pop morality

[robvalue]

This whole thing, flawed throughout, is a massive tu quoque anyway. We're as bad as God, huh?

Except, of course, we're not. Because we don't condone either slavery or poor pay/working conditions.

Drich was pulling this schtick when I joined the forums, and it hasn't evolved since then. How long before I joined was he at this?

I don't think he really believes what he's saying here, he just has to reassure himself that the bible is somehow good regardless of what reality has to say about it. If it's as simple as God says it's good so it's good, why all this conflation? Why use any other argument?

[Jackalope]

Drich was pulling this schtick when I joined the forums, and it hasn't evolved since then. How long before I joined was he at this?

From the start, IIRC - or at least very early on. I figured he was a Poe at first, because he was so openly vile.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Drich was pulling this schtick when I joined the forums, and it hasn't evolved since then. How long before I joined was he at this?

From the start, IIRC - or at least very early on.  I figured he was a Poe at first, because he was so openly vile.

That's the whole point of Poe's Law: fundamentalists are driven so batty by their brain-virus (meme), as it short-circuits their normal thinking processes in order to defend itself against the intellectual "immune system" of skeptical thinking, that you can't tell if a person is trying to be openly vile or if they really don't realize that's how they sound to anyone outside their religious cult clique.

[Reforged]

If you honestly think I didn't "understand" it before then you are not listening. To anyone. Or perhaps resorting to condescension in desperation.
You do not know what Gods instruction is. You have your best guess. You conceded this.

Where is the confusion for you? where or how do you assume I do not know the Will of God?
It is plainly Spelled out in the Gospel message. The message that ALL 30K+ Christ centered religions have in common.. So again how are you confused to the nature of God's will? Maybe you are expecting a list of do's and don'ts. If this is the case then clearly all my 'condescension' was well placed because you still exhibit pride not due you nor your understanding of this topic.

Your "obedience" is to your own interpretation which you have gone so far as to say doesn't matter whether its correct or not. By your own rules you can do no wrong. Either in terms of facts or morality.

Again how can you claim understanding when your synopsis is so wrong? I didn't say it does not matter/we can do no wrong. Clearly it does otherwise we would not have to accept the atonement offered. taking it a step back even further if 'we could do no wrong' then Christ would not have to had died on the cross.
What you seem to be still missing is the idea that Christ is offering us his 'morality' to cover or exchange with our own. As a direct result our ability to follow the law is no longer counted as righteousness. Because again we have put on the righteousness of Christ. As one who has adopted the righteousness of Christ we then are to try and follow Christ. That said here is where righteousness departs from 'morality.' Morality is works based so it demands an account of our actions to determine our 'right/wrong-ness' Pop morality takes this a step firther in that rather than to try and meet an impossible standard it lowers the bar. With righteousness, we know we can never live up to this impossible standard and with the atonement of Christ we do not have to. However rather than try and justify our misdeeds so we can point to our deeds to define our 'right-ness' we own our sins and point to Christ for taking away the consequences of them.

So to sum it up our sins do matter, otherwise Christ would not have had to die for them.

This is important because the point made was that Gods morality being perfect should be obvious to everyone that it is the path to follow.

The perfect standard was never meant to be followed. In the Garden what power did the forbidden tree give A&E?
did this tree's fruit push them off of a perfect path? Or did it just make them responsible for being off of that path?
The tree's name is the key to this. It was the tree of knowledge of Good and evil. The knoweledge of Good and evil makes us responsible for it. It what makes an act sinful, not the act itself. i have said this from the beginning of my time here. Our actions despite what some think have no intrinsic moral value in of themselves. Pop morality or the existence of it proves this. As does the fact that God can command a certain act and then issue a command against it. It's not our actions that has a right or wrong value it is what God says about a act, and our capacity to acknowledge his will that makes a given act wrong/sin. that said His standard of life is intentionally set our ability to live it. Therefore to say " Gods morality being perfect should be obvious to everyone that it is the path to follow." is incorrect. Because the only option we have is to seek atonement to right the righteousness needed to be with God. Living by his standard only shows an honest man his sin, a dishonest man an opportunity to formulate 'morality.'

The interpretation you offer is that not only is it not obvious its unknowable and we will get into heaven by doing what we think is the right thing... which sounds like the flawed human moral compass has more influence and more clarity than the  God moral compass.

Again no. No. No!
This wouldn't be so tragic if you did not fancy yourself sooo smart.
We (Meaning Christians) Get to Heaven DESPITE What we think is right. Because it is the 'morality' (using your terms) of Christ that we arrive on, not our own.

No, this is not about us righting a wrong. Atonement and Redemption is about what Christ did on the cross to right a wrong. We are give these tools so we may not boast about our deeds to 'right a wrong.'

Again, I thought you couldn't make judgement on Gods morality. Yet this sounds like what you're doing when you announce to everyone that Christ dying on the cross was redemption for mankind. That statement not only requires a moral compass to have any weight but a moral compass that has an understanding of Gods moral compass. Otherwise you're just parroting words from the Bible without any understanding of what they mean. Do you have an understanding of Gods moral compass?
If so would you care to share it?

Oy, vey... And he's a smart one?

We have been given God's law. (the OT Jews)

Christ extended the law to include thought. Meaning no one could be found righteous under the law by their works.

This means we have to now find a new way to righteousness.

We do so in the atonement offered by Christ.

Now one may ask, does this atonement wipe out the law? No in my Romans' study we find out that Paul tells us the OT Law, and Christ's extension is in full effect. Then one should ask to what end, because aren't Christians free from the law? Yes they are, but everyone else is not.

Do you understand? that is why it is said 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I do agree many people parrot this passage back with out understanding, I am not one of those people. This passage tells us that our works are not being counted, in this passage the atonement of Christ is counted or identified as God's Grace, which it is. This grace is a gift, and not something to be earned by works. Our only means to accept this gift is first to be honest with ourselves by evaluating our situation by a true reading of the law. All of it. If we can not measure us, we are not to ignore or 'morally justify' a different life style, but we are to seek atonement, and it is only through faith that we can receive this gift. Again not of our works/following the law/living a moral life. So that no one can boast.

Oh you mean people who need a comparison to be comparable? Yeah, total bastards. So unreasonable.
There is a world of difference between a woman who makes a choice with her body and a woman who does not. There is as much a difference between a fetus whos brain has barely developed and a baby. The only reason you can't see it is because you have this moronic delusion that every cluster of cells that might become a human has an immortal soul. There are no fully developed babies being legally murdered in the U.S or the U.K. The refugee camps you are talking about are in countries outside of our control, outside our societies and so should be outside of this conversation.
If you want to make another thread on abortion then do so but I will retain focus inside this thread on the subject we started with. That subject is the "superior" morality of Yahweh and why in all its perfection, from your perspective, it eludes the vast majority.

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

While it is true we all suffer bonds of one form or another. I am more bound by my principles than I am by the law. The law can be evaded, my principles can't. That leash extends as much as I do.

"my principles can't" till they are.

Then it sounds like God is as much a craftsman as he is an orator. Crafting a soul with full knowledge of what will happen to it and making it so fragile seems either grossly incompetent or breathtakingly cruel. Like placing a slug on a floor littered with broken glass and salt.
You know nothing of my sense of right and wrong. You have asked me no questions on the matter.

Your sense of right and wrong is irrelevant. the topic is pop morality. The topic encompasses whatever anyone wants to justify as right, and what anyone is willing to vilify as wrong. Your specifics have no bearing, because they can only be counted as another statistic. Such is the case for all 'works based morality.'

This is in contrast to to looking at all human actions as being morally neutral, not having a inherent worth solely based on the act itself, but rather how God identifies this act.

Now it is obvious you have not adopted this understanding as you have yet to be able to summarize it yet. therefore whatever you believe can get thrown on the pile of morality as everyone else.

I'm not looking to be offended. I'm pointing out presumptions and unbacked judgement. If I am made as I am, on the path I am then who are you to suggest what I am doesn't fully fall inline with Gods moral compass?

because you like the rest fall short of said compass, and if you have nothing else you have been given just in our conversation a complete overview of the gospel, This is your one talent. your unwillingness to use this talent is akin to the servant who burried the talent he was given.

If someone delivered a car to me with a frame and three quarters of the engine missing I would ask for my money back. Thats what the third trimester is. The beginning of the process to conscious life. Not the middle, not the end. If left alittle longer then yes, it could be argued to be a viable human being but at that point it is no- why am I still debating this? Its unrelated. This is not the subject.

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.

Seriously? Thats your estimate from that description? Countless. Literally countless. Is abortion literally the only thing you're capable of discussing? Like, I get what you're doing. "Oh yeah, you think Gods bad? Check out how bad your society is! " Putting aside the abortion example is invalid for the U.K. and the U.S, our societies, how do you think thats a good arguement? "Oh well, we can't really know Gods morality... and from what we do know its horrible... but quick! Look at this! This is also horrible!"
Seriously? Is that seriously the best counter you have?

What the argument says, is you can not use your friggen broken morality to judge God.
ITS HYPOCRISY!!! Take the Plank out of your eye before you try and get the spec out of your neighbors eye is all about HYPOCRISY! Don't be a hypocrite and condemn someone for the things you yourself do! Can you really be this stupid or is this just a shameful attempt or trying to go on the offense without a leg to stand on? The whole point to this abortion topic is to show this society Kill babies by the billions, judges this act moral, and yet wants to judge God evil for his role in planning a future with out a people that would destroy what He was trying to protect? Again Hypocrite take the plank out of your own eye FIRST!

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.

Not what you typed. You typed about that which transcends rules. If this is the perfect moral compass then why all the different interpretations? Aside from the ten commandments (three of them are basically the same thing) there are all types of commandments moses handed down which you would happily ignore.
Sinful thoughts? Like what?

see above for complete explaination

Actually the roflol emoji was more helpful advice. It does not help you.

I'm not looking for it to help me.
I want to express how I feel. Me laughing at your 'well thought out' statement should give you some indication that you've made a serious error in theology or logic. Again no help needed I just letting you know at a glance that your about to be 'corrected.'

Then God is not a moral authority, he has no morality. All he requires is that we live as we will based on moral codes we would likely form anyway and worship him. The most successful followers spread their interpretation and that becomes gospel among the religious. Through guile, through cunning, through force or through sheer numbers. Its all good. The right interpretation can justify anything. Ultimately might makes right. God is power, it is all he is.

Actually the truth of God's Gospel has transcended the best efforts of the christian religion to change it.

Well. Thats alot of word salad isn't it. Lets cut through it shall we?
Anyone who clicks on that link will discover you are referencing abortions made to save the life of the mother as an act of evil.
Anyone who looks into very premature births in the second and third trimesters will find a horrifying range of complications ranging from intense neurological damage and physical disabilities you would not wish on anyone. Do abit more research and you might even find that week 25 has a 50 - 80% chance of being viable without taking into account these conditions. Quite a wide margin of error. Why anyone who apparently does so much research into the matter would fail to share this is anyones guess.
Anyone who scrolls up might find you are someone who is attempting to call pop morality broken by standards you can not properly define because you admit its largely down to the interpretation of the flawed human being who is looking at them. Furthermore you are someone who thinks it doesn't matter if you interpret Gods law correctly or not as long as you believe. As if to compound this lunacy you announce that people who truly believe are free from Gods law. God is of course silent when it comes to informing the masses as to who does or doesn't truly believe as he is silent in all matters. Some might speculate this would mean noone is demonstrably qualified to preach morality but thats ok because apparently Gods Gospel has never been changed. Ever. Except when it definitely has.
As if to make matters worse for yourself you have announced through word and action to everyone that you think openly laughing at someone is the means to a fruitful discussion. That insults and ad hominems create the platform for a fair and balanced debate. A flawed perspective to atheists and theists alike.

Reading all of this who could fail to identify that your interpretation of "Gods law" is whatever you want it to be. If you need alittle extra authority or power behind your personal views you invoke it like theres no tomorrow. When something is found to be inherently distasteful in it they become mere guidelines beyond a mere mortals understanding.
Which brings us back to the original subject, although not for your lack of trying to get off it. If Gods morality is perfect why is it not readily apparent to everyone? Here is where you have truly shined as you have inadvertently presented the answer throughout this discussion; 
God is your ego. Your need to be right. Its why he always agrees with you and its why you get so aggressive if someone questions it. Its why your definition has shifted to encompass people who have entirely different views but are on team christian because, hey, at least they're trying to agree with you and thats what really counts. Its why you can so brazenly omit things from your argument because it doesn't matter whether its right or wrong. Its whether you believe enough that counts. Its an approach you take toward what you consider the most important questions so why wouldn't you use it for less important questions. The only wrong answer is one that actively opposes the answer you've given.
Or "God" has given. Its honestly alittle hard to tell where one begins and the other ends. One could postulate that it isn't God whos demanding atonement but I digress, it doesn't matter. You would have the same approach if it were Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Xenu or any other of the wacky little clubs. Because its not really about the religion, its about the authority the religion gives you.
God is power and noone appreciates this more than the powerless.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Anyone who scrolls up might find you are someone who is attempting to call pop morality broken by standards you can not properly define because you admit its largely down to the interpretation of the flawed human being who is looking at them. Furthermore you are someone who thinks it doesn't matter if you interpret Gods law correctly or not as long as you believe. As if to compound this lunacy you announce that people who truly believe are free from Gods law. God is of course silent when it comes to informing the masses as to who does or doesn't truly believe as he is silent in all matters. Some might speculate this would mean noone is demonstrably qualified to preach morality but thats ok because apparently Gods Gospel has never been changed. Ever. Except when it definitely has.

As if to make matters worse for yourself you have announced through word and action to everyone that you think openly laughing at someone is the means to a fruitful discussion. That insults and ad hominems create the platform for a fair and balanced debate. A flawed perspective to atheists and theists alike.

Reading all of this who could fail to identify that your interpretation of "Gods law" is whatever you want it to be. If you need alittle extra authority or power behind your personal views you invoke it like theres no tomorrow. When something is found to be inherently distasteful in it they become mere guidelines beyond a mere mortals understanding.

Which brings us back to the original subject, although not for your lack of trying to get off it. If Gods morality is perfect why is it not readily apparent to everyone? Here is where you have truly shined as you have inadvertently presented the answer throughout this discussion; 

God is your ego. Your need to be right. Its why he always agrees with you and its why you get so aggressive if someone questions it. Its why your definition has shifted to encompass people who have entirely different views but are on team christian because, hey, at least they're trying to agree with you and thats what really counts. Its why you can so brazenly omit things from your argument because it doesn't matter whether its right or wrong. Its whether you believe enough that counts. Its an approach you take toward what you consider the most important questions so why wouldn't you use it for less important questions. The only wrong answer is one that actively opposes the answer you've given.
Or "God" has given. Its honestly alittle hard to tell where one begins and the other ends. One could postulate that it isn't God whos demanding atonement but I digress, it doesn't matter. You would have the same approach if it were Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Xenu or any other of the wacky little clubs. Because its not really about the religion, its about the authority the religion gives you.

God is power and noone appreciates this more than the powerless.

QFT!

(Bold emphasis my own, of course.)

[Drich]

You remove the part where I call you a retard only to ask a retarded question which you also place in the wrong quote block.

We may have differing views on rape and slavery but I think I have sufficiently demonstrated my case on your intelligence.

As for your question, we are to presume from the text the beating is typically administered if the slave is not working to the master's satisfaction. Is that any less abusive?

Who said anything about a slave not working to a master's satisfaction?

Look at the History of the Jews. Beating were reserved as punishment for breaking laws. What did you think would happen if a slave stole and sold all of his master's goats? what recourse would the master have? (The law said if you stole live stock you had to pay it back or become a slave) Did you think he would goto Jail? Remember the context in which the law was given (wandering the desert) And if he were to goto Jail, what of the loss the master suffered? And now has to find another slave??? Why not just keep the one you had, 'correct' the bad behaivor with a big stick, and move on?

again no jails, the only way to make things right then was slavery, but if one was already a slave and still messing up, the next stop was the stick!

[Drich]

Drich:

I really wish you were a better person.

Believe in God all you want, be Christian all you want, but please be a better person, please don't be bigoted and homophobic and just be decent to people rather than mock them.

What do you think this WHOLE Thread is about?
When you say "better person" what standard do you use to judge me wrong/bad or right/good? What society says? So let me fast forward and ask you what if society was corrupt like the Nazis? how could you possibly know if your version of Good was really good? Or what you deem bad, really bad??

The Nazi people did not know they were bad. Because everything they did was justified by their society's "morality." It was only after WWII that the Nazis were made to face and accept their evil deeds.

So like wise if you are in a society that has NEVER been defeated in a war like the Nazis were, then how do you know for sure your version of 'morality' is really Moral?

If this is the case how can you be sure that what you believe about or how you identify slavery or bigotry is right?

What if what you think the word slavery means is not what it means? Or how you identify a bigot has very little to do with the meaning of the word?

If you are wrong (and this whole 40+ page thread is a discussion on how you are indeed wrong) then your judgement/morality means nothing.

How can you think that? That's truly despicable. Slavery is about as immoral as you can get.

If this is the case then why do you support it with the food you eat or the products you buy?

What do you suggest the people do who depend on being a slave do to survive? Not just one or two people but 2/3rds of the world population lives well below the poverty level. (meaning they can not support their lives/basic living expenses with the money they make)

[Drich]

How else can one feed 5 billion people spread out over an entire planet? are your micro farmers and hippy cobblers going to provide all food and goods for 5 billion people (2/3 of the worlds population?) even if they could would they themselves not be slaves?

The very rich certainly can. Have you thought about that?

lol...

And how do you suppose they very very rich got that way?

simply put they build/grow super cheap, and sell for high mark up.

Do you think they would be super rich if they sold their products for cost?

If they are no longer super rich, then how would the pay for everyone's living expenses?

Better yet lets say we take the money from the rich and give it to the poor, how long do you think that will last? Let say by some force of magic it lasts for 10 years providing a minimal existence. then what? The rich can no longer make the money they were once able to make because they do not have a slave labor force, and paying people a living wage means the products they grow or make are too expensive for anyone to buy rendering the money they gave out useless.

So what now?

[Drich]

see above post

The bible speaks of chattel slavery.  To equate it with wage slavery is dishonest.  Wage slavery may be an undesirable situation, but it is better than having no work at all, or being a chattel slave.  The irony is that because the dictionary includes a lesser definition of slavery, you want to equivocate on the difference between the two.  The slavery taught in the bible and the 'slavery' you are referring to are not the same thing.  Take your pettifogging nonsense and shove it.

The bible does include rules for chattel slavery, yet it also includes rules for wage slaves as well. I am pointing out the bible's application of wage slavery because that is the slavery we as a world have embraced without acknowledging it. As a result of this non-acknowledgement wage slaves are treated as chattel slaves in alot of cases by companies if we are honest, we would have to acknowledge we all support or have supported while slavery was going on. All of this because 'morality' will not allow most people to acknowledge their role in any type of slavery.

I have not changed the definition of slavery. you all did. It is a broad term that encompass several different aspects of slavery, yet all you all want to identify is chattel slavery as the only meaning to that word. that allows you the automatic moral high ground, or so you think.

[Drich]

-and it wouldn't matter anyway, despite Drich's ham-fisted attempts to smear anyone who doesn't believe what he believes, because we also disdain "wage slavery" and work to eliminate it.

But again, if you waved a magic wand and eliminated all forms of slavery how would 2/3 of the world's population that currently depends on it exist?