FREE TAPATALK APP

AvalonXQ · 1st May 2012, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

IF the RCC had said adultery or sex outside of marriage is a sin, I'd agree with you. They don't, however--they say HOMOSEXUALITY, as such, is a sin. The RCC itself is drawing the distinction between homosexuality and regular unauthorized fornication; I'm merely reporting it.

This is a definition confusion; when they say "homosexuality is a sin," they're talking about homosexual sex, not homosexual attraction.

Dinwar · 1st May 2012, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

when they say "homosexuality is a sin," they're talking about homosexual sex, not homosexual attraction.

Depends on who you talk to. But this is really a side-issue we can get into somewhere else, if anyone's interested--it's enough, for now, to note that the RCC thinks homosexuality is a sin.

AvalonXQ · 1st May 2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Depends on who you talk to. But this is really a side-issue we can get into somewhere else, if anyone's interested--it's enough, for now, to note that the RCC thinks homosexuality is a sin.

By which they mean homosexual sex, not homosexual attraction.

Wikipedia says:

Quote:

In Roman Catholicism, homosexual acts are considered contrary to natural law and sinful, while homosexual desires are considered "disordered" but not themselves sinful.

GeeMack · 1st May 2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

My understanding is that it's not lack of belief in Christ directly that condemns you -- it's your own evil acts, that all men perform and know to be evil. Failing to acknowledge Christ just means you don't have the remedy for sin; if you never sinned in the first place, you wouldn't need Christ either.

Other way around. Many of us, probably most of us on a skeptics' forum, have no need for the threat of punishment from some imaginary magical being in order to be good citizens of this planet. Doing wrong only becomes a sin because of the superstitious beliefs.

Quote:

Sexual attraction is temptation; giving into temptation is sin. Sexual preference is irrelevant.

And that's just sick.

Agatha · 1st May 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

He's talking about rumor-mongering, or gossiping -- spreading lies about people in secret.

I don't doubt that you are correct in that is the intention, but are you not inferring meaning, and therefore adding to the text by assuming that was the intention of the passage?

If God meant rumour-mongering or gossiping (and gossiping doesn't imply telling lies anyway), why not say so? Why use a word which means something else? Maybe God really means whispering as in talking too softly for people to hear.

TimCallahan · 1st May 2012, 03:07 PM

In the Greek of the New Testament, what are translated into English as "sin" and "sinner" are, respectively, hamartia and hamartalos, from the verb hamartanein, to miss the mark, to err. In Greek tragedies hamartia was the fatal flaw that led to the undoing of a great man.

One interesting use of hamartalos is in the incident of the anointing woman in Luke 7, who is implicitly a prostitute.

I really don't see much difference between "sin" and "wrong-doing."

Mojo · 1st May 2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

"Sin" is separation from God that results from making a choice contrary to God's will.

How would you differentiate this definition from "sin is doing things that the founders and leaders of your religion don't approve of"?

The Dark Lord · 1st May 2012, 03:18 PM

A god that cares who people have sex with and will in fact torture you forever for choosing incorrectly sounds incredibly evil. Glad I am not wasting my life worshiping such a monster.

AvalonXQ · 1st May 2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

I don't doubt that you are correct in that is the intention, but are you not inferring meaning, and therefore adding to the text by assuming that was the intention of the passage?

Understanding the text and the language in its context is not the same as impermissibly adding meaning. Paul's intention is clear, and if I recall this is not the only place that this particular term is used.
If there is an alternate interpretation allowed by the Koine language and the context, I'm happy to consider it. I explained what it is understood to mean.

Dinwar · 1st May 2012, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

If God meant rumour-mongering or gossiping (and gossiping doesn't imply telling lies anyway), why not say so?

Well, to be fair the original probably did. Avalon's quote is in English, which means it's at least a translation of the original (and I'd bet my better rock hammer it's a translation of a translation or more). And all languages are full of idioms--to the people at that time, "whisperers" could very well have meant gossipers to everyone who heard it, just as a picture of a donkey in a political add says "Republican" (I think....) to USA citizens.

Though I agree, I'm not clear on why gossiping is a sin. When I was a kid my family would often gossip with the priest in the town my grandmother lived in (he was a good friend of the family). So long as you told the truth, and were willing to say it to the person's face, the priest was more than okay with it.

Mojo · 1st May 2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

...just as a picture of a donkey in a political add says "Republican" (I think....) to USA citizens.

I think it's the other lot.

AvalonXQ · 1st May 2012, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Well, to be fair the original probably did. Avalon's quote is in English, which means it's at least a translation of the original (and I'd bet my better rock hammer it's a translation of a translation or more). And all languages are full of idioms--to the people at that time, "whisperers" could very well have meant gossipers to everyone who heard it, just as a picture of a donkey in a political add says "Republican" (I think....) to USA citizens.

Donkey is Democrat; elephant is Republican.

Quote:

Though I agree, I'm not clear on why gossiping is a sin. When I was a kid my family would often gossip with the priest in the town my grandmother lived in (he was a good friend of the family). So long as you told the truth, and were willing to say it to the person's face, the priest was more than okay with it.

If you're just conveying honest information about a person, with no intent to damage their reputation or facilitate nasty rumors, then it's not "gossiping"; it's just spreading news.
It's the schadenfraude aspect of gossip, the "backbiting" really, that makes it bad.

Dinwar · 1st May 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Donkey is Democrat; elephant is Republican.

Fair enough; a better example is the word "gentleman". Today it merely means acting properly. In the Middle Ages it meant a man of the nobility. In each culture the person knew what the word meant, but between cultures there's confusion.

Quote:

If you're just conveying honest information about a person, with no intent to damage their reputation or facilitate nasty rumors, then it's not "gossiping"; it's just spreading news.

Well, there's honesty and then there's honesty. Again, I have no doubt that some of the people in that Romans quote were homosexuals--and would be surprised if some weren't. However, it's also extremely likely that not everyone involved was a homosexual. The quote is probably true, in that it never specifies a number of people who are engaging in that activity--but the implications (that the majority if not everyone was doing it) are almost certainly false. So as to not get bogged down in the details of that particular quote, let's pretend I said those words, but about, say, the town I grew up in (it was founded something like 400 years ago, so there's little chance of Paul referring to it). It'd still be true, but the obviously intended implications wouldn't be.

Is the fact that a statement is true sufficient to make it not a sin to say it in what we'd call today gossip?

shadron · 1st May 2012, 03:51 PM

As catholics, we can get our answer from Baltimore, where some kind of oracle is kept alive to torture elementary school kids:

Originally Posted by Baltimore catechism

Q. 278. What is actual sin?

Originally Posted by Baltimore catechism

A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the law of God.

But I think Darth is referring to original sin:

Quote:

What is Original Sin?

The sin committed by Adam, the father of the human race. By Original Sin, Adam lost Sanctifying Grace.

How did the sin of Adam affect the human race?

Because of Adam's sin, every human being is created with Original Sin on his soul and without Sanctifying Grace, since Adam was the father of the human race.Adam's nature became "fallen" through Original Sin, and we his descendants inherit his fallen nature.

"By the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners." (Romans 5:19)

The connection, should you need one, is that the the latter makes us prone to the former, even after we resolve the latter through Baptism.

BravesFan · 1st May 2012, 03:51 PM

Hit and Run is a Crime

Ketchup on a hotdog, that's a sin!!

AvalonXQ · 1st May 2012, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Is the fact that a statement is true sufficient to make it not a sin to say it in what we'd call today gossip?

Absolutely not. It's not the truth-value of the statement that is probitive; it's the motive behind the communication.

Dinwar · 1st May 2012, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Absolutely not. It's not the truth-value of the statement that is probitive; it's the motive behind the communication.

Okay. Let's say I ate at Joe's diner. Let's say I got food poisoning--really bad food poisoning. I decide to give him a second chance. I get poisoned again. I give him a THIRD chance, but end up getting my stomach pumped. Someone asks me "What do you think of Joe's?" Would responding "That no-good so-and-so deserves to be shut down! He got me sick THREE TIMES!" be a sin? It's true, but my intention is to convince my friend to never eat there. That said, there's a perfectly valid reason for me to do this--as an Objectivist, I'd see this as an obligation, in fact.

Gord_in_Toronto · 2nd May 2012, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Here's a useful passage on the subject:

Quote:

Romans 1:18-32 (NKJV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

I think this is saying that the nature of God is clear enough, based on just what we can all see in the natural world, that choosing to act against Him or deny Him is a deliberate act.

The later part goes through some examples of "things that are not fitting".

OK. Now define "natural use" as highlighted above. Other primates, from what I have read, love to "indulge" in homosexual activities. So such activities appear to be "natural use". Why then is homosexuality a sin?

Even more boggling if "God gave them up to vile passions" is interpreted to mean that he enforced, condoned or permitted these activities.

²

AvalonXQ · 2nd May 2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Okay. Let's say I ate at Joe's diner. Let's say I got food poisoning--really bad food poisoning. I decide to give him a second chance. I get poisoned again. I give him a THIRD chance, but end up getting my stomach pumped. Someone asks me "What do you think of Joe's?" Would responding "That no-good so-and-so deserves to be shut down! He got me sick THREE TIMES!" be a sin? It's true, but my intention is to convince my friend to never eat there.

... and your reason for wanting your friend never to eat there isn't malice towards Joe's, but rather a legitimate assessment that Joe's is a health hazard and should be shut down.

No malice, no evil, no sin.

slingblade · 2nd May 2012, 09:35 AM

The idea that homosexual acts are sinful is disgusting in the extreme.

The idea that it's "okay" to feel that way, to have that attraction, but not indulge in the acts of love is more than disgusting. It's manipulative, cruel, unfeeling, and totally unrealistic.

How can anyone say with a straight face that it's okay to be homosexual as long as you don't engage in the very thing that makes you homosexual? SEX. If you aren't having that only because some ignorant fool thinks you shouldn't, then you aren't being homosexual.

That entire concept of "feel the attraction but never act on it" is a sin. Anyone who espouses it is sub-human.

Signed, the woman who's made love to many women, and loved every second of it.

Marquis de Carabas · 2nd May 2012, 09:38 AM

A sin is an act the enjoyment of which is only surpassed by the enjoyment of denying it to others.

AvalonXQ · 2nd May 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

That entire concept of "feel the attraction but never act on it" is a sin. Anyone who espouses it is sub-human.

Is it your position, then, that there's no such thing as a genuine pedophile -- that is, someone who really feels sexual attraction to prepubescent children?

Furthermore, as I am married, I have to submit to you that I do not consider myself sub-human for asking my spouse not to act on the attraction felt for individuals other than me. I nonetheless don't condemn my spouse for feeling the attraction; I just expect my spouse to engage in self-control.

Some, of course, might consider our culture to be "sub-human" for encouraging monogamous pair bonding, which limits our ability to act on our natural attractions for individuals outside the pair bond. I have no such problem with what I consider to be the natural, limited expression of our attractions in one narrowly-construed context.

There are plenty of examples of choosing not to act on our feelings; in most cases, espousing such self-control is not considered subhuman.

slingblade · 2nd May 2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Is it your position, then, that there's no such thing as a genuine pedophile -- that is, someone who really feels sexual attraction to prepubescent children?

Go have your chat with Ivor the Engineer. I find this abusive of you, given that you know I'm a survivor of child sexual abuse.

You don't fool me. And you are on ignore permanently.

I expect nothing better from most Christians, and they prove me right every time.

AvalonXQ · 2nd May 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

You don't fool me. And you are on ignore permanently.

That's unfortunate, but not unexpected.

Your irrational hatred of my kind is well-established.

I do not reciprocate it, however.

Dinwar · 2nd May 2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

... and your reason for wanting your friend never to eat there isn't malice towards Joe's, but rather a legitimate assessment that Joe's is a health hazard and should be shut down.

What is malice, if not wanting to do harm? I want to harm Joe's--I want to destroy it.

Originally Posted by slingblade

The idea that it's "okay" to feel that way, to have that attraction, but not indulge in the acts of love is more than disgusting. It's manipulative, cruel, unfeeling, and totally unrealistic.

More problematic for Christians, even feeling the attraction is a sin. Jesus said that wanting to do something is the same as doing it. "We're damned for desiring it, so we may as well enjoy ourselves" isn't an uncommon theme in the more subversive Rennaissance and Medieval literature.

As for feeling attraction and not acting on it, unless you're of the less-philosophical hedonistic bent you necessarily have to admit that sometimes acting on some desire is a bad idea. I don't find that concept--wanting something, but not acting on it--evil; after all, not all desires are legitimate. Just because heroine makes you feel good doesn't mean you should keep injecting yourself, for example. When it comes to sex, what you have to remember is that values are heirarchical. My love for my wife trumps my desire to sleep with another woman; thus I don't act on it.

Please understand I'm not saying that you MUST be monogomous--it's the choice I made, but I fully acknowledge it's for private reasons that aren't necessarily applicable to others. Each person, to my mind, has to establish their own heirarchy of values (in fact each person does need to--most default to the cultural norms, and as Rush said "If you choose not to decide/you still have made a choice"--my point is that I think it proper for each person to make their own choices here).

Belz... · 2nd May 2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

sin = whatever makes God cry

God's always crying. What a wuss.

AvalonXQ · 2nd May 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

More problematic for Christians, even feeling the attraction is a sin. Jesus said that wanting to do something is the same as doing it. "We're damned for desiring it, so we may as well enjoy ourselves" isn't an uncommon theme in the more subversive Rennaissance and Medieval literature.

I don't agree there. Committing the sin in your heart, as Jesus discusses, is understood to be more than just temptation. Temptation is automatic; the act of will that can be sin even when no physical act accompanies it is something different.

Quote:

As for feeling attraction and not acting on it, unless you're of the less-philosophical hedonistic bent you necessarily have to admit that sometimes acting on some desire is a bad idea. I don't find that concept--wanting something, but not acting on it--evil; after all, not all desires are legitimate. Just because heroine makes you feel good doesn't mean you should keep injecting yourself, for example. When it comes to sex, what you have to remember is that values are heirarchical. My love for my wife trumps my desire to sleep with another woman; thus I don't act on it.

You made the point better than I did.

I like to use the pedophilia example because I think it's pretty cut-and-dry; these people are sexually attracted to children, that's not their fault, but it is morally wrong for them to act on it.

I didn't consider that bringing up that subject to the person I was responding to was probably insensitive.

Piscivore · 2nd May 2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I didn't consider that bringing up that subject to the person I was responding to was probably insensitive.

So, since you didn't intend to hurt her, your conscience is clear?

I Ratant · 2nd May 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

A sin is an act the enjoyment of which is only surpassed by the enjoyment of denying it to others.

.
The very definition of a Puritan, who is also very upset that someone somewhere is having fun.

Dinwar · 2nd May 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Temptation is automatic; the act of will that can be sin even when no physical act accompanies it is something different.

What exactly is the difference? Jesus specifically said that if you get angry with someone, you're guilty of sin--and anger is automatic as well.

AvalonXQ · 2nd May 2012, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

So, since you didn't intend to hurt her, your conscience is clear?

Only sort of.

I don't think the unintentional harm is/was sin.

I still made a mistake, and that makes me feel bad.

This is an example I should think about some more.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

What exactly is the difference? Jesus specifically said that if you get angry with someone, you're guilty of sin--and anger is automatic as well.

Can you quote the scripture on that, please?

Craig B · 2nd May 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I like to use the pedophilia example because I think it's pretty cut-and-dry; these people are sexually attracted to children, that's not their fault, but it is morally wrong for them to act on it.

Yes it's morally wrong, because children are, rightly, not considered to be capable of consenting to sexual activity. But that is not the case with consenting adults of the same gender. Thus the example of pedophilia is not a cut and dry, or even valid, comparator to use in defining homosexuality as a sin. The bible was held by most Christians in earlier times to prohibit usury, so that banking was reserved for Jews, who were all going to Hell anyway. But now most Christians don't think lending money, as long as it is not done oppressively, is a sin. Concepts of sin are not absolute, but subject to change, like other human intellectual activities.

Quote:

I didn't consider that bringing up that subject to the person I was responding to was probably insensitive.

And that is assuredly a sin, but not necessarily an unforgivable one.

slingblade · 2nd May 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

What is malice, if not wanting to do harm? I want to harm Joe's--I want to destroy it.

More problematic for Christians, even feeling the attraction is a sin. Jesus said that wanting to do something is the same as doing it. "We're damned for desiring it, so we may as well enjoy ourselves" isn't an uncommon theme in the more subversive Rennaissance and Medieval literature.

As for feeling attraction and not acting on it, unless you're of the less-philosophical hedonistic bent you necessarily have to admit that sometimes acting on some desire is a bad idea. I don't find that concept--wanting something, but not acting on it--evil; after all, not all desires are legitimate. Just because heroine makes you feel good doesn't mean you should keep injecting yourself, for example. When it comes to sex, what you have to remember is that values are heirarchical. My love for my wife trumps my desire to sleep with another woman; thus I don't act on it.

Please understand I'm not saying that you MUST be monogomous--it's the choice I made, but I fully acknowledge it's for private reasons that aren't necessarily applicable to others. Each person, to my mind, has to establish their own heirarchy of values (in fact each person does need to--most default to the cultural norms, and as Rush said "If you choose not to decide/you still have made a choice"--my point is that I think it proper for each person to make their own choices here).

Re:the highlighted, my husband will be very relieved to hear that, as he's the one who arranges and/or approves my dates.

GeeMack · 2nd May 2012, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Only sort of.

I don't think the unintentional harm is/was sin.

I still made a mistake, and that makes me feel bad.

This is an example I should think about some more.

Some pedophiles don't intend to harm their victims. Some even believe that the children they prey upon are willing participants. So that makes it all okay, eh?

Silly Green Monkey · 2nd May 2012, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Only sort of.

I don't think the unintentional harm is/was sin.

I still made a mistake, and that makes me feel bad.

This is an example I should think about some more.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's unfortunate, but not unexpected.

Your irrational hatred of my kind is well-established.

I do not reciprocate it, however.

Slingblade not important enough to your kind to apologize, but you'll feel bad about it?

Dinwar · 2nd May 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Can you quote the scripture on that, please?

Maybe later. It's a rather well-known passage, though, and the reason I mentioned the Rennaissance and Medieval literature is to demonstrate that.

Originally Posted by slingblade

Re:the highlighted, my husband will be very relieved to hear that, as he's the one who arranges and/or approves my dates.

Yeah...I didn't really discover that side of things until I was married. It's rather unfortunate. I have to admit, I'm a tad jealous.

Gord_in_Toronto · 2nd May 2012, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by shadron

As catholics, we can get our answer from Baltimore, where some kind of oracle is kept alive to torture elementary school kids:

But I think Darth is referring to original sin:

The connection, should you need one, is that the the latter makes us prone to the former, even after we resolve the latter through Baptism.

After my previous posting here, I wandered off to get some more clarification on what the RC's believe about sin.

If found and read this: http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm#answer6

Things are much clearer now.

Piscivore · 2nd May 2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Only sort of.

I don't think the unintentional harm is/was sin.

I still made a mistake, and that makes me feel bad.

This is an example I should think about some more.

So there's a difference between a "mistake" and a "sin"? What is that difference? Do you feel your action, the one you characterize as a "mistake", was a moral failing, or just something that happened?

AvalonXQ · 2nd May 2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Craig B

Yes it's morally wrong, because children are, rightly, not considered to be capable of consenting to sexual activity. But that is not the case with consenting adults of the same gender. Thus the example of pedophilia is not a cut and dry, or even valid, comparator to use in defining homosexuality as a sin.

It is certainly a valid counter to the argument that anyone who espouses "feel the attraction but never act on it" is sub-human.

It's one thing to argue which attractions are okay to act on in which contexts. It's quite another to blanketly assert that all attractions are okay to act on. Sling made that assertion; this is a counterexample.

AvalonXQ · 2nd May 2012, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

So there's a difference between a "mistake" and a "sin"? What is that difference?

Intent.
To stumble into someone and harm them is a mistake. To bump into them on purpose is a sin.

Quote:

Do you feel your action, the one you characterize as a "mistake", was a moral failing, or just something that happened?

It may be a moral failing if it turns out that I've not taken as much account for the feelings of others as I should have.

1st May 2012, 02:28 PM	#41
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Dinwar IF the RCC had said adultery or sex outside of marriage is a sin, I'd agree with you. They don't, however--they say HOMOSEXUALITY, as such, is a sin. The RCC itself is drawing the distinction between homosexuality and regular unauthorized fornication; I'm merely reporting it. This is a definition confusion; when they say "homosexuality is a sin," they're talking about homosexual sex, not homosexual attraction.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

1st May 2012, 02:42 PM	#42
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ when they say "homosexuality is a sin," they're talking about homosexual sex, not homosexual attraction. Depends on who you talk to. But this is really a side-issue we can get into somewhere else, if anyone's interested--it's enough, for now, to note that the RCC thinks homosexuality is a sin.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

1st May 2012, 02:44 PM	#43
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Dinwar Depends on who you talk to. But this is really a side-issue we can get into somewhere else, if anyone's interested--it's enough, for now, to note that the RCC thinks homosexuality is a sin. By which they mean homosexual sex, not homosexual attraction. Wikipedia says: Quote: In Roman Catholicism, homosexual acts are considered contrary to natural law and sinful, while homosexual desires are considered "disordered" but not themselves sinful.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 1st May 2012 at 02:46 PM.

1st May 2012, 03:06 PM	#45
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,303	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ He's talking about rumor-mongering, or gossiping -- spreading lies about people in secret. I don't doubt that you are correct in that is the intention, but are you not inferring meaning, and therefore adding to the text by assuming that was the intention of the passage? If God meant rumour-mongering or gossiping (and gossiping doesn't imply telling lies anyway), why not say so? Why use a word which means something else? Maybe God really means whispering as in talking too softly for people to hear.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

1st May 2012, 03:07 PM	#46
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,213	In the Greek of the New Testament, what are translated into English as "sin" and "sinner" are, respectively, hamartia and hamartalos, from the verb hamartanein, to miss the mark, to err. In Greek tragedies hamartia was the fatal flaw that led to the undoing of a great man. One interesting use of hamartalos is in the incident of the anointing woman in Luke 7, who is implicitly a prostitute. I really don't see much difference between "sin" and "wrong-doing."
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,213

1st May 2012, 02:56 PM	#44
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ My understanding is that it's not lack of belief in Christ directly that condemns you -- it's your own evil acts, that all men perform and know to be evil. Failing to acknowledge Christ just means you don't have the remedy for sin; if you never sinned in the first place, you wouldn't need Christ either. Other way around. Many of us, probably most of us on a skeptics' forum, have no need for the threat of punishment from some imaginary magical being in order to be good citizens of this planet. Doing wrong only becomes a sin because of the superstitious beliefs. Quote: Sexual attraction is temptation; giving into temptation is sin. Sexual preference is irrelevant. And that's just sick.

1st May 2012, 03:08 PM	#47
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,489	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ "Sin" is separation from God that results from making a choice contrary to God's will. How would you differentiate this definition from "sin is doing things that the founders and leaders of your religion don't approve of"?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

1st May 2012, 03:18 PM	#48
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	A god that cares who people have sex with and will in fact torture you forever for choosing incorrectly sounds incredibly evil. Glad I am not wasting my life worshiping such a monster.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

1st May 2012, 03:22 PM	#49
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Agatha I don't doubt that you are correct in that is the intention, but are you not inferring meaning, and therefore adding to the text by assuming that was the intention of the passage? Understanding the text and the language in its context is not the same as impermissibly adding meaning. Paul's intention is clear, and if I recall this is not the only place that this particular term is used. If there is an alternate interpretation allowed by the Koine language and the context, I'm happy to consider it. I explained what it is understood to mean.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

1st May 2012, 03:24 PM	#50
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	Originally Posted by Agatha If God meant rumour-mongering or gossiping (and gossiping doesn't imply telling lies anyway), why not say so? Well, to be fair the original probably did. Avalon's quote is in English, which means it's at least a translation of the original (and I'd bet my better rock hammer it's a translation of a translation or more). And all languages are full of idioms--to the people at that time, "whisperers" could very well have meant gossipers to everyone who heard it, just as a picture of a donkey in a political add says "Republican" (I think....) to USA citizens. Though I agree, I'm not clear on why gossiping is a sin. When I was a kid my family would often gossip with the priest in the town my grandmother lived in (he was a good friend of the family). So long as you told the truth, and were willing to say it to the person's face, the priest was more than okay with it.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

1st May 2012, 03:27 PM	#51
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,489	Originally Posted by Dinwar ...just as a picture of a donkey in a political add says "Republican" (I think....) to USA citizens. I think it's the other lot.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

1st May 2012, 03:34 PM	#52
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Dinwar Well, to be fair the original probably did. Avalon's quote is in English, which means it's at least a translation of the original (and I'd bet my better rock hammer it's a translation of a translation or more). And all languages are full of idioms--to the people at that time, "whisperers" could very well have meant gossipers to everyone who heard it, just as a picture of a donkey in a political add says "Republican" (I think....) to USA citizens. Donkey is Democrat; elephant is Republican. Quote: Though I agree, I'm not clear on why gossiping is a sin. When I was a kid my family would often gossip with the priest in the town my grandmother lived in (he was a good friend of the family). So long as you told the truth, and were willing to say it to the person's face, the priest was more than okay with it. If you're just conveying honest information about a person, with no intent to damage their reputation or facilitate nasty rumors, then it's not "gossiping"; it's just spreading news. It's the schadenfraude aspect of gossip, the "backbiting" really, that makes it bad.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

1st May 2012, 03:47 PM	#53
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Donkey is Democrat; elephant is Republican. Fair enough; a better example is the word "gentleman". Today it merely means acting properly. In the Middle Ages it meant a man of the nobility. In each culture the person knew what the word meant, but between cultures there's confusion. Quote: If you're just conveying honest information about a person, with no intent to damage their reputation or facilitate nasty rumors, then it's not "gossiping"; it's just spreading news. Well, there's honesty and then there's honesty. Again, I have no doubt that some of the people in that Romans quote were homosexuals--and would be surprised if some weren't. However, it's also extremely likely that not everyone involved was a homosexual. The quote is probably true, in that it never specifies a number of people who are engaging in that activity--but the implications (that the majority if not everyone was doing it) are almost certainly false. So as to not get bogged down in the details of that particular quote, let's pretend I said those words, but about, say, the town I grew up in (it was founded something like 400 years ago, so there's little chance of Paul referring to it). It'd still be true, but the obviously intended implications wouldn't be. Is the fact that a statement is true sufficient to make it not a sin to say it in what we'd call today gossip?
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

1st May 2012, 03:51 PM	#54
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	As catholics, we can get our answer from Baltimore, where some kind of oracle is kept alive to torture elementary school kids: Originally Posted by Baltimore catechism Q. 278. What is actual sin? Originally Posted by Baltimore catechism A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the law of God. But I think Darth is referring to original sin: Quote: What is Original Sin? The sin committed by Adam, the father of the human race. By Original Sin, Adam lost Sanctifying Grace. How did the sin of Adam affect the human race? Because of Adam's sin, every human being is created with Original Sin on his soul and without Sanctifying Grace, since Adam was the father of the human race.Adam's nature became "fallen" through Original Sin, and we his descendants inherit his fallen nature. "By the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners." (Romans 5:19) The connection, should you need one, is that the the latter makes us prone to the former, even after we resolve the latter through Baptism.
	Last edited by shadron; 1st May 2012 at 04:01 PM.

1st May 2012, 03:51 PM	#55
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	Hit and Run is a Crime Ketchup on a hotdog, that's a sin!!

1st May 2012, 03:56 PM	#56
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Dinwar Is the fact that a statement is true sufficient to make it not a sin to say it in what we'd call today gossip? Absolutely not. It's not the truth-value of the statement that is probitive; it's the motive behind the communication.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

1st May 2012, 04:04 PM	#57
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Absolutely not. It's not the truth-value of the statement that is probitive; it's the motive behind the communication. Okay. Let's say I ate at Joe's diner. Let's say I got food poisoning--really bad food poisoning. I decide to give him a second chance. I get poisoned again. I give him a THIRD chance, but end up getting my stomach pumped. Someone asks me "What do you think of Joe's?" Would responding "That no-good so-and-so deserves to be shut down! He got me sick THREE TIMES!" be a sin? It's true, but my intention is to convince my friend to never eat there. That said, there's a perfectly valid reason for me to do this--as an Objectivist, I'd see this as an obligation, in fact.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

2nd May 2012, 09:20 AM	#58
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,424	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Here's a useful passage on the subject: Quote: Romans 1:18-32 (NKJV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. I think this is saying that the nature of God is clear enough, based on just what we can all see in the natural world, that choosing to act against Him or deny Him is a deliberate act. The later part goes through some examples of "things that are not fitting". OK. Now define "natural use" as highlighted above. Other primates, from what I have read, love to "indulge" in homosexual activities. So such activities appear to be "natural use". Why then is homosexuality a sin? Even more boggling if "God gave them up to vile passions" is interpreted to mean that he enforced, condoned or permitted these activities. ²
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

2nd May 2012, 09:30 AM	#59
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Dinwar Okay. Let's say I ate at Joe's diner. Let's say I got food poisoning--really bad food poisoning. I decide to give him a second chance. I get poisoned again. I give him a THIRD chance, but end up getting my stomach pumped. Someone asks me "What do you think of Joe's?" Would responding "That no-good so-and-so deserves to be shut down! He got me sick THREE TIMES!" be a sin? It's true, but my intention is to convince my friend to never eat there. ... and your reason for wanting your friend never to eat there isn't malice towards Joe's, but rather a legitimate assessment that Joe's is a health hazard and should be shut down. No malice, no evil, no sin.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

2nd May 2012, 09:35 AM	#60
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	The idea that homosexual acts are sinful is disgusting in the extreme. The idea that it's "okay" to feel that way, to have that attraction, but not indulge in the acts of love is more than disgusting. It's manipulative, cruel, unfeeling, and totally unrealistic. How can anyone say with a straight face that it's okay to be homosexual as long as you don't engage in the very thing that makes you homosexual? SEX. If you aren't having that only because some ignorant fool thinks you shouldn't, then you aren't being homosexual. That entire concept of "feel the attraction but never act on it" is a sin. Anyone who espouses it is sub-human. Signed, the woman who's made love to many women, and loved every second of it.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

2nd May 2012, 09:38 AM	#61
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	A sin is an act the enjoyment of which is only surpassed by the enjoyment of denying it to others.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

2nd May 2012, 09:42 AM	#62
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by slingblade That entire concept of "feel the attraction but never act on it" is a sin. Anyone who espouses it is sub-human. Is it your position, then, that there's no such thing as a genuine pedophile -- that is, someone who really feels sexual attraction to prepubescent children? Furthermore, as I am married, I have to submit to you that I do not consider myself sub-human for asking my spouse not to act on the attraction felt for individuals other than me. I nonetheless don't condemn my spouse for feeling the attraction; I just expect my spouse to engage in self-control. Some, of course, might consider our culture to be "sub-human" for encouraging monogamous pair bonding, which limits our ability to act on our natural attractions for individuals outside the pair bond. I have no such problem with what I consider to be the natural, limited expression of our attractions in one narrowly-construed context. There are plenty of examples of choosing not to act on our feelings; in most cases, espousing such self-control is not considered subhuman.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

2nd May 2012, 09:45 AM	#63
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Is it your position, then, that there's no such thing as a genuine pedophile -- that is, someone who really feels sexual attraction to prepubescent children? Go have your chat with Ivor the Engineer. I find this abusive of you, given that you know I'm a survivor of child sexual abuse. You don't fool me. And you are on ignore permanently. I expect nothing better from most Christians, and they prove me right every time.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

2nd May 2012, 09:49 AM	#64
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by slingblade You don't fool me. And you are on ignore permanently. That's unfortunate, but not unexpected. Your irrational hatred of my kind is well-established. I do not reciprocate it, however.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

2nd May 2012, 09:57 AM	#65
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ ... and your reason for wanting your friend never to eat there isn't malice towards Joe's, but rather a legitimate assessment that Joe's is a health hazard and should be shut down. What is malice, if not wanting to do harm? I want to harm Joe's--I want to destroy it. Originally Posted by slingblade The idea that it's "okay" to feel that way, to have that attraction, but not indulge in the acts of love is more than disgusting. It's manipulative, cruel, unfeeling, and totally unrealistic. More problematic for Christians, even feeling the attraction is a sin. Jesus said that wanting to do something is the same as doing it. "We're damned for desiring it, so we may as well enjoy ourselves" isn't an uncommon theme in the more subversive Rennaissance and Medieval literature. As for feeling attraction and not acting on it, unless you're of the less-philosophical hedonistic bent you necessarily have to admit that sometimes acting on some desire is a bad idea. I don't find that concept--wanting something, but not acting on it--evil; after all, not all desires are legitimate. Just because heroine makes you feel good doesn't mean you should keep injecting yourself, for example. When it comes to sex, what you have to remember is that values are heirarchical. My love for my wife trumps my desire to sleep with another woman; thus I don't act on it. Please understand I'm not saying that you MUST be monogomous--it's the choice I made, but I fully acknowledge it's for private reasons that aren't necessarily applicable to others. Each person, to my mind, has to establish their own heirarchy of values (in fact each person does need to--most default to the cultural norms, and as Rush said "If you choose not to decide/you still have made a choice"--my point is that I think it proper for each person to make their own choices here).
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

2nd May 2012, 09:57 AM	#66
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,979	Originally Posted by Lowpro sin = whatever makes God cry God's always crying. What a wuss.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey

2nd May 2012, 10:01 AM	#67
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Dinwar More problematic for Christians, even feeling the attraction is a sin. Jesus said that wanting to do something is the same as doing it. "We're damned for desiring it, so we may as well enjoy ourselves" isn't an uncommon theme in the more subversive Rennaissance and Medieval literature. I don't agree there. Committing the sin in your heart, as Jesus discusses, is understood to be more than just temptation. Temptation is automatic; the act of will that can be sin even when no physical act accompanies it is something different. Quote: As for feeling attraction and not acting on it, unless you're of the less-philosophical hedonistic bent you necessarily have to admit that sometimes acting on some desire is a bad idea. I don't find that concept--wanting something, but not acting on it--evil; after all, not all desires are legitimate. Just because heroine makes you feel good doesn't mean you should keep injecting yourself, for example. When it comes to sex, what you have to remember is that values are heirarchical. My love for my wife trumps my desire to sleep with another woman; thus I don't act on it. You made the point better than I did. I like to use the pedophilia example because I think it's pretty cut-and-dry; these people are sexually attracted to children, that's not their fault, but it is morally wrong for them to act on it. I didn't consider that bringing up that subject to the person I was responding to was probably insensitive.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

2nd May 2012, 10:04 AM	#68
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,563	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I didn't consider that bringing up that subject to the person I was responding to was probably insensitive. So, since you didn't intend to hurt her, your conscience is clear?
	__________________ [R]evenge is a dish best served screaming and insane. - TM "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

2nd May 2012, 10:06 AM	#69
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas A sin is an act the enjoyment of which is only surpassed by the enjoyment of denying it to others. . The very definition of a Puritan, who is also very upset that someone somewhere is having fun.

2nd May 2012, 10:11 AM	#70
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Temptation is automatic; the act of will that can be sin even when no physical act accompanies it is something different. What exactly is the difference? Jesus specifically said that if you get angry with someone, you're guilty of sin--and anger is automatic as well.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

2nd May 2012, 10:13 AM	#71
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Piscivore So, since you didn't intend to hurt her, your conscience is clear? Only sort of. I don't think the unintentional harm is/was sin. I still made a mistake, and that makes me feel bad. This is an example I should think about some more. Originally Posted by Dinwar What exactly is the difference? Jesus specifically said that if you get angry with someone, you're guilty of sin--and anger is automatic as well. Can you quote the scripture on that, please?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

2nd May 2012, 10:16 AM	#72
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,332	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I like to use the pedophilia example because I think it's pretty cut-and-dry; these people are sexually attracted to children, that's not their fault, but it is morally wrong for them to act on it. Yes it's morally wrong, because children are, rightly, not considered to be capable of consenting to sexual activity. But that is not the case with consenting adults of the same gender. Thus the example of pedophilia is not a cut and dry, or even valid, comparator to use in defining homosexuality as a sin. The bible was held by most Christians in earlier times to prohibit usury, so that banking was reserved for Jews, who were all going to Hell anyway. But now most Christians don't think lending money, as long as it is not done oppressively, is a sin. Concepts of sin are not absolute, but subject to change, like other human intellectual activities. Quote: I didn't consider that bringing up that subject to the person I was responding to was probably insensitive. And that is assuredly a sin, but not necessarily an unforgivable one.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,332	Last edited by Craig B; 2nd May 2012 at 10:17 AM.

2nd May 2012, 10:25 AM	#73
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Dinwar What is malice, if not wanting to do harm? I want to harm Joe's--I want to destroy it. More problematic for Christians, even feeling the attraction is a sin. Jesus said that wanting to do something is the same as doing it. "We're damned for desiring it, so we may as well enjoy ourselves" isn't an uncommon theme in the more subversive Rennaissance and Medieval literature. As for feeling attraction and not acting on it, unless you're of the less-philosophical hedonistic bent you necessarily have to admit that sometimes acting on some desire is a bad idea. I don't find that concept--wanting something, but not acting on it--evil; after all, not all desires are legitimate. Just because heroine makes you feel good doesn't mean you should keep injecting yourself, for example. When it comes to sex, what you have to remember is that values are heirarchical. My love for my wife trumps my desire to sleep with another woman; thus I don't act on it. Please understand I'm not saying that you MUST be monogomous--it's the choice I made, but I fully acknowledge it's for private reasons that aren't necessarily applicable to others. Each person, to my mind, has to establish their own heirarchy of values (in fact each person does need to--most default to the cultural norms, and as Rush said "If you choose not to decide/you still have made a choice"--my point is that I think it proper for each person to make their own choices here). Re:the highlighted, my husband will be very relieved to hear that, as he's the one who arranges and/or approves my dates.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

2nd May 2012, 10:27 AM	#74
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Only sort of. I don't think the unintentional harm is/was sin. I still made a mistake, and that makes me feel bad. This is an example I should think about some more. Some pedophiles don't intend to harm their victims. Some even believe that the children they prey upon are willing participants. So that makes it all okay, eh?

2nd May 2012, 10:28 AM	#75
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,095	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Only sort of. I don't think the unintentional harm is/was sin. I still made a mistake, and that makes me feel bad. This is an example I should think about some more. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ That's unfortunate, but not unexpected. Your irrational hatred of my kind is well-established. I do not reciprocate it, however. Slingblade not important enough to your kind to apologize, but you'll feel bad about it?