pop morality

[Drich]

The point you fail to understand is that the only legit reason you would have to sum up and announce your own evaluation, it is because you don't have a fair representation of your work out there to judge your abilities.

Now in as much history that has been talked about in this forum in the last few years, if you don't feel you can be judged on your merits alone, still admits to a deficiency... However this deficiency can't be about the volume of your work to be evaluated. (as youve been a long time member who has weigh in on several different subjects.) This speaks to content, or the lack there of.

Hence, the need for the proclamation/reassurance check you are asking from your peers, and that supports my initial assertion.

You are the one who cast the first stone here buddy boy, you questioned my knowledge of history, YOU, a person who still believes in the biblical flood. So forgive me if I put your knowledge of history as being of dubious value.

Save some of that for the sequal rock!

I'm still researching, but that will be the topic of my next thread

[Drich]

You truly are a repugnant, nasty cuntbag Drich.

Translation:

Uga booga, me monkey man... Uga, booga, me noes like to think for self.. What Drich says make me think for self... dis make me mad, Drich is bad word for make me mad!!! Uga booga..

[SofaKingHigh]

You truly are a repugnant, nasty cuntbag Drich.

Translation:

Uga booga, me monkey man... Uga, booga, me noes like to think for self.. What Drich says make me think for self... dis make me mad, Drich is bad word for make me mad!!! Uga booga..

I refer my learned friend to my previous response.

[Drich]

If you do understand my position, it doesn't mean your logic or final conclusion is correct.
Besides if you will note I had to make several key changes to your understanding. (I said NO Several times) Your last post suggests that you did not incorporate those changes into your final conclusion, because as this post seems to suggest you feel that you are 'close enough.

Yes you did.  I gave you that opportunity by summarizing what I thought your position was.  You clarified.  That is how we reach understanding.  And I did pay attention to that clarification.

But again your final synopsis did not include the changes/corrections I made. You made a conclusion that directly violated one of my statements of correction.
[

and this is evidenced by what?? Wishful thinking on your part?
God's will is not a mystery. It is laid out in our very own language word for word. All any need do to know this will is to study and read the bible.

Surely, you've been on this site long enough to know what I desire is evidence.

then open your book to leviticus for the law, and then to Romans to reconcile the Law with atonement. The book of romans is the gospel explained. My study on it a few weeks ago is a break down of every precept in that book. In that you have your 'evidence for God's will.'

 The bible is a story about a what men think god is and nothing more.

Actually it's what we are responsible for.

 It is one such story among many.  All lack confirmation.

confirmation is the wrong word, because if you want to confirm the bible all one has to do is follow it. I think your looking for the word "Vet." To vet is to scrutinize to your or some standard you want the bible to meet. That way you can raise or lower the bar rather than hold all religion to the same standard, because if and when the bible meets your requirements you are free to also shift the goal posts back in the conversation. for example:

 I freely admit, I think yours is an ugly story.  I don't wish for it to be true.  But whether I or you wish it, there is not evidence of it.

To doubt the authenticity of Christ is to doubt every single other figure in ancient history before him period, and after him for 1500 years, as Christ alone has more manuscript documentation than any other figure dominating those time periods..

See that is proof... In providing proof all one need do is count the manuscripts that mention or talk about Christ and compare that with the next most popular historical figure. to which their can be no arguement, as it is a matter of documentation.

However, Vetting allows you to place an artificial standard on Jesus that you do not have to place on any other figure. you could in the process of 'vetting' claim that all documentation concerning Christ is religious and religious texts don't count for some arbitrary reason. Then make the claim that their are no secular text that concern Christ knowing full well (or in your case not) that if a text did mention Christ in detail it would be considered to be a religious text, and dismissed.

This way you can have your cake and eat it too.

God, according to you has planned a world in which people suffer randomly, and in which he punishes people for not obeying a law "purposely" (your word) designed to be impossible to obey.  If you find that admirable and worthy of worship, there's no arguing with you.  I, however do not.

Not according to me, because according to me/The bible we are all meant to suffer no one escapes it. Therefore while suffering is not a pleasant thing it is apart of our spiritual maturity and a needed part of a well balanced life.

Seriously?  You can't see the value in the consensus that keeps us all from each others throats (to the extent we aren't at each other's throats), the consensus that makes civilization possible.  If you throw out moral consensus, life is in the words of Thomas Hobbs, "nasty, brutish, and short."  

But can't you also see that a 'moral consensus' makes provisions for infanticide? Death marches, Death camps, slavery? why do you think I was referencing the Nazis? Again do you think they thought they were 'immoral?' of course they didn't! they thought it was their moral obligation to kill all Jews!

We have this moral consensus, because it works.  Evolution has given us empathy, a sense of fairness, and reason.  These three are sufficient to create societies that work.  They worked where Jesus and Yahweh were never  heard of and work where there have never been heard of.  Morality exists in every society because without it, there is no society.  But the moral consensus changes with society. The needs of illiterate agrarians who live in multi-generational family units differs from that needed by industrialized nations. Travel between nations and across the globe, adds complications. As does mass communication, birth control, excess food (a rather new thing), the ability of people to destroy the planet, and so on.

all this statement says is you have deluded yourself with the propaganda society floats out there to deem itself better than all other societies.. The type of person who mindless accepts that their society is the best, is the very type of person Germany used to march Jews into gas chambers. I have shown at least 4 major examples of heinous acts/war criminal acts that current western society has adopted and deems 'moral.' You/people like you, don't even question societal values because society has changed the status of the people involved and like the jews ceased being human, if one is not human then it is ok to suck their brains out via vacuum tube inserted at the base of their skull. Again My point is current soceity's morality is not if any different than that of the Nazis. We simply don't know any better because we/YOU believe the propaganda hook line and sinker.

This is your 4th error. I don't think atheists even know what I am talking about when I say "we are to live apart from God's law as Christians. If they did they would not accuse me of 'thinking atheist dont believe in God's law to avoid a stricter law.'

(tell me again how you understand my position)

If you think I don't understand, you should clarify plainly.  I certainly don't understand what you mean by living "apart from God's law as Christians."  If you mean you don't have to follow god's law by being Christians, then what is the point of the law other than to force people to god?  It's of no value here on earth.  If that's not what you mean, explain it, or shut up about it.

To live apart From God's law means Christian's are not judged by it. The Law's purpose is to show we all fall short and will never be able to live by the perfect standard God set. For the honest person this means we have to seek another way to Righteousness. for the self righteous this perfect standard sets them up with an opportunity to invent their own 'morality'/moral consensus in that they never have to admit sin, they just keep lowering the bar to fit the evil they want to live with, into their lives.

For the Honest the gospel gives them the opportunity they need to redeem their sins and find the righteousness they seek, not in of their own works, but a gift from God so none of us can boast.

OOOOkay.  That's new and different.  You spent several posts arguing that slavery in the U.S. South was good because of Hitler (can't really follow your argument there but you really did make the argument).  You also said that slavery and genocide are morally neutral under god's law.  

Oh, my goodness... seriously?!?!

I said We currently use slaves period. Meaning right now. The food in your fridge was grown and cultivated by slaves if you yourself did not grow it. Check those little stickers on your out of season apples or celery (Product of central/south America= 19th century style plantations) The people of the world could not afford to eat what it does if not for slave labor.

We need slave labor, ALL society was built and is maintain on slave labor. we have never created a society/money based economy that is not built on slave labor.

But, the problem is we are not willing to admit it. that allows companies who own/use slaves free reign to do what they will, because their is no mandated over site, just so you can pretend all slavery is bad and people who advocate it in one form or another are less than you. that is a mighty high price for someone to pay, just so you can pretend you are evolved beyond the need of slaves.

I used this example to show you how this society has adopted slavery on one hand, while still pretends to hold the high moral ground. Just because it changes the defination of slavery. For example when you say the word you actually means by definition Chattle slavery. Chattle slaves are what most of you picture black americans in the south had to endure. This is only one form. Even The most loose definition of the word identifies a slave as one who works disproportionately hard and long hours for very little pay. (People who don't make a living wage, but can have their incomes subsidized with housing food or services.) That was the idea of slavery in the bible., and could be the way modern slavery works today, but doesn't because we value our pride/idea that our soceity has evolved beyond all aspects of slavery.

That is what I said.

In that slavery is not morally a good or a bad thing. it is just how some people have to live. what makes it bad is when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, because soceity does not care enough to enforce basic rules.

This is the hypocrisy in modern slavery. You all are doing more harm pretending to hate all slavery, yet benefiting from it, but if you were to just admit your dependence and enforce basic human rights, we could truly live in a better world, but again you all are so evolved that you will never admit your own evil practices. because you have a 'moral consensus' and everything you do is 'good.'

Again the purpose to all of that is to show hypocrisy, to show you your 'moral consensus' is no different that the moral consensus of the Nazis or ISIS. it simply befits you where they other two may not.

Any justification for slavery and genocide (absent an unchanging god's law) can be fought as immoral, and arguments (not to mention) used to stop that behavior.  But if we just say, oh god's law says it's okay, then we will never end it. And god's law certainly allows it, if that law is the law of the Bible.  Or are you really just suggesting that employment is slavery, in which case, I suggest your understanding of all of what slavery entails is rather limited.

Wow... just wow.. My defination of slavery is "limited" because it includes aspects and broadens the defination beyond your narrow scope... yeah, maybe while your looking up the word slave you should also look up the word 'limited.'

As far as the rest goes, what do you think it will take to ever stop abortion?

Nothing right? why??? "because it is all perfectly moral.."

Now what if I ask what would it take to stop Killing babies?

The first thing your mind will have to do is reassure itself that what you are killing is not a person/baby (Remember like the Nazis you have to strip these children from their humanity/human rights then you can do whatever you want) You are killing a fetus, and killing a fetus is not killing a baby, but what if science re-identifies a fetus as a baby? So then I ask how long before we stop killing babies?
I would say not very long, but until then we will be grinding up 6000 babies aday. Why? because again this all has been morally justified. Meaning the real danger is coming to a moral consensus about something rather than to identify sin as sin. Because if and when an evil like infanticide is morally justified this sin will never leave us unless a stronger soceity forces us to see our evil ways... like we did with germany.


[

[The Grand Nudger]

We need slave labor, ALL society was built and is maintain on slave labor. we have never created a society/money based economy that is not built on slave labor.

No, we don't.

In that slavery is not morally a good or a bad thing. it is just how some people have to live. what makes it bad is when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, because soceity does not care enough to enforce basic rules.

Must be that christian moral compass we hear so much about.  It's a bad thing, and no one -has- to live that way.  What makes it bad is when people have owners, full stop.

Again the purpose to all of that is to show hypocrisy,

No it isn't, it's to excuse you and your god..in case -you'd- forgotten what you were babbling about.  You and your god are okay with slavery, you even think it's necessary.  The only person who;s condoned or defended slavery in this -entire- thread...is yourself.

[Cecelia]

If you're okay with slavery existing, then perhaps you should go live as a slave?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_q...+abortions
educate yourself fool.

The point is the this soceity condones infanticide under a different name. Third trimester abortions are relevant because 80% of all premature births as early as week 25 are viable babies. just FYI 25th week is in the second trimester, that means by the third they are fully formed human babies.
That means for the sake of this analogy they are fully functional completely assembled cars, waiting for delivery.
https://www.ucsfhealth.org/conditions/pr...sters.html

So what a million? 10 million?? 100 Million? a billion In the WHole bible that spans 4 or 5000 years??
how about 1.4 billion since 1980. In just 36 years we have more than likely doubled/quadrupled  All of the infant deaths that anyone could ever attribute to God, and yet Idiots claim god is a monster because he kills babies...
This is what Jesus meant by take the friggen plank out of your eye before you worry about the speck in the eye of your neighbor.
http://www.numberofabortions.com/
You keep calling me shameless... what's actually shameful is you appealing to my modesty when you do not want to look at immoral truths of pop culture/morality that would force you to reconsile the propaganda you have adopted that affords you the level of self righteousness you lord over everyone and every thing that challenges your 'moral security.'

That sport is shame full or rather you should be ashamed of hiding from the truth just because it challenges your 'moral foundation.'

A 'moral foundation' that you yourself can not live up to. a 'moral foundation' that you will be judged by, and be found wanting.

Yeah, I guess I'd be trying to shut down the conversation too if someone hit a never that close to home. I'd call everything they believe into question and I would try and shame them off topic as well.

Nice try, but no. the facts remain, and if you don't like talking about them then i suggest that you find someone else to try and defend you morality to them. Maybe they will let you manipulate the topic so you are not faced with a hard reality to answer for.


You people Kill babies as a form of birth control, giving no thought to who this child is or is to become. it's all about the convenience of having a child.

I just have to ask... how dishonest do you feel when you skew numbers like that?

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

(Source: http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/pa...-from-spin )

As with all things in this discussion, it comes down to a matter of balancing harms to society. I find it far worse to live in a society that treats sex like it's only for reproduction (or, worse, like reproduction is some kind of "penalty" for having sex) and forces women to carry any pregnancy to term or seek back-alley abortions.

But why are Christians against abortion, I always wonder? What's the Biblical basis for that?

Instead of complaining about the D&E ("partial birth") abortions that make up a fraction of a fraction of a percent (and are done only with the signatures of multiple doctors stating that the procedure is necessary), while pretending that it's really most of them... why aren't Christians complaining that we don't use the abortion method specifically spelled out in the Bible?

Look it up for yourself. Numbers 5 : 11-31.

[Ravenshire]

But why are Christians against abortion, I always wonder? What's the Biblical basis for that?

You'll never get a coherent answer to this question.

why aren't Christians complaining that we don't use the abortion method specifically spelled out in the Bible?

Look it up for yourself. Numbers 5 : 11-31.

Or this one.

Christers are against abortions because their pastor/priest/medicine man/shaman/witch doctor told them to be. You can point out the lack of biblical basis all day long, but the cult leader's voice carries far more weight that the printed word.

[Ravenshire]

You people Kill babies as a form of birth control, giving no thought to who this child is or is to become. it's all about the convenience of having a child.

I have Drippy on ignore, but I have to respond to this...
Fuck you Drippy. How dare you speak for any woman who has to make the single most difficult decision of her life, especially when you're misrepresenting it as a throwaway decision. Until you're able to birth a kid, why don't you simply shut the fuck up.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I do believe Dritch doesn't believe half the shit that he spews here, being the hateful little and rotting troll cunt that he is, but only his theism can feed his delusion that there is any good reason for him to go on breathing. This truly is a harmful delusion, as much for him as anyone else.