Do you sin against God or man?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
You do yourself a disservice by completely and utterly misunderstanding.
What you stated was, unequivocally, equivocation.
Meaning: you asserted synonymy to hold between an illegal act and a 'sin'.
That is simply incorrect.
While a sin may be illegal, it may also not be such.
But, the point was that there is a distinct difference between the definitions of an illegal act, and a sin.
that depends on whose law you're consulting.
and how many sins are not illegal?
or not headed that way?
i think that distinction is irrelevant, legality of sin is determined by how man can turn it into a law,
sin is anything that corrupts you from being the perfect you..
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
How is your perfection effected by wearing clothes with two types of fabric?
How id your perfection effected by eating shell fish?
Shall I list the many other sins that have 0 effect on ones perfection?
Regards
DL
The you are incapable of comprehension.
It is illegal here, for example, to drive a car and use a cell phone. Is that typically described as a sin??
Not according to any definition of "sin" I've heard used by those who use the term....
??
Obviously, when using the term "illegal" I'm referring to the particular Governmental Legislation of one';s country.
The term cannot refer to anything else...
??
well that's not the same law that sin is in transgression of necessarily and obviously.
we weren't talking about laws that are sinfull, we were talking about sins that were illegal..
dunno how you got to fabric..
but shellfish does have a habit of randomly being poison..(i cannot eat abalone,makes me sick)
go ahead and list what you think are sins..
Narks being real and Gods not being real I think is the point I was going for.
As for using an fMRI machine and measuring Lust and Sin, why do you say the specification is poor? We have to start from somewhere :shrug: Sure, perhaps in the future Lust and Sin may be redefined.
What of Depression?
Depression as a way of thinking.
Depression as a function of neurotransmitter function.
Depression as a measure of hippocampal volume.
I suppose once you know which one you're measuring then you can go ahead and use that term.
thast yet another circular argument I'm afraid ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
its not so much using the machine but calling upon candidates to verify a null hypotehsis
(IOW if you can't isolate the state of lust in a candidate, you haven't got a foot to stand on when you cite data from their performance)
actually the definitions are already there .... although its a common ploy of materialists to dumb down the terms for the sake of lending credence to a point in their ideology
ie soft science
ie hard science ... and never the twain shall meet
:shrug:
if you are talking measurement (of units) you are talking hard science ... which explains why there is no go ahead when it attempts to breach the ground of soft science (what to speak of issues of theism)
Lori makes the right point.
"Governmental Legislation of one's country" can mean a number of things, depending on time and circumstance.
Things that are illegal in one country may be legal in another or at another time.
There was a time in the US when production and consumption of alcohol was illegal, for example.
In some countries, it is illegal for women not to cover their heads.
There was a time in India, when Indian women had to pay to be allowed to wear clothes covering their breasts.
But I think you are actually after a more pertinent point, I'll quote a couple of previous posts -
Last edited:
While LG's line of reasoning is correct (namely, just because you don't believe in something it doesn't mean it isn't true and won't affect you),
it does not give one an outlook for a doable course of action.
For example, I don't believe in some Papua god. But theoretically, I have to acknowledge that this god might exist and have influence over me.
So what am I to do? Act as if this god does exist? This would eventually mean that I have to take seriously every threat and every consideration ever made.
Which is an absurd request.
Given all the various threats that various religions and others make and the concerns they raise, how is a person to know which ones to take seriously and which to ignore?
Glaucon is saying that he doesn't believe in sin, period.
My point is that the very term sin (regardless whether one wants interpret sin in the exclusive papauian sense or in a more general fashion) operates out of a greater authority than an individual and their beliefs (much like the narc squad operates in a certain manner regardless whether one believes in it or not)
I used to.
There is no such "law".
You miss the point. Again.
I'll keep it simpler: an illegal act, and a sinful act are not necessarily the same act.
That list is empty.
Odd. Seems to me that she's missing at least half...
Yes. Specifically that it is legislative bodies that define what is illegal.
How one defines what behaviour qualifies as a "sin".... I cannot say.
True. But only to the extent that the object of disbelief represents some sort of affective power.
(p.s. Thanks for the clarification on LG's point. I still hadn't discerned that from what he said....)
Which brings me to...
Based upon the nature of their origin.
Typically, these 'threats' are bandied about by those who choose to pay heed to the various prescriptive moral codes that are founded upon some ancient text that is purported to express the will of some metaphysical entity.
Do I really need to mention Laplace at this point?
IN other words: the rational person takes none of them seriously.