(February 4, 2016 at 1:28 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Again back to my prison metaphore...

If I were the warden of a prison wouldn't the inmates assume i was a shitty person, and if i served my whole life as that warden the inmates could say i was shitty my whole life... By that standard their is no doubt I was judged a shitty person my whole life...

Do you not see an issue with that judgement though?

If no then know your right.

What?!  Why would the prisoners assume the warden is a bad person?  What are you talking about?  Analogy FAIL.

So simple...

Is it the will of the prisoners to be in prison? who keeps them in who signs the release who sets the menus, who over see the facilities, who makes the sleeping arrangements too hot or too cold, who has final say on every aspect of their detainment?

Is your simple mind telling you that is someone had complete control over every aspect of your daily life (even who you will most likely be raped by) that no one see fit to complain, that no one would see the treatment unfair or one sided? That no one would judge a man with such complete power of thousands to be immoral?

If you really think no one in a prison has ever thought the warden to be immoral, then I will let you have this win. Go on, take it do your victory lap.

(February 4, 2016 at 1:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:28 pm)Drich Wrote: calm down and maybe retype this again.. you seem to be missing a few words/key ideas.

I am posing your own question back to you.  Care to take a shot at answering it?

Again you seem to be missing a few key points in your last tirade. (What you said does not make sense) fix it and I will gladly/easily answer your question.

(February 4, 2016 at 1:43 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Drich Wrote: The simple answer is self righteousness.
Meaning a righteousness not from God but derived and supported by the individual or society.

If man does not have to define himself by an absolute/prefect standard then he can do as he wishes and justify his own actions and still be found righteous in his own eyes/eyes of peers.

That way he does not have to bow to God.

It's not about what is best. it is about what is best for me/you.

There has been much debate among the faithful over what Gods standard *is*. You yourself have explained numerous times that you believe your interpretation of that standard to be the most accurate. That the majority of self-proclaimed believers all over the world simply have the wrong idea and either have misinterpreted or have not studied The Bible in the correct translation. From that perspective their crime is not lack of faith but lack of knowledge or insight. There are plenty of people making every effort to bow but you have repeatedly argued in the past that you are one of the few bowing in the correct way.
Is this how a perfect being communicates something it thinks important? It would seem less than effective.

The above statement is a strawman and a complete evade of what i just said. do you want to address what I said or segway into this somehow? what about a concession.. Because your current response does not address what I've said here or have been saying in any way shape or form.

(February 4, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 3:15 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 11:08 am)Drich Wrote: Two things one it's not a word game. It's a completely different paradigm of obtaining the righteous required to enter heaven. Morality is based on works and behavior. Unless you are an OT Jew this method of seeking righteousness does not apply.

second thing what is 'magic' about a debt you owe being paid by someone else?

Ever had a parent? or were you paying your own way since birth?

So you're making an argument for the morality of a system that is not a moral system.  You just blew it, pal.

Congratulations on showing us the emptiness of your word game.  No, it's not a morality at all, which is why you're trying to argue that it is a moral way to behave.  Gotcha.

please explain what you mean.

You're defending atonement as a moral response to sin. It's a system of morals like any other, only it depends on the reality of vicarious redemption, which is not moral.

(February 4, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:28 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: What?!  Why would the prisoners assume the warden is a bad person?  What are you talking about?  Analogy FAIL.

So simple...

Is it the will of the prisoners to be in prison? who keeps them in who signs the release who sets the menus, who over see the facilities, who makes the sleeping arrangements too hot or too cold, who has final say on every aspect of their detainment?

Is your simple mind telling you that is someone had complete control over every aspect of your daily life (even who you will most likely be raped by) that no one see fit to complain, that no one would see the treatment unfair or one sided? That no one would judge a man with such complete power of thousands to be immoral?

If you really think no one in a prison has ever thought the warden to be immoral, then I will let you have this win. Go on, take it do your victory lap.

So in this scenario god is Buffalo Bill. "It rubs the lotion on its skin"

(February 4, 2016 at 1:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:40 pm)Drich Wrote: where did i say nothing else matters?

I said your morality is not an absolute, its a variable. God is an absolute not a variable. The problem being you can not judge an absolute against a changing variable.

So what difference does "god" make if morals are not set?

God and His law represents an absolute. A standard which we were not designed to follow as a means to righteousness/being found worthy of eternal life.

God uses this standard to only show we are in need of atonement, and judges those who rather than seek atonement seek their own self righteousness. (A righteousness apart from his own.) When one has received this atonement, he is free from the law as a means to the righteousness needed to enter Heaven.

What God offers for the non believer is a standard in which to judge how far/how much evil is currently being accepted into pop morality.

(February 4, 2016 at 1:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: please explain what you mean.

You're defending atonement as a moral response to sin.  It's a system of morals like any other, only it depends on the reality of vicarious redemption, which is not moral.

But again, Morality is an act or deed we do or do not do... The atonement offered is what Christ/God did on the cross. We had nothing to do with this as we donot did not bring about our own atonement. How is atonement another form of morality?

(February 4, 2016 at 1:53 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:43 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: There has been much debate among the faithful over what Gods standard *is*. You yourself have explained numerous times that you believe your interpretation of that standard to be the most accurate. That the majority of self-proclaimed believers all over the world simply have the wrong idea and either have misinterpreted or have not studied The Bible in the correct translation. From that perspective their crime is not lack of faith but lack of knowledge or insight. There are plenty of people making every effort to bow but you have repeatedly argued in the past that you are one of the few bowing in the correct way.
Is this how a perfect being communicates something it thinks important? It would seem less than effective.

The above statement is a strawman and a complete evade of what i just said. do you want to address what I said or segway into this somehow? what about a concession.. Because your current response does not address what I've said here or have been saying in any way shape or form.

It is in no way a stawman. I have highlighted a stance you have expressed in many, many threads to underline how many people this supposedly transcendent morality eludes. Atheists and theists alike.
From your perspective you have the "perfect" morality at your finger tips. Your interpretation is the correct one and it eludes almost everyone else. 
How do you explain this morality not being so apparent to your fellow theists? Is that all self-righteousness too? Brave choice of words by the way.

I understand that line of reasoning might potentially lead to some unsettling questions and I apologize for any discomfort you may feel... but do not accuse me of evasion when I am directly addressing the issue and do not cry "strawman" when I cite views you have expressed in the past.
Its obvious, desperate and embarrassing for everyone. I have little patience for it.

(February 4, 2016 at 1:59 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You're defending atonement as a moral response to sin.  It's a system of morals like any other, only it depends on the reality of vicarious redemption, which is not moral.

But again, Morality is an act or deed we do or do not do... The atonement offered is what Christ/God did on the cross. We had nothing to do with this as we donot did not bring about our own atonement. How is atonement another form of morality?

Oh bullshit, Drich. Your response to sin is to shuck off your responsibilities in this world for belief in a solution by magic. That is what you suggest we do and it's immoral. You can judge the morality of such a system. And your god's standard is only absolute in the sense that it doesn't change. That's dogma, not a code of morals, as evidenced by Christians moving away from it over time. Exactly what is or is not moral is not defined by a biblical set of laws; nor is what requires a response defined by such a code. That's just the primitive pop morality of a primitive people. No god involved.

(February 4, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote pid='1195109' dateline='1454607980']


What God offers for the non believer is a standard in which to judge how far/how much evil is currently being accepted into pop morality.

[/quote]
I don't see what your getting at. All morality is "pop morality" as you have defined it.