pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Lol, I actually didn't, but I DO sincerely appreciate the vote of confidence from the likes of someone as intelligent as yourself. [emoji4]. I'm not ashamed to admit ignorance anywhere.  Now I've learned something I didn't know before!  Too bad we can't say the same about some of our theists here...[emoji848]

Respect for most of that.

Just remember it is the 'theist' who is taking you to school right now.

You guys get so wrapped up in your stereotypes and air of superiority you fail to see that most of the time, you are the one who has the faulty understanding of history, theology, Apologetics, And even Science and Logic.

You all depend way tooo much on the atheist theist stereotype. It leads you to all sorts of bad conclusions.

We don't think theists are dumb; we think they are blinded by their cult beliefs into rejecting sound, logical thinking far too often. The skeptic encounters something they don't understand and they either admit they cannot understand it, or they learn it. 

You didn't "take her to school", you taught her something. (Or rather, she taught herself when she encountered something she didn't know.) As a member of the religion which literally invented the Gregorian calendar, you have a distinct advantage over someone who doesn't belong to that religion, in terms of being likely to know that particular piece of information.

As for the "faulty understanding", that's definitely your cult training talking. No one knows everything in every field, yet it is atheists who are challenged by theists on every piece of knowledge (we must be biologists and physicists and mathematicians and historians and sociologists all at once, just to answer all the "well how did ____, then!?!" questions thrown our way) because you cultists are uncomfortable with anyone who rejects your pre-digested dogmas. Some of your dogmas may in fact be correct... but when it comes to actual history, keep in mind we endlessly deal with those who don't even understand how/why DNA proves we're cousins to the chimpanzees, let alone the rest of the human origins story. Why? Because they prefer a "magic-man-from-dirt-in-the-garden" myth. And that's just one type!

To reduce the irony, try actually listening to people who tell you you're wrong with your atheist stereotypes, assigning false motivations (or assigning the motives of a few to the whole, when it does not represent even the common thinking among us, let alone a definitive trait), and start looking at what you consider your evidence in light of the actual objections we present to you. You have a habit of answering with some form of "Well that's what the Bible says, so..." (unless what the Bible says is uncomfortable for you, in which case you ignore it or try to tell us some far-fetched alternate explanation despite what we can see plainly with our eyes, and mumble something along the lines of "spiritual discernment" or claim it's not True Christianity™).

[TheRocketSurgeon]

* Yes, I know the Gregorian calendar was developed from the prior Roman calendar, so I guess "invented" might not be the right word.

[Drich]

[Drich]

* Yes, I know the Gregorian calendar was developed from the prior Roman calendar, so I guess "invented" might not be the right word.

I'm not one to nit picks

[Athene]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

*sigh* Science isn't dogma. That's why it changes. That's the very thing most Christians mock when they come here to talk with us about science. It's what you think is its greatest weakness, but that we consider its greatest strength. You don't get to use it both ways in your arguments! You can't simultaneously say that we adhere to science as if it is dogmatic and then attack science for being so non-dogmatic that it changes when we learn better information or better-explain a phenomenon.

However, when we have well-established and -understood theories (predictive/explanative models of the function of a known natural phenomenon), and someone comes in here attacking science, making a straw-man of the real, hard-won knowledge arguments because of a book of scripture (any book of scripture), we call them idiots. It is being deliberately and willfully ignorant.

And seriously, why do y'all keep bringing up Dawkins? Has anyone here even used a Dawkins argument? (Except maybe posting some video of him from YouTube, talking about a specific topic under discussion in the thread?)

[Drich]

More or less..

But what you fail to understand is Biblical Christianity does not free one from Good works. Their is a Massive love component you are not accounting for. In order to be forgiven your sins you must also Forgive others. (it's even in the core of the Lord's prayer, and tied to several different parables Jesus Himself taught)
Once we have forgiven and been forgiven we are called to two simple Rules. Love God with all that we are, and love our neighbors as ourselves.

If we can not do these two simple things it shows that we are not in the state of grace needed to live 'above the law' as one of you put it.

It is under these two rules that we can know where we stand with God.

I forgot the love? AGAIN?
Crap! Why do I keep doing that?

Your particular idea of God and Christianity does happen to be relatively palatable when compared to certain others, in my opinion. So, if your precise interpretation or spin of Biblical Scripture were somehow proven to be correct and true, AND human beings were both capable and willing to adhere to the tenant of loving their neighbors as themselves at all times, then yes, that would be better indeed. 

The problem is...So what?

As I see it, you haven't actually presented a realistic alternative to popular morality. I understand that you believe you have, but to a heathen lacking in belief, such as myself, you've done little more than extol the virtues of wishful thinking.

Without belief, what can you expect anyone to do with this?

Two things.. Again this is not My particular anything. Christ Himself was asked what were the greatest commands, he responded that the Whole law could be condensed down to just two commands. Love your Lord God with all of your being and your neighbor as yourself.

His sacrifice makes that possible. Meaning his atonement allows you the freedom to express this love to the best of your particular ability. Why? again because Atonement is freedom from 'moral rule.' If we do not have to live by our actions to define who we are (good or bad) then we all do not have to live by a moral code rather we can express our love to it's fullest yield and be found 'good' before God no matter if our 'actions' do not mirror the actions/deeds of some one else.

Paul even further explains this to the corinthians in chapter 12, as well as the Romans in chapter 12

Second thing is indeed Belief, but as Christ told us, if we lack faith just ask Him for it. "Dear lord give me the faith I need to simply Ask Seek and Knock for the Holy Spirit." Then hang on to something, because change (which may or may not be pleasant) is coming.

[Drich]

*sigh* Science isn't dogma. That's why it changes. That's the very thing most Christians mock when they come here to talk with us about science. It's what you think is its greatest weakness, but that we consider its greatest strength. You don't get to use it both ways in your arguments! You can't simultaneously say that we adhere to science as if it is dogmatic and then attack science for being so non-dogmatic that it changes when we learn better information or better-explain a phenomenon.

However, when we have well-established and -understood theories (predictive/explanative models of the function of a known natural phenomenon), and someone comes in here attacking science, making a straw-man of the real, hard-won knowledge arguments because of a book of scripture (any book of scripture), we call them idiots. It is being deliberately and willfully ignorant.

And seriously, why do y'all keep bringing up Dawkins? Has anyone here even used a Dawkins argument? (Except maybe posting some video of him from YouTube, talking about a specific topic under discussion in the thread?)

because whether most of you know it or not, you all follow the 'God delusion' outline in being an atheist, or at least some aspect of that.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

*sigh* Science isn't dogma. That's why it changes. That's the very thing most Christians mock when they come here to talk with us about science. It's what you think is its greatest weakness, but that we consider its greatest strength. You don't get to use it both ways in your arguments! You can't simultaneously say that we adhere to science as if it is dogmatic and then attack science for being so non-dogmatic that it changes when we learn better information or better-explain a phenomenon.

However, when we have well-established and -understood theories (predictive/explanative models of the function of a known natural phenomenon), and someone comes in here attacking science, making a straw-man of the real, hard-won knowledge arguments because of a book of scripture (any book of scripture), we call them idiots. It is being deliberately and willfully ignorant.

And seriously, why do y'all keep bringing up Dawkins? Has anyone here even used a Dawkins argument? (Except maybe posting some video of him from YouTube, talking about a specific topic under discussion in the thread?)

because whether most of you know it or not, you all follow the 'God delusion' outline in being an atheist, or at least some aspect of that.

And by this, you mean that Dawkins did not entirely mis-state the ideas held by many other atheists? Okay. I would imagine the sect of Christianity you consider most divergent from your own still shares some aspect of yours.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1239281' dateline='1459788769']


Biblical Christian is free from all 'moral law' So that we may Love God to the best of our ablity and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

[/quote]

Christians would say that, they just want to go around sinning. 
"Love god" seems a bit needy don't you think?