If sin creates victims, then Gays and prostitutes are innocent.

[Greatest I am]

If sin creates victims, then Gays and prostitutes are innocent.

My definition of sin says that sin is something that creates a victim or someone somehow hurt by the action. Someone must stand to complain about any given action before it ca become a sin.

If there is no one that can legitimately say that they were directly or indirectly hurt by the actions of a gay person or prostitute then there is no sin.

The reason I bring up this topic is that I see that secular law will become the law of all nations in the near future. Religious law will become inconsequential to the state.
Even today, there are few states that practice religious law. They are under pressure as we speak to change.

I foresee, that at some point in time, the corner store will become the corner den of legal prostitution, gambling and drugs/alcohol use. Abortion clinics will likely be on the top floor of these corner store.

Some countries presently have laws against these so called victimless crimes. Those laws will eventually disappear.

With my definition of sin, I cannot and would not stop this trend.

I do not see this coming situation as one of a dignified nation populated by dignified men. What used to be restricted to red light districts will be everywhere. This unsightly, some would say ungodly, situation has always existed but at an underground level. Soon it will be above ground.

Is this future as I describe inevitable?

Will religionists have to bite the bullet and just close their eyes as they see their children drawn into this future/present life style?

Regards
DL

 

[Accountable]

It's nice that you have your own definition of sin.

Sure, if you define sin, then it follows that you can declare the sinless.

 

[Kyle B]

How many forums did you post this in?

 

[Zorak]

It's nice that you have your own definition of sin.

Sure, if you define sin, then it follows that you can declare the sinless.

:homo:

 

[Mystic]

that is like saying all of us are immoral and lacking in values... your future will not occur unless the humane race becomes moral- less.... and to become that we would have to become beings without conscious.

 

[dt3]

:urstupid::sucks::gives:

 

[alice in chains]

If sin creates victims, then Gays and prostitutes are innocent.

My definition of sin says that sin is something that creates a victim or someone somehow hurt by the action. Someone must stand to complain about any given action before it ca become a sin.

If there is no one that can legitimately say that they were directly or indirectly hurt by the actions of a gay person or prostitute then there is no sin.

The reason I bring up this topic is that I see that secular law will become the law of all nations in the near future. Religious law will become inconsequential to the state.
Even today, there are few states that practice religious law. They are under pressure as we speak to change.

I foresee, that at some point in time, the corner store will become the corner den of legal prostitution, gambling and drugs/alcohol use. Abortion clinics will likely be on the top floor of these corner store.

Some countries presently have laws against these so called victimless crimes. Those laws will eventually disappear.

With my definition of sin, I cannot and would not stop this trend.

I do not see this coming situation as one of a dignified nation populated by dignified men. What used to be restricted to red light districts will be everywhere. This unsightly, some would say ungodly, situation has always existed but at an underground level. Soon it will be above ground.

Is this future as I describe inevitable?

Will religionists have to bite the bullet and just close their eyes as they see their children drawn into this future/present life style?

Regards
DL

The person that is hurt by these actions are the gay and prostitute, therefore, they are sinners...(i'm not a theist, just making debate.)

 

[Greatest I am]

It's nice that you have your own definition of sin.

Sure, if you define sin, then it follows that you can declare the sinless.

Don't you have a definition for sin?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

How many forums did you post this in?

Do you want my list of favorites?
I do hope you came up with a better reply somewhere.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

that is like saying all of us are immoral and lacking in values... your future will not occur unless the humane race becomes moral- less.... and to become that we would have to become beings without conscious.

You must read in a strange way to get that view.

Regards
DL

 

[pjbleek]

freedom of religion and freedom of expression...we all know what to do, don't need it to be criticized....
don't judge for you are not the Lord, I answer to his calling not your rant about how you think things should be...

 

[Greatest I am]

The person that is hurt by these actions are the gay and prostitute, therefore, they are sinners...(i'm not a theist, just making debate.)

If Gays are following their natures, I cannot see how they hurt themselves any more than a heterosexual following his/her nature.

You would have to specify the harm for me.

With many, not all, prostitutes, it is the abuse in the home that drives them to that life style.
They individually must decide for themselves if they have put themselves in a situation where they feel that they are in an abusive business. Some are just there for the cash.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

freedom of religion and freedom of expression...we all know what to do, don't need it to be criticized....
don't judge for you are not the Lord, I answer to his calling not your rant about how you think things should be...

All that the Lord has ever judged has been expressed by men.

The lord has no tongue and has yet to utter a word on this earth.

If you have something other than hear say or Bible say to convey as to what the Lord told you then say it.
If nothing then shove your dogma. It has no basis in reality.

Regards
DL

 

[Accountable]

Don't you have a definition for sin?

Regards
DL

Well, sure, but it never occurred to me to make up definitions out of whole cloth. I understand how you would, though, being a god and all.

I guess I would like to define sin as only valid if there is a victim (other than the sinner, that is); I'd never thought about it. Lessee,

I spose since I grew up in a Judeo-Christian society, I'll look at the generally accepted foundation for rules against sin: the 10 Commandments. Here's a list I grabbed from http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm:

1. 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
2. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
3. 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
4. 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
5. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
6. 'You shall not murder.'
7. 'You shall not commit adultery.'
8. 'You shall not steal.'
9. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
10. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Assuming that violating any of these rules constitutes a "sin" let's look at each one, shall we?
1. Worshipping one god, another god, or several god's at once doesn't victimize anyone but possibly one of the gods involved. Since you are an atheist, I presume you would call this is definitely a victimless crime, n'est-ce pas? So I can't accept your definition of sin. Okay, I can, but I don't. Free will, dontcha know.

I could go on, but it's clear that my definition of sin doesn't match your definition, so to continue the conversation beyond this would be silly, don't you think? We'd have to get this part hashed out first.

 

[darkcgi]

The Sins are defined by the bible for which we have many bibles.
The bible of Gods words that man wrote.
Its about believing. Its all we have.

 

[Greatest I am]

Well, sure, but it never occurred to me to make up definitions out of whole cloth. I understand how you would, though, being a god and all.


I guess I would like to define sin as only valid if there is a victim (other than the sinner, that is); I'd never thought about it. Lessee,

I spose since I grew up in a Judeo-Christian society, I'll look at the generally accepted foundation for rules against sin: the 10 Commandments. Here's a list I grabbed from http://www.allabouttruth.org/10-commandments.htm:

1. 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
2. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
3. 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
4. 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
5. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
6. 'You shall not murder.'
7. 'You shall not commit adultery.'
8. 'You shall not steal.'
9. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
10. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Assuming that violating any of these rules constitutes a "sin" let's look at each one, shall we?
1. Worshipping one god, another god, or several god's at once doesn't victimize anyone but possibly one of the gods involved. Since you are an atheist, I presume you would call this is definitely a victimless crime, n'est-ce pas? So I can't accept your definition of sin. Okay, I can, but I don't. Free will, dontcha know.

I could go on, but it's clear that my definition of sin doesn't match your definition, so to continue the conversation beyond this would be silly, don't you think? We'd have to get this part hashed out first.

I am not an atheist. just to clear up that little misconception.

I find your list unworkable though.

'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

If we knew who Me is and what Me stood for then we might be able to follow that one.

"'Honor your father and your mother.'
This sounds good of course but the last time I checked the stats, 1/3 of female children were sexually abused in the home.

Would you ask them to honor their fathers?
Love, small l, they can probably muster just as a thanks for the sperm donation but honor I doubt.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

The Sins are defined by the bible for which we have many bibles.
The bible of Gods words that man wrote.
Its about believing. Its all we have.

Belief would be easier if the Bible did not start with a talking snake, a God who does not want man to have the knowledge that gives us our moral sense, all kinds of fantasy miracles in the middle and a seven headed monster at the end, as we wait for God to come back and genocide our ass one more time.

Regards
DL

 

[itsmeJonB]

narrow mindedness saying homosexuality is a sin though
seeing as you can choose your sexual preference about as much as you can choose your own race

 

[Tomperi]

The only reason to ban homosexuality, is religious. But no matter what reason you might cook up, you're still a self-centered cynical bastard. (To avoid confusion: Not referring to anyone particular...). Religious laws have no place in a moral, modern and secular society.

 

[Kyle B]

I am not an atheist. just to clear up that little misconception.

I find your list unworkable though.

'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

If we knew who Me is and what Me stood for then we might be able to follow that one.

This is the entire first commandment:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me.

I don't know how to make this anymore simple. In the commandment God states that he is God and that " you shall have no other gods before Me", me being God.

"'Honor your father and your mother.'
This sounds good of course but the last time I checked the stats, 1/3 of female children were sexually abused in the home.

Yes, there are parents who abuse their children. There are also some doctors, teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other members of society who have betrayed the trust that people vested in them. Does that mean everyone should disrespect them?