consent given in the chapter, which is exactly what we were supposed to be talking about.  Remember I said pedophilia is not outlawed in the Bible, and you're like, "Yes it is, read this chapter that has the famous passage about a rape victim marrying her rapist.  Viva la Absolute Morality."

2. Regarding Hitler using actual science to determine that his race was superior, I gave you a nudge to present me with the science.  I'm arguing with history, not with you... OK... so what science did he cite as the reason for Jews being swines or whatever he called them?  What science did he cite for Africans being whatever he called them?

3. I showed in the OP you said that the Bible is the source of absolute morality... you later backpedal and say that the Torah is a perversion of absolute morality... I ask where in the Bible I can find this absolute morality... you tell me to google it.  Sir, you're the one making the claim here.  If you don't tell me where the Bible gives absolute morality, you're not backing up your own claim.

Quote:....

Before I spend another minute chasing you down this rabbit hole, you do know that for a Christian The precepts found in the NT are the law explained through the lens of atonement right? and that unless one is an OT Jew trying to follow the OT law to it's letter (including being born a OT Jew) that the rules do not apply under the Covenant of atonement?

I have no problem showing book chapter and verse, breaking the passage down into the hebrew and helping understand the syntax and composition of it all... that said unless you are a OT jew tring to live under that law, then know one can only be condemned by that standard. Why? Because the Law's only purpose is to show sin. It is not a standard to try and live by (morality.)

Please explain WTF sin is if it is not violation of the OT laws.  Because it seems quite clear that's exactly what sin is.  Turns out that you recognize the Torah was written by a bunch of savages, so you conclude that Jesus must've died for something else?  But what?  Are you saying this:

1. Jesus tells us that his father made garbage laws, and Jesus invents new ones
2. Jesus dies for our transgressions against the new laws he invented

Does that sum it up?

No. Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. This includes action and thought. Jesus did not change the Law He completed it. Meaning he expanded it to include thought, and to provide atonement that would cover all sin.. That way Everyone could self identify as being in sin all the time. Thus requiring a need for a new way to God's righteousness. (Atonement) rather than 'moral actions.'

Their is a difference between the OT and NT because after atonement we are free from the law as a means to define our righteousness. Yet the Law remains to judge those who do not have atonement.

That said Paul tells us not all of us can understand or handle this freedom in its unrestricted form. So for those who need 'rules and morality' He gave us a basic set, and told us if anything falls out of this basic set and we think it is a sin then for us it is a sin and shall be treated as such. However not all are bound by those rules, but to those who weren't, we were given a warning not to do something in front of our weaker brothers to cause them to sin or do something in their mind was a sin. Lest we be judged harshly for causing our weaker brothers to stumble.

Paul's basic guideline set simply reflect the life we naturally begin to live once we have sought atonement.

-and this is that life, what we see of you here?

(February 1, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -and this is that life, what we see of you here?

this life meaning what?

This, here, this is you reflecting the life you naturally began to live after seeking atonement?