pop morality

[Drich]

[Drich]

"1 thess 5:21
Question ALL Things and Hold on to what is Good!
This does not mean question only the questionable, it means question the foundational.. How is it do you think I can answer your questions if I first did not ask them myself?"

So i'm suppose to just take your version of things because you did all the asking for me?  We are humans and so naturally will think at least somewhat differently on most subjects. Also what is the difference between the "questionable" and the "foundational"?  Anything that can be imagined, like God, can be questioned (gasp!).

When did I say any of that? I provided an example of me questioning God and Him answering me. The Verse is a charge to 'Question all things and to hold on to what is Good.' If you ask God you will get the same answers.

your version of "it our fault and not God's" sounds a lot like being a victim in an abusive relationship.  I question the "morality" of living in guilt.

Do not ignore this next question.. Where did I say it is our fault Ever?
You guys make me ill with your generic christian questions rather than any original thought that addresses what it is I've brought to the table. Do you think I am selling what those types of charges were designed to silence? Then why use them?

No i didn't study theology for 15 years since i had to put my learning pursuits to something more practical and real so that i could earn a living.

what makes you think I hadn't?

 However, it does not mean that i can't think for myself and see clearly that morality is something you choose everyday.

then why do your arguments look like everyone elses who holds a similar position?

 We are human and that limitation is to be reckoned with.  It is by far better than making up a fiction about sin, guilt, blood sacrifice, and punishment. It is also far better to learn from the past by not repeating the mistakes instead of going back to the same way of thinking that has caused suffering in this world.

Ironically you are describing your version of Morality. EVERYTHING I am trying to show you people is the oppsite of what you have just describes and yet, you still assume God wants any of the things you just mentioned.

Don't give me that "chapter and verse" song and dance.  You know very well that the one thing that all christian teaching has in common is that we are damned to hell due to Eve's choice of knowledge over obedience and the only way out is to cow tow to Christ.  From what i have seen the Christian "morality" starts and ends with that.

No, How many times do I have to say this?!?!
I do not teach or advocate original sin. Paul tells us we all have our very own 'eve' moment the first time we truly understand right and wrong, and choose to sin anyway. In my Romans study I go into this in some detail as Paul explains all of this. Bottom line is Eve sinned and so too did Adam have his own 'eve moment.' which simply passed an ability to identify sin. (The Tree of knoweledge of Good and evil) Because we have this cognitive ability to identify sin and know it is outside of God's expressed will, we then are responsible for the sin we commit. Unless we accept atonement.

That said 'christian morality' is just as bad as any other form. What I am discussing here is a form of righteousness not based on 'moral acts.' That is why all your arguments fail. You are talking about replacing one set of rules for another. I'm talking about what God provided, the removal of consequence for all rules.

[Drich]

Pop morality is what a given region or generation thinks is moral... So the morality in 1940 germany is one form like the morality in 1940 america is another verse 2016 america.

My question asks which one is right, and how do we know we haven't slipped past the evil of 1940's Germany

Well if I direct my inate empathy at to this question I find that the treatment of the jews and others would make me feel uncomfortable. Empathy is a part of most people without mental disorders. It can be subverted by propaganda. Equating the jews to lesser beings such as "rats" was common in the Third Reich to try and separate them from deserving of empathy. you can see the same propaganda today being used by the right against migrants and muslims. the migrants are a "swarm" (a term usually used for insects) etc.
I would say that it is easy to see that my morals and the morals of the majority here are better than the 1940s NAZI regime. I can't say the same for the religious right, who seem to be right there with the old guard, clinging to their prejudices and hate.
I say again the early part of this century is looking a lot like the early part of the last century. only this time the evil demagogue looks like it might be a US thing, Trump scares me.

Here's the problem with your "moral anchor..."

The German removal of empathy was systematic over a period of 20+ years in that the were being forced to pay for damages cause by WWI that would take them way beyond their life times. Alot of the figure heads/the people that were blamed were the Jews. Because they held pominate positions that did not seem affected. They were not made to endure such hardships.

Now imagine if 'we' were made to feel greater than our great depression level economic down turn brought on by a terrorist act.. Like for instance a nuke was detonated in NYC and the city was uninhabitable. this would destroy our economy. and it would be decades before we recovered.

Imagine your level of 'empathy' after say 25 years of standing bread lines for food, watching your children starve to death and die, poison in the air and water all because of "Radical Muslims".. How long would you have empathy for them? What if DC was next? The maybe LA... How many cities? How many lives would it take before you understood that your 'terrorists' were attempting genocide on people like you?
Now what if as with 9/11 the Muslim community as a whole did not condemn these acts or again as with 9/11 it took years for any of them to say anything condemning?
What then would you say when you found out in the Koran it is permitted to them to condemn and deny their faith and pledge alliance to a foreign government as a means of infiltration?
or never mind all of that,
Let's say you suffered only as much than the typical German citizen after WWI, due to a religious act of terror, do you still think your empathy would be intact?

You can only judge the Germans because you have no Empathy for them. Now who's the sociopath?

[Drich]

[Drich]

Do you argue that empathy is not controllable on a societal level? if it is controlled, it can be taught.

Well...I'm not arguing society -versus- human nature in regards to empathy.  I'm arguing that to approach empathy from this type of binary perspective is to oversimplify it, and it is not an accurate reflection of reality.  Does that make sense?  

Why is this an over simplified view?

It is why the Nazi's sold their empathy for the Jews in exchange for Homes, food and jobs. If you are not willing to look at a core value from all angles (even the simple ones) because it leaves it open to attack then you should really question whether or not that value is indeed a 'core value' or standard that is taught.

I know why most of you do not want to admit that empathy is taught because it suggests that you all have been duped already or preprogrammed.. My question is, what if you are? what in your bag -o- trix do you have that would help you not only detect this, but to eliminate if you saw it as being harmful to you?

[Nihilist Virus]

[Drich]

Yes, yes it does.  I know you can start to feel pretty out there in a conversation with someone dedicated to their 'objective' belief.

LFC is dead-on. 

But I agree, when they start arguing that their moral beliefs are "objective" while everyone else's are "subjective", simply because theirs are found in holy scriptures "from God" ("well, sure it was written by men, but it's really from Gawd, you see"), it's already a lost conversation. You can show them all day that theirs are just as subjective as anyone else's, and they'll never listen, because they're convinced of the legitimacy of their authority figure(s).

1) "The Bible is the Objective Moral Guide." (What makes you say that?, replies the atheist.)

OMG...
NO! for the 1000th time NO!
It's an absolute, NOT meant to be followed or looked at as a 'moral guide!"

It's only purpose is to identify sin and lay out the plan for atonement.

Once atoned/saved the Law ONLY judges the Unatoned/sinners.

For the Save it serves as a mile marker for the changes you will automatically want to undergo, but won't be able to complete in this life.

NOT A MORAL STANDARD.
The rest of your argument is crap!

2) "Because the Bible Says So and God as we have defined him is unchanging, therefore objective." (But your Biblical morality changes all the time, both internally--see Moses vs. Jesus' rules about divorce, Paul's new rules about Levitical Law, etc.-- and externally as society changes, such as the verses justifying genocide, women as property, and heritable permanent slavery for other races, not to mention the penalties for worshiping other gods, freedom of speech, etc.)

3) "Yeah but you have no external guide at all, so because you think you're just animals, anything is permissible to you, even baby rape and HITLER!!" (Um, Hitler was a Christian and the Nazis actively promoted "God is with Us" religiousity... also, we eat babies, we don't rape them.)

And arooouuuuunnnnd we go!

actually no one told you to go on the merry go round... You are just pulling out all the old tricks to try and refute what you can't seem to grasp...
I got an idea! Instead of just rambling off good olde atheist standby arguements that give you all such great comfort, how abouts asking a question rather than putting me in a position where I have to decide how to call you stupid with out setting you off all the time. How about asking a question, and stop assuming you know the basics of a religion you clearly know very little about. How about stop doing your victory lap over some other race you won, and maybe for once speak on point/get back into this race.

[Drich]

The thing to always remember about Drich is that he is a True Believer in Paul and Paul's Christ, so he takes seriously Paul's claim that the law, as supposedly revealed to Moses, is really nothing more than a stumbling block meant to demonstrate the insufficiency of any moral code and our utter inability to redeem ourselves through acts -- hence the need for grace and Christ's atonement. It's the perfect theology for unembarrassed sociopaths.

I'm getting the same tune.  

"Objective morality comes from only the Bible"

So slavery is ok?

"Those laws are not the real objective standard."

But you said it's in the Bible...

If Paul is the new Moses then women who speak in church are blasphemers... women who don't cover their heads are a shame to the church. Right. I can see how this is a good objective morality that leads to optimal happiness.

What is the difference between the absolute standard of God and 'morality'?

If you knew this distinction, I don't think you could make this argument and not feel stupid. If you don't know this distinction then why make this claim?

[Drich]

The problem is agreeing what "morality" even means, with a religious person. They often seem to want it to be somehow to do with wellbeing and doing what God wants at the same time.

But these are either contradictory in parts, or else the God part is redundant. We know what is good for wellbeing. We don't need to be told it by an old book. I've managed to be considerate of people's wellbeing my whole life, and I didn't read any of the bible until a few years ago. So clearly it's not required to even read the book to get its "power", which makes me wonder what the point of it is.

Slavery, rape, genocide based on voices in your head are clearly not good for wellbeing in general, so at this point what "God says" becomes irrelevant. I already do the actual good things the bible has to say, and like any nice Christian, I ignore the bad parts.

See above.

You all still do not understand you can not judge anything based on a flexible standard. Your morality is a flexible standard..
To judge an absolute with some thing that varies from person to person will mean it will always fall short or be too much except in the very rare case the two coincidentally line up.

[Drich]

Maybe the better question is "does Drich care what brakeman and his followers thinks about his lack of empathy?" Does drich care if he is labeled a sociopath because he can truly look at himself and the society he lives in objectively in such a real way his empathy is questioned?

If you answered yes to either of these questions then know you will have to try and find another way to manipulate me. I'd much rather be labeled a sociopath than be control by what douche bags think of me.

No, I don't expect you to be concerned with your seemingly socio-pathic lack of empathy. I further don't think you will consider the irony of it's hypocrisy with your stated claim of having jesus inside you.

That's ok though.
Just remember, we're laughing at you, not with you.

Brakeman Can't Manipulate Drich by calling his empathy into question =/= sociopath. It simply means I'd rather be called a name by a douche bag stranger, than yield my position.
maybe try puppeting someone else with that crap it isn't going to work here.