pop morality

[Drich]

Okay, I think I understand you now.  My position is this:

1. All morality is relative.  However, it is based upon human instincts, human empathy, and rationality.  It is enforced by society as a whole both socially and legally.  Thus although societal morals change, individuals are by no means free to do what they want morally. 

Which again, begs the question: If this soceity made a hard turn toward evil, yet marketed those actions as 'moral' then how would you keep from being a truly evil person? How do you know this soceity is not as bad as the Nazis now?

I don't argue that this is ideal so much as that it is all there is.  There is no god.  People have never been able to agree on what god's laws are.

That's not even close to true. From the time the law was given till the NT Church was established their was no question. Shortly after the apostles till the reformation (1600 years) their was no question what the law was. It wasn't till the reformation that we began to relearn the truth.. That for the Christian it does not matter what the law is. That is why their is difference in it now. Do you understand what I mean?

  Even members of the same sect and religion have different ideas about what those laws are.

Which is the point!

  And where the religion has a book of law, that law is continuously reinterpreted to reflect societal morals. 

Which is why I say all 'morals' are a bad measure of anything.

In fact human morality is the driving force behind what is considered to be god's laws.  It is better to recognize this as discuss morality on the basis of the here and now.

actually no. When the Hebrews got the Law of God as well as in the 1st century church the Law of God was very very counter cultural.

2. If god's law is, as you say, designed to be unfollowable, than the god you believe in is a tyrannical bastard and not worthy of worship.

-or- He never intended us to follow said laws... He is telling us we have to be 'perfect' or accept atonement, and not pretend to be holy or righteous. The only person who would think this 'good news' was tyrannical would be someone who is self righteous. Meaning some one who thinks they have the authority to identify what is good and what is not.

3. It is immoral and dangerous to society to use god's laws to justify things like slavery, rape, or genocide.  I'm applying today's standards.  And by them, god is immoral. 

and to the inmates of a max security prison the warden and the Governor who will not pardon him are also immoral. But to those living outside the self righteousness of death row inmate, we can see their view is scewed by their own bias, and want for self preservation. So too are your views and judgement of God based on pop morality/self righteousness.

4. The natural result of being alive is eventual death.

Indeed.

  That death is oblivion.

Death is the end to what you currently know as 'life.' To say anything beyond that (how ever comforting to you, is truthfully beyond your scope)

  That makes life more, not less valuable.

Your philosophy puts a false value and gives a false defination of life.
If all human life were invaluable then your morality would not allow one person to decide for another when their life should end. Which is not the case. Rather 'life' is valued if said 'life' only meet certain conditions. this choosing of which life is better than others, is sometimes based on a whim or will of another. this is beyond just being a hypocrite. This is the tyranny you want to ascribe God, yet you do not/will not see it for what it is. Why? because it was marketed to you in an acceptable package that manipulates your self righteousness and strokes your ego. Which again points back to how easy it is to control pop morality, and make truly evil things just everyday life.

 

Human laws should be designed to further then lives of humans.

unless they can have their humanity taken from them as with aborted babies, terrorists, 'Uden', slaves and the indians. again all acceptable and completely moral at the time these 'non humans' were killed. (Before you get all self righteous, know we have more than one on this list now.)

5. Not all immoral behavior is equally bad.  All civilized criminal systems implicitly recognize this and so does the OT law. 

Not the point, Not the point!
Yes immorality is 'bad' why? Because most of the time 'morality' is also bad. so for the wicked to call the wicked evil means the wicked evil are really bad people.
It would be like the death row guys saying 'you better stay away from this guy, he's evil.'

6. Violations of god's law, are irrelevant to what human law should be.  Human laws should be worked out rationally.  No human should act on the assumption that bad behavior can be excused by a god.  The debt accumulated by bad behavior is to the person injured, or the state if the state is injured.

7. Not all injuries to others are immoral.  But injury to others is one of the standards by which we judge morality.

8. Righteous is not really a useful term.

9.  If god's will is unchanging than god is not the god presented in the Bible.

10.  Morality is indeed malleable.  But it is the only standard of behavior we have.  Nor is it so malleable that anything goes.  See number one above.

11. Stricter is not the word I'd use for what much of what the Bible proclaims as god's law so much as it is more barbaric.  Slavery, genocide, etc. is not justifiable by "the good of humanity."  The law includes many nonsensical proscriptions such as not wearing mixed fabrics, not eating pork, etc. The law favors men over women.  The law provides little if any protection for children.  It also wastes much time on how to worship god in ways that have been done away with in the New Testament such as animal sacrifice.

Not only does it allow light punishment of things like rape and allow slavery, but it also allows mistreatment of foreigners, women, servants, and slaves.  It also requires discrimination against bastards (not just in inheritance either). And it allows discrimination against racial minorities and homosexuals (actually it often requires discrimination) and in that way it is actually more lax, not stricter than current morals.

I prefer morality to god's laws because morality reflects the current needs and understanding of my society.  And I think society has greatly improved since 100 CE or so.


Frankly, after taking the time to understand you position, I reject it utterly as immoral.  I could not in conscience follow it.  Certainly I would not ask to know at a god who would propose such a thing.  But it does explain a certain amount of religious barbarousness.

you still don't understand do you.. you are still under the idea I am trying to push one moral value system over another... How then can you say you took the time to understand my position? was this whole thing a farce? you ask a bunch a questions, read non of it then just spout off with your own self righteousness? a 'waiting your turn to talk thing?'

What I am saying is God's intentions is to lift all rules to define our core right/wrong-i-ness.
Can you understand this basic explaination? If you can then know that EVERYTHING you said above is absolutly meaningless.

If we are no longer subject to rules to define who we are in the sight of God, then deciding which 'moral code' to adopt is foolishness.

Do you still follow?