# Secular morality vs bibilical morality



## atlashunter (Aug 21, 2019)

For those of you who were once believers have any of your views on the morality of certain topics changed from when you were a believer? Here are some that changed for me.

1. Vicarious redemption aka scapegoating - not moral

2. Original sin - not moral, goes against the concept of individual responsibility

3. Blood sacrifice - Open to debate but my inclination is not particularly moral

4. Premarital sex - not necessarily moral or immoral and noticed christians seem to be pretty flexible on it as well

5. Suicide and assisted suicide - falls within the domain of self ownership and moral in some cases

6. Slavery - I was always taught slavery is wrong even though that isn't what the bible teaches. Still think it's wrong as a general rule although I do think a secular case could be made for a moral form of slavery in certain cases of punishment for crime.

7. Homosexuality - No longer consider it immoral though I'm not a fan of the impact as a group they are having on society.

8. Abortion - More of a grey area than before


How have your views changed since you were a believer?


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 29, 2019)

I avoided this because I am a believer, but because the “law” is written into man”s heart (nature) so that he’s without excuses - why would your views change? 

I know some non believers that are more prone to condemning homosexuality as just filthy and unnatural that some believers. My wife has a cousin that is a gay southern baptist preacher. 

I think his elevator is stuck in the basement with the power disconnected - but I also feel that slavery is wrong.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 29, 2019)

> How have your views changed since you were a believer?


The more I thought about this question the more complicated it became.
As a believer, waaaaaaaay back in the corners of my brain in places you don't talk about at parties..... I had issues with some of the religious doctrine (notice I said religious doctrine and I didn't say God) of how I was supposed to think about certain people or groups of people.
In general SOME of what I was being taught was the moral way to view certain things..... didn't feel moral to me. It felt the opposite.
Opened a BIG can of worms..... 

So on some issues I really have to question whether I was ever really "all in" on the religious doctrine and therefore never really "changed" my views.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I avoided this because I am a believer, but because the “law” is written into man”s heart (nature) so that he’s without excuses - why would your views change?
> 
> I know some non believers that are more prone to condemning homosexuality as just filthy and unnatural that some believers. My wife has a cousin that is a gay southern baptist preacher.
> 
> I think his elevator is stuck in the basement with the power disconnected - but I also feel that slavery is wrong.


The people in Romans 1, knew God. They exchanged worshiping God for that of idols. If the whole world had no excuse, why spread the gospel?

Related to Atheist, I guess even if they once believed they had no excuse, they now don't believe that any longer. Once they quit believing in God, that believe would also vanish.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 29, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> The people in Romans 1, knew God. They exchanged worshiping God for that of idols. If the whole world had no excuse, why spread the gospel?
> 
> Related to Atheist, I guess even if they once believed they had no excuse, they now don't believe that any longer. Once they quit believing in God, that believe would also vanish.


I’m thinking along the lines of thought shall not kill, steal, etc......the world is without excuses for not knowing any better.
But I see your point, more to it than just that so my statement isn’t completely accurate.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 29, 2019)

I don't believe a whole lot of stuff is immoral now as when I was a worshipper.
You wouldn't believe the stuff we were fed. Well, maybe you would. 
Any hoodles, I basically go with George Carlin's revised '10' commandment list. 
Cleaned up a bit. 

First:

•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, 

And second:

•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, 

Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominently in the courthouse wall. As long he included one additional commandment:

•THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 29, 2019)

660griz said:


> I don't believe a whole lot of stuff is immoral now as when I was a worshipper.
> You wouldn't believe the stuff we were fed. Well, maybe you would.
> Any hoodles, I basically go with George Carlin's revised '10' commandment list.
> Cleaned up a bit.
> ...


Classic Carlin! 
"Coveting your neighbors goods is what keeps the economy going. Coveting creates jobs, LEAVE IT ALONE".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Classic Carlin!
> "Coveting your neighbors goods is what keeps the economy going. Coveting creates jobs, LEAVE IT ALONE".


I would assume then Coveting is somewhat off the list of most Atheist? What about lust, pride. or jealously? All of those could be helpful in the job market or for politicians.
Look at the difference between humble/meek President Carter and cocky/prideful Trump! I've also heard that being too honest can be bad for one's business as well.

What if you get to someone's house to repair their a/c unit and it's just a loose wire connector? The Christian moral would be to just do the minimum. The businessman moral may be to maybe replace something else. Not trying to say the Christian is any more moral than the Atheist repairman. Sometimes if you see a fish on the tailgate, you fixin' to get hooked!


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 29, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would assume then Coveting is somewhat off the list of most Atheist? What about lust, pride. or jealously? All of those could be helpful in the job market or for politicians.
> Look at the difference between humble/meek President Carter and cocky/prideful Trump! I've also heard that being too honest can be bad for one's business as well.
> 
> What if you get to someone's house to repair their a/c unit and it's just a loose wire connector? The Christian moral would be to just do the minimum. The businessman moral may be to maybe replace something else. Not trying to say the Christian is any more moral than the Atheist repairman. Sometimes if you see a fish on the tailgate, you fixin' to get hooked!





> I would assume then Coveting is somewhat off the list of most Atheist? What about lust, pride. or jealously? All of those could be helpful in the job market or for politicians.


Since there is no Atheist "list" I can only speak for me.
Those things you listed.. lust, pride, jealousy etc. can all have either really negative or really positive outcomes depending on what you do with them.
50 lbs overweight because of too much fast food and you are jealous that the buff guy got the girl you wanted?
Hitting the gym and getting in shape = a positive thing
Taking them both captive and force feeding them cheese burgers until they explode = a negative thing.
Same with pride, lust, belief in a god, disbelief in a god, etc, etc...... All depends on what you do with them.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would assume then Coveting is somewhat off the list of most Atheist? What about lust, pride. or jealously? All of those could be helpful in the job market or for politicians.
> Look at the difference between humble/meek President Carter and cocky/prideful Trump! I've also heard that being too honest can be bad for one's business as well.
> 
> What if you get to someone's house to repair their a/c unit and it's just a loose wire connector? The Christian moral would be to just do the minimum. The businessman moral may be to maybe replace something else. Not trying to say the Christian is any more moral than the Atheist repairman. Sometimes if you see a fish on the tailgate, you fixin' to get hooked!


Very few Christians actually live up to being a Christian.  Even at a young age I saw who was sitting in the pews on Sunday and thought that if there was a god they would have been stricken with lightning bolts for the ways they acted the other 6 days of the week.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Since there is no Atheist "list" I can only speak for me.
> Those things you listed.. lust, pride, jealousy etc. can all have either really negative or really positive outcomes depending on what you do with them.
> 50 lbs overweight because of too much fast food and you are jealous that the buff guy got the girl you wanted?
> Hitting the gym and getting in shape = a positive thing
> ...





> All depends on what you do with them.



Spoken like a true post-modern;
right in line with the latest Socio-philosophical fad.
You are more up-to-date than the rest of these guys;
what we would have once called a "hipster".
Although I seriously doubt that is your motivation;
you don't seem the type to shave all your body hair.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 29, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Spoken like a true post-modern;
> right in line with the latest Socio-philosophical fad.
> You are more up-to-date than the rest of these guys;
> what we would have once called a "hipster".
> ...


Now I gotta look up post-modern and find out if you are insulting me or not......
Shave all my body hair? Like on purpose?? No Im not that guy......


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Now I gotta look up post-modern and find out if you are insulting me or not......
> Shave all my body hair? Like on purpose?? No Im not that guy......


No insult intended.  Hope you don't find one.


----------



## Israel (Aug 30, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> The people in Romans 1, knew God. They exchanged worshiping God for that of idols. If the whole world had no excuse, why spread the gospel?
> 
> Related to Atheist, I guess even if they once believed they had no excuse, they now don't believe that any longer. Once they quit believing in God, that believe would also vanish.





> If the whole world had no excuse, why spread the gospel?



Because believing in moral agency, and that there is power to it (and such that a man's conscience can come into conflict with it when disregarded) is not the same as believing in a _conscious _moral agent with that power to engage conscience, and then even more so in regards to the gospel, that this conscious moral agent is in will toward forgiving man.

There is no eternal benefit to the soul in merely believing God exists:  

"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!"

The obedience of faith deals with that question "why spread the gospel"?

Surely if it is enough that all men have or have had some knowledge of God of what necessity is the gospel's preaching? Because meeting that absolute goodness that is God, or even if one prefers absolute truth, in such conscience crossed condition must surely lead only to discovery that there is no place afforded in the absolute for what is contaminated. So, merely bringing men to some form of knowledge of God is not only a terror to their souls (do you wonder why it is so strenuously resisted?) if apart from the presentation of the One who was given to bear the righteous wrath against such contamination. Sin.

We preach the God of intention to forgive that He places even above His perfection of judgment. But we dare not doubt such perfect judgment is, for without such knowledge, mercy is merely an option to us of choice. When we begin to see it as necessity most personally to ourselves, only then the necessity of obedience is revealed. For we begin to see we are saved in, and by, the obedience of another not ourselves, and by whose obedience propitiation has been made. Full satisfaction of the righteous demands of judgment. And therefore begin to ask the better questions of how such obedience can so please the requirements of God to His satisfaction. And to such extreme of satisfaction He is pleased to give this other to man for offering.

Of course this heavenly commerce is resisted by the worldly mind, how can any man offer what is not "his own" to offer? Unless He find the commandment to "be saved" of such overwhelming and singular necessity and found to include all ban against seeking to offer "his own" but to receive the One supplied as, and for that very offering, such a man will yet seek to offer his own obedience, own congruity to some moral standard, some consistency he will hope to display. And he_ must make _great show of this.

We must be derided by such a mind for we are indeed in appearance taking the easy out...for it has not yet been revealed to them...it is the _only way out. _So they must be free to continue to, as it were, to exercise their options. Their trust in their own choice, and choices, has not yet been shown to them. And to whatever extent we yet find agreement or persuasion to that mind...we must also discover (yes, even as "believers") we have rejected the ease that is salvation through faith, by the practical engaging of the hard way that is the way of the transgressor.

Men unknowingly call for calamity, not in their rejection of us or our testimony, (for if it is only "our own" we are rightly ill esteemed, for we are still mere men testifying in some form of our own "goodness"...ha ha!), but the testimony of and to the Lord, Jesus Christ. But we must be rightly prepared to this, to be so personally convinced of the Lord in union that all our experience (which has no power to persuade) is surrendered to the acknowledgment of His...which has all power to persuade. It feels to us exquisitely personal, experienced in these days of flesh, and from which place we may find many provocations to respond (and will), but is all provided as lesson of eternal benefit to us. It is only when men cast us out as evil...we learn who receives us unreservedly.

So..."why then preach the gospel?" It is gift to the believer as means of learning the gospel, first and foremost, that this faith invested might grow to fullness, and he will know that what he once saw as only afar off in hope, is the most absolute of all there is. The benefit may be the making of friends of once enemies to God, but even if not God remains wholly devoted to that work in his children.

This is the work of God that you believe upon him whom he has sent.

Our Father is a tireless teacher. He is always increasing the knowledge of His son in us, that we may believe upon Him as the scripture says, and out of our bellies may flow rivers of living water.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2019)

Israel said:


> Because believing in moral agency, and that there is power to it (and such that a man's conscience can come into conflict with it when disregarded) is not the same as believing in a _conscious _moral agent with that power to engage conscience, and then even more so in regards to the gospel, that this conscious moral agent is in will toward forgiving man.
> 
> There is no eternal benefit to the soul in merely believing God exists:
> 
> ...


Asking yourself questions that nobody else is asking in order to futher a conversation with yourself does not help legitimize the unprovable assertions and claims.


----------



## Israel (Aug 30, 2019)

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2019)

Israel said:


> For we can do nothing against the truth, but for it.


Again, an assertive claim with zero backup.
Explain whatever truth you are talking about and please include the evidence that makes it true.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2019)

Nothing to say when evidence is requested but novels worth of fiction flow daily.


----------



## Israel (Aug 30, 2019)

If a thing is true it requires no evidence. Evidence to be recognized...perhaps...may be available (or in this case supplied) but its being true is all independent of any necessity to prove itself...true.


----------



## Israel (Aug 30, 2019)

BTW, had a few acres to mow...be careful of what you rely on for proof of anything. When impatience and cleverness are proved true in a man, by, let's say grandstanding, he may remain totally ignorant of his estate while the truth of it becomes more apparent to all but himself.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 30, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> For those of you who were once believers have any of your views on the morality of certain topics changed from when you were a believer? Here are some that changed for me.
> 
> 1. Vicarious redemption aka scapegoating - not moral
> 
> ...


Interesting line of thought, but way to deep with way to many branches far reaching to even begin to comment for me, not that I have anything to say, But I do fully see your points.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2019)

Israel said:


> If a thing is true it requires no evidence. Evidence to be recognized...perhaps...may be available (or in this case supplied) but its being true is all independent of any necessity to prove itself...true.


If something is True, evidence abounds, all the evidence supports it, and the evidence is irrefutable. Evidence is a result of truth.
You provide neither.


----------



## Israel (Aug 30, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If something is True, evidence abounds, all the evidence supports it, and the evidence is irrefutable. Evidence is a result of truth.
> You provide neither.


  Of course I do not...it abounds everywhere, is evident, and irrefutable. To seek to present any "portion" for evidence is to deny the whole is evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2019)

Lots


Israel said:


> BTW, had a few acres to mow...be careful of what you rely on for proof of anything. When impatience and cleverness are proved true in a man, by, let's say grandstanding, he may remain totally ignorant of his estate while the truth of it becomes more apparent to all but himself.


You've proved the grandstanding, time to backup the claims.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2019)

Israel said:


> Of course I do not...it abounds is everywhere is evident and irrefutable. To seek to present any "portion" for evidence is to deny the whole is evidence.


Pathetic


----------



## Israel (Aug 30, 2019)

You present a very compelling argument that you are not a product of intelligent design. However, I am not convinced. For I recognize in you, (no less than in myself) the desire to _appear_ superior. But I can certainly be no more intelligent than I am, nor you, either.

Nor whatever other _things_ may appear as gainful or virtuous.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2019)

Israel said:


> You present a very compelling argument that you are not a product of intelligent design. However, I am not convinced. For I recognize in you, (no less than in myself) the desire to _appear_ superior. But I can certainly be no more intelligent than I am, nor you, either.
> 
> Nor whatever other _things_ may appear as gainful or virtuous.


I was not, in any way, shape or form talking about intelligent design. Introducing something as if we were talking about it is how you try to divert the conversation away from what is the subject and towards whatever the next thought you need to bring up and away from your ability to provide anything that backs up your claims and assertions. 
I don't need to call you out. I want to.

I am not trying to appear in any particular way, and you know that. I am not arguing that I am any sort of product, and you know that.

I am a product of the available chemistry set.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I was not, in any way, shape or form talking about intelligent design.


 He just wanted a way to squeeze that little 'dig' in.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 4, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I avoided this because I am a believer, but because the “law” is written into man”s heart (nature) so that he’s without excuses - why would your views change?
> 
> I know some non believers that are more prone to condemning homosexuality as just filthy and unnatural that some believers. My wife has a cousin that is a gay southern baptist preacher.
> 
> I think his elevator is stuck in the basement with the power disconnected - but I also feel that slavery is wrong.



Well I'm not sure the premise that there is a "law" written into the human heart is true to that level of detail but assuming for the sake of argument that it is, have you considered the possibility that what is written in the heart and what is written in the bible may not always agree? My views changed because I seriously contemplated the possibility that I was wrong in my views. Anyone who can honestly say their views on moral questions have never changed probably isn't someone that has engaged in much critical thinking.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 4, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would assume then Coveting is somewhat off the list of most Atheist? What about lust, pride. or jealously? All of those could be helpful in the job market or for politicians.
> Look at the difference between humble/meek President Carter and cocky/prideful Trump! I've also heard that being too honest can be bad for one's business as well.
> 
> What if you get to someone's house to repair their a/c unit and it's just a loose wire connector? The Christian moral would be to just do the minimum. The businessman moral may be to maybe replace something else. Not trying to say the Christian is any more moral than the Atheist repairman. Sometimes if you see a fish on the tailgate, you fixin' to get hooked!




Depends on how you define those terms and the context in which they occur. I think you get into trouble when you start trying to break it down to moral absolutes.

I object to the notion that being honest in one's dealings is a uniquely christian characteristic. The concept of treating others as you would have them treat you needs no supernatural backing to make sense and it long predates christianity.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 6, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Well I'm not sure the premise that there is a "law" written into the human heart is true to that level of detail but assuming for the sake of argument that it is, have you considered the possibility that what is written in the heart and what is written in the bible may not always agree? My views changed because I seriously contemplated the possibility that I was wrong in my views. Anyone who can honestly say their views on moral questions have never changed probably isn't someone that has engaged in much critical thinking.


I tend to agree, somewhat. That’s why I asked why would your views on morals change? They shouldn’t. Having morals doesn’t require anyone to be Christian. Most likely, we agree that anyone can have morals by nature, we just disagree on where those morals / nature come from.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 6, 2019)

Can you/anyone think of any world wide morals that have been around since the dawn of man?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 7, 2019)

660griz said:


> Can you/anyone think of any world wide morals that have been around since the dawn of man?


Back then it was called "survival"


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 7, 2019)

660griz said:


> Can you/anyone think of any world wide morals that have been around since the dawn of man?



https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-universal-taboos

_Incest, to varying degrees, is universally taboo.
Incest between father and daughter, or mother and son, is foridden everywhere.
Incest between brother and sister is forbidden everywhere, with some exceptions (such as the Pharaohs)._

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/social-norms


----------



## 660griz (Sep 8, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-universal-taboos
> 
> _Incest, to varying degrees, is universally taboo.
> Incest between father and daughter, or mother and son, is foridden everywhere.
> ...


I wonder how those 'isolated' tribes or tribes at the dawn of man worked this out.
Or, even looking at the bible.
"Eve bore sixty-three children, thirty-two daughters, and thirty-one sons, before the default. When Adam and Eve left the Garden, their family consisted of four generations numbering 1,647 pure-line descendants. They had forty-two children after leaving the Garden besides the two offspring of joint parentage with the mortal stock of Earth."
THEN, they made it taboo?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 8, 2019)

660griz said:


> I wonder how those 'isolated' tribes or tribes at the dawn of man worked this out.
> Or, even looking at the bible.
> "Eve bore sixty-three children, thirty-two daughters, and thirty-one sons, before the default. When Adam and Eve left the Garden, their family consisted of four generations numbering 1,647 pure-line descendants. They had forty-two children after leaving the Garden besides the two offspring of joint parentage with the mortal stock of Earth."
> THEN, they made it taboo?



Is this the type of reason you're looking for?

http://biblicaldiscipleship.org/content/7-earth’s-pre-flood-water-canopy-and-dinosaur-mystery

A Christian friend of mine told me that God must have allowed inbreeding without genetic problems until there were enough people and then He made it a sin later.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Is this the type of reason you're looking for?
> 
> http://biblicaldiscipleship.org/content/7-earth’s-pre-flood-water-canopy-and-dinosaur-mystery


 No but a fun read.



> A Christian friend of mine told me that God must have allowed inbreeding without genetic problems until there were enough people and then He made it a sin later.


That's a fun read too.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 9, 2019)

Expanding Morality does not seem to be serving humanity all that well.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 9, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Expanding Morality does not seem to be serving humanity all that well.


Pretty broad statement. Can you name something moral now that has never been seen as proper, in the past, in any society.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 9, 2019)

660griz said:


> Pretty broad statement. Can you name something moral now that has never been seen as proper, in the past, in any society.



Nope, morality has lost definition. Who could hope to keep up.


----------



## Israel (Sep 10, 2019)

660griz said:


> He just wanted a way to squeeze that little 'dig' in.


Is it...or is it a plain argument?

Is there a standard for intelligence? At the very least Walt understands the problems with assigning it. Is it a raw score kinda thing...but then...decided by whom? Of course an academic may have a certain view, a farmer, another, but _whoever_ is left to its determining is obviously making servants of all who submit to that criteria.

But rejecting a _standard of intelligence_ is no less perilous than simply accepting any and all that come down the pike.

Don't imagine that you are all that clever, nuanced, subtle and skilled in the ways of thought processing that a plainness could never be detected by a simple man.

A designer _of intelligence_ is all and only that which could possibly have any say as to its ultimate use, right perceiving, and end. If one is plainly going to deny that, then the whole argument that intelligence is anything other than entirely subjective to each is all one is left with. The assumptions that man's constructs reach any legitimacy based upon a general acceptance that such implies a true objectivity (or its better approach) is obviously and only an endorsement of that which it intends to refute, just a collection of subjective agreements.  

Of course, at best only a naif would hope to argue intelligently against the design of intelligence. At worst something else is at work.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> Is it...or is it a plain argument?


 I think we both know the answer to that one.



> Is there a standard for intelligence?


It is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Some are more capable of acquiring and applying than others. 



> At the very least Walt understands the problems with assigning it. Is it a raw score kinda thing...but then...decided by whom? Of course an academic may have a certain view, a farmer, another, but _whoever_ is left to its determining is obviously making servants of all who submit to that criteria.


 No standard that I know of. I do not know all. There is a pretty agreed upon means of measuring. 



> But rejecting a _standard of intelligence_ is no less perilous than simply accepting any and all that come down the pike.


 I don't reject it since I do not know of one. Present the standard and we can discuss.



> Don't imagine that you are all that clever, nuanced, subtle and skilled in the ways of thought processing that a plainness could never be detected by a simple man.


 I got nothing. 



> A designer _of intelligence_ is all and only that which could possibly have any say as to its ultimate use, right perceiving, and end. If one is plainly going to deny that, then the whole argument that intelligence is anything other than entirely subjective to each is all one is left with. The assumptions that man's constructs reach any legitimacy based upon a general acceptance that such implies a true objectivity (or its better approach) is obviously and only an endorsement of that which it intends to refute, just a collection of subjective agreements.


A designer of intelligence? Lost me with that one. Well, this entire paragraph.


----------



## Israel (Sep 10, 2019)

> It is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Some are more capable of acquiring and applying than others.


 
Capable requires a standard. All judgments do.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> Capable requires a standard. All judgments do.


No it doesn't. If I show you how to lay a brick and you then lay a brick. Done. If you can't read and are then taught to read, done. Judgement made based on witnessing acquiring knowledge and applying it.
Again, if you know of a standard, present it.


----------



## Israel (Sep 10, 2019)

I am.


----------



## Israel (Sep 10, 2019)

660griz said:


> No it doesn't. If I show you how to lay a brick and you then lay a brick. Done. If you can't read and are then taught to read, done. Judgement made based on witnessing acquiring knowledge and applying it.
> Again, if you know of a standard, present it.


One would have to yield to your judgment of what "capably" laying a brick is.  Many of you are the ones arguing (and I do not disagree) with a religious paradigm whereby yielding in a certain assent is then surrendering to a religious system/structure.

But please tell me, if you really do subscribe to:



> I think we both know the answer to that one.



_Do we both know (?) _that that is no more than describing all the way of this world in _structure_?

What system is not in demand of assent to its form?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2019)

Izzy do you subscribe to knowing anything,  let alone all, about a Jesus/God?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2019)

Israel said:


> One would have to yield to your judgment of what "capably" laying a brick is.


 Wow. Seriously? You don't think the teacher can judge whether or not the knowledge was applied? What about teaching math? Would judgement come into play if 2 + 2 = 4 was a success on the application of knowledge acquired?  





> Many of you are the ones arguing (and I do not disagree) with a religious paradigm whereby yielding in a certain assent is then surrendering to a religious system/structure.


 Since religion was invented by man, it is certainly feasible they have something in common.



> But please tell me, if you really do subscribe to:
> _Do we both know (?) _that that is no more than describing all the way of this world in _structure_?


 Sorry. Sentence structure does not computer with me for some reason. 


> What system is not in demand of assent to its form?


Computer system?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2019)

> Israel said:
> One would have to yield to your judgment of what "capably" laying a brick is.





> Wow. Seriously? You don't think the teacher can judge whether or not the knowledge was applied?


I think this could be debated for hours.
It could be as simple as "you didn't put the mortar between the bricks so you didn't learn squat" all the way to " that brick is 1/16th" off kilter so you didn't learn squat".
That's where the teacher's definition of "capable" comes into play.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I think this could be debated for hours.
> It could be as simple as "you didn't put the mortar between the bricks so you didn't learn squat" all the way to " that brick is 1/16th" off kilter so you didn't learn squat".
> That's where the teacher's definition of "capable" comes into play.


Yes. It could be but, it really shouldn't. A teacher should teach what it going to be tested. How much mortar, tolerances, etc.  Redo till you get it right. 
However, I did try to switch the analogy to math to try and take some of the 'overthinking' out of it.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 10, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I tend to agree, somewhat. That’s why I asked why would your views on morals change? They shouldn’t. Having morals doesn’t require anyone to be Christian. Most likely, we agree that anyone can have morals by nature, we just disagree on where those morals / nature come from.



They changed primarily because they were what I had been taught to accept as truth from early childhood not based on reason but based on religious indoctrination. They weren't conclusions reached by my own reasoning or anyone else's for that matter. It was true because the bible says so; or so I was told. An argument from authority. Not to say that my reasoning is above error. I certainly could have flawed ideas and I'm sure I still do. Critical thinking is the process of seeking out and rejecting falsehoods in our paradigms. That is only possible if change is possible. To be incapable of change is to be incapable of correcting error.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Expanding Morality does not seem to be serving humanity all that well.



On what evidence is it expanding? What does that even mean?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Nope, morality has lost definition. Who could hope to keep up.


Morality, by definition, is going to change/be different because its entirely based on people's views. Which are ever changing and different.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> On what evidence is it expanding? What does that even mean?


Bruce Jenner got a medal from Obama for publicizing and capitalizing on what once would have been considered deviant behavior, born of a mental disorder.
I know, my example will be not enough, that will serve as a further example.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Bruce Jenner got a medal from Obama for publicizing and capitalizing on what once would have been considered deviant behavior, born of a mental disorder.
> I know, my example will be not enough, that will serve as a further example.




I agree that's not healthy or good for society. Not sure I would term that as expanding morality but I think I understand what you are getting at.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Bruce Jenner got a medal from Obama for publicizing and capitalizing on what once would have been considered deviant behavior, born of a mental disorder.
> I know, my example will be not enough, that will serve as a further example.


Obama likes those kind. He may be married to one. Sorry, that was wrong of me. 

Slavery is now thought of as bad. Canceled it out.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 10, 2019)

660griz said:


> Obama likes those kind. He may be married to one. Sorry, that was wrong of me.
> 
> Slavery is now thought of as bad. Canceled it out.



There are situations where I think slavery would be moral.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I agree that's not healthy or good for society. Not sure I would term that as expanding morality but I think I understand what you are getting at.



It is accepted as something less than immoral, now adolescent boys dressing and acting as trannys is celebrated in certain cosmopolitan circles. It would have been considered child abuse not too long ago. Morality expands.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> It is accepted as something less than immoral, now adolescent boys dressing and acting as trannys is celebrated in certain cosmopolitan circles. It would have been considered child abuse not too long ago. Morality expands.


It wasnt too long ago that it was standard for both boy and girl children to wear dresses. 
If you told those parents they were abusing their children they would have thought you were nuts. Or from somewhere else. Or from some other time.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> It wasnt too long ago that it was standard for both boy and girl children to wear dresses.
> If you told those parents they were abusing their children they would have thought you were nuts. Or from somewhere else. Or from some other time.



I was not talking about wearing dresses. I have worn a Kilt and it was not because I am a tranny.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Expanding Morality does not seem to be serving humanity all that well.


Wasn't one of the benefits of expanding Christianity, the morality that went with it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 10, 2019)

I would think it would benefit the whole world if we were on the same sheet of music concerning morality.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> I was not talking about wearing dresses. I have worn a Kilt and it was not because I am a tranny.


Well that depends. Did you _enjoy _wearing it?_ _
Technically a kilt is a kilt and a dress is a dress anyway. 
Kilts were traditionally for men but its becoming much more accepted for women/girls to wear them too. Nuthin stays the same.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Well that depends. Did you _enjoy _wearing it?_ _
> Technically a kilt is a kilt and a dress is a dress anyway.
> Kilts were traditionally for men but its becoming much more accepted for women/girls to wear them too. Nuthin stays the same.



I did enjoy wearing it and the women apparently enjoyed too. Nowadays its bib overalls for most days.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> I did enjoy wearing it and the women apparently enjoyed too. Nowadays its bib overalls for most days.


I knew a couple of guys that participated in those Highland Games and they said kilts were about 100 Xs more comfortable than jeans etc.
And these guys were big burly manly men I promise you that.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 10, 2019)

jollyroger said:


> Ain't nothing wrong with a kilt now. I have a buddy who wears a utili-kilt everyday . Rather eccentric dude, but smart as they come. I'm glad I know this guy.



A Kilt is a very masculine garment


----------



## PopPop (Sep 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I knew a couple of guys that participated in those Highland Games and they said kilts were about 100 Xs more comfortable than jeans etc.
> And these guys were big burly manly men I promise you that.



They were right, it's the little purse thingy that I could not abide, today's kilts are being made with useful pockets. Alas, l am older now and don't cut the figure I once did, so no more kilts.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 10, 2019)

I've seen some backpackers wearing kilts. I don't hardly like wearing shorts when backpacking or working around the house. When I get down on my knees to build a fire or hook hoses to a condensing unit, it hurts my knees. 
I've seen roofer wearing shorts and sandals. Not for me!


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2019)

jollyroger said:


> Not possible, Art. The very basis, the very foundation of morality needs it's antithesis to exist. If it became a singularity it would cease to exist or exist ad infinitum.


Yep as soon as you deem something moral, by default you are deeming those things not like it as immoral. And vice versa. One creates the other.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 10, 2019)

jollyroger said:


> Not possible, Art. The very basis, the very foundation of morality needs it's antithesis to exist. If it became a singularity it would cease to exist or exist ad infinitum.


So like we've talked about before; in order for there to be good in the world, there has to be evil. If there was no evil, we really wouldn't need God or salvation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> So like we've talked about before; in order for there to be good in the world, there has to be evil. If there was no evil, we really wouldn't need God or salvation.


Good, evil, God and salvation are all man made constructs


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Good, evil, God and salvation are all man made constructs


If we take God and man out of the equation, is there still no good or evil?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> If we take God and man out of the equation, is there still no good or evil?


Nope. Good and evil aren't a physical thing like a Chevy or a Ruger.
Man decides what falls under the word "good" or "evil". We made up the word and we make up the definition. And we change the definition as we go.
Or for a Christian, God decided.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> It is accepted as something less than immoral, now adolescent boys dressing and acting as trannys is celebrated in certain cosmopolitan circles. It would have been considered child abuse not too long ago. Morality expands.


It use to be ok to marry a 12 year old in the US. Pedophilia was accepted back in the day.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 11, 2019)

660griz said:


> It use to be ok to marry a 12 year old in the US. Pedophilia was accepted back in the day.



Correct. Suggesting that we are trading one wrong for another. I see Right being out traded Wrong. I have this stuff in my own family, the full gamut. It's going to be hard to convince me that it's OK. It's going to be even more difficult to convince me that replacing the old values and moralities with these new ones will produce a better society.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Correct. Suggesting that we are trading one wrong for another. I see Right being out traded Wrong. I have this stuff in my own family, the full gamut. It's going to be hard to convince me that it's OK. It's going to be even more difficult to convince me that replacing the old values and moralities with these new ones will produce a better society.



Howe do you compare what effect morality had on society in the 20's to that of the 80's? Women and Blacks were treated better in the 80's than the 20's. We had gangsters and party people during both decades. People did marry younger in the 20's. Some say the decade of the 20's was when morality went bad. Women even started seeing themselves as sexual beings equal to men.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Correct. Suggesting that we are trading one wrong for another. I see Right being out traded Wrong. I have this stuff in my own family, the full gamut. It's going to be hard to convince me that it's OK. It's going to be even more difficult to convince me that replacing the old values and moralities with these new ones will produce a better society.


I guess it all depends on where ya sit in society.
For 2 gay folks who want to get married or even for straight folks who think gays should be allowed to get married and be miserable like everybody else, these new values/morals produce a better society.
For every person that thinks its better theres a person that thinks it worse.
And the world goes round and round.....


----------



## PopPop (Sep 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I guess it all depends on where ya sit in society.
> For 2 gay folks who want to get married or even for straight folks who think gays should be allowed to get married and be miserable like everybody else, these new values/morals produce a better society.
> For every person that thinks its better theres a person that thinks it worse.
> And the world goes round and round.....



What consenting adults do among themselves has never concerned me. What they do to children and what they demand from society does.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> What consenting adults do among themselves has never concerned me. What they do to children and what they demand from society does.


Yet most homosexual children come from heterosexual parents. Homosexuals should not demand any more than heterosexuals. I feel everyone demands too much from the government. I also feel that the government doesn't give me the individual freedom I desire but that is another subject.

I'd say the morals and actions of heterosexuals is for worse on children that the 5% of the homosexuals.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> What consenting adults do among themselves has never concerned me. What they do to children and what they demand from society does.


I definitely understand where you are coming from and don't disagree with you in general. But it seems like you have a bit of tunnel vision. You mentioned children. "New" morality says young girls marrying adult men is bad. "New" morality says kids should be in school not picking a crop. "New" morality says you cant own someone elses kid and make them pick your cotton.......
So it really depends on where you sit as to whether new or old makes for a better society.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> What consenting adults do among themselves has never concerned me. What they do to children and what they demand from society does.


I agree.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Correct. Suggesting that we are trading one wrong for another. I see Right being out traded Wrong. I have this stuff in my own family, the full gamut. It's going to be hard to convince me that it's OK. It's going to be even more difficult to convince me that replacing the old values and moralities with these new ones will produce a better society.


I think society is still working it out. Some folks have some new found freedoms that they want to flaunt. There will hopefully be some backlash and they will dial it back a bit. Men competing in women's sport should be shortlived as well...I hope.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2019)

Most new ideas are wrong but not trying new ideas is bad.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 11, 2019)

Also keep in mind that secular morality changes biblical morality. Think about how the women in society changed biblical morality in the 60's. Christians have more or less set aside Paul's revelation on all of those special rules for women. 
Women are no longer subjection to their husbands, they can teach over men, wear gold and pearls, wear braided hair and fancy clothes. About the only thing they can't do is preach! 

Having lived through this change myself, I can see where the secular changed the biblical. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just how it is.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 11, 2019)

Would globalization give everyone the same currency, government, religion, and morals?

I'm not for globalization, just thinking out loud. Don't most Christian countries want every country to be Christian? To have the same morals as we do?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 11, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would globalization give everyone the same currency, government, religion, and morals?
> 
> I'm not for globalization, just thinking out loud. Don't most Christian countries want every country to be Christian? To have the same morals as we do?





Artfuldodger said:


> Also keep in mind that secular morality changes biblical morality. Think about how the women in society changed biblical morality in the 60's. Christians have more or less set aside Paul's revelation on all of those special rules for women.
> Women are no longer subjection to their husbands, they can teach over men, wear gold and pearls, wear braided hair and fancy clothes. About the only thing they can't do is preach!
> 
> Having lived through this change myself, I can see where the secular changed the biblical. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just how it is.


I think its unavoidable.
Religious folks dont live in a vacuum. They live in society. And society is made of humans. And humans views change. Certainly not everybodys views change in a lifetime but in enough lifetimes......
I think changing views is a part of being human.
We've been doing it since day one.


----------



## PopPop (Sep 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I definitely understand where you are coming from and don't disagree with you in general. But it seems like you have a bit of tunnel vision. You mentioned children. "New" morality says young girls marrying adult men is bad. "New" morality says kids should be in school not picking a crop. "New" morality says you cant own someone elses kid and make them pick your cotton.......
> So it really depends on where you sit as to whether new or old makes for a better society.



I do have a bit more focus, or tunnel vision. After making such wonderful improvements in the human condition, over decades, it looks like we are happily chucking it all for other destructive practices and doing it in a much more compressed timeline.
It was hard to change what was considered acceptable, now we are rediculed for even questioning what is acceptable.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I definitely understand where you are coming from and don't disagree with you in general. But it seems like you have a bit of tunnel vision. You mentioned children. "New" morality says young girls marrying adult men is bad. "New" morality says kids should be in school not picking a crop. "New" morality says you cant own someone elses kid and make them pick your cotton.......
> So it really depends on where you sit as to whether new or old makes for a better society.




It's a mixed bag. It's not all good or all bad. How do we sort the one from the other? By reason? Or by faith in a book claimed to be a moral authority? I think Christians themselves answer that question when they reject slavery and polygamy.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> I do have a bit more focus, or tunnel vision. After making such wonderful improvements in the human condition, over decades, it looks like we are happily chucking it all for other destructive practices and doing it in a much more compressed timeline.
> It was hard to change what was considered acceptable, now we are rediculed for even questioning what is acceptable.



I think we can do better than the morality one would get from strict adherence to an Abrahamic religious text. That doesn't necessarily mean that we will.


----------

