pop morality

[robvalue]

It is possible Drich has no empathy. I couldn't possibly comment.

Some people don't, and to try and understand how they experience the world is very hard for me. Empathy is my motivating force in almost everything I do, so the idea of not having it is so alien that I can barely get my head around it. It's not someone's fault either, unless they have made a conscious decision to fight against it so hard that they have "deprogrammed" themselves.

I could understand people who lack it trying to seek some other motivations or explanations. Religion, as usual, is there to offer simple answers to difficult questions, not caring about whether they are true or not.

[Jenny A]

While I grew up along side people like all of you, I was never completely invested in any of it though. I can and do enjoy limited detachment from society, but only in so far as to not hold anything sacred, that I do not see a value in revering that way.

Then you can understand why atheists have no reverence for god's righteousness.  We do not believe it exists and see little of value in it.  

Growing up I found the rules of a society to be trivial and often times based on tradition and what people felt comfortable with. This was illustrated by living in a home that represented two polar opposite cultures. The things my Father and his family held on to, were completely different than the things my mother and her family held on to, for completely different but equally trivial reasons.

Yep, those would be those relative social norms.

My mother's family would often question and wonder why my father would follow stupid american traditions when to them it made sense to act and behaive a different way, and vise versa. All of that taught me was to be objective and to not blindly hold to tradition/culture simply because that's what everyone else does. To break down social patterns and use them if and when they were needed, rather than rituallistically bending my knee to them each and every time society demands it.

Most of us question societies norms, and family norms from time to time.  Christianity has generally been part of those norms in Western society.  I question it too. Why shouldn't I?  Why shouldn't you?

Now put the two things together and you have someone who can honestly objectify and analyze the sacred social structure (and Religion, And anything else people get so emotionally attached to they can see straight) for its good, bad and ugly attributes without being pressured to conform to popular morality or thought.

I don't see you looking at god's righteousness, as you call it, objectively.  If you look at it objectively, you we see that it is arbitrary and not necessarily good by any measure other than the circular one of god's measure.

For instance whether you like it or not the United states of America would not be anything like it is today with out slavery. say what you will but it was the taxes the government collected from the work and profit of rich white land owners, that we were able to buy out the french and Spanish colonies, and without this money (which we had no other way of generating at that time) this continent would have been subdivided into french, Spanish, and English colonies possibly even today, if infact hitler did not take control when he invaded those nations, taking the resources those colonies/states offered for himself making him and his ideals unstoppable...

Yes, on an individual level I feel for and would hate to have been a slave, but on a survival of a diverse species level (because hitler was building a single master race if you remember) the slaves and the work/money that slave labor provided had to be done at the time it was done so the survival of multinational humanity

This is an insane way of justifying slavery.

Of course the United States would be different had there been no slavery here.  Just how it would be different is not so easily determined.  Cotton was not so profitable in the U.S. until the invention of the cotton gin in 1793.  In fact, at that time it looked like slavery would die a natural economic death due to lack of profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin And yet the U.S. was prospering as a whole. The Louisiana Purchase took place just ten years later in 1803. It seems unlikely that less than ten years of prosperous cotton farming made all the difference.  https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso...a-purchase

Besides, in 1800, the U.S. federal tax structure looked nothing like it does today.  There was no federal income tax or federal property tax.  Most of the federal government's income came from customs duties. http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153529/ France offered us the territory at a bargain price because it was not profitable to them and they did not want it in British or Spanish hands.  Chances are, if we couldn't have paid $15 million for it, they still would have sold it to us.

And in the end slavery cost this country an enormous about of money in the form of the Civil War which cost the North roughly $6,190,000,000, and the South $2,099,808,707.  http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.html And that's not counting property damage and loss of life. Makes $15 million look pretty small doesn't it?

Nor is it easy to determine whether the world would be worse off had we been poorer and smaller. In that case, we would not have been able to aide France and Britain in WWI.  The Germans would have won WWI or the war might have ended in a stalemate.  In either case, Germany would not have been suffering under the enormous war debt that lead to political unrest there, which lead to the rise of Hitler.  No Hitler, no WWII or at least not the same WWII.

The bottom line is we really don't know what this country or the world would be like without slavery.

The same could be said about the American Indians. They were in their infancy/stoneage (by choice) when the rest of the world was well into the ironage/just shy of pre industrial age. again from a species stand point what was done how ever brutal and 'immoral' was needed for the continual survival of a diverse species.

The slaughter of the American Indians might have been necessary for the colonization of North America by Europeans.  But it was not necessary for the survival of the species in any way shape or form. And it was certainly not good for the Indians.

We can not simply ignore or judge our pasts without weighing both the positive and negative attributes even the most appalling events yield. Like for instance the slaughter Germany leveled against the Jews. Bought them back their holy Land. to you this may seem trivial, but it was on top of every jews prayer list for almost 2000 years! The millions that Germany slaughtered was the price "Moral Man" demanded in 1948. We know this to be true because after WWI when the same nations that won WWII (minus Japan) divided up the world, no consideration was given to the Jews. But after WWII and the world was told millions died in camps, and after we saw the pictures, pop morality then demanded that they be given back their home so nothing like this could happen again..

Change an event in history, and subsequent history would change.  What of it?  It wouldn't necessarily make the present better or worse, just change the winners and losers. And I'm not sure that those you call the winners feel the way you do about it. Your understanding of what the Jews wanted in the 1940s is limited at best.  And what of the people living in the "Holy Land"?  Had they no feelings about their homeland?    

Nothing I've said here is untrue, it's it not something we want to acknoweledge because self righteous morality does not like to acknoweledge anything 'good' to come out of immoral acts, but in truth it is out of 'immoral acts' that the state of human survival hinges on. its because in western culture, you do not like to talk about or be reminded of what harsh brutality affords us. you like to think yourself as better than our forefathers, better than the rest of the world because you yourself do not have to get your hands bloody, but you all fail to ever look at the blood on your feet.. Because WE all stand on the backs of men who thankfully did what they had to do to put us in the position where selective empathy and self righteousness is a luxury we can afford to have if indeed we are so inclined to delude..

Yes I am reaping the rewards of the behavior of our ancestors.  I'm also suffering the consequences.  And while I don't judge people in the past by modern standards, I don't conclude that their actions were good simply because things turned out the way that they did.

Or is it??? That's the bases of the question I want you all to ask yourself. Is your empathy and self righteous/ current version of pop morality some how better than the morality of Hitler's germany, or 18th century America or even late 19th century America? where millions suffered and died.. If so how would you know if nothing you believe strays outside of the right and wrong defined by pop culture affords you? Again all of these cultures mention, saw themselves as 'moral' and what they did as being 'moral' just as you do because their morality like yours is/was sourced from the culture. So then how do you differ?

Most cultures see themselves as moral.  Morality is after all a human construct.  It is based on empathy and we feel the most empathy for those most like us.  That leads not only to generosity and fairness for ourselves, but also to war on others.  Morality is also based on rationality. We understand the advantages of a civil society and civil relations with our neighbors and act accordingly.  It is far from perfect.  But it is what we have.

We also have clever human explanations for doing what we want to do.  God is one of those.  So are various other ideologies.  

It is far better to look at our morality and question it, than to say we'll stick to the morality in this book from around 100 CE.  

You are in a mind set where you see two alternatives:  god's law and popular morality.  I don't see god's law as an alternative. I see god's law as a justification some people use to justify their popular morality. And the Bible provides them with plenty of flexibility to do just that.  You see, it's all popular morality.  It's just that some people use god to shut down the conversation about what that morality should be.

[Angrboda]

You are in a mind set where you see two alternatives:  god's law and popular morality.  I don't see god's law as an alternative. I see god's law as a justification some people use to justify their popular morality. And the Bible provides them with plenty of flexibility to do just that.  You see, it's all popular morality.  It's just that some people use god to shut down the conversation about what that morality should be.

^^^This.

[Drich]

Why is your god's righteousness absolute?

Because that is the standard in which all are judged.

 Why is HIS morality objective?

Again he does not deal in 'morality' as defined by this discussion.

 From what I can tell, it's either "because the Bible says so," or simply because YOU say so.

The Bible reads much differently for you than it does for us.  You assign god absolute righteousness and objective morality because that's what you are forced to believe, even though all evidence points to the contrary.
Morality for your god is every bit as subjective for him as it is for us, and simply telling us that it's not means nothing.  And since your position hinges on that fact, it renders your entire argument moot.

Again God does not deal in morality as morality is an incomplete/ever changing standard. God's standard is righteousness. It differs from morality in that God's standard of Righteousness does not Change.

Why does this matter you ask? Because if morality is ever changing then how can it be used to judge an unchanging standard??

For instance let's say you went back to Ye Old'e english rules and measures, and you wanted a yard of cloth, a yard being 3 ft. a foot being your literal foot length... Now what if you went to a modern textile-monger and order a yard of cloth, and he is using modern imperial standard measure, and he cut off a literal 3ft by his absolute measure and you take it and it fall short against your size 18 clown foot, or your 'luckie' wife goes in with her lady's size 7 and measure out a yard and finds the imperial standard to big?? If 'we' are to use any form of "morality" to judge God, then who's morality do we use? Ours here and now? what about the 'morality' of our greatest generation? why not 'current' Syrian moral values?

Righteousness is not a works based standard. so to judge a works based standard against a gift, one that can never be earned is trying to compare apples and oranges.. what will really blow your mind is when you finally figure out that God's 'measure' is to take all restriction off all works based morality puts on, it would be like when you ask for a yard of cloth, God's plan is for you to be accepted as a son, so that he simply hands over the keys to the store allowing you to take or give as you have been blessed. What he is asking in return is to put down the idea that your 'work' will ever be good enough to earn your rights to the store.

The arbitrary nature of god's punishments alone are a constant reminder throughout the scriptures of the wishy washy nature of your deity.

such as?

One can only judge morality against an absolute. otherwise the comparison is not valid. Why? because despite who authors the 'morality' in inherently contains sin. then who's to say my sin is ok and yours is not?

For example It is always wrong to lie cheat or steal according to God. Even by the strictest standard telling a white lie to a bad man to save a life is ok. Or cheating someone who has cheated others/people in Need is ok, or stealing food to save your children from literal starvation/death is ok.

So again 'morality' no matter the source is a corruption of God's perfect standard. It is man's version of righteousness which allows for the use of sin.

This is how the 'church' failed us. it teaches morality rather than righteousness and atonement.
For instance, where in the bible is human life prized? Where in the bible does love for this life exceed the importance of eternal life taught? where then does the 'church' justify it position that you yourself described/use to judge the medieval church?

Now if you use pop morality of the medieval church, it's concern of confession and conversion for eternal life is far closer to the concerns outlined in scripture...

So which is right?

Neither. Why? both use 'morality' (man's ever sliding scale of acceptable evil) as their light and guide posts.
With the medieval church it sold itself to the devil for wealth, power and complete control over everything under the pretense of righteousness.. It like the modern church allows evil to mix in with righteousness to produce a watered down 'morality' that will appeal to more people. From an eternal stand point I would think this water down 'morality' would be far more likely to separate the body of believers from God, because as you put it we put a 'high value' on our lives rather than looking forward to the eternal life promised.

I personally have never believed in sin.  Only actions.  Sin is a concept dreamed up by man to identify things that he doesn't like.  Murder, rape, stealing are all sins ... until they're not sin and they're god's will and commandment.  Morality goes hand in hand with the ridiculous sin concept.  It's not real.  It's a word used to define acceptable actions.  There's that word again:  actions.  Look at your god's actions - most of them are deplorable.  The worst thing humans have ever done is use your god's actions (his "righteous morality") as a guideline for our own.  

Here is where your understanding falls short... Sin while descibes 'action' also encompasses thought. This is for one reason only. to show all are subject to sin all the times. Therefore we must 'seek a righteousness Greater that our greatest most religious people could ever attain on their own.' Meaning we must seek God righteousness, which is simply given to us if we accept it. Which makes all other action moot.

I'm inclined as usual to chock this thread up to more Christian rhetoric and remind readers that your assertions always work themselves around to one little thing:  

I know you'd like to try and place your typical straw man/circular thought exist strategy close, but if you honestly look at what i am saying here your approach will not allow you to leave this topic so easily. you are trying to have a who's morals are greater debate, and I'm trying to tell you God is not judge us nor commands us in the bible to live by a 'moral' standard.

[Drich]

all of that is Very nice... now answer the questions I ask.
If you were born In 1920's Germany and grew up under those conditions, would have been a good little German and fell into what the rest of society was doing?

If you don't think so, what is it about your currently value system that would transcend time and space and keep you from marching jews into death camps?

alright but if i had a dime for every time i saw a religious poster avoid a direct question I'dd be rich.  Please make sure you phrase it in a straight forward manner.
To answer the question.  It does not take an extreme power to understand what hurts others and what you would want done to you.
Its the same value system in martial arts that says you dont beat some one that is down and trying to give up. you dont look for fights to prove your worth. The same one that made me stand against Doctor, police, and staff that wanted me to take blood from a patient that refused the blood draw (she was alert and competent).
The same value that stood me against a far superior commander when he didn't have a pass to the amunition supply.  He tried to walk past me until i put the gun near his head and once again asked nicely to stop.
The same value that put me against 6 other boys who where beating up a kid that couldn't defend himself.
The same value that had me stop a man from raping a girl that was passed out.  No she wasn't my girl friend.
The same value that tells me to stop and help an elderly or pregnant person with a heavy load or other difficult situation even if im going to be late.
the same one that tells me that being naked is not a shamefull thing and that it does not give anyone permision to assume that he or she is looking for sex. (unlike the normal religious view).
I do not consider my self a genius.  I dont think i need to be to know what's right and wrong.
Blood, sweat, and tears all very human things that will tell you clearly the right path.

But again, how is that value NOT programmed into you by the society you live in?

And what would happen to you if society programmed you to do the opposite as with Nazi Germany and the vast majority of the German population at that time??

What in you (Take that value of yours and understand it is now working against where you are now) would make you take a stand against your society?

[Drich]

Drich...it seems that you are putting consenting homosexual adults into the same category as predatory pedophiles.  If this is in fact the case, then you sir/ma'am, are a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and I would NEVER buy into your piece of shit god's moral code.  If this is not in fact the case, then I'm sorry.  But, you're still stupid.  

Don't be stupid... Read what I wrote again.

I did not say any of the things you claim. If I did, do you honestly think you'd are the only champion of the Homosexual cause on this Forum? or do you think your peers are just to dumb to understand what I meant?

If you want to be apart of the thread address what i said contextually.

dishonest douche

[The Grand Nudger]

But again, how is that value NOT programmed into you by the society you live in?

.........so close, and yet so far.   Perhaps you should turn that inquisitive light inwards, while it's still shining?

[Drich]

Drich...it seems that you are putting consenting homosexual adults into the same category as predatory pedophiles.  If this is in fact the case, then you sir/ma'am, are a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and I would NEVER buy into your piece of shit god's moral code.  If this is not in fact the case, then I'm sorry.  But, you're still stupid.  

I didn't read what Drippy said that way. I've certainly seen plenty of Christians who try to draw parallels between the two, since they consider them both simply "perversions", but the argument I'm seeing there is that society, based on Judeo-Roman-Christian sexual values that spanned roughly three millennia, formerly (as a whole) prohibited homosexuality and/or viewed it as sinful, harmful, and perverse. 

But that changed.

The reason it changed, according to most people today, is that we discovered that the Biblical version of "morality" was in fact the prejudices of ancient societies enshrined in scripture, and did not fit with actual information about homosexuals, nor what science is discovering about the nature of human sexuality in general. Of course, the Christians see it as "we moved away from God's Plan for a Man and a Woman", blah blah blah.

Others here have tried to point out that the "God's Plan" we see in the Bible is simply immoral by every modern standard:

* It does not prohibit rape against women except in terms of their financial value to the men who "own" them.
* It specifically allows for permanent, heritable human enslavement (for other races, not fellow Hebrews, of course).
* It orders the murder of people for exercising the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
* It demands genocide of entire peoples, for the crime of living on "holy land" and being the wrong faith ("wicked").
* It goes on and on in this way. 

We learned better. Rape is bad. Don't own people. Freedom is good. Genocide is a war crime. Et cetera.

So, in an attempt to suggest a slippery slope, they ask us emotion-evoking questions, "What about people having sex with their pet turtles? Or children? What about the children!?!"

But it's just not the same question. Measurable, demonstrable harm is done by people who have neurochemistry that predisposes them to rape, be it of unwilling adults or of children incapable of giving consent. We, members of society, determine what is and is not tolerable moral behavior, and yes, it evolves though time. Thank goodness for that, or we'd still have slaves!!!

Impressive! most impressive..

The real question to ask Drippy, here, since he claims that the Bible is the Ultimate and Unchanging Moral Authority™, is how can he condemn slavery or rape, since they are not prohibited by that Bible of his?

the obvious answer.
Those things are crimes.
I condemn because the society I live in condemns them. and if i maybe allowed to show some empathy without being called a sociopath again, I would not want those things done to me.

That said, from a big picture Survival of the species perspective I can also see how both rape and slavery were needed to get us out of our inbreed, family clans, xenophobic, hunter gather, cave dwellings, and into modern social structures.

The suggestion that "moral relativity" (or whatever term of derision is being used this week) is inferior to that which comes from some Divine Lawgiver is demonstrably false. I'd say that moral relativity is the only type that has any chance at all of being fair to all, someday.

then please don't just tell us, show us how..
(seeings how it's all demons-trable and all.)

As hard as it might be to imagine, it's plausible that someday it will be discovered that no harm comes from sex with children, that pedophiles are genetically predisposed to it, and such, so that society accepts that as normal behavior (there is some evidence that at least some of the ancient Greeks did just that), but so far the research seems to point strongly in the other direction, and so I suspect it will never  be accepted by future societies... I hope that remains the case. 

It's not what you believe about this hypothetical issue that is at the core of the question it's what makes you believe as you do. IF it is proven by 'science' (As Hitler used 'science' to prove the inferiority of the Jewish race) and as in Nazi Germany at the time this 'science' was absolute and beyond question,(either because the goverment is pushing this truth OR Because It Is True) what in you has you holding on to the prudish views/last remaining remnants of "a bunch of bronze age goat herders?" If science Shows that Pediophiles literally cant help who the love, and if the same Science can prove that their is absolutely no danger/ill effect to the child either physically or mentally, and if the child is willing, then by the model of 'morality' that loosened its values for homosexuality FOR THESE VERY SAME REASONS, why would you want to oppress a whole segment of society who mirrors them? Is it because the rest of society in my does not want pedo's to have access to that particular group of kids?

If so that is easy remedied, what if their are Pedo' day prades, Pedo' days a disney, we have pedo talk show hosts, Pedo's who have been beaten in jail, and in public for their 'condition' tell their story on tv and the internet, and what if Vanity fair does a big pedo issue of some ex-Olympian who of all things had to goto Thailand to get his 'fix' and how all of this was really really unfair, and on and on, for years and years.. (your a smart guy you get the idea..)

Would you still have the view you do now with pedo's hooking up with kids? why? If no..
Would you take another look at your view on homosexuality? If no,
what is the difference, Remember "if two consenting human beings love each other, and want to be together, who are you to say they can't?" We are working from an existing platform/metric that brought homosexual relationships from the depths of immorality to mainstream acceptance.If Homosexuality can make this journey using this formula, what then keeps pedophiles from makes the same trip using a well worn path?

That unlabeled quality you are not afraid to voice, is what i want to identify. what core value is it tied to and can it be manipulated?

(don't say empathy that's a garbage response)

Even the right to declare the nature of the universe, when it conflicts with what people thought the Bible says, had to be hard won. The simple fact is that Drippy has no argument, except "well the Bible says...", and only by ignoring that almost literally every right we cherish today was established in defiance of  Biblical Law (see above) can that argument be made.

Lol, wishful thinking on your part here sport... This whole thread is about your 'morals' what you believe, and why? and do you have the where with all/objectivity to see from with in, a hard turn to evil, and stand up for what is right despite how 'right' may be defined by the culture. Or will you all line up like lemmings/The citizens of Nazi Germany and follow where ever the propaganda leads you?

Their isn't any 'the bible says' in any of that. Their only what your 'high moral standard' affords you to be, if the 'right' leader decides to take this 'moral' society into evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

If your hope is to find something to tar others with in defense of your own immorality, as you've done so many times before, I can't see the point of the question.  

You're asking someone what would happen if they were a different person living in a different society under different circumstances.  Let me clear up each and every question like this you may ever have.

If things were different, things would be different.

[Jenny A]

The real question to ask Drippy, here, since he claims that the Bible is the Ultimate and Unchanging Moral Authority™, is how can he condemn slavery or rape, since they are not prohibited by that Bible of his?

the obvious answer.
Those things are crimes.
I condemn because the society I live in condemns them. and if i maybe allowed to show some empathy without being called a sociopath again, I would not want those things done to me.

That said, from a big picture Survival of the species perspective I can also see how both rape and slavery were needed to get us out of our inbreed, family clans, xenophobic, hunter gather, cave dwellings, and into modern social structures.

GARBAGE.

Explain to me how rape was necessary to the survival of the species. In particular explain how it was necessary to the Hebrews at the time of Moses. Remember, the clan of the Hebrews was supposed to be over two million people at that time. That's a pretty big breeding pool and hardly in need of influx of genes from outside races. But even if it were, the rape countenanced by The Law of Moses as a petty matter, included rape of Hebrew women by Hebrews. How would Hebrews raping Hebrews stop inbreeding? And if inbreeding were the problem, why would the OT discourage Hebrew men from marrying non Hebrew women? Not to mention discouraging them from engaging in sex with Canaanite priestesses?

Outside the little clan of the Hebrews there was a great wide world complete with many nations larger than the Hebrews, all busily breeding within the confines of marriage. What pray tell was rape good for?

As for xenophobia, that's what The Law of Moses was all about promoting. The Laws of Moses were designed to separate the Hebrews from other people. And they worked. So claiming that rape countenanced by them was necessary to reduce xenophobia is ridiculous.

That aside, consider rape as a vehicle for ending xenophobia. Does rape do that? It does not. Fear of rape is one of the leading causes of xenophobic responses to Muslims moving into Europe. It was one of the alleged reasons for separating blacks and whites in the U.S. and South Africa. Rape between races is not a tool for reducing xenophobia, but a cause of xenophobia.

And civilized society runs better when half the population doesn't have to stay in hiding to avoid rape.

Was slavery necessary to remove people from a hunter gatherer existence? Hardly. The Hebrews were already herders and farmers. And their herds and farms were not of a size to benefit from mass labor. Nor, did they ever use slaves for mass labor. Try again. Many cultures have transitioned to agriculture and herding without slavery. And many hunter gatherer cultures kept slaves without ever progressing to agriculture.

Slavery is wrong. So is rape. How do we know? Not from the Bible or it's god, but from empathy and reason.

BTW, it is not by showing empathy, but by not showing empathy that one is branded a sociopath. It's definitional.