pop morality

[loganonekenobi]

I am confused a bit about your point in this whole thing

"humanity is flawed when it comes to deciding right and wrong."

agreed this is why we need to always look at ourselves with clear understanding as best we can.

"we need to atone to God"

Tell me how atonement is morality?

tell me for certain that there is a god?

tell me how the Christian god is the right one?

then tell me how you are any different from any other Christian trying to get me back to Jesus?

show me that what you are trying to sell is going to A) make sence in a real world and B) give me any better understanding of how to be a better person.

The fundamental design flaws of this whole thing are the existence of a creator, the multiple theories of a creator, and what reason we have to atone for anything that doesn't harm a real being.

[brewer]

New Coke was definitely immoral.

[Brakeman]

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...

Since jesus is god and of the same mind as his alter ego god, then the law was from himself as well. He couldn't change his mind as god without admitting to error and he couldn't help but think the same godly thoughts as god. Saying jesus completed the law has no meaning beyond saying god completed the law unless you say that his laws were imperfect or incomplete. Sin was defiance from jesus just the same. Furthermore one can't atone to oneself.
It's just such a silly story.

[Drich]

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

This 'here' meaning on AF is me following the model Paul blazed when He said 'When I was is Rome I followed and acted like one in Rome, or when I was with the Jew I behaved as if I were under the Jewish law. so that I might win them over.' In short this is me 'being in Rome and doing as the Romans do.' That is why I spend alot of time wording my responses differently to different people. To some I bring a big stick, and beat them with it, to others I speak softly and respectfully because that is how they want to be treated.

This is me using the freedom I have in God to met the need and answer the skeptic on his level on his terms.

[Drich]

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.

1. "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."

2. The law allows for rape, pedophilia, and fornication; also it expressly consents to slavery

3. Jesus condones these things

4. These things are part of God's moral absolutes

Let's see that backpedaling now.

Instead of going back lets push forward and properly establish the condoning you claim... Please by all means provide us with book Chapter and verse.

[Drich]

Again no. Morality at its core a set of rules defining good/bad behavior. Pop morality describes the origins of said rules.

Absolutes/Atonement is freedom from 'moral behavior' and a way to be found righteous despite our failures in morality.

Therefore the model that uses atonement can not be morality because behavior is not what is being judged.

This is just argument by definition.  It's a word game, nothing more.  And by choosing to play it, you forfeit the real game.

You want your arbitrary scheme of vicarious redemption to escape criticism as a moral system, and so you exempt it from consideration by using a custom definition of morality chosen to suit your argument.  Besides being after the fact, it is also wrong.  Living by vicarious redemption is a behavior which you have judged to be good.   Thus, it constitutes a set of morals.

Moreover it's a despicable set of morals in that it denies the debt owed to the wronged party in favor of a magic act which mysteriously takes away guilt.

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?

[Drich]

Does someone want to explain what the word hypothetical means to this guy??

You keep forgetting I'm a scientist by education and former career-training. I know exactly what hypothetical means. The problem is that you weren't really offering a hypothetical, but a syllogism: "if allowing homosexuals to do what they want is justified by science, and therefore socially acceptable, then how can we stop the pedophiles from being next by using the same argument?"

The problem is that it doesn't work that way. Science has had very little to contribute to the social debate over whether or not to allow consenting adults to have sex with each other if they wish to do so. That's why I cited the Lawrence case, to show you exactly what the rationale actually is. As I also said, and you also ignored, it doesn't matter if there's a gene for a certain propensity or desire, as far as the social/moral questions you're asking go.

What an idiot douche
You keep forgetting I have access to an on line dictionary:
hy·po·thet·i·cal
/ˌhīpəˈTHedək(ə)l/
noun
1. a hypothetical proposition or statement "Finn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Rosen"

adjective

1. of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis "that option is merely hypothetical at this juncture"

The abject arrogance and unwillingness you display "to check your self" will always leave me the opportunity to put you into 'check.'

I always worry about going too far though (don't want you to have another melt down) But I think it's worth the risk to point out that the definition provided by Yahoo seems to differ from your own definition... Since i already used "do you just make up definitions for popular English words to win arguments" line on someone else already I guess i get to ask you: does your 'training as a scientist' not include basic english, and or how to use a dictionary? Maybe you were a Russian scientist or german perhaps.. Don't feel bad alot of their best scientist don't know the english word hypothetical either!!!
:Roflol:

Let me be really clear, here: Science. Did. Not. Legitimize. Homosexuality. Science has less bearing on public policy and lawmaking than I'd like to see, to be sure, but it certainly had nothing to do with this one. Gays coming "out of the closet" and making themselves known, so that people realized their own friends, family, neighbors, etc., were gay is what legitimized it-- people began to have empathy for those who had formerly been forced to live in hiding because of fear of what Christians would do to them, once the rest of us who weren't bent into bigots by religion actually got a chance to know members of the gay community.

Let me be clear... Homosexual movement has and is still pushing for a 'gay gene' to legitimize Homosexuality. In the morality argument May point to how other species indulge in homosexuality. This confirmation in nature and it's cataloging by science is supposed to lend legitimacy to the homosexual argument. For my HYPOTHETICAL Pedo argument I went a step further. Instead of following the exact foot steps of homosexuality, I took the scenario all the way and gave it a true 'scientific' blessing. Something the Homosexual community is still trying to do with it's search for the gay gene. So stop adding to the scenario so you do not have to give a straight answer, and just address the parameters provided.

As the others have been trying to tell you, much of what the Bible condones, such as slavery, was rejected by society once people began to have empathy for the oppressed, and to see them as fellow human beings. None of this has anything to do with the question of whether we let people harm our children just because they have urges that may or may not be rooted in their genomic defects.

In other words, who cares if there's a genetic propensity for pedophilia? There's also a gene-set for tendencies toward extreme and unreasonable violent reactions... it's still illegal for that guy to punch people who piss him off. And what "traditional values" are you talking about? On the one hand, you seem to be implying that I'm only against pedophilia because it has traditionally been banned (which is only loosely true; the modern trend has been toward protecting children more than in the past), while on the other I'm being attacked by Wooters for acknowledging that it may be possible that it changes in the future, as more information about the nature of the harm done comes to light. For reasons I already stated, I don't think that number will move downward, but I acknowledge the possibility that it could be so.

again address the hypothetical scenario with the parameters provided. The genetic predisposition of the pedophile was just one aspect of the senerio, the other being the mental and physical availability of the child. Coupled with a standing social judgement that this is still immoral behaivor.

Why don't you know this as many times as i have spelled out this scenario? Oh, that's right you keep changing it so you do have to make a stand based on the science logic and reason the last social tabooo was over turned before the band wagon of society tells you it is ok.

Nice.. All of the heavy hitters on the Athiest side of the evolution of morality with science being your guide line, Cower like little children afraid of the boogey man, at the thought of making a moral judgement that society has not already preapproved. Even though all of the 'check points' of scientific permission have been met as with the case of homosexuality.

This should freak all of you the Hell out if you have two brain cells to rub together!

Holy shit, Drich. Seriously, your holiness is shit. You're the only one here who's saying "If science says ____, then ____ is permissible." We may use scientific knowledge to inform our own moral judgment making (we more than most!), but your entire argument is based on a false premise. So take your childish insults and provocations, reach waaaaaaayyyy back, and shove them up your ass.

I haven't actually said anything was permissable... I am putting you in a hypothetical scenario and asking if it is permissable.
You know what I will say if I'm asked.
It s a sin just like Homosexuality is a sin.

[FatAndFaithless]

What's going on in this thre-

Oh, Drich and the rofl-smiley emoji. Nevermind.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The "gay gene" arguments are being used to counter the Christians (and related religions) who argue, "Well it's a choice so why don't you just choose to be straight like the rest of us?"

You can continue to ignore my entire reply to your slippery-slope argument, which is indeed a syllogism, but it is not hypothetical unless you can demonstrate a potential scenario in which it could happen. I demonstrated such a scenario, while you did not; all you did was assert that because gay people are driven to their attractions by genetics/neurochemistry, it must mean that anyone with any predilection must be accommodated for the same reason. Several of us showed you why that is not so, and demonstrated the conditions that must be met (and, as I have asserted, seem to be unable to be met), for making your conditions even potentially hypothetical.

In the colloquial sense, we could call any "Well what if ______?" an hypothetical, but it doesn't make it a legitimate point in a debate. To understand why this is so, why don't I give you the hypothetical "What would you do if Smaug the Dragon ate your wife?" To make your hypothetical situation legitimate, you must assert more than a lame syllogism. You must assert a way in which it would be possible, so we could discuss why that is or is not a legitimate hypothetical. Your syllogism doesn't cut it. You failed.

My straight (is that a deliberate pun?) answer is simple: as long as there is a harm-element, it is immoral, and will continue to be banned. Whether or not there is a gene, and whether or not science "gives its blessing", are irrelevant in terms of the morality of a thing. I even showed you an example of the Supreme Court's analysis of such a question, which you continue to ignore, thinking you can hide that fact behind your wall of hatred, prejudice, scorn, and derision.

The only reason you say "it is a sin" is because your stupid religious book from which you cherry-pick says so... and it says so in the places where it also says to stone children for disrespecting their parents, to execute people who are of other faiths in your city, and a lot of other truly horrifyingly immoral stuff by modern standards. So if we exclude the barbaric bits (as so many Christers like to do), we're left with a few tidbits on what is sexual sin by the Pharisee you worship, Paul, who also had an issue with people even getting married and preferred we all be celibate (issues, indeed!), which I hardly consider to be a standard for considering post-Enlightenment moral principles.

[vorlon13]

Heard some analysis on POTUS (Sirius/XM) yesterday regarding the relgiousites turn about on 'moral' candidates like Huckabee and Santorum and their moving to support candidates with less moral takes things, specifically citing Trump's divorces and remarriages and his boastful writings regarding bedding other men's wives.

It all boils down to pragmatism, if a presidential candidate doesn't look to have the wherewithal to prevail in a general election, personal morals or not, they will not be supported.

I don't recall Jesus doing any parables regarding pragmatism, perhaps these Christers have access to secret gospels or such that gives them guidance in this surprising direction.

I'd think they would rather vote for the morally right candidate (as per their definition) than to ever sidle up to a reprobate such as Trump, but it really looks like SOMETHING has changed in the Christian world this election cycle, and it has CHANGED for reasons having to do with political expediency rather than Salvation.