pop morality

[Drich]

Then you can understand why atheists have no reverence for god's righteousness.  We do not believe it exists and see little of value in it.  

To be honest most of you have no 'reverence' because you still do not understand it. You still think it is just a more strict form of your morality. That God is trying to control how you live your life, through a series of thou shalt nots... And what's more you are so proud of what you don't know that when something different comes along, you can't bring yourself to ask a question. So you stagnate in what you think you know. So yes I understand why Atheists have NO reverence for God.

Growing up I found the rules of a society to be trivial and often times based on tradition and what people felt comfortable with. This was illustrated by living in a home that represented two polar opposite cultures. The things my Father and his family held on to, were completely different than the things my mother and her family held on to, for completely different but equally trivial reasons.

Yep, those would be those relative social norms.

So western culture and far eastern cultures clashed in every house hold? hmm I spent time in other house holds and never saw this.. I always saw mom and dad sharing 'cultural norms' with out question or conflict.
but anyway maybe the street I grew up on was messed up.
Let me ask you all then what did you do on days that were very sacred for one parent, and was pissed on or made fun of by the other?
Did you celebrate with the one parent and shun the other? what about food? who's side were you on there? did you not eat things you mother made for you because it was unknown to your father if it was good for you because it smelled rotten? Or did you listen to your mother that everything Americans ate gave you diabetes? did you take off your shoes or leave them on in the house? How many 'childrens days' did you celebrate or pass up? How many christmas' did you not partake in? what did you do on halloween? How many of you were having to make these desisions starting at 5 and continue on till you leave the nest?? Or did you mean you were emo-ing, skipping school and smoking cigarettes in the parking lot? Because believe it or not that APART OF YOUR CULTURE douche bag, and NOT what I am talking about!

My mother's family would often question and wonder why my father would follow stupid american traditions when to them it made sense to act and behaive a different way, and vise versa. All of that taught me was to be objective and to not blindly hold to tradition/culture simply because that's what everyone else does. To break down social patterns and use them if and when they were needed, rather than rituallistically bending my knee to them each and every time society demands it.

Most of us question societies norms, and family norms from time to time.  Christianity has generally been part of those norms in Western society.  I question it too. Why shouldn't I?  Why shouldn't you?

Again no. I was forced to examine every aspect of each culture that I was made to choose sides on (at first then later everything else) and weigh out the merrits of what I was being asked to do. This means research, to find out where and why something started why we do it, and why we are still doing it and the benfits of it against the reward or headache of me doing then.
In doing so I found most of the foundational aspects of each culture to be trivial now, but benficial at a specific time and place.

So how I don't get the same vib from you when you say 'you question the culture.' Even when you do 'you people' stick with in the cultural frame work that society allows for varying degrees of rebellion/questioning the culture. That's why you can lable yourselves, hippies, emos, or whatever counter culture group you want to be apart of. all of your paths are well worn.

I don't see you looking at god's righteousness, as you call it, objectively.  If you look at it objectively, you we see that it is arbitrary and not necessarily good by any measure other than the circular one of god's measure.

Seriously? Objectively?? objectivly how? by using pop morality as my standard?
I truly want you to take time to think out and answer my questions here.
If I use a unknown variable something something always changing from region to region from generation to generation, how then can I use it to measure a unchanging standard? I used this example before but an inch use to be about the withe of a man's thumb, a foot the size of the average foot. you are asking me to 'objectivly' measure the imperial unchanging standard (the current measure of an inch or foot) against my thumb or my foot, or better yet your thumb and your foot... Now what if your foot is smaller that the 12" standard of today? what if your thumb is wider?

To you then the imperial standard for a foot is too much, and the standard for an inch fall short. Which is all well and good over everything you have control over. the problem? I live in a world not controlled by you, or even by this society.. My life will not be judged by your measure, but by an imperial standard in which I know I will fall far short of.
So as per the plan I sought and obtained atonement so then I would not have to live a 'certain' way a 'moral way' to obtain the righteousness I need to pass judgement.

Again, the purpose of God's law is NOT to change how you live. It is to only show you that you can not every be moral enough to obtain the righteousness you need to pass judgement. So you must seek attonement. Once you have the atonement offered. The law (per our Romans study) no longer dictates to the believer how to live. we are free from the obligation of trying to meet a 'moral code' inorder to pass judgement. However even though the law does not apply to us, it remains to be used to 'judge the 'moral.'

do you understand that God's Standard is to take away the law (any law) as a means to obtaining the righteousness you are trying to obtain be living a 'moral' life? Tell how is living by pop morality and being found wanting better in your estimation?

This is an insane way of justifying slavery.

Of course the United States would be different had there been no slavery here.  Just how it would be different is not so easily determined.  Cotton was not so profitable in the U.S. until the invention of the cotton gin in 1793.

 tobacco and firs where the initial cash crop, slaves were not put to growing cotton till their was money to be made.

In fact, at that time it looked like slavery would die a natural economic death due to lack of profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin And yet the U.S. was prospering as a whole.

are you serious? even before the cotton gin the ecconomy had other cash crops, not to mention their was a fair local trade for food crops, sugar being king. again cotton was a low priority because of the slave power it to to cultivate and harvest and what it took to produce a clean crop, and yes the people growing cotton did not see profits that the sugar people did till the cotton gin was brought to market.

The Louisiana Purchase took place just ten years later in 1803. It seems unlikely that less than ten years of prosperous cotton farming made all the difference.  https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso...a-purchase

Do you know what the federal GDP was? do you know what it was based on in a pre industural revolution era?
It was ALL Agriculture based!
Not to mention the colonists lived in the highest standard living in the world at that time.. and where oh, where do you supposed it was all sourced from?

What is wrong with you? Why are you fighting against giving slaves the credit they deserve for literally building this nation with their blood sweat and tears? will it destroy your white pride to say that with out our slaves this country would be nothing like it is today? Almost certainly we would not be a world power!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_h...ted_States

Besides, in 1800, the U.S. federal tax structure looked nothing like it does today.  There was no federal income tax or federal property tax.  Most of the federal government's income came from customs duties.

OMG... and what were those products and where did they come from?

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153529/ France offered us the territory at a bargain price because it was not profitable to them and they did not want it in British or Spanish hands.  Chances are, if we couldn't have paid $15 million for it, they still would have sold it to us.

You do know we didn't have 15 million dollars right?
You do know France would not sell it any cheaper, so we borrowed the money from england @6%.
Cash to a cash poor/unstable nation means far less than tangible commodities to a creditor. and since they were all hooked on our tabacco, Cotton, And sugar (plus lumber and charrcoal) they had no issue forking over the money. This 'obligation' along with later trade sanctions implaced by england restricting trade with france. (they were choking our ability to pay back the loan, and in turn would force us to send more product to them flooding the market driving price down, resulting even more products to pay back the note) along with standing issues from the last war is the reason for the war of 1812
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/thom...rchase.htm

And in the end slavery cost this country an enormous about of money in the form of the Civil War which cost the North roughly $6,190,000,000, and the South $2,099,808,707.  http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.html And that's not counting property damage and loss of life. Makes $15 million look pretty small doesn't it?

And you do know that if Lincoln could have won the war by keeping slavery intact he would have done so right?
The war was not over whether or not to free the slaves but federal goverment's control over them. The goverment wanted to start a push out west and the only way they could do this is with the rail roads. As a result they wanted paid white workers to build the rail roads for two reasons. they knew the workers would set down roots and settle the areas along that route, and they wanted to keep black people contained in the south and on the east side of the Mississippi. While southern land owners saw the opening up of the west/midwestern plain states as prime farm land. the federal goverment issued an edict restricting the use of black slaves out west of the mississippi. This enraged the southern states and ultimately they seceded from the union. then war broke out. A war the south was winning. Desperate Lincoln, wrote a letter to Jefferson Davis telling him that if he ended this war that he would not only allow him to keep the slaves they had that they would make a provision for regulated slave use out west, and then he gave a time limit to his offer. He then warned that if his offer was refused that he (lincoln) would free the slaves and enlist them to fight the confederates.
One month after the offer expired Lincoln freed the slaves.
http://abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/...reeley.htm

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

So no matter what the civil war ultimately cost it like every other war centered around two opposing views of right and wrong/pop morality. In this case if Freeing the slaves was the nations moral issue/reason for the war, why did the war rage on till the point of the north almost loosing before the slaves were freed?

The civil war was started over the issue of slavery, but not as a moral issue, nor was it ever planned to free them. It was a matter of control, and wanting to contain slavery in the states it was currently held in, and not allow it to go any further.

Do you see how pop culture bends the truth? is this the first time you've heard the truth about the civil war about lincoln? Can you see how far pop culture's version of truth has left the documented unchanging truth history had originally recorded? What makes you think we have not do the same with our pop morality? If pop morality has changed God's standard as much, then how can one 'objectively' look to your moral standard as a way to judge God?

Nor is it easy to determine whether the world would be worse off had we been poorer and smaller. In that case, we would not have been able to aide France and Britain in WWI.  The Germans would have won WWI or the war might have ended in a stalemate.  In either case, Germany would not have been suffering under the enormous war debt that lead to political unrest there, which lead to the rise of Hitler.  No Hitler, no WWII or at least not the same WWII.

We didn't break the stalemate. the advent of the tank did. It was this 'land battle ship" that could take small arms fire and transverse the battle field delivering troop and fire behind the enemy trenches that brought that war to an end. We simply added fuel to that fire and ended the war early meaning less reparations less crippling debt.

The bottom line is we really don't know what this country or the world would be like without slavery.

We can say it would not be what it is today.

The slaughter of the American Indians might have been necessary for the colonization of North America by Europeans.  But it was not necessary for the survival of the species in any way shape or form. And it was certainly not good for the Indians.

America in it's current form (warts and all) has indeed maintained the survival of the species. Again if Germany won, their end was to create a singular master race and eradicate all other 'mongeral races.'

We can not simply ignore or judge our pasts without weighing both the positive and negative attributes even the most appalling events yield. Like for instance the slaughter Germany leveled against the Jews. Bought them back their holy Land. to you this may seem trivial, but it was on top of every jews prayer list for almost 2000 years! The millions that Germany slaughtered was the price "Moral Man" demanded in 1948. We know this to be true because after WWI when the same nations that won WWII (minus Japan) divided up the world, no consideration was given to the Jews. But after WWII and the world was told millions died in camps, and after we saw the pictures, pop morality then demanded that they be given back their home so nothing like this could happen again..

Change an event in history, and subsequent history would change.  What of it?  It wouldn't necessarily make the present better or worse, just change the winners and losers. And I'm not sure that those you call the winners feel the way you do about it. Your understanding of what the Jews wanted in the 1940s is limited at best.  And what of the people living in the "Holy Land"?  Had they no feelings about their homeland?    

I don't 'feel' one way or another about history. it is simply the telling of the events that have brought us here. Now then ask yourself do you like your position and place in the world? if yes, then you are indebt to ALL of your history, like it or not.

As far as who was living there before.. who cares? to the victor go the spoils. My korean family was very prominate, and owned Alot of land. I was told if the right three people died (and the history of Korea was allowed to play out) My uncle would be king. But the Japs got greedy, and invaded, then WWI happened and for Japan's role with the allies, they were allowed to keep/have Korea. the first thing they did was kill all of the 'royal family's' head members. and take the family lands and enslaving the rest of the nation. Korea became "the south"/slave states of Japan. After WWII (and korea was taken from Japan) and the korean war much of my family's land was annex by the North and south Korean goverments. they/the south recognise who it belonged to, and as a result my aunt who still lives thier gets to live on what amounts to a 'state park' but when she dies the state will take the land back.

Now to be clear I could never have a claim because I my 'blood' disqualifies me, but my cousins have a claim and my mother has a claim. what about us??? Or does the state and the people of korea come first? My cousins may differ, but the way I see it the people of korea bought that land with their blood, broken bodies and lives. it is as much belongs to the people as it ever belonged to one family.

The same is true of the jews. as far as who lived their before, they still have the rest of their country to live in.. Suck it up and move on.

Yes I am reaping the rewards of the behavior of our ancestors.  I'm also suffering the consequences.  And while I don't judge people in the past by modern standards, I don't conclude that their actions were good simply because things turned out the way that they did.

Then you are a sociopath like I am. If you can't judge your ancestors by modern pop culture then you MUST judge their actions as good!

Or so says your judgement of me.

Most cultures see themselves as moral.  Morality is after all a human construct.  It is based on empathy and we feel the most empathy for those most like us.  That leads not only to generosity and fairness for ourselves, but also to war on others.  Morality is also based on rationality. We understand the advantages of a civil society and civil relations with our neighbors and act accordingly.  It is far from perfect.  But it is what we have.

And What I am saying is we could have something better.

We also have clever human explanations for doing what we want to do.  God is one of those.  So are various other ideologies.  

how so?
God gave us unbending absolutes. Therefore if his absolutes do not afford us the ablity to do whatever we want how then can we use God to do what we want rightfully?

It is far better to look at our morality and question it, than to say we'll stick to the morality in this book from around 100 CE.  

why?
or are you stuck mentally thinking God is only offering another version of morality?

You are in a mind set where you see two alternatives:  god's law and popular morality.  

I am talking about 3 systems not 2
God's law, Pop morality and atonement
God's law is impossible
therefore we come up with pop morality
God's plan was for us to never try and follow the law or morality but to seek atonement
which if done properly results in automatic untrained 'moral' behavior.

I don't see god's law as an alternative. I see god's law as a justification some people use to justify their popular morality. And the Bible provides them with plenty of flexibility to do just that. You see, it's all popular morality. It's just that some people use god to shut down the conversation about what that morality should be.

because you are closed minded and will not entertain the idea that YOU NEVER understood the basics of Christianity.

Biblicall Christianity is not about following a moral code. can you at least understand this?

[/quote]

[Drich]

You are in a mind set where you see two alternatives:  god's law and popular morality.  I don't see god's law as an alternative. I see god's law as a justification some people use to justify their popular morality. And the Bible provides them with plenty of flexibility to do just that.  You see, it's all popular morality.  It's just that some people use god to shut down the conversation about what that morality should be.

^^^This.

^^^the last paragraph from the above post

[Drich]

the obvious answer.
Those things are crimes.
I condemn because the society I live in condemns them. and if i maybe allowed to show some empathy without being called a sociopath again, I would not want those things done to me.

That said, from a big picture Survival of the species perspective I can also see how both rape and slavery were needed to get us out of our inbreed, family clans, xenophobic, hunter gather, cave dwellings, and into modern social structures.

GARBAGE.  

Explain to me how rape was necessary to the survival of the species.  In particular explain how it was necessary to the Hebrews at the time of Moses. Remember, the clan of the Hebrews was supposed to be over two million people at that time.  That's a pretty big breeding pool and hardly in need of influx of genes from outside races.  But even if it were, the rape countenanced by The Law of Moses as a petty matter, included rape of Hebrew women by Hebrews.  How would Hebrews raping Hebrews stop inbreeding?  And if inbreeding were the problem, why would the OT discourage Hebrew men from marrying non Hebrew women?  Not to mention discouraging them from engaging in sex with Canaanite priestesses?  

Outside the little clan of the Hebrews there was a great wide world complete with many nations larger than the Hebrews, all busily breeding within the confines of marriage.  What pray tell was rape good for?

As for xenophobia, that's what The Law of Moses was all about promoting.  The Laws of Moses were designed to separate the Hebrews from other people.  And they worked.  So claiming that rape countenanced by them was necessary to reduce xenophobia is ridiculous.

That aside, consider rape as a vehicle for ending xenophobia.  Does rape do that?  It does not.  Fear of rape is one of the leading causes of xenophobic responses to Muslims moving into Europe.  It was one of the alleged reasons for separating blacks and whites in the U.S. and South Africa.  Rape between races is not a tool for reducing xenophobia, but a cause of xenophobia.

And civilized society runs better when half the population doesn't have to stay in hiding to avoid rape.  

Was slavery necessary to remove people from a hunter gatherer existence?  Hardly.  The Hebrews were already herders and farmers.  And their herds and farms were not of a size to benefit from mass labor.  Nor, did they ever use slaves for mass labor. Try again. Many cultures have transitioned to agriculture and herding without slavery.  And many hunter gatherer cultures kept slaves without ever progressing to agriculture.

Slavery is wrong.  So is rape.  How do we know?  Not from the Bible or it's god, but from empathy and reason.  

BTW, it is not by showing empathy, but by not showing empathy that one is branded a sociopath.  It's definitional.

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

[Drich]

But again, how is that value NOT programmed into you by the society you live in?

And what would happen to you if society programmed you to do the opposite as with Nazi Germany and the vast majority of the German population at that time??

But how is that any different than your situation?  You would have us believe your morality comes from the bible.  What if the 'bible' you'd been given was Mein Kamph?

but... what if I'm not pushing 'morality'/acts or behavior with any 'good or bad' values attached to them?

[Drich]

To the OP, is it possible that conforming to a moral absolute often entails responding to specific circumstances including the times amd cultures in which people find themselves?

more or less yes... but my question is what if you were born in the next Nazi Germany morally speaking, would you be able to know given your current value system? What transcends the right and wrong of the culture?

How do you/we know if we are not currently living in a nazi germany morally speaking...

[Drich]

Sorry buddy, my heart is just a blood pump.  If you want to be a shitty poet go and do that, but not while you discuss what you purport to be facts of divine importance.  I'm not interested in atonement, and gods opinion of all morality is worth nothing to me, as are the teachings of the bible as related by yourself.  

A complex subject?  Doesn't seem like it, you just summed up your position in what, three sentences...summed up gods in one sentence.....none of which have any relevance to me.  To you and to god all morality is crap.  NP, you've recused yourselves from the discussion of morality.  Why then, do you persist?  What questions do you think I would have for you -or- your god?  There was nothing I needed either of you to explain to me -before- you'd excluded yourselves from the discussion, what could either of you possibly have to say now?

look if you cant conform to the rules and definitions of basic English then asking me to try and explain this too you, will not be possible. changing the meanings of words so you can willfully not accept a premise or fore gone conclusion is just plain foolish obstinance. something I will not be apart of.

[Drich]

But that's the thing isn't it? "Nazi" facts were not too far off center at the time. what they did was take what was known about 'evolution' and through their propaganda machine put a slight slant/positive spin on one race/sub species over the others, then they identified their followers as being apart of the ultimate evolutionary purity that 'natural selection' was taking too long to vet out ...

ever wonder why if a particular species of a given genus shows any variances it is reclassified with a different species name or placed in a sub species category? All except Humanity? Well, in the 1930's was indeed subdivided. This division is what the Nazi's used to justify their claims of racial superiority/ablity for higher reasoning and cognitive abilities. They were not just pulling random facts out of the air. they were using real science, that at the time the world recognized. what's more they (the citizens of Nazi germany) like any of us do not generally have access to facts beyond what a given discipline wants circulated. I point back to the 'fact' that we are no longer subdivided into different or sub species categories. Our knowledge of the 'truth' is capped by the same society that provides us with 'morality.'

Democracies like the republic of Iran? or the People's Republic of China?
Or do you mean just white western republics?

I would say a 'republic' simply repersents what the majority of the people want... So if the Majority of people want to be evil, then the country will be evil. (The republic of Iran, or Syrian Arab republic) then what that culture's first task would be is to take control of it's citizens morality and warp it to fit the new direction the country wants to go.

My question remains. If you were in the mist of a given society's hard turn to evil, do you have the tools to spot the turn and do you have the where with all to stand against it?

Was it Einstein who said, "if you can not explain a precept so simply a child could grasp it, then you yourself do not truly understand the principle."
Just because the principle is explained very simply does not mean we/I can wade deeper into the pool.. The problem is my 'swim buddy' in this instance you (as witnessed by your opening paragraph) doesn't fully grasp/can't make all of the connective parallels between our popular culture and the pop culture of the Nazis, that would allow us to go any deeper. I feel it because You are either too lazy to look into it or simply place too much blind faith that you/this culture is somehow immune to the mistakes of our forefathers. That's why you are throwing out weak arguments concerning the nature of their evidence or their failure to be a republic.. As if either of those things would safe guard us from following down that path.
Not to mention as simple as my argument is, you don't seem to be able come up with any sort of safe guard that would ensure that you yourself would not be goose stepping your way into some great 'societal cause' if your 'republic' used 'science' to demanded it.

then please I'd love to hear your take on my hypothetical concerning pedophiles: http://atheistforums.org/post-1187436.html#pid1187436
post number 25

"ever wonder why if a particular species of a given genus shows any variances it is reclassified with a different species name or placed in a sub species category? All except Humanity? Well, in the 1930's was indeed subdivided. This division is what the Nazi's used to justify their claims of racial superiority/ablity for higher reasoning and cognitive abilities. They were not just pulling random facts out of the air. they were using real science, that at the time the world recognized. what's more they (the citizens of Nazi germany) like any of us do not generally have access to facts beyond what a given discipline wants circulated. I point back to the 'fact' that we are no longer subdivided into different or sub species categories. Our knowledge of the 'truth' is capped by the same society that provides us with 'morality.'"

Evolution is defined in terms of breeding.  A human of any race can breed with a human of any other race and the offspring will itself be fertile. In no sense are humans of different races belonging in a different species.

Google "definition of species".

Very nice sport, now look up the word: SUB Species!
(Also you do know you arguing with History and not me right?)

[Drich]

I will never cease to be amazed that you all still can't get that the 'daily beatings' aren't for the Father's children... they are for those who arent.

Yeah because that makes it perfectly okay right?  

So as long as he's not beating his own children it's perfectly okay?

Even your own analogy makes you look like a cunt.

only to the one slated for a beating...

Oh, and it's not my analogy. i just fix the analogy given the terms provided. If you don't like the wording take it up with the genus who came up with it, not me.

[Drich]

That the exact question I'm asking isn't it? What do you have that will help you see through whatever you've been taught?

Sadly you never seem to turn your questions inward.  You give the impression of someone entirely lacking in self reflection.  Is it a show you put on to help you land those souls for Jesus or are you really that shallow?

when i was a boy behind my grandfather house was a piece of property where the Ice plant run off water would gather.. As you could imagine it was cold.. even on the hottest days it was still very very cool 60's maybe. and the best part it was crystal clear you could see all the way to the bottom, but I was told not to swim there because it was too deep. well I took it upon myself to survey the area, and to my 8 year old eye it did not look deep at all so I decided to wade out in it and very quickly I found I was in over my head.

I know your not 8, but if you think as your peers do that I am trying to replace pop morality with what the church or anyone else would identify as 'god's morality' you are indeed in over your understanding of this subject.

For a moment just assume I am saying ALL morality is bad. what then would be your next question or statement? would it look like the two sentence post you just left?

[Drich]

That you have chosen to describe all morality as bad implies yet another moral value system fundamental to your conclusion.  I assume that one must be bad too, since they're all bad...so why should anyone care?  

Hell, why do you.....do you...?

define morality

I have defined it several times but since you seem to be working on your own dictionary I need you to define what you mean by 'morality.'