pop morality

[Athene]

---

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?

---

---

With the freedom offered, our true natures are revealed. If our nature is to intentionally live in sin, then God has identified that as being evil. Which again God will not abid/forgive Evil. (which is the very problem you have with any type of morality as it protects certain sin.)

---

Also know my intentions are not to be mean. I am just showing you the critical flaw in your reasoning. separate 'feeling' from how you function/think. The processes you use to think are not inherently you, they are a reflection of what you were taught. They are just tools. If a better tool comes along, it doesn't mean youre a bad person for not being born with the most perfect set. It's just maybe a time for an upgrade.

Ha ha...I was taught to obey God and to accept Magical Jesus, Drich; and to employ the same magical thinking you're attempting to pass off as "reasoning". 

So, I've already upgraded, thanks.

[drfuzzy]

Says who???

Science?

You do understand Religion and Science are not even the same category, and you are comparing apples and oranges right?? Use to be, a long time ago Religion/God was debated and approached as a philosophy. Most of those arguments ended poorly for the philosopher, because God could indeed be demonstrated to enough of a degree to trump empty philosophy. So then along comes 19th centruy the self righteous philospher with an interest in 'science.' Now straddling two different disciplines, the Anti Theist is no longer bound by the rules of philosphy or just science alone, they can take the best of both, and when one fails you seek to tap the other.

For example the foundational principle of Science (the scientific method) Demands completely mastery and control over a given principle or phenomena for it to be considered known/vetted/verifiable. Which would mean we (finite) would have to have complete control/mastery over God (infinite) inorder to proof God to the degree Science requires. Which (philosophically speaking) means God is not, Can no longer be God/Alpha and Omega. So even if we could win at that Game we still loose.

So no, not going to play. Pick a discipline and follow it through. You want to talk philosophy let talk theological philosophy, Or Science but not both when ever it suits you. when you loose sack up and concede. Don't pull this weak minded BS and try and sift the goal posts on me.

Theological Philosophy is fantasies about your imaginary friend that no one will ever be able to prove. I have never been able to understand how theology is even a field - billions of pages of musings about something that doesn't exist.  Fine. Science only.  Buh-bye until then.

[downbeatplumb]

In a way Drich is right. Science has nothing to do with god, science deals with things that exist and as has been proven by the theists total inability to even make a reasonable case for the possibility of a god. God only exists in the realm of fiction.

[drfuzzy]

In a way Drich is right. Science has nothing to do with god, science deals with things that exist and as has been proven by the theists total inability to even make a reasonable case for the possibility of a god. God only exists in the realm of fiction.

Never quite thought of it in those terms, downbeat - thanks! Yeah, science is pretty useless with regard to unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, ghosts sparkly vampires, and gods (Mithras, Zoroaster, Cerunnos, Horus, Isis, Yahweh, Jesus, Krishna . . . ).  And whenever science finds and proves the existence of a banshee, for example, those who value reason over delusion will cheerfully add it to the list of "proven to exist" and buy earplugs.

[Drich]

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'

You expect me to pay attention to what you said but when i say something.....
first of all this is typical of the christian to do.   they expect others to listen to their message but refuse to listen to any other

Psalm 14:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10New International Version (NIV)
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
If that isn't divisive enough i don't know what is...

this gives them the right to push their disease everywhere
Matthew 28:19-20
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

these verses and many others do two things that is totally typical of the "christian rhetoric"
"we have a message to give and you must listen." many times in history they forced other to listen.
and
"we are not going to listen to anything you have to say because our god told us not to"
That, sir, is what you are doing.
This is what you have been doing the entire time I have seen you on this forum.

Ah... No.
While Mat 28 we are charged with Deu 13 is not apart of said charge. However Mat 28 does not give us free license to Force people to listen. We also must consider what Christ said in mat 10: 14 And if the people in a home or a town refuse to welcome you or listen to you, then leave that place and shake the dust off your feet.

I am not forcing anyone to be apart of my conversations. You are here because you 'welcome' the discussion or you have a question. Any sense of urgency you may feel is between you and the Holy Spirit who is urging you. Because again, I am simply answering questions from those who ask (and you've have asked several dozen personally, in an open forum) and defending Biblical Christianity. On occasion when I see several of you make the same theological mistake, I will start a thread.

This is what divides the human race (among other things).
I dont care that the you think the old testament doesn't apply the fact is that the typical christian response is exactly as i have represented it. You are doing exactly this.

lol... How does this work exactly? If I don't think "X" should be apart of Christian Theology, then how is it I use "X" in Christian Theology?

Instead of thinking for yourself and saying
"hmm does homosexuality really do as much harm as pedophilia?"  you lump them together equally because the goat herders who wrote the bible say so. (because there is no proof that it was inspired divinely).

No.
What I'm saying is for me their isn't any right or wrong value in any action. That under Christ all actions are neutral. Meaning one can not earn the right to Heaven through action nor can one loose it though action.

So then if the above is 'typical Christian' then how is what I said (which is the opposite) 'typical christian?'

In short the non religious are allowed to think, change, and evolve just as life has done for billions of years
The religious are not allowed this if they hold fast to every word of the xenophobic,misogynistic , genocidal,  and insecure wisdom of desperate desert folks who were barely in the iron age.
All you do is say "cause God says so" instead of "doing X creates Y problem and therefore X should be considered immoral."
I'm okay with this kind of discussion but that is not what you are doing.
That is what i mean by "do better".

What makes you think all evolution is positive? Evolution at it's core make a species more efficient at whatever they do. So then the question is, what if a species is inherently evil with the things they do? would then not evolution of that species make them more efficient at evil?

If this were true, then how would allowing myself to evolve with the species be "doing better" if evolution makes the species more adept at evil?

[Drich]

---

With the freedom offered, our true natures are revealed. If our nature is to intentionally live in sin, then God has identified that as being evil. Which again God will not abid/forgive Evil. (which is the very problem you have with any type of morality as it protects certain sin.)

---

Also know my intentions are not to be mean. I am just showing you the critical flaw in your reasoning. separate 'feeling' from how you function/think. The processes you use to think are not inherently you, they are a reflection of what you were taught. They are just tools. If a better tool comes along, it doesn't mean youre a bad person for not being born with the most perfect set. It's just maybe a time for an upgrade.

Ha ha...I was taught to obey God and to accept Magical Jesus, Drich; and to employ the same magical thinking you're attempting to pass off as "reasoning". 

So, I've already upgraded, thanks.

Do you think in your whole life span your single 'up-grade' is all you ever need?

[Drich]

Says who???

Science?

You do understand Religion and Science are not even the same category, and you are comparing apples and oranges right?? Use to be, a long time ago Religion/God was debated and approached as a philosophy. Most of those arguments ended poorly for the philosopher, because God could indeed be demonstrated to enough of a degree to trump empty philosophy. So then along comes 19th centruy the self righteous philospher with an interest in 'science.' Now straddling two different disciplines, the Anti Theist is no longer bound by the rules of philosphy or just science alone, they can take the best of both, and when one fails you seek to tap the other.

For example the foundational principle of Science (the scientific method) Demands completely mastery and control over a given principle or phenomena for it to be considered known/vetted/verifiable. Which would mean we (finite) would have to have complete control/mastery over God (infinite) inorder to proof God to the degree Science requires. Which (philosophically speaking) means God is not, Can no longer be God/Alpha and Omega. So even if we could win at that Game we still loose.

So no, not going to play. Pick a discipline and follow it through. You want to talk philosophy let talk theological philosophy, Or Science but not both when ever it suits you. when you loose sack up and concede. Don't pull this weak minded BS and try and sift the goal posts on me.

Theological Philosophy is fantasies about your imaginary friend that no one will ever be able to prove. I have never been able to understand how theology is even a field - billions of pages of musings about something that doesn't exist.  Fine. Science only.  Buh-bye until then.

"Hello? It's me again Margret.." It's been philosophy only, up until you FINALLY Realized how badly you were getting your teeth kicked in, then you shifted to science 'only' in an attempt to save what was left of your 'face.'

If you want 'science only' then start science only. Don't start philosophically then shift to science when you loose your philosophical argument.

[Athene]

Ha ha...I was taught to obey God and to accept Magical Jesus, Drich; and to employ the same magical thinking you're attempting to pass off as "reasoning". 

So, I've already upgraded, thanks.

Do you think in your whole life span your single 'up-grade' is all you ever need?

Of course not. 
Do you?

[Drich]

In a way Drich is right. Science has nothing to do with god, science deals with things that exist and as has been proven by the theists total inability to even make a reasonable case for the possibility of a god. God only exists in the realm of fiction.

Actually close but still no.

Science deals with demonstrable theory. Their are many things said to exist in science that we do not know if they exist. For instance 'black holes', or Higgs/Boson Particle to name just two. Where these theories differ from God is that 'science' wants to believe, because it has formulated theories on how the universe works based on these (and other) unproven theories. Science needs these theories in order to separate itself from God. Granted the logic behind it is a little juvenile "If we can explain a natural process then somehow that negates a creator/God must always remain unknowable/unknown."

That said these theories are 'demonstrable' because science can indeed control or manipulate the process in which the theories themselves are vetted. God by definition is not subject to said control. therefore God can not nor ever will be quantified by 'science.' As Science will never ba able/allowed to manipulate God in such away as to have the control needed to be 'approved' by science.

[Drich]

Do you think in your whole life span your single 'up-grade' is all you ever need?

Of course not. 
Do you?

Then why did you use the 'past tense?' Upgraded? This would indicate that you have made the ultimate upgrade and would not need another.

My message simply instructed to not fear or take offense when someone shows you a thought or thinking process different than your own, and not to be reluctant to 'upgrade' if infact that process is better than what you currently use.