Question for the Protestants
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe
May 15, 2011, 4:52:48 PM5/15/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
Can a man exist, in this world, for a duration of five seconds,
without sinning?
without sinning?
Brock
May 15, 2011, 10:28:49 PM5/15/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
Hi Joe,
Sin, as a term, is not only a verb, representing something a person does, but a noun, reflecting a state of being.
sin:
HTH,
Brock
Sin, as a term, is not only a verb, representing something a person does, but a noun, reflecting a state of being.
sin:
–noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
–verb (used without object)
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
–verb (used with object)
6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin
In consideration of the multiple aspects of the term, since the fall of Adam & Eve into sin until the present, there isn't an instant during which any persons (except Christ) are not steeped fully in sin.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin
In consideration of the multiple aspects of the term, since the fall of Adam & Eve into sin until the present, there isn't an instant during which any persons (except Christ) are not steeped fully in sin.
HTH,
Brock
e_space
May 16, 2011, 4:46:47 AM5/16/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
malarkey
On May 15, 10:28 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Sin, as a term, is not only a verb, representing something a person does,
> but a noun, reflecting a state of being.
>
> sin:
>
> –noun
> 1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
> 2. any act <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act> regarded as such a
>
> –verb (used without object)
> 4. to commit a sinful <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sinful> act.
On May 15, 10:28 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Sin, as a term, is not only a verb, representing something a person does,
> but a noun, reflecting a state of being.
>
> sin:
>
> –noun
> 1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
> transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some
> religious or moral principle.
> 3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great
> fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time>.
> religious or moral principle.
> 3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great
>
> –verb (used without object)
> 4. to commit a sinful <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sinful> act.
e_space
May 16, 2011, 6:14:47 AM5/16/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
isnt *sin* a word that needs better definition?
sin, to me, is at worst, doing something that "i" have personally
determined is against "my" moral code ... although that may seem
narcissistic to some, dont we all set our own ethical boundaries, and
then determine our self value and contentment by how we survive
within, or without, these ethical limitations?
in my life, there are immediate and significant consequences for going
beyond the ethical limits that i have set ... inclusive of instant
admonition, and a renewed determination not to re-commit this
"sin" ... if no such repercussions exist, one would be hard pressed to
improve their goal of purity ... it would be interesting to know the
percentage of people who actually set purity as a goal ... i have a
feeling that it is a fairly small number ... maybe too much tv ;-^(
is the definition of *sin* only inclusive of what the bible has told
christians is wrong ... in addition, is it realistic to consider that
we are born in sin because eve took a bite of an apple? it makes sense
to me that, if God [xtian interpretation] created man, then 'he' also
created sin ... if so, why is this something to feel guilty about?
especially to the extent that one is told to get down on bended knee
to beg for forgiveness, for something that was inherent at birth? ...
i will take a rain check on this admonishment ... i am far more
ethical than many of those who claim to be xtian ... im not going to
apologize for that ...
should one feel guilty for going against what another has deemed
wrong? for example, should a child feel guilty for going against what
their parents have told them is right? what if the parent was wrong?
isnt it up to an individual to establish their own ethical code, and
then make sure they live up to it, and in fact, improve it?
if one follows the letter of the law, but their thoughts roam outside
of this, are they void of crime because they resisted their natural
physical instincts to break it? are they sinning by fantasizing about
things that they have been told are morally wrong? does it matter if
that person claims to be a xtian, or not? if one is not breaking their
own ethical code, are they sinning? is sinning an intent, or just an
action?
for those with little active conscience, living by the laws of the
land flies against their very nature. although they may not consider
their actions to be wrong, they get thrown in jail if they dont obey
what society has determined to be wrong. is it a sin to break these
laws? for example, is a rapist a felon and a sinner, or just a felon?
is sinning a function of religion only, or a reflection of conscious
decision making, or both?
sin, to me, is at worst, doing something that "i" have personally
determined is against "my" moral code ... although that may seem
narcissistic to some, dont we all set our own ethical boundaries, and
then determine our self value and contentment by how we survive
within, or without, these ethical limitations?
in my life, there are immediate and significant consequences for going
beyond the ethical limits that i have set ... inclusive of instant
admonition, and a renewed determination not to re-commit this
"sin" ... if no such repercussions exist, one would be hard pressed to
improve their goal of purity ... it would be interesting to know the
percentage of people who actually set purity as a goal ... i have a
feeling that it is a fairly small number ... maybe too much tv ;-^(
is the definition of *sin* only inclusive of what the bible has told
christians is wrong ... in addition, is it realistic to consider that
we are born in sin because eve took a bite of an apple? it makes sense
to me that, if God [xtian interpretation] created man, then 'he' also
created sin ... if so, why is this something to feel guilty about?
especially to the extent that one is told to get down on bended knee
to beg for forgiveness, for something that was inherent at birth? ...
i will take a rain check on this admonishment ... i am far more
ethical than many of those who claim to be xtian ... im not going to
apologize for that ...
should one feel guilty for going against what another has deemed
wrong? for example, should a child feel guilty for going against what
their parents have told them is right? what if the parent was wrong?
isnt it up to an individual to establish their own ethical code, and
then make sure they live up to it, and in fact, improve it?
if one follows the letter of the law, but their thoughts roam outside
of this, are they void of crime because they resisted their natural
physical instincts to break it? are they sinning by fantasizing about
things that they have been told are morally wrong? does it matter if
that person claims to be a xtian, or not? if one is not breaking their
own ethical code, are they sinning? is sinning an intent, or just an
action?
for those with little active conscience, living by the laws of the
land flies against their very nature. although they may not consider
their actions to be wrong, they get thrown in jail if they dont obey
what society has determined to be wrong. is it a sin to break these
laws? for example, is a rapist a felon and a sinner, or just a felon?
is sinning a function of religion only, or a reflection of conscious
decision making, or both?
Brock
May 16, 2011, 9:47:16 AM5/16/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
e_space
May 16, 2011, 11:57:26 AM5/16/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
definitions, son ... definitions ... the definition of sin that you
relate to is not all that relevant to me, although parts of it fit
in ... maybe if you spent a bit of time relating to the various
questions i raise in my previous post, your post *may* be a tad
palatable ... as it is, it just pesters my ulcers ;-^(
regarding the definition you provide;
1.transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam. [that carries no
divinity law to me at all ... first of all, im not governed by the
words of man, that you accept as the words of God ... secondly, what
was adam responsible for? that someone who was "created" from his rib
disobeyed a snake? = therefore, malarkey]
2.any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or
deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle. [i dont
belong to a religion = therefore, malarkey] [i commented on moral
principle in my previous post, the one that you thoughtfully decided
to ignore]
3.any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.;
great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time. [i dont consider
wasting time to be a sin, but i did cover the event where one goes
against their ethical code, so there are some parts of the definition
of sin that you accept, that i agree with ... again, you decided not
to address my question about whether sin was restricted to religion in
your opinion ... which is fine ;-^]
if you decide to actually debate for a change, instead of posting one
liners, or the quotes of others, you may not have people like orn
returning such in return ... just an observation, but you seem to
generate more negativity than anything positive ... maybe a little
adjustment in your attitude and content is required? and you talk
about my attitude?! tsk tsk ;-^/
relate to is not all that relevant to me, although parts of it fit
in ... maybe if you spent a bit of time relating to the various
questions i raise in my previous post, your post *may* be a tad
palatable ... as it is, it just pesters my ulcers ;-^(
regarding the definition you provide;
1.transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam. [that carries no
divinity law to me at all ... first of all, im not governed by the
words of man, that you accept as the words of God ... secondly, what
was adam responsible for? that someone who was "created" from his rib
disobeyed a snake? = therefore, malarkey]
2.any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or
deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle. [i dont
belong to a religion = therefore, malarkey] [i commented on moral
principle in my previous post, the one that you thoughtfully decided
to ignore]
3.any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.;
great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time. [i dont consider
wasting time to be a sin, but i did cover the event where one goes
against their ethical code, so there are some parts of the definition
of sin that you accept, that i agree with ... again, you decided not
to address my question about whether sin was restricted to religion in
your opinion ... which is fine ;-^]
if you decide to actually debate for a change, instead of posting one
liners, or the quotes of others, you may not have people like orn
returning such in return ... just an observation, but you seem to
generate more negativity than anything positive ... maybe a little
adjustment in your attitude and content is required? and you talk
about my attitude?! tsk tsk ;-^/
Joe
May 20, 2011, 6:35:23 PM5/20/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
Are you aware of the irony in your post, Brock? You referred to "a
noun, reflecting a state of being," but none of the definitions of sin
under "noun," refer to a state of being at all!
>
> –verb (used without object)
> 4. to commit a sinful <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sinful> act.
there is no basis whatsoever for you to consider sin a state of being,
much less a sort of bath in which a person may be infused. According
to the definitions you presented, sin, noun, is (1) a transgression,
(2) an act, (3) an action. All three noun definitions point to
individual sins as specific events, and not to states of being. Now
my original query, as asked, was about such individual acts. By
"sin," verb, I clearly meant, "to commit a sin," noun.
There is theological precedent and warrant for considering sin under
another definition, i.e. as a possible state of being, but the way you
used it above is alien to sound theology as far as I know. I would
like to expand the discussion in that direction, but first, it seems
to me you haven't actually answered the question as asked. Your
answer, such as it is, however, does imply an answer to the question
as asked, and the answer it seems to imply is, "no."
Is that what you meant? Did you mean to answer my query, "Can a man
This is very specifically the crux of the issue of Protestantism and
Catholicism as completely different religions. According to
Catholicism, Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the
world. But according to my understanding of Protestantism as
presented by you --- and kindly do correct me if I'm wrong --- there
does not pass a single moment in the life of any believer, in this
world, when his sins have actually been taken away. Rather, it would
seem, according to you, that it pleases God to let us remain filthy,
wretched, in your words, "steeped fully in sin."
According to Catholicism, God is omnipotent, and sin is offensive to
God. But according to the doctrines you believe, if I read you
correctly, either God is incapable of actually washing us clean of sin
in His Blood, or, He is pleased to allow us to remain filthy and not
wash us clean, even though He could.
Sin, to be clear what we are talking about, is not something vague,
but rather, a sin, noun, is a particular transgression of the Divine
Law. And a sin, as such, is an event with a duration. It has a
before, a during, and an after. So according to what I can discern of
what you have said you believe, a human being, regardless of whether
he is a believer or not, commits sin after sin after sin, with every
breath, in every waking moment. We move, according to such a
doctrine, from sin to sin, without even so much as taking a break in
between sins. We commit one sin, and then as soon as that is
accomplished, we move on to committing the next sin. There is never a
time, in our entire earthly existence, when anything we do can really
be called pleasing to God, since everything we do is sin.
We can talk about the state of sin vs the state of grace, but it seems
that according to you there is no such state as the state of grace.
But first, kindly deal with the issue of individual acts of sin.
Thanks!
And I welcome your corrections of any misconceptions I may have.
noun, reflecting a state of being," but none of the definitions of sin
under "noun," refer to a state of being at all!
> Hi Joe,
>
> Sin, as a term, is not only a verb, representing something a person does,
> but a noun, reflecting a state of being.
>
> sin:
>
> –noun
> 1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
> 2. any act <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act> regarded as such a
>
> Sin, as a term, is not only a verb, representing something a person does,
> but a noun, reflecting a state of being.
>
> sin:
>
> –noun
> 1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
> transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some
> religious or moral principle.
> 3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great
> fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time>.
> religious or moral principle.
> 3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great
>
> –verb (used without object)
> 4. to commit a sinful <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sinful> act.
> 5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
> –verb (used with object)
> 6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
> 7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin
>
> In consideration of the multiple aspects of the term, since the fall of Adam
> & Eve into sin until the present, there isn't an instant during which any
> persons (except Christ) are not steeped fully in sin.
>
> HTH,
>
> Brock
In consideration of the definition of sin proffered above, by you,
> –verb (used with object)
> 6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
> 7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin
>
> In consideration of the multiple aspects of the term, since the fall of Adam
> & Eve into sin until the present, there isn't an instant during which any
> persons (except Christ) are not steeped fully in sin.
>
> HTH,
>
> Brock
there is no basis whatsoever for you to consider sin a state of being,
much less a sort of bath in which a person may be infused. According
to the definitions you presented, sin, noun, is (1) a transgression,
(2) an act, (3) an action. All three noun definitions point to
individual sins as specific events, and not to states of being. Now
my original query, as asked, was about such individual acts. By
"sin," verb, I clearly meant, "to commit a sin," noun.
There is theological precedent and warrant for considering sin under
another definition, i.e. as a possible state of being, but the way you
used it above is alien to sound theology as far as I know. I would
like to expand the discussion in that direction, but first, it seems
to me you haven't actually answered the question as asked. Your
answer, such as it is, however, does imply an answer to the question
as asked, and the answer it seems to imply is, "no."
Is that what you meant? Did you mean to answer my query, "Can a man
exist, in this world, for a duration of five seconds, without
sinning?" with a categorical, "no?"
This is very specifically the crux of the issue of Protestantism and
Catholicism as completely different religions. According to
Catholicism, Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the
world. But according to my understanding of Protestantism as
presented by you --- and kindly do correct me if I'm wrong --- there
does not pass a single moment in the life of any believer, in this
world, when his sins have actually been taken away. Rather, it would
seem, according to you, that it pleases God to let us remain filthy,
wretched, in your words, "steeped fully in sin."
According to Catholicism, God is omnipotent, and sin is offensive to
God. But according to the doctrines you believe, if I read you
correctly, either God is incapable of actually washing us clean of sin
in His Blood, or, He is pleased to allow us to remain filthy and not
wash us clean, even though He could.
Sin, to be clear what we are talking about, is not something vague,
but rather, a sin, noun, is a particular transgression of the Divine
Law. And a sin, as such, is an event with a duration. It has a
before, a during, and an after. So according to what I can discern of
what you have said you believe, a human being, regardless of whether
he is a believer or not, commits sin after sin after sin, with every
breath, in every waking moment. We move, according to such a
doctrine, from sin to sin, without even so much as taking a break in
between sins. We commit one sin, and then as soon as that is
accomplished, we move on to committing the next sin. There is never a
time, in our entire earthly existence, when anything we do can really
be called pleasing to God, since everything we do is sin.
We can talk about the state of sin vs the state of grace, but it seems
that according to you there is no such state as the state of grace.
But first, kindly deal with the issue of individual acts of sin.
Thanks!
And I welcome your corrections of any misconceptions I may have.
e_space
May 20, 2011, 7:50:53 PM5/20/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
speaking of not answering questions ... i asked about 20?
Joe
May 20, 2011, 8:04:23 PM5/20/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
Patience, grasshopper. I did not see your post yet. I'll get to it
presently.
presently.
Joe
May 20, 2011, 8:29:06 PM5/20/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
On May 16, 6:14 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> isnt *sin* a word that needs better definition?
>
different definitions.
> sin, to me, is at worst, doing something that "i" have personally
> determined is against "my" moral code ...
>although that may seem
> narcissistic to some, dont we all set our own ethical boundaries, and
> then determine our self value and contentment by how we survive
> within, or without, these ethical limitations?
>
the case necessarily. For example, me. I am a Roman Catholic, a
devout and faithful Roman Catholic. That means that I accept the
moral teachings of the Church as absolute. I don't always live up to
them --- I am a sinner. But I do hold them as a standard, rather than
inventing my own.
> in my life, there are immediate and significant consequences for going
> beyond the ethical limits that i have set ... inclusive of instant
> admonition, and a renewed determination not to re-commit this
> "sin" ... if no such repercussions exist, one would be hard pressed to
> improve their goal of purity ... it would be interesting to know the
> percentage of people who actually set purity as a goal ... i have a
> feeling that it is a fairly small number ... maybe too much tv ;-^(
>
doing, and concentrating instead on what *I* am doing, or failing to
do as the case so often tragically is. I am in a competition to
attain to holiness, but not against my fellow human beings, but
against that standard that I have accepted for myself, which is
nothing short of perfection. Immediately as I mention the word
perfection, though, a pitfall comes to mind, namely perfectionism. I
am not a perfectionist, although I have those tendencies, too. But I
see perfectionism per se as an imperfection, something that I am also
striving to overcome in myself. That is no excuse to slack, though.
But the so-called perfection of the perfectionist is affected,
dishonest, and I prefer instead to allow God to change me in His own
ways into the person He wishes me to be. Perfectionism comes from
pride, in believing oneself already perfect, and then being angry with
oneself for failing to live up to that self-image. But real
perfection springs from humility, and consists in love. It is hard to
love people if you're obsessed with perfection. But it is easy to
attain to perfection if you concentrate on love.
> is the definition of *sin* only inclusive of what the bible has told
> christians is wrong ... in addition, is it realistic to consider that
> we are born in sin because eve took a bite of an apple?
You already stated your definition of sin, and I said that was fine.
The next question is, what to do about it?
>it makes sense
> to me that, if God [xtian interpretation] created man, then 'he' also
> created sin ...
you feel the need.
>if so, why is this something to feel guilty about?
conscience? I would think that of course you do, otherwise why call
it a conscience?
> especially to the extent that one is told to get down on bended knee
> to beg for forgiveness, for something that was inherent at birth? ...
> i will take a rain check on this admonishment ... i am far more
> ethical than many of those who claim to be xtian ... im not going to
> apologize for that ...
>
considering yourself somehow better than "those others," whoever they
may be. For myself, as I said above, I don't bother about how holy
other people are, unless they are very holy and can help me to become
more like them.
> should one feel guilty for going against what another has deemed
> wrong? for example, should a child feel guilty for going against what
> their parents have told them is right? what if the parent was wrong?
> isnt it up to an individual to establish their own ethical code, and
> then make sure they live up to it, and in fact, improve it?
>
> if one follows the letter of the law, but their thoughts roam outside
> of this, are they void of crime because they resisted their natural
> physical instincts to break it? are they sinning by fantasizing about
> things that they have been told are morally wrong? does it matter if
> that person claims to be a xtian, or not? if one is not breaking their
> own ethical code, are they sinning? is sinning an intent, or just an
> action?
>
> for those with little active conscience, living by the laws of the
> land flies against their very nature. although they may not consider
> their actions to be wrong, they get thrown in jail if they dont obey
> what society has determined to be wrong. is it a sin to break these
> laws? for example, is a rapist a felon and a sinner, or just a felon?
>
> is sinning a function of religion only, or a reflection of conscious
> decision making, or both?
>
Sin, to be sin, has to be deliberate, although it is not necessarily
premeditated. Premeditated sin is more serious than spontaneous sin,
for what should be obvious reasons, but if they are not, just say so
and I'll explain further, if I can.
I didn't answer all of your questions, for reasons that I think should
be obvious given what I have said. But feel free to ask for
clarification. For the most part, though, I am not into arguing the
finer points of whether or not my chosen religious path is "right"
with someone whose own path has taken him in a different direction.
My reason for this is it is like discussing the finer points of Latin
grammar with someone who only speaks Greek. No offense to you at all,
but you are not really in a position to appreciate the answers to some
of the questions you asked, and if you were in a position to be able
to understand the roots of some of your questions, you probably
wouldn't have to ask them. At this point it seems to me more
detrimental than beneficial to the overall goal here, to answer all of
your questions one by one. Many of them, I think, spring from what I
hold to be misconceptions on your part, which hopefully, some of my
words will have helped you to correct.
> On May 15, 4:52 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:> Can a man exist, in this world, for a duration of five seconds,
> > without sinning?
sin, that you gave above and that I agreed was adequate.
e_space
May 21, 2011, 4:10:47 AM5/21/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
re: "Do you feel guilty about violating the dictates of your own
conscience?" ...as mentioned, i feel strongly about breaking my own
conscious moral code, and typically take immediate steps to ensure
that i dont do so again ...
im not into perfectionism, im into the goal of purity of mind and
spirit ...
i have absolutely no idea what this means ... e_space "isnt it up to
re: "The competitiveness of person vs person can easily lead to
many who claim to be christian, and i am not in competition with
them ... i also have not stated that i am "somehow better" than
them ... these are assumptions you are falsely raising ...
re: "Sinful action has its root in sinful intent." ... maybe, but what
does this have to do with being born in sin?
i consider a rapist a felon, not a sinner ... because he is not going
against his moral code ... would you care to answer the question?
re: "Sin, to be sin, has to be deliberate" ... if this is so, how can
a child deliberately chose to be born in sin, as your religion falsely
states?
re: "Feel free to answer my original query" ... which was "Can a man
years, let alone for a duration of five seconds ... if you would have
read my comments closely, you would have garnered that my definition
of "sin" is going against my moral code, something that i seldom
do ...
conscience?" ...as mentioned, i feel strongly about breaking my own
conscious moral code, and typically take immediate steps to ensure
that i dont do so again ...
im not into perfectionism, im into the goal of purity of mind and
spirit ...
i have absolutely no idea what this means ... e_space "isnt it up to
an individual to establish their own ethical code, and then make sure
they live up to it, and in fact, improve it?" ... joe: "You say so."
re: "The competitiveness of person vs person can easily lead to
pride, like considering yourself somehow better than "those
others,"" ... i have no pride in the fact that i am more ethical than
many who claim to be christian, and i am not in competition with
them ... i also have not stated that i am "somehow better" than
them ... these are assumptions you are falsely raising ...
re: "Sinful action has its root in sinful intent." ... maybe, but what
does this have to do with being born in sin?
i consider a rapist a felon, not a sinner ... because he is not going
against his moral code ... would you care to answer the question?
re: "Sin, to be sin, has to be deliberate" ... if this is so, how can
a child deliberately chose to be born in sin, as your religion falsely
states?
re: "Feel free to answer my original query" ... which was "Can a man
exist, in this world, for a duration of five seconds, without
sinning? ... according to my definitions of sin, i havent done so in
years, let alone for a duration of five seconds ... if you would have
read my comments closely, you would have garnered that my definition
of "sin" is going against my moral code, something that i seldom
do ...
Joe
May 21, 2011, 2:41:06 PM5/21/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
On May 21, 4:10 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> re: "Do you feel guilty about violating the dictates of your own
> conscience?" ...as mentioned, i feel strongly about breaking my own
> conscious moral code, and typically take immediate steps to ensure
> that i dont do so again ...
>
> im not into perfectionism, im into the goal of purity of mind and
> spirit ...
>
> i have absolutely no idea what this means ... e_space "isnt it up to
> an individual to establish their own ethical code, and then make sure
> they live up to it, and in fact, improve it?" ... joe: "You say so."
>
> re: "The competitiveness of person vs person can easily lead to
> pride, like considering yourself somehow better than "those
> others,"" ... i have no pride in the fact that i am more ethical than
> many who claim to be christian, and i am not in competition with
> them ... i also have not stated that i am "somehow better" than
> them ... these are assumptions you are falsely raising ...
>
did you bring it up?
> re: "Sinful action has its root in sinful intent." ... maybe, but what
> does this have to do with being born in sin?
>
> i consider a rapist a felon, not a sinner ... because he is not going
> against his moral code ... would you care to answer the question?
>
conscience tells him it's O.K.?
You think that a rapist's conscience actually tells him it's O.K.?
Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the word, "conscience" the way
you are using it. Can you define it for me? We don't seem to be
talking about the same things.
> re: "Sin, to be sin, has to be deliberate" ... if this is so, how can
> a child deliberately chose to be born in sin, as your religion falsely
> states?
>
> re: "Feel free to answer my original query" ... which was "Can a man
> exist, in this world, for a duration of five seconds, without
> sinning? ... according to my definitions of sin, i havent done so in
> years, let alone for a duration of five seconds ... if you would have
> read my comments closely, you would have garnered that my definition
> of "sin" is going against my moral code, something that i seldom
> do ...
>
you do. One or the other.
e_space
May 21, 2011, 6:00:23 PM5/21/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
re: "which word gave you the trouble?" ... actually, all 3 of them,
not that is was any trouble, just didnt mean anything relevant ...
still doesnt
not better, more ethical ... since i am not in competition, i dont
rate their adherence to their ethical code ... in fact, i really dont
know what it is, other than claiming to be a christian ... that
obviously means very little to some people ... even those who come
here ... i brought it up to indicate that claiming to be something,
and actually being it, are miles apart ... and claiming to be
christian has NO moral or ethical meaning to me, despite the
admonitions of the bible ...
re: "You think it's perfectly O.K. for a rapist to rape, as long as
his own conscience tells him it's O.K.?" ... ummm no ... i think he
should have his nuts cut off, forced to take a bath in vinegar, and
spend the rest of his sorry life in jail ... my my, you sure do jump
to wild conclusions ... what i was attempting to get across was that,
in his mind, HE hadnt sinned, but HE had broken the law and should be
subject to its guidelines [except of course, that he would probably
only get his pathetic wrists slapped by our bizarre justice
system] ... trust this clears up your misunderstanding ...
many people who commit crimes, are not doing something wrong in their
own minds ... they dont feel guilty ... they feel lust, erotic urges
that they have no desire to control ... their conscience allows them
to commit the most horrendous of crimes, without the least
consideration for their victims ...
i do not take your last comment seriously ... since, as mentioned, i
am not in a competition with anyone, to determine who is better, i
simply live up to my values of right or wrong ... i have no idea
whether you do or not ... in my reality, it is of little
consequence ...
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
not that is was any trouble, just didnt mean anything relevant ...
still doesnt
not better, more ethical ... since i am not in competition, i dont
rate their adherence to their ethical code ... in fact, i really dont
know what it is, other than claiming to be a christian ... that
obviously means very little to some people ... even those who come
here ... i brought it up to indicate that claiming to be something,
and actually being it, are miles apart ... and claiming to be
christian has NO moral or ethical meaning to me, despite the
admonitions of the bible ...
re: "You think it's perfectly O.K. for a rapist to rape, as long as
his own conscience tells him it's O.K.?" ... ummm no ... i think he
should have his nuts cut off, forced to take a bath in vinegar, and
spend the rest of his sorry life in jail ... my my, you sure do jump
to wild conclusions ... what i was attempting to get across was that,
in his mind, HE hadnt sinned, but HE had broken the law and should be
subject to its guidelines [except of course, that he would probably
only get his pathetic wrists slapped by our bizarre justice
system] ... trust this clears up your misunderstanding ...
many people who commit crimes, are not doing something wrong in their
own minds ... they dont feel guilty ... they feel lust, erotic urges
that they have no desire to control ... their conscience allows them
to commit the most horrendous of crimes, without the least
consideration for their victims ...
i do not take your last comment seriously ... since, as mentioned, i
am not in a competition with anyone, to determine who is better, i
simply live up to my values of right or wrong ... i have no idea
whether you do or not ... in my reality, it is of little
consequence ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Joe
May 22, 2011, 3:09:18 PM5/22/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
From my other post,
8. God is defined as a theoretical being whose will is the universal
harmony and whose power is to bring it about.
Now here is something you might be able to accept, since it does not
ask you to "believe in God." God is presented here as a theoretical
being.
Sin can then be defined in the usual way as per the definitions given
by Brock below, but the difference is that God is a theoretical being
as defined by me above. For the purposes of this discussion, if you
are willing to discuss this. If not, then save the straw and the
reactionary crap, I already know where you stand on all of it. But if
you are willing to discuss, there it is --- go ahead.
8. God is defined as a theoretical being whose will is the universal
harmony and whose power is to bring it about.
Now here is something you might be able to accept, since it does not
ask you to "believe in God." God is presented here as a theoretical
being.
Sin can then be defined in the usual way as per the definitions given
by Brock below, but the difference is that God is a theoretical being
as defined by me above. For the purposes of this discussion, if you
are willing to discuss this. If not, then save the straw and the
reactionary crap, I already know where you stand on all of it. But if
you are willing to discuss, there it is --- go ahead.
e_space
May 22, 2011, 4:48:37 PM5/22/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
"reactionary crap"? ... hmmm would you mind pointing out what you are
referring to? my my, you guys sure like to throw sand, but seldom seem
to indicate exactly why ... you asked some questions [rather crappy
ones from my perspective], and i responded in kind ... if you dont
want to comment on them, fine ... i can certainly understand why ...
heres a suggestion ... if you dont want "reactionary crap", dont post
instigative crap like this "You think it's perfectly O.K. for a rapist
to rape, as long as his own conscience tells him it's O.K." ... this
is SOOOOO far from my thoughts on the subject, that you are fortunate
only to get the "reactionary crap" comment i gave back ... its hard to
make rose smelling commentary in response to the thoughtless
statements like the ones i am reacting to ... trust this makes sense
to you
referring to? my my, you guys sure like to throw sand, but seldom seem
to indicate exactly why ... you asked some questions [rather crappy
ones from my perspective], and i responded in kind ... if you dont
want to comment on them, fine ... i can certainly understand why ...
heres a suggestion ... if you dont want "reactionary crap", dont post
instigative crap like this "You think it's perfectly O.K. for a rapist
to rape, as long as his own conscience tells him it's O.K." ... this
is SOOOOO far from my thoughts on the subject, that you are fortunate
only to get the "reactionary crap" comment i gave back ... its hard to
make rose smelling commentary in response to the thoughtless
statements like the ones i am reacting to ... trust this makes sense
to you
Joe
May 22, 2011, 10:47:27 PM5/22/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
On May 22, 4:48 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "reactionary crap"
I asked you to spare us that.
Joe
May 22, 2011, 11:10:03 PM5/22/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
On May 21, 6:00 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> re: "which word gave you the trouble?" ... actually, all 3 of them,
"dictionary," or even just google the word you need defined.
> not that is was any trouble, just didnt mean anything relevant ...
> still doesnt
>
> not better, more ethical ...
>since i am not in competition, i dont
> rate their adherence to their ethical code ...
>in fact, i really dont
> know what it is, other than claiming to be a christian ...
>that
> obviously means very little to some people ... even those who come
> here ... i brought it up to indicate that claiming to be something,
> and actually being it, are miles apart ...
about what it would mean, in the first place. So how would you know
they are "miles apart?"
>and claiming to be
> christian has NO moral or ethical meaning to me,
>despite the
> admonitions of the bible ...
>
Of course, you may see it differently.
> re: "You think it's perfectly O.K. for a rapist to rape, as long as
> his own conscience tells him it's O.K.?" ... ummm no ... i think he
> should have his nuts cut off, forced to take a bath in vinegar, and
> spend the rest of his sorry life in jail ... my my, you sure do jump
> to wild conclusions ... what i was attempting to get across was that,
> in his mind, HE hadnt sinned,
>but HE had broken the law and should be
> subject to its guidelines [except of course, that he would probably
> only get his pathetic wrists slapped by our bizarre justice
> system] ... trust this clears up your misunderstanding ...
>
Don't misunderstand me, I am not condoning rape. But I hold it to be
*objectively* morally wrong, and not merely the transgression of a
human law. Not every human law is just. So are you appealing to some
"wrongness" of rape that is based on something other than human law?
Because, if all it is is a violation of human law, then it cannot also
be morally wrong (as that would be something more than merely a
violation of human law.)
> many people who commit crimes, are not doing something wrong in their
> own minds ...
>they dont feel guilty ... they feel lust, erotic urges
> that they have no desire to control ... their conscience allows them
> to commit the most horrendous of crimes, without the least
> consideration for their victims ...
>
> i do not take your last comment seriously ... since, as mentioned, i
> am not in a competition with anyone, to determine who is better, i
> simply live up to my values of right or wrong ... i have no idea
> whether you do or not ... in my reality, it is of little
> consequence ...
>
person. You alluded to your own path doing the same thing for you, in
these your words,
"isnt it up to an individual to establish their own ethical code, and
then make sure they live up to it, and in fact, improve it?"
having as your goal moral perfection, it might still be the case that
you would continue to set the bar higher and higher for yourself. It
would seem, then, that as a consequence, you would continually find
yourself not living up to it (or else what is the meaning of setting
the bar higher?) So I thought, maybe, we had more in common than
might appear at first glance. But then when you stated that you were
successful in not committing a single sin (under the dictates of your
own conscience) for years, it no longer seems to me that our paths are
all that similar. What I say here is not meant to insult you, though
I can do nothing to prevent you from being offended by it if that is
your bent. But know, that what I say here is meant to help you, not
to insult you. It seems to me that a moral standard that you easily
live up to is not high enough, and perhaps you should consider, in
fact, improving it a bit more, raise the bar higher for yourself,
challenge yourself, rather than just kind of sitting back on your
laurels, as it appears to me you may be doing. If I am way off, well,
my apologies, I am just conveying to you how it seems to me, based on
your words.
e_space
May 23, 2011, 6:03:13 AM5/23/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
spare that silly admonitions, and answer the questions ... this is a
debate group, as you have recently pointed out ... your avoidance
dance is cute, but not what i come here for ...
debate group, as you have recently pointed out ... your avoidance
dance is cute, but not what i come here for ...
e_space
May 23, 2011, 6:11:36 AM5/23/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
sorry, too many misrepresentations and dodging strategies to waste my
time responding to ... ive been accused of petulance, but i have
rarely seen such flamboyant examples of it ... so congrats on that ;-
^)
regarding one absolutely silly comment "Why "should" he be punished if
it is a mere human law" ... huh??? people go to jail for breaking
"mere human laws" all the time ... i guess youve never heard of prison
before? ... if it werent for such, charles manson may be your
neighbor ...
dont worry joe, your words dont offend me ... any guesses why?
> ...
>
> read more »
time responding to ... ive been accused of petulance, but i have
rarely seen such flamboyant examples of it ... so congrats on that ;-
^)
regarding one absolutely silly comment "Why "should" he be punished if
it is a mere human law" ... huh??? people go to jail for breaking
"mere human laws" all the time ... i guess youve never heard of prison
before? ... if it werent for such, charles manson may be your
neighbor ...
dont worry joe, your words dont offend me ... any guesses why?
>
> read more »
14SM.jcil
May 23, 2011, 6:22:08 PM5/23/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
Exceptionally well written, Joe. Humble, magnanimous, and well articulated points. Kudos.
Joe
May 23, 2011, 9:36:09 PM5/23/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
I'm going to make another attempt.
From my other post,
8. God is defined as a theoretical being whose will is the universal
harmony and whose power is to bring it about.
Now here is something you might be able to accept, since it does not
ask you to "believe in God." God is presented here as a theoretical
being.
Sin can then be defined in the usual way as per the definitions given
by Brock below, but the difference is that God is a theoretical being
as defined by me above. For the purposes of this discussion, if you
are willing to discuss this. If not, then save the straw and the
reactionary crap, I already know where you stand on all of it. But if
you are willing to discuss, there it is --- go ahead.
From my other post,
8. God is defined as a theoretical being whose will is the universal
harmony and whose power is to bring it about.
Now here is something you might be able to accept, since it does not
ask you to "believe in God." God is presented here as a theoretical
being.
Sin can then be defined in the usual way as per the definitions given
by Brock below, but the difference is that God is a theoretical being
as defined by me above. For the purposes of this discussion, if you
are willing to discuss this. If not, then save the straw and the
reactionary crap, I already know where you stand on all of it. But if
you are willing to discuss, there it is --- go ahead.
Joe
May 23, 2011, 9:36:52 PM5/23/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
Joe
May 23, 2011, 10:11:11 PM5/23/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
Thank you SM!
e_space
May 24, 2011, 6:18:03 AM5/24/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
e_space
May 24, 2011, 6:33:29 AM5/24/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
a "theoretical being" is a man-made being ... a concept ... so i guess
you are talking about "theoretical sin" as well?
regarding your new favorite expression ... my "reactionary crap" is
just a reflection of the original crap imo ... maybe the aroma of your
own words are wafting back up your nasal passageways?
opposite to what your new-found admirer likes to think, i do not post
out of anger, spite, vengeance, or a desire to create chaos, i simply
question belief-based statements that are stated as fact, something
that is VERY prevalent here ... if the negative reactions to such
questions were not so enthusiastic, you would not receive the falsely
perceived "petulance" that i am so often accused of ... i think of it
more as having fun in the face of negativity ... but hey, if its
perceived as petulance, so be it ... if you can post an example of
where you see it other wise, it would be appreciated ...
you are talking about "theoretical sin" as well?
regarding your new favorite expression ... my "reactionary crap" is
just a reflection of the original crap imo ... maybe the aroma of your
own words are wafting back up your nasal passageways?
opposite to what your new-found admirer likes to think, i do not post
out of anger, spite, vengeance, or a desire to create chaos, i simply
question belief-based statements that are stated as fact, something
that is VERY prevalent here ... if the negative reactions to such
questions were not so enthusiastic, you would not receive the falsely
perceived "petulance" that i am so often accused of ... i think of it
more as having fun in the face of negativity ... but hey, if its
perceived as petulance, so be it ... if you can post an example of
where you see it other wise, it would be appreciated ...
e_space
May 24, 2011, 6:39:02 AM5/24/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
lol ... not really apologizing son ... nice "avoidance strategy"
though ... you guys are masters of this, arent you?
its disappointing [although anticipated] to see all of you guys
tucking your tail between your legs and running out the door, simply
because you find the questions about your factual sounding claims to
be a bit too hard to answer ... your belief should be strong enough to
handle such scrutiny, shouldnt it?
though ... you guys are masters of this, arent you?
its disappointing [although anticipated] to see all of you guys
tucking your tail between your legs and running out the door, simply
because you find the questions about your factual sounding claims to
be a bit too hard to answer ... your belief should be strong enough to
handle such scrutiny, shouldnt it?
SM
May 24, 2011, 8:17:11 AM5/24/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:33 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
i do not post out of anger, spite, vengeance, or a desire to create chaos, i simply
question belief-based statements that are stated as fact, something
that is VERY prevalent here ... if the negative reactions to such
questions were not so enthusiastic, you would not receive the falsely
perceived "petulance" that i am so often accused of ... i think of it
more as having fun in the face of negativity ... but hey, if its
perceived as petulance, so be it ... if you can post an example of
where you see it other wise, it would be appreciated ...
e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:malarkey
SM
May 24, 2011, 8:20:08 AM5/24/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:39 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
lol ... not really apologizing son ... nice "avoidance strategy"
though ... you guys are masters of this, arent you?
its disappointing [although anticipated] to see all of you guys
tucking your tail between your legs and running out the door, simply
because you find the questions about your factual sounding claims to
be a bit too hard to answer ... your belief should be strong enough to
handle such scrutiny, shouldnt it?
"<snarl>, <growl>, <snap>"
<chuckle>
e_space
May 25, 2011, 7:06:27 AM5/25/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
ah, your true personality on display ... how refreshing! ;-^)
On May 24, 8:20 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 8:20 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages