pop morality

[Nihilist Virus]

---

nupe.

Why you ask?

Glad you asked, whew we could have a mess if you chose to just blindly respond.

Any the why is simple really, i do not assign 'moral value' on any action. As my thread points out we can justify absolutely anything if enough of the people in a given society want it. so to say this is moral or that is not is simply to parrot back what people want your responsibility to society to be. Which is cool, fine whatever.If you live in a society we must have rules. now if the proclivities of society is to exploit a section of society that need protection then yes I'm all for that. However, that does not mean their is an inherent evil that needs to be associated to a given soceitial law or even immorality.

Again slavery is a good example. Now without a doubt in society it is illegal to own a slave and also immoral to even endorse it. Yet this society can not exist without them and a lot of them. Our whole economy still works of slave labor/cheap goods. So in society rather than admit this principle found in every single human society that is or has ever existed. 'we' pretend to be better. But we have a problem, we still have slaves. so what do we do? we relabel and re market them. we exaggerate one or two attributes of slavery and pretend that ALL slavery is really really bad, so we can then say this (what we are doing now) is not slavery. The problem? it is. If we simply look up the defination of the word and go with the definition provided of general slavery, we will learn that all of those who provide our cheep good albeit not "Chattle slaves" they are still slaves even though we call them by different titles.

Now why isn't all modern slavery all immoral like society says? because without it billions and billions of people would literally starve to death. and/or be with out shelter, that the world economies would fail, and billions more would die. without cheap goods the money you have quickly becomes worthless.

Point? while you assign moral value to words like slavery, you turn a blind eye to it actually happening all around you.

Similarly you want me to judge God for potentially allowing a minor to get married, yet society blesses two teens with condom give aways at school, and birth control for girls they don't have to tell their parents about.
How foolish is a society to judge God for making or deeming a young couple like that married and make them be responsible for their action, while it lets the same age kids pass each other around like candy.

So again no, no problem at all.

Now ask what I think about the hypocrisy of a society that allows kids to have sex, and judges God for the same act when responsibility for their actions is added.

---

Oh, my. You know full well that I posed my question in response to you demanding that another poster provide evidence of God condoning baby rape don't you? Not marrying a minor.

It doesn't matter, though. Evidently, your answer would be the same..."nupe" I believe, right? Nice.
I wouldn't want to make it simple for anyone to tie me to those responses, either. 

EDIT: Not that I'm equating your "nupe" with you condoning such practices yourself...I'm not. I just find that your commitment to this line of thinking makes you a very scary dude.

That moron keeps saying that fornication and pedophilia is forbidden by Deuteronomy 23:18. LOL WTF? And that rapists get their just due in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

[loganonekenobi]

In conclusion for me I have learned about the ultimate form or pseudo-morality is still fear, guilt, misplaced blame, and unprovable promise.  Even in Buddhism  you get to try again if you fail.

your words are twisty but the facts remain. your offer is rejected.

So, instead of learning ANYTHING new, you default to what you came into the conversation with? Way to keep an open mind their spock.
(Yes I know your avatar is Sarack)

you've failed to provide anything that hasn't already been said by every other christian trying to convert the world. you are over complicating the moral question. each situation is a case by case and it is simple. you see a situation in which A) you have a choice to make B) you have the power to make a difference and C) it affects some one else then you ask your self "how would i want to be treated in this situation?". After that you follow that guide. No moment is the same as the last or the next and so no absolute morals or choices exist. Reality is not the past or the future it is that moment. If it is anymore complicated than that then all you are doing is just making one more case of why we should "be christian". instead of challenging us and yourself to be better people in this world.
I'll post a question to you. given the guide lines i just put up can you give me a situation where this simple plan would not work? remember to work in this time frame that we live in.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You know I use prison analogies just for the opportunity to push your buttons right? and like a Swiss watch you keep near perfect time.

You know that makes you an asshole, when you deliberately try to push peoples' psychological buttons in order to cause them distress and/or make them react angrily, right? And I don't know what "button" you think you pushed. I was simply trying to set you straight about how prisoners (typically) see the Warden. You're wrong about it. Sorry, but you are.

While I'm sure your an expert on what goes one behind closed cell room doors.. at night.. But, unless you spent time in a 23 hour lock down for 20 years I'm going to have to ask you to put your prison card back in your... where ever they make you keep it. the analogy I used was place on a shelf above your pay grade.

They made us pin our ID to our shirt with a clip, if that's what you mean... but it's not, unfortunately. I did spend a significant amount of time in 23-hour lockdown, back in the first couple of years in jail when they were trying to force me to plead guilty to a crime of which I was innocent, but I had only a couple of months in the Hole during my actual prison stay, following a fight in which I hurt a guy pretty badly after he tried to sexually assault me. They actually tried to charge me with a new crime, but the local DA dismissed the charges as soon as they hit her desk because the guy whose skull I split was a known serial rapist.

As to the analogy thing, I'm amazed--truly--at your degree of arrogance. Your analogy was perfectly clear and obvious to all of us: you think that people who are under the control of an "Ultimate Authority" will automatically chafe against that authority, and I explained (or tried to explain) to you that such is not the case, even with prisoners. We understand that when a law is broken, society says you have to go to prison, and that prisons need someone to run them; we also understand that people in positions of power can abuse that power, and so they will hold a Warden accountable for the way in which (s)he runs the prison. This analogy holds for atheists, when reading what people like you claim are the rules to which we are being held accountable... we find the policies as stated in writing to be ridiculous, as we have so often pointed out here.

The difference here, of course, is that the prison warden can be proved to be real... all you have is a set of documents written a long time ago, by a diverse group of people, edited and copied endlessly by others hundreds of years later, in which they talk about a warden and even claim to have met him, but no one anywhere in the prison can be found who has actually seen this warden... instead (to follow the analogy), what I see is a group of fellow prisoners who claim there's a warden, that they know him, and that I should follow these odd rules they carry around with them "because the Warden said so".

I got to hear the other side of things. My dad spent 15 years? maybe 20 as a teacher/guard/program director, and while he was in a min security area most of the time, they did have 'lock down' and he even had the power to send inmates there. those he sent to lock down (especially those he sent away for weeks at a time for stupid stuff) defiantly thought him 'immoral.'

The deal was though he knew certain people did not play well with others, and while "I maybe sitting on to of a keg of dynamite if I pull the fuse out, and get rid of it, me and everyone else is safe." (Till it all blows up in your face.)
so he looked hard at certain people to violate them, and send them away in an effort to pull the fuse. I can promise you those people who had their freedoms all taken away and put in a hole 23 hours aday for weeks on end (As per my original senerio, and not your wonderful life experience) did not see him as a moral person. Despite the reasons and relative safety he bought with his actions to personnel and inmate alike.

That's just not true, either. Guys who get violations know when they're "good for it", as they say, and they do their time when they are caught infracting the rules-- as a prison law clerk (jailhouse lawyer), I dealt every single day with guys accused of Conduct Violations, and I learned that 99% of prisoners readily admit when they have broken the rules and are ready to accept the consequences of their actions. It's a movie trope which says all prisoners claim to be innocent; in reality, the opposite is true, and guys who claim to be innocent are mocked openly by other prisoners, even though statistically even the federal government admits that 1 in 50 are wrongfully convicted, and as many as 1 in 10 are incarcerated on charges more severe than their actual actions deserved.

I have no doubt that there are some guys your dad sent to the Hole ("lockdown" means sent to your normal cell with the doors locked; the Hole is a special set of punishment cells, and are what you were referencing, above) who were unregenerate and resented being punished for anything they did, but it's just not the way things were for most of us unless the penalties were overly harsh without cause or the rules were arbitrarily and capriciously applied.

Your frequent references to some sort of abuse you seem to assume I suffered behind bars is a bit disconcerting, to me... I think you have some sort of male rape fascination. You should probably seek help for that.

[Reforged]

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.

It's real simple, as per the study I did in the book of Romans and as i have pointed out several times in this thread already... Every single Jesus Christ centered Religion is 'right' and wrong in what it believes at the same time. How does my 'stance' incorporate conflicting views?

As I have pointed out several times now, that in Romans Paul teaches in this freedom we find in atonement, we have the freedom to bind ourselves in the law any way we like, or we have the freedom to live completely part from it.
Jesus Himself also supports this idea in this statement: "Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will also be loosed in Heaven." Paul said "What ever you think a sin, (Even if it is not) for you it is a sin. Even though the Law may have freed us from it.

This means if you want to be a Methodist, and and yourselves with Methodist rule then by obtaining the atonement offered one is free to do so, and CAN be found righteous by Christ. Just like a Catholic or a Baptist, or any non denominational people... What will really blow your mind (if you can see all of this from where you will be standing) will be those who 'the church' would identify as 'non Christian' will also be counted among the saved! How can this be? Real simple. It's not what we do that makes us Christian. It what Christ did. Meaning Christ and Christ alone gets to decide who is and is not Christian. He has already told us many who think they are Christian are not, and we have 2/3's of our bible gives us examples of people who aren't that will indeed be there and ahead of anyone in the gentile church.

So tell me again about who should be embarrassed or who should be feeling 'discomfort' for his failure of basic comprehension, not only of the topic but of the term strawman and it's correct usage.

Just one more question ralphie.. Do you like apples?

No but I do need you to stop using the same laughing emote after three years. You should have the self-awareness to know how it makes you look by now. I deleted it and the insulting word salad that offered no information pertinent to our conversation. If you disagree about that decision I will welcome any valid justification for the presence of either. Otherwise; you're a grown man. Time to grow up. Pressing on.

Does this mean you are also both right and wrong or are you one of the few lucky enough to be totally in the right? If so why do you have that special honor when there are many others who have "right/wrong" views who put in more time and study?

So we're *all* going to heaven? Of course theres an "unless" isn't there Drich. That would be unless we break the rules. The thing about the rules, Christian morality if you will, is every Christian has a different interpretation of them. Even within the same denominations. Its almost universally agreed murder is wrong but even that has an unless attached to it by some people. 

Let me give you a basic example you can relate to because its based on your views; If a Christian homosexual honestly interpreted Sodom to mean rape was wrong rather than homosexuality is he going to hell? If he is thats important. Because it means ignorance is no excuse. 
You do get the relevance of that to the discussion, right? Because if thats the case from your standpoint alot of people have had their Jesus Christ get out of jail free card revoked and are on their way to one hell of a barbecue. 

So no. Not a strawman. Nothing you've said has contradicted what I deemed some of your views to be. You may think other Christians are in the right to some degree but you have clearly demonstrated over the years that you think your interpretation is the most right. Thats important because obviously there has to be a line. A line where a Christian gets it more wrong than right. If thats possible what does that say about the communication skills of an omnipotent being?
Yes, I do like apples. I dislike mediocrity, stop trying to be insulting. You're not good at it.

[robvalue]

It's pretty clear that Drich isn't talking about morality in the same sense that an atheist would. He's talking about blind obedience to an authority figure. They aren't compatible.

[downbeatplumb]

It's not what we do that makes us Christian. It['s] what Christ did. Meaning Christ and Christ alone gets to decide who is and is not Christian.

That's an awesome line, Drich.

I think what gets lost is that the object, in 'objective' morality, is not some set of commandments or universal principles; but rather a person, the Divine Logos who is the Lord Jesus Christ and who serves as the standard by which Mankind is judged. It is only by His Mercy responding to our repentance that we are allowed to be in His presence.

I threw up just a little bit.

[robvalue]

Morality based on a book can't be objective anyhow, because a finite book can't possibly cover every situation that could occur. So unless you have God actually whispering in your ear and telling you what to do, you have to come up with your own interpretation when the book has run out of mileage.

[downbeatplumb]

Morality based on a book can't be objective anyhow, because a finite book can't possibly cover every situation that could occur. So unless you have God actually whispering in your ear and telling you what to do, you have to come up with your own interpretation when the book has run out of mileage.

And yet the bible thought it had everything covered, have you seen how specific Leviticus is!
Some things Leviticus is against.
   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) [“You will die” and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]
   Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9) [“You will die.” May only apply to the priesthood.]
   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) [15:24 simply says the man will be considered unclean for 7 days. In 20:18, “Both of them are to be cut off from their people”]
  Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) [No penalty given.]
  Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) [No penalty given. May only apply to fruit trees planted in Israel.]
  Trimming your beard (19:27) [No penalty given.]
  Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27) [No penalty given.]
  Getting tattoos (19:28) [No penalty given.]
  Selling land permanently (25:23) [No penalty given.]

[Drich]

It's not what we do that makes us Christian. It['s] what Christ did. Meaning Christ and Christ alone gets to decide who is and is not Christian.

That's an awesome line, Drich.

I think what gets lost is that the object, in 'objective' morality, is not some set of commandments or universal principles; but rather a person, the Divine Logos who is the Lord Jesus Christ and who serves as the standard by which Mankind is judged. It is only by His Mercy responding to our repentance that we are allowed to be in His presence.

Thank God someone gets it. (even if you are already christian)
What I've done here is to take the gospel strip it down to the bible backed bare bones and used it as a knife to carve up 'pop morality' exposing it's short comings. where this differs from a traditional gospel lesson, is instead of then pushing one brand or method of Christianity over another, I left all branches open and gave Christ the credit and control over who is and is not Christian. Explaining the freedoms found in the bible rather than focusing on the restrictions.

Stuff like this really upsets the apple cart with atheist and christian alike if they in fact they found some secret club/way to God. Or know God can't exist because of the argument that counters the 'secret club' biblical world view.

[Nihilist Virus]

That's an awesome line, Drich.

I think what gets lost is that the object, in 'objective' morality, is not some set of commandments or universal principles; but rather a person, the Divine Logos who is the Lord Jesus Christ and who serves as the standard by which Mankind is judged. It is only by His Mercy responding to our repentance that we are allowed to be in His presence.

Thank God someone gets it. (even if you are already christian)
What I've done here is to take the gospel strip it down to the bible backed bare bones and used it as a knife to carve up 'pop morality' exposing it's short comings. where this differs from a traditional gospel lesson, is instead of then pushing one brand or method of Christianity over another, I left all branches open and gave Christ the credit and control over who is and is not Christian. Explaining the freedoms found in the bible rather than focusing on the restrictions.

Stuff like this really upsets the apple cart with atheist and christian alike if they in fact they found some secret club/way to God. Or know God can't exist because of the argument that counters the 'secret club' biblical world view.

There are no actual shortcomings.  The fact that we make and amend our own morality being an actual shortcoming is something you've yet to prove.  All you've done is point to progress and act like it's a bad thing.  You twist the fuck out of Bible verses to the point that you are outright lying on here.

Fact is, like it or not, you've shown nothing in the actual Bible that condemns any of the elements of infant rape.  You cite a website saying fornication is anti-Biblical?  Like we give a shit.  We're talking about the god damn Bible.  Give a verse or shut the fuck up.  But no, you throw this act like you're trying to be intelligent, asking me to find a verse that specifically condones infant rape, claiming victory when I cannot find it.

The Bible gives specific laws (no cooking a goat in its mother's milk) and covers major and minor offenses,  Yet there is no punishment for rape, pedophilia, or fornication.  NONE.  The closest it comes is when you rape or fornicate UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES which results in a punishment.  You deny this and twist it the best you can because you're a lying sack of shit as has been shown already.

Our atheist pop morality is better than your bullshit pop religion any day.