pop morality

[Drich]

You know good and well that I was simply responding to ONE of the many countless, exaggerated, and uninformed claims that you make on any given day.... And yes, I believe understand your overarching theme:

You believe that popular morality dictates human behavior and poses an ever-present danger of society being manipulated down a slippery slope of depravity and evil. You believe that the determining one's own morality (if that were possible) would present no less of a danger, as it stems from self-righteousness.

You believe that that Something Else is required: That an unchanging, objective morality, based on strict adherence to the rules specifically set by the God of the Bible, is the only morality capable of preventing inevitable societal free-fall into total moral decay and/or apathy...Or something like that, right?

Ah!! There in lies the problem. You think I am suggesting we exchange one set of principles for another.
I'm not. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What I am saying is we need an unchanging standard, so that we can always Identify sin/Know wrong, so then we always have the option to repent of it, and find redemption. What self righteousness does, is lower the bar so rather than push one to repentance.. we look to justify sin rather than turn from it.

Strict adherence is not the key. repentance is, we can't/won't ever repent if we feel justified in sin. If we learn to repent we will also learn to find the freedom from the 'strict adherence of the law' that "moral people" have to have inorder to maintain their 'morality.' This 'strict adherence that bind moral people to the law (and subsequently why they tend to be constantly changing the law to fit their sinful appetites) is the total opposite of what Christ offers. Christ is offering righteousness Despite one's sins not because of our perceived 'righteousness.'

I'm telling you that there is no Something Else, as far I'm concerned. Your position is dependent on the presupposition that your God actually exists. You know that I, as the majority of users here, do not believe that to be true. As I see it, the Bible contains the same variety of shitty morality you've been railing against this entire thread. There are no books with special properties and there is no Cavalry coming. 
The morality of mere mortals is all there is.

We  try our best, and hope we get it right.
Sucks, I know. 

Nothing to be done about that, though.

I've talked to a lot of 'Atheist' and what I found is that most can't believe in God, because they've tested the mold/perception they think God comes in and their idea of God failed. Or better yet if they 'kill the idea of God' then they do not have to live the strict adherence of Life, they think is necessary to be a follower of God. The problem with both types of 'atheist' is that their judgement of God both depend on God fitting in this tiny little box in their perceived/limited understanding. Very few if any of you has considered that God may exist outside the confines of what you understand to be God, or What it means to be Holy. You need God to be a tyrant in order to live in your perceived "freedoms."

What if you are wrong and have it completely backwards? What if your perception of "freedom" are indeed chains, and what you think God is chaining you to is actually true freedom?

If you are tied to society to define 'righteousness/self righteousness' then you are chained to society and it's version of right and wrong to validate yourself. Which as we've discussed if society makes a hard left into evil as the Nazi's did, then you must also follow, otherwise you risk being judged 'immoral or a bigot' by society.

Let's take infanticide/Abortion. Now is it possible to stand against or tell someone they can't get an abortion, from the societal POV? Could you defend the unborn, as you would if that same child was born? Even against his/her own mother?

In society no, you'd be put in Jail if you took the same measures against a unborn child's mother, that you would have the right to do/defend that same child, against that same mother if he were in fact born. So again the societal limitation forces you to accept what has been deemed 'right' and does not allow you to act against what society has deems ok.. Meaning you are forced to accept what soceity says is right or pay the penality for being 'Immoral.'

Now turn that around. The command is we are not to murder. This includes Children/babies. Now can a woman have an abortion and still be found righteous? Yes of course she can if she repents. Can she be found righteous if she carries the baby to term, Yes! Can she be found righteous if she feels compelled to defend an unborn child from a mother trying to kill her baby? Yes she can. Can she be found righteous if she decides not to? Again yes!
Is their anything a woman can't do for or against a baby and loose her righteousness before God, Even Sin if she were to simply repent?

No Because her/our righteousness is not tied to our actions or inaction. Our righteousness is a gift one we do not deserve, and can not earn. We can only refuse or accept it.

(Which is why I do not understand you people and your refusal.)

To you which person is truly free, and which is not? The person who is forced to think and act a certain way to define their 'morality?' by society's rules? or the person who Righteousness is not tied to the Law, but to the Righteousness of Christ by the atonement He offers?

Again the Law is to show us where sin is in our lives. It is not meant as a measure to live by. It is meant to point us to repentance, and we can not repent if we do not accept our sin/Have an absolute standard to live by.

Morality is the opposite. justifies sin which leads to unrepentance. Which is why we need that absolute standard. Not to force strict adherence, but to identify and repent of sin. With this also comes the added bonus ofnot defining our 'morality' by what society says do or do not do..