pop morality

[robvalue]

This whole thing, flawed throughout, is a massive tu quoque anyway. We're as bad as God, huh?

Except, of course, we're not. Because we don't condone either slavery or poor pay/working conditions.

Drich was pulling this schtick when I joined the forums, and it hasn't evolved since then. How long before I joined was he at this?

I don't think he really believes what he's saying here, he just has to reassure himself that the bible is somehow good regardless of what reality has to say about it. If it's as simple as God says it's good so it's good, why all this conflation? Why use any other argument?

[Jackalope]

Drich was pulling this schtick when I joined the forums, and it hasn't evolved since then. How long before I joined was he at this?

From the start, IIRC - or at least very early on. I figured he was a Poe at first, because he was so openly vile.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Drich was pulling this schtick when I joined the forums, and it hasn't evolved since then. How long before I joined was he at this?

From the start, IIRC - or at least very early on.  I figured he was a Poe at first, because he was so openly vile.

That's the whole point of Poe's Law: fundamentalists are driven so batty by their brain-virus (meme), as it short-circuits their normal thinking processes in order to defend itself against the intellectual "immune system" of skeptical thinking, that you can't tell if a person is trying to be openly vile or if they really don't realize that's how they sound to anyone outside their religious cult clique.

[Reforged]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Anyone who scrolls up might find you are someone who is attempting to call pop morality broken by standards you can not properly define because you admit its largely down to the interpretation of the flawed human being who is looking at them. Furthermore you are someone who thinks it doesn't matter if you interpret Gods law correctly or not as long as you believe. As if to compound this lunacy you announce that people who truly believe are free from Gods law. God is of course silent when it comes to informing the masses as to who does or doesn't truly believe as he is silent in all matters. Some might speculate this would mean noone is demonstrably qualified to preach morality but thats ok because apparently Gods Gospel has never been changed. Ever. Except when it definitely has.

As if to make matters worse for yourself you have announced through word and action to everyone that you think openly laughing at someone is the means to a fruitful discussion. That insults and ad hominems create the platform for a fair and balanced debate. A flawed perspective to atheists and theists alike.

Reading all of this who could fail to identify that your interpretation of "Gods law" is whatever you want it to be. If you need alittle extra authority or power behind your personal views you invoke it like theres no tomorrow. When something is found to be inherently distasteful in it they become mere guidelines beyond a mere mortals understanding.

Which brings us back to the original subject, although not for your lack of trying to get off it. If Gods morality is perfect why is it not readily apparent to everyone? Here is where you have truly shined as you have inadvertently presented the answer throughout this discussion; 

God is your ego. Your need to be right. Its why he always agrees with you and its why you get so aggressive if someone questions it. Its why your definition has shifted to encompass people who have entirely different views but are on team christian because, hey, at least they're trying to agree with you and thats what really counts. Its why you can so brazenly omit things from your argument because it doesn't matter whether its right or wrong. Its whether you believe enough that counts. Its an approach you take toward what you consider the most important questions so why wouldn't you use it for less important questions. The only wrong answer is one that actively opposes the answer you've given.
Or "God" has given. Its honestly alittle hard to tell where one begins and the other ends. One could postulate that it isn't God whos demanding atonement but I digress, it doesn't matter. You would have the same approach if it were Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Xenu or any other of the wacky little clubs. Because its not really about the religion, its about the authority the religion gives you.

God is power and noone appreciates this more than the powerless.

QFT!

(Bold emphasis my own, of course.)

[Drich]

You remove the part where I call you a retard only to ask a retarded question which you also place in the wrong quote block.

We may have differing views on rape and slavery but I think I have sufficiently demonstrated my case on your intelligence.

As for your question, we are to presume from the text the beating is typically administered if the slave is not working to the master's satisfaction. Is that any less abusive?

Who said anything about a slave not working to a master's satisfaction?

Look at the History of the Jews. Beating were reserved as punishment for breaking laws. What did you think would happen if a slave stole and sold all of his master's goats? what recourse would the master have? (The law said if you stole live stock you had to pay it back or become a slave) Did you think he would goto Jail? Remember the context in which the law was given (wandering the desert) And if he were to goto Jail, what of the loss the master suffered? And now has to find another slave??? Why not just keep the one you had, 'correct' the bad behaivor with a big stick, and move on?

again no jails, the only way to make things right then was slavery, but if one was already a slave and still messing up, the next stop was the stick!

[Drich]

Drich:

I really wish you were a better person.

Believe in God all you want, be Christian all you want, but please be a better person, please don't be bigoted and homophobic and just be decent to people rather than mock them.

What do you think this WHOLE Thread is about?
When you say "better person" what standard do you use to judge me wrong/bad or right/good? What society says? So let me fast forward and ask you what if society was corrupt like the Nazis? how could you possibly know if your version of Good was really good? Or what you deem bad, really bad??

The Nazi people did not know they were bad. Because everything they did was justified by their society's "morality." It was only after WWII that the Nazis were made to face and accept their evil deeds.

So like wise if you are in a society that has NEVER been defeated in a war like the Nazis were, then how do you know for sure your version of 'morality' is really Moral?

If this is the case how can you be sure that what you believe about or how you identify slavery or bigotry is right?

What if what you think the word slavery means is not what it means? Or how you identify a bigot has very little to do with the meaning of the word?

If you are wrong (and this whole 40+ page thread is a discussion on how you are indeed wrong) then your judgement/morality means nothing.

How can you think that? That's truly despicable. Slavery is about as immoral as you can get.

If this is the case then why do you support it with the food you eat or the products you buy?

What do you suggest the people do who depend on being a slave do to survive? Not just one or two people but 2/3rds of the world population lives well below the poverty level. (meaning they can not support their lives/basic living expenses with the money they make)

[Drich]

How else can one feed 5 billion people spread out over an entire planet? are your micro farmers and hippy cobblers going to provide all food and goods for 5 billion people (2/3 of the worlds population?) even if they could would they themselves not be slaves?

The very rich certainly can. Have you thought about that?

lol...

And how do you suppose they very very rich got that way?

simply put they build/grow super cheap, and sell for high mark up.

Do you think they would be super rich if they sold their products for cost?

If they are no longer super rich, then how would the pay for everyone's living expenses?

Better yet lets say we take the money from the rich and give it to the poor, how long do you think that will last? Let say by some force of magic it lasts for 10 years providing a minimal existence. then what? The rich can no longer make the money they were once able to make because they do not have a slave labor force, and paying people a living wage means the products they grow or make are too expensive for anyone to buy rendering the money they gave out useless.

So what now?

[Drich]

see above post

The bible speaks of chattel slavery.  To equate it with wage slavery is dishonest.  Wage slavery may be an undesirable situation, but it is better than having no work at all, or being a chattel slave.  The irony is that because the dictionary includes a lesser definition of slavery, you want to equivocate on the difference between the two.  The slavery taught in the bible and the 'slavery' you are referring to are not the same thing.  Take your pettifogging nonsense and shove it.

The bible does include rules for chattel slavery, yet it also includes rules for wage slaves as well. I am pointing out the bible's application of wage slavery because that is the slavery we as a world have embraced without acknowledging it. As a result of this non-acknowledgement wage slaves are treated as chattel slaves in alot of cases by companies if we are honest, we would have to acknowledge we all support or have supported while slavery was going on. All of this because 'morality' will not allow most people to acknowledge their role in any type of slavery.

I have not changed the definition of slavery. you all did. It is a broad term that encompass several different aspects of slavery, yet all you all want to identify is chattel slavery as the only meaning to that word. that allows you the automatic moral high ground, or so you think.

[Drich]

-and it wouldn't matter anyway, despite Drich's ham-fisted attempts to smear anyone who doesn't believe what he believes, because we also disdain "wage slavery" and work to eliminate it.

But again, if you waved a magic wand and eliminated all forms of slavery how would 2/3 of the world's population that currently depends on it exist?