pop morality

[drfuzzy]

[Drich]

Can anyone make ANY sense out of that yammering stream-of-consciousness self-contradictory wall of text that I never should have bothered to read?  So, Drippy, a Christian's "righteousness" has nothing to do with his actions? Really? Well, actually I can believe that.  I have met a few preachers that obviously believed as you do: they raped children all week, then talked to their imaginary friend the ceiling, who told them everything was ok, and they were good to go out on Sunday morning and tell everybody in the pews that if they weren't good xtians they were gonna burn in hell forever.  Riiight.  
   Not that I believe you're capable, but could you maybe distill that drivel above into one LOGICAL paragraph - in plain English?

I will break it down into sections. let me know which section you are having trouble understanding

1)God set an impossible standard. (the law) Jesus extended that standard to include thought.(mat 5) So now we have an impossible standard squared to earn righteousness (the right to goto heaven) by our works.

2)God knowing Heaven would be empty, then provided a way to obtain righteousness (the right to goto heaven) apart from following the law/Earning righteousness through our actions.

3) This alternative is call atonement. Atonement can not be earned by what we do, we must accept it on God's terms.
3a.)The only terms are to accept Christ who died to provide this atonement (respect the one who paid for this atonement, with his own blood.)
3b.) Repent or turn your heart from loving sin (not altogether stop sinning, but simply learn to hate it.)
3c.) forgive others and He has forgiven you.

4) which brings us back to the law. We need the law in it's completed form to simply identify sin, so we can repent of it.
4a.)All Morality justifies sin. or takes and hides the fact that sin is present in certain actions, so 'we' can believe that we are still 'good people' by the right of our actions/deeds, when in fact we are not.
4b) If we justify our sin, we will never repent of it. For instance if pop morality says Homosexuality is ok or if infanticide/abortion is ok, and in your mind you are still a 'good person' because you have lived with in the values of 'morality' then we/you will not ever repent/turn from our sin.

5)God knows we are all slaves to sin and will never stop sinning (Romans 6,7 and chapter8 detail all of this) which is again why He provided atonement.

6) God is forgiving of all sin, but will not abide Evil.
6a)Romans 1 and 2 define sin and evil.
6b) Evil is love for sin or the justification of sin. It has nothing to do with severity of sin before God. an Evil person before God could be a little old lady who loves and justifies her gossip. While we have little to no control over sin God wants us to turn from evil.
6c) Morality in all forms (Christian or pop) is the justification of sin, in essence All Morality is a form of evil or it protects societal accepted evil. Which again keeps us from repentance.

7) that is why we still have the law. Not to live by as a moral standard but to help us identify sin and keep us from evil.

Again I tried to break it all down just tell me which numbered section you are having trouble with.

[drfuzzy]

[Athene]

The morality of mere mortals is all there is.

I've talked to a lot of 'Atheist' and what I found is that most can't believe in God, because they've tested the mold/perception they think God comes in and their idea of God failed. Or better yet if they 'kill the idea of God' then they do not have to live the strict adherence of Life, they think is necessary to be a follower of God. The problem with both types of 'atheist' is that their judgement of God both depend on God fitting in this tiny little box in their perceived/limited understanding. Very few if any of you has considered that God may exist outside the confines of what you understand to be God, or What it means to be Holy. You need God to be a tyrant in order to live in your perceived "freedoms."

What if you are wrong and have it completely backwards? What if your perception of "freedom" are indeed chains, and what you think God is chaining you to is actually true freedom?

To you which person is truly free, and which is not? The person who is forced to think and act a certain way to define their 'morality?' by society's rules? or the person who Righteousness is not tied to the Law, but to the Righteousness of Christ by the atonement He offers?

Again the Law is to show us where sin is in our lives. It is not meant as a measure to live by. It is meant to point us to repentance, and we can not repent if we do not accept our sin/Have an absolute standard to live by.

Morality is the opposite. justifies sin which leads to unrepentance. Which is why we need that absolute standard. Not to force strict adherence, but to identify and repent of sin. With this also comes the added bonus ofnot defining our 'morality' by what society says do or do not do..

I don't adhere to a moral code (derived from empathy) because I wish to be "free" from perceived confines and limitations imposed by "God". Rebellion against and/or rejection of said deity is not and has never been the motivation for "self-righteous"morality"; I simply wish to cause as little harm to others as possible.

It's not what I want, it's what is.That's all.

God and The Law, atonement, redemption; all flights of fancy to someone like me. Could any of these things offer betterment for mankind if they were real and true? Perhaps so. But, why should that matter? Giving consideration to an impossible or highly implausible "solution" as an answer to a real word problem doesn't get anyone anywhere, as far as I'm concerned. 

You're baffled as to why atheists reject the offer of redemption, as I simply say there is no gift to reject. The entire premise of the OP requires putting the cart before the horse.

[Drich]

[Drich]

I've talked to a lot of 'Atheist' and what I found is that most can't believe in God, because they've tested the mold/perception they think God comes in and their idea of God failed. Or better yet if they 'kill the idea of God' then they do not have to live the strict adherence of Life, they think is necessary to be a follower of God. The problem with both types of 'atheist' is that their judgement of God both depend on God fitting in this tiny little box in their perceived/limited understanding. Very few if any of you has considered that God may exist outside the confines of what you understand to be God, or What it means to be Holy. You need God to be a tyrant in order to live in your perceived "freedoms."

What if you are wrong and have it completely backwards? What if your perception of "freedom" are indeed chains, and what you think God is chaining you to is actually true freedom?

To you which person is truly free, and which is not? The person who is forced to think and act a certain way to define their 'morality?' by society's rules? or the person who Righteousness is not tied to the Law, but to the Righteousness of Christ by the atonement He offers?

Again the Law is to show us where sin is in our lives. It is not meant as a measure to live by. It is meant to point us to repentance, and we can not repent if we do not accept our sin/Have an absolute standard to live by.

Morality is the opposite. justifies sin which leads to unrepentance. Which is why we need that absolute standard. Not to force strict adherence, but to identify and repent of sin. With this also comes the added bonus ofnot defining our 'morality' by what society says do or do not do..

I don't adhere to a moral code (derived from empathy) because I wish to be "free" from perceived confines and limitations imposed by "God". Rebellion against and/or rejection of said deity is not and has never been the motivation for "self-righteous"morality"; I simply wish to cause as little harm to others as possible.

It's not what I want, it's what is.That's all.

But again in that one act (do no harm) you are defining your self by your action. Likewise you will define and judge others by their own actions in accordance to your mandate. I purified your 'charge' to "do no harm" from "do as little harm as possible." to show you the self righteousness you built into your one guideline. In that you leave yourself an out (a way reason to do harm) if you feel justified. Which again put you at the center of your own righteousness bubble. Yours is truly a righteousness drivied from self Or rather your is truly self righteousness, as apposed to the righteousness people normally refer to based on popular culture. Without even the checks and balances of culture, someone like you has a far greater chance of following the path of the unibomber or serial killer than someone bound to soceity's ideas of right and wrong.

God and The Law, atonement, redemption; all flights of fancy to someone like me. Could any of these things offer betterment for mankind if they were real and true? Perhaps so.

If someone truly follows this path, then one has to also relinquish the right to judge sin/evil in others. Do you think the world could benfit from that?

But, why should that matter? Giving consideration to an impossible or highly implausible "solution" as an answer to a real word problem doesn't get anyone anywhere, as far as I'm concerned. 

It's only impossible/implausible if you have no contact from God ever. Atonement put you the individual in direct contact with God. No middle man 'prophet/priest/saint/whatever' needed.

You're baffled as to why atheists reject the offer of redemption, as I simply say there is no gift to reject. The entire premise of the OP requires putting the cart before the horse.

because sometimes it is easier to push, than pull.

Just because a process does not conform to how you think it should work, does not mean it is devoid of merit in it's own way of operation.

[loganonekenobi]

So far I have not seen real work as to a solution that would help us look beyond current moral thinking other than individual initiative. I can see nothing more here than the usual christian rhetoric that causes division among humanity by attempting to coerce everyone to a way of thinking that is not evidence based.

Do better or at least try. You expect us to.

[Drich]

So far I have not seen real work as to a solution that would help us look beyond current moral thinking other than individual initiative. I can see nothing more here than the usual christian rhetoric that causes division among humanity by attempting to coerce everyone to a way of thinking that is not evidence based.

Do better or at least try.  You expect us to.

If you think your expected to 'do better' define "usual Christian rhetoric" and how it causes division, then apply that defination to what I have said, and i will 'attempt to do better'

[drfuzzy]

Oh, now THAT's piece-of-cake easy!!  Thanks Drippy-Doodle!  Aside from those moronic 7 but actually 15 idiotic statements you spewed onto the thread, it boils down to this:  I can't figure out why you think your imaginary friend exists, and why you actually bother to quote that hideous evil book of fairy tales you worship and jack off into.  And I can't for the life of me imagine WHY you would think any other living being would need to be insulted by telling them about your harvey-gawd and its wholly babble.

So you now understand? Is this safe to assume because you are now fishing for another way to dismiss me?

To answer your next question:
Because God manifests Himself via the Holy Spirit into the lives of His followers. I know God exists because i have received the gift of the Holy Spirit which has richly blessed and changed my life. God has given me opportunity and the ability to take advantage of opportunity that I otherwise would never receive. Not to mention God has opened my eyes, ears and Heart, through my personal efforts in study and in my life experience in such a way as to be able to fully understand His nature in such away as to be able to break down concepts like 'the gospel according to Paul/Book of romans' to just 15 statements that most wanting to understand can at least now grasp. Again all apart from outside 'religious' teaching or influence.

Why do I share? because I have been given this 'gift' and am required to use it to the glory of God.

Suuuure you have.  You're special.  I have known people who prayed in churches for decades to feel one hint of the "holy spirit" and never felt anything.  I have known preachers who claimed to have it who were druggies and rapists on the side.  I have never seen anyone prove that this so-called "gift" was anything more than another way to say "I'm special" and if you agree to believe what I say, you will be too.  
   God doesn't exist.  The Holy Spirit doesn't exist.  Your hideous book is not proof.  Your assertion that you're oh-so-special with your nose-in-the-air because of your delusions is not proof.  Personal stories are not proof.  A book of myths is not proof.  When you can come up with something other than egotistical word-salad, some real proof, I'll pay attention.  Otherwise, you're a waste of oxygen.

[Athene]

I don't adhere to a moral code (derived from empathy) because I wish to be "free" from perceived confines and limitations imposed by "God". Rebellion against and/or rejection of said deity is not and has never been the motivation for "self-righteous"morality"; I simply wish to cause as little harm to others as possible.

It's not what I want, it's what is.That's all.

But again in that one act (do no harm) you are defining your self by your action. Likewise you will define and judge others by their own actions in accordance to your mandate. I purified your 'charge' to "do no harm" from "do as little harm as possible." to show you the self righteousness you built into your one guideline. In that you leave yourself an out (a way reason to do harm) if you feel justified. Which again put you at the center of your own righteousness bubble. Yours is truly a righteousness drivied from self Or rather your is truly self righteousness, as apposed to the righteousness people normally refer to based on popular culture. Without even the checks and balances of culture, someone like you has a far greater chance of following the path of the unibomber or serial killer than someone bound to soceity's ideas of right and wrong.

Wow. You admonish people for embracing Poop-ular Morality at all in one breath, and prop up culture/society's system of checks balances the moment it's convenient. So, yeah...you're full of shit. 

I stated that I wish to do "as little harm as possible" because it's impossible to go through life with without causing suffering or discomfort to others on some level, even that which is inadvertent or indirect. I suspect you knew that, but you still felt compelled to get your digs in, and liken me to Jeffrey Dahmer and the Unibomber. 

Congratulations, on being a Mean Girl. You're doing great!

Personally, I think that some tool who believes he's achieved "righteousness" and therefore no longer bound to The Law would be more inclined to do such things; He's got a pass, after all. Under any other circumstances, would you consider guaranteed exemption from the worst consequences an effective tool for discouraging negative behavior?