pop morality

[Angrboda]

No, I showed how your world view fits into my terminology.  You didn't answer a third option, you just ignored the points I made and returned to your semantic argument.  Settling moral debts through atonement is every bit as much a system of arbitrary morals as settling moral debts through payback.  Just as arbitrary and just as relative.  You haven't escaped pop morality, you've just adopted a specific one, one based on atonement.

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.