pop morality

[Drich]

The law was complete when it was issued. 'we' (as Jesus pointed out) just did not have the understanding/capacity to understand the Law and it's intent when it was initially issued. When Jesus 'completed the law He did not change, He simply explained it.

The Bible says that the law came from angels.  It seems that God/Jesus was sleeping when the angels made up all of those rules.

where does the bible say that exactly?

Or are you thinking of the Koran?

[Drich]

[hide]

Why do the laws prohibit bestiality and homosexual acts but approves of baby raping?

where does the bible approave of raping babies again? Book chapter and verse please.

[Athene]

Why do the laws prohibit bestiality and homosexual acts but approves of baby raping?

where does the bible approave of raping babies again? Book chapter and verse please.

Would it even bother you if it is in there? All morality is shit, isn't it? 
ATONEMENT is what matters...nothing else.

Why sweat it?

[Drich]

You keep saying "their" instead of "there"... kinda getting annoying.

You like me will get use to it.

Anyways, you say that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says the rapist becomes the family's slave.  OK... where in the hell are you getting that?

In the fact that the bible says the family of the rape victim is to be paid 50 Shekels of silver. As I pointed out, this is about a years worth of work. Now pointing back to Hebrew law if you have a debt that can not be paid, then the who owes the debt is sold into slavery/the one owed The can take the slave (or if he is too poor to meet the care requirements) can sell him to someone who can.

 And you say I should ask how much a shekel is... LOL... I don't care how much it is because IT'S NOT GOING TO THE VICTIM.

Hey stupid, (I say that because you are PROUD of you ignorance and are literally flaunting how dumb you are right now)
The Money, its going to the closest blood relative that is charged with her care. Why? (I know you don't like to ask why, you'd rather make some self righteous reason up just so you can live in bigoted hate.) But the answer here speaks to what the girls age most likely would be. Now I will leave it to you to ask or look that fact up.
Or bottom line simply understand she would have been too you to be charged with responsibly dealing with that money.

Not to mention this was an impossible amount of money for anyone to have to begin with. which almost certainly meant slavery.

Now I know you want to remain as dumb as possible so you can blindly hold on to your fool's argument, but I will ask you to stretch your little mind just a little more, by asking you to put all of these penalties in series and place them in that time in that community... Now given all of the work/beating/cost not to mention the 'label' you'd be stuck with in the community, along with a wife who will never let hear the end of it... I ask you to consider that For most men this 'price' is far too high to pay for any perceived 'reward.' therefore the law acts as a deterrent.

 Well... in their view it was going to the victim, because the victim was considered to be the father.

Why?
Because he was completely responsible for his daughters till they all got married off.
So the Father would be looking at the long game/invest so she could be taken care of. This is what father's did for all of their daughters, they made sure they their was something/one there to fill that role in that society.

The woman being raped was not considered a victim.

Book Chapter and verse please. Or more than likely please take the time to explain your bigoted self righteous hate so I can take it apart and make you look like some emotion lead primate who is trying to make sense of his 'feelings' against a law he does not want to understand.

 Also you completely fail to address the fact that the rapist will continue to rape his bride.  COMPLETE SILENCE on your end.  I wonder why...?

Because anyone who has ever been married and knows their is no possibility for divorce knows the answer here. (even if you did ask the question which you did not.)
Happy wife, Happy life.. There are many proverbs and OT examples of how miserable life was for men who did not have happy wives in that culture. Why? Because women controlled the house hold, they had final say on how the home worked.


What are you talking about? their is only one pretext in which sex is permitted.

That's in a sanctified marriage. "That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18) "

You completely reworded Deuteronomy 23:18.  You're now a CONFIRMED LIAR.

Actually sport I cut and pasted the law from: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
Straight from the horses mouth...

Again "thou shall not rape" is not needed when "thou shal not have sex unless your married has been established."

Again... where does it say you may not rape your wife?  And why wouldn't a man rape his wife if he raped her before they were married and then he was forced to marry her because of it?  Insert Jackie Chan frustrated meme here.

Because under the marriage covenant sexual relations was the right of the woman and not the man.. Again ask a question get an answer. Make a dumb ass assumption from bigotted ignorance, get called and proved stupid.
http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm#Relationship
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
(#73)

One could not marry a child. She could be betrothed but not married, and again one could not have sex unless they were married deu 23:18

This says nothing about pedophilia or marrying a child.  Get the verse that says you can't have sex with minors.

Hey, stupid. The verse says No one is to Have sex unless one is married. So this means one can not have sex with a child because they are not permitted to be married/have sex till they reach a certain age.

Now are you asking for the verse that says children can not be married/have sex??

This is how the Jewish culture and law worked.. It is different from your own. Only a complete moron would assume that because you don't currently see or understand how this culture worked, doesn't mean you are in a place to rightfully judge it. This is the American attitude that the rest of the world hates. You assume that you and the way you do things is the only right way. Look at how you expect Law to be read, and wrongfully assume, rather than looking at the culture. you need a 'thou shalt not' otherwise it is permissible.

The Jews/God pulled the problem out by the root. The law may include specific instances but if the Law reads Sex is only permitted in a sanctified marriage then all other forms of sex are forbidden. This means that sex can only happen between what the bible defines as a Married Man and woman. Now granted for the Jews a 'Bar/Bot mitzvah' the introduction into adulthood. which is alot younger than what this society identifies as an adult.

again, Silence is not permission. 
Yes it is... LOL.  No law on the American books about adultery.  You know why?  BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL.

Beside I'm sure far more raped women in OT times got a far stronger sense of justice than some sterile prison sentence.

PERFECT EXAMPLE Of the Ugly American syndrome!!! You don't even know what you are doing is WRONG! You judge everything and everyone by your broken standard! That is the reason for this very thread... To point out that IF your 'American Standard is broken, you would have no way of knowing. The only thing you could do is point to how other cultures are different and ASSume they were in the wrong.

The Law Reads:
That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)
Again: rule 69
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

So No SEX with out a formal marriage= No sex outside of marriage period. Now if you weren't stupid and sought to remain in ignorance so you could keep your broken arguement, you'd ask so what constitutes a marriage? Who could and could not get married what are the ages...

If you were so inclined, I could point you to the part of the law that applies. Or you can make another assumption from ignorance and I can tear that apart as well.

Again this is how this system for these people worked. You did not have pin point laws for everything because stuff like this was not a problem. you had to some times break a situation down to it's parts and see what laws applied.

Yes... if by justice you mean being raped every day for the rest of their lives.

(Captian Picard Face Palm Meme Caption "Idiot...")
Who decides when sex is to happen in a sanctified marriage? Just because the Hebrews were labeled misogynist, does it mean they had to follow your sterotype? Would not an honest person look at what they actually did or did not do and make a judgement off of that? or is your self righteousness so corrupted you that histroy and truth does not matter when dealing with God, and it is ok to just make crap up out of the blue?

[Drich]

you do know Cruz won the Iowa caucus right???

You do know that Falwell endorsed Trump ?

So?

[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?

[Drich]

Pop morality is a term I use to describe what the popular culture deems moral. Pop morality is an ever changing standard. It's what is popularly defined as right and wrong, here in this country/your country, and now/current generation, could easily be held as Immoral a generation ago or perhaps even in a future generation. This is also true even in this current generation, but perhaps in a different region or country. because this ever changing standard is unique to a specific time and place to a specific people I use the term pop morality.

Homosexuality and Abortion are two good examples of how pop morality has changed it's 'values' concerning these two subjects. Just one or two generations ago these two social issues were THE most Immoral thing one could do in this society. Now the most immoral thing one can do is try and prevent someone from being gay or having an abortion.

The problem with pop morality is, that every generation and ever culture thinks that they are good and are doing the 'right thing.' but again the 'right thing' varies wildly from region to region/generation to generation. Self righteousness kicks in, and someone makes a judgment. (look at the last epicurean paradox thread for the typical atheist 'judgement.')

Now that said, without any absolute standards, what makes any of you think that your current acceptance of pop morality as being 'the good and right thing' makes you any different than those who have accepted the pop morality of their time and or culture? Meaning if you have no absolutes standards in your life (like the bible,) and if you were born into Hitler's Germany, under North Korean rule or maybe under an ISIS state, and just like you do now, you blindly follow and do not challenge pop morality of your culture, how then would you find your way back to what you now consider to be 'moral'?

Or do you agree that your current sense of 'morality' is trivial? If so, why try and judge God by it? Why assume that living a simply 'moral' life is enough for anything? What makes your version of 'morality' any better than anyone else's? Are you all so foolish to think that the people who live their versions of 'moral' lives think themselves as evil, even if it means killing you and people like you?

Look at us now. We think it right to kill terrorists, we do not see ourselves as being evil for killing someone who would disrupt our lives in such away.. and yet somehow it's wrong when they do the same thing? Again the point being they do what they do (shoot up magazines and cut of heads) in the name of what they think is right. Just like we do.

So my question is, if you have a heart that blindly accepts everything society tells you is 'moral'/You justify your morality by using common/pop arguments, and you have no system of checks and balances outside of what society defines as 'moral' how then are you any different than dark age Christians, North Koreans, ISIS, Taliban, Nazis, the US slave traders/owners, The US citizens who supported the wholesale slaughter of the Indians Etc??

All of these people followed their 'pop morality' to it's logical end. How is the modern westerner any different? What about your system of belief transcends what other generations will deem 'immoral?' and if you do not have this absolute morality, then how are you in a position to judge ANYONE Else's system of right and wrong?

How dare they establish morality by social consensus - how can a whole city-state or country be more correct on morality than one despot dickhead of a god to establish his own "objective standard"?

All of the god believers have followed YOUR pop morality to its logical end too, and the reason why it's ending is because it doesn't work either. So much for your perfect god and his perfect code. Asshole!

There is no set standard of morality, and that is the one and only fundamental of human society which is good. That means that when it doesn't work, it can be changed!

see last paragraph in my last post

[Drich]

In conclusion for me I have learned about the ultimate form or pseudo-morality is still fear, guilt, misplaced blame, and unprovable promise.  Even in Buddhism  you get to try again if you fail.

your words are twisty but the facts remain. your offer is rejected.

So, instead of learning ANYTHING new, you default to what you came into the conversation with? Way to keep an open mind their spock.
(Yes I know your avatar is Sarack)

[Drich]

If Gods morality is so awesome shouldn't it be the most popular? It just strikes me that *perfect* morality created by a *perfect* being would be so clearly head and shoulders above the rest that nobody would want to follow any other. It would be inescapably clear to even the most dense of people.
I should feel a sense of elation when I think of the contents of the Bible. I don't. I feel a combination of amusement and disgust.
Why is that?

Also I'm not sure if I'm completely qualified to comment on the morality of society but I was under the impression that rape, torture and murder were the most immoral things you could do. Did I miss a meeting?

The simple answer is self righteousness.
Meaning a righteousness not from God but derived and supported by the individual or society.

If man does not have to define himself by an absolute/prefect standard then he can do as he wishes and justify his own actions and still be found righteous in his own eyes/eyes of peers.

That way he does not have to bow to God.

It's not about what is best. it is about what is best for me/you.

[Drich]

So y'all can know what part Drich casually reworded for his lecture, here's Deuteronomy 23:17-18 in the NIV:

17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. 18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both.

And in Young's Literal Translation:

17 There is not a whore among the daughters of Israel, nor is there a whoremonger among the sons of Israel;
18 thou dost not bring a gift of a whore, or a price of a dog, into the house of Jehovah thy God, for any vow; for the abomination of Jehovah thy God [are] even both of them.

(I'm sure that "of a dog" is slang for "of a gigolo".)

Maybe the Jews use a different bible than you do...
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
The above is where i got your quote.