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

[Greatest I am]

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.

Religions will always take credit for some of our laws though.
In the past, when our political systems were developing, church and state were in bed together.

I basically agree with your stance though.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

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.



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?

Do not change the word to respect. The word is honor.

Should we honor them if we are aware of there character? No.
Should we if they have repented? Yes. They have purified themselves by fire.

Regards
DL

 

[Peter Parka]

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.

Sounds like god has a few insecurity issues to me.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Sins are what people find immoral, and are based solely on each persons individual morality.

Laws are based on victims, and should be based solely on such.

But they are totally different entities, which is why this thread fails.

 

[Accountable]

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

I find your list unworkable though.

Doesn't matter and off the point. Your definition of sin doesn't match mine because of the pretty fundamental "victimless" criterion.

 

[alice in chains]

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

perhaps they're more prone to disease. then again, perhaps, heterosexuals are more prone to things homosexuals are not...whose to say anything's for certain, including your initial point.

 

[Greatest I am]

Sins are what people find immoral, and are based solely on each persons individual morality.

Laws are based on victims, and should be based solely on such.

But they are totally different entities, which is why this thread fails.

You fail it without even showing your hand.

A good way to win all arguments. But really stupid.

You fail at having even half a brain.

Half a brain would see that you did not even place an argument or refute anything.

Back to sleep now fool.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Doesn't matter and off the point. Your definition of sin doesn't match mine because of the pretty fundamental "victimless" criterion.

Thanks for not showing your definition.

Nice to refute something without showing something for the other guy to refute.

You, like the Goat, have great way to win debates, you do not.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

perhaps they're more prone to disease. then again, perhaps, heterosexuals are more prone to things homosexuals are not...whose to say anything's for certain, including your initial point.

Perhaps.

From what I know of that life, it is not the best as a long term career.

There are good reasons for many prostitutes to be addicted to drugs.

Regards
DL

 

[Goat Whisperer]

You fail it without even showing your hand.

A good way to win all arguments. But really stupid.

You fail at having even half a brain.

Half a brain would see that you did not even place an argument or refute anything.

Back to sleep now fool.

Regards
DL

So you basically just insulted me a multitude of times but did not refute my argument, well played sir

My argument, if you can not understand, is that sins are not something we use to judge each other, they are something we use to judge ourselves. You can tell me what is sinful, and I can't tell you what is sinful. It's like someone saying 'my religion says you're sinning' doesn't matter to me, because my religion, faith, or simply my own individual morality (yes you can have morality without being religious) says otherwise.

These reasonings for adultry or drug use may be good enough for you to call them unsinful, but they are no reason for anyone else, and mean nothing to anyone else, and prove nothing.

 

[Accountable]

Thanks for not showing your definition.

Nice to refute something without showing something for the other guy to refute.

You, like the Goat, have great way to win debates, you do not.

Regards
DL

I'm not here to debate. Your title says "if sin creates victims, ..." for which there is nothing to refute. If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts so hard.

You then created your own personal definition of sin out of whole cloth. That's your prerogative, I spose, but hardly lends itself to productive conversation. Generally people need to agree on basic definitions. I don't agree with yours. You prefer to make your own. The conversation's dead before it begins.

Of course, I'm well aware you're not interested in conversation so much as a sparring match, so there we are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

eta: Would you like to hash out a mutally agreeable definition of "sin"?

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm not here to debate. Your title says "if sin creates victims, ..." for which there is nothing to refute. If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts so hard.

You then created your own personal definition of sin out of whole cloth. That's your prerogative, I spose, but hardly lends itself to productive conversation. Generally people need to agree on basic definitions. I don't agree with yours. You prefer to make your own. The conversation's dead before it begins.

Of course, I'm well aware you're not interested in conversation so much as a sparring match, so there we are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

eta: Would you like to hash out a mutally agreeable definition of "sin"?

Chastisement without correction is just cruelty.

What is your definition then?

Regards
DL

 

[Accountable]

Chastisement without correction is just cruelty.

What is your definition then?

Regards
DL

Sorry to be so late. This fell off my radar.

I thought the 'correction' part of the 'chastisement' (I spose all gods are oversensitive ) was clearly implicated.

I'm not here to debate. Your title says "if sin creates victims, ..." for which there is nothing to refute. If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts so hard.

Implied correction: Adjust your statement to an open statement or question one can discuss.

You then created your own personal definition of sin out of whole cloth. That's your prerogative, I spose, but hardly lends itself to productive conversation. Generally people need to agree on basic definitions. I don't agree with yours. You prefer to make your own. The conversation's dead before it begins.

Implied correction: Use commonly accepted definitions, especially for terms that establish the very foundation of the conversation.

eta: Would you like to hash out a mutually agreeable definition of "sin"?

What is your definition then?

I tried to start that discussion here:

http://www.offtopicz.net/55895-if-sin-creates-victims-then-gays.html#post1412605

but you rejected it, finding the list that most of society uses as the foundation for the definition "unworkable."

So, in this conversation, we are at an impasse.

I think it would be fun to discuss the Commandments themselves, though, one at a time. That might get lively.

 

[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.

'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
This implies that there are other Gods we can place above this one.
Who are we choosing from?
Who is the --Me.
--------------------------------
'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.'
No cross then?
What about the Bible? It is the image of a book.
--------------------------------
'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
What name?
The Bible give God many names.
---------------------------
'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
Christians argue for Saturday and or Sunday.
What day do I keep holy?
---------------------------
'Honor your father and your mother.'
What if the father sexually abuses the son or daughter while the wife knowingly does nothing?
This is relatively common.
Should they then still honor their parents
--------------------------
'You shall not murder.'
This sound like a good commandment.
----------------------------
'You shall not commit adultery.'
What if a couple both wish it with other consenting adults?
Who is to be harmed and who will complain?
Why would God care what humans do with there body parts if there is no victim?
---------------------------
'You shall not steal.'
You are starving and no one will or can help.
Is it wrong to steal food in this case from one who will not share?
---------------------------
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
Good one.
---------------------------
'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.'
Good one.

Comments?

Regards
DL

 

[Kyle B]

'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
This implies that there are other Gods we can place above this one.
Who are we choosing from?
Who is the --Me.

All this commandment is saying is that one shall not hold any person, thing, idol, or false deity above God.

'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.'
No cross then?
What about the Bible? It is the image of a book.

Yep, if one is bowing down and worshiping a Bible or a Cross than they'd be in violation of this commandment. The book of Leviticus in the Bible clarifies this commandment a little more.
--------------------------------

'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
What name?
The Bible give God many names.

What ever name somebody chooses to refer to God in, it shall not be used in vain.

'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
Christians argue for Saturday and or Sunday.
What day do I keep holy?

There is some debate among Christians about which day should be considered the sabbath. Most Christian denominations celebrate it on Sunday, but some, such as the Seventh Day Adventists choose to celebrate it on Saturday. God says that one should work six days but rest on the seventh, the exact day isn't relevant.

'Honor your father and your mother.'
What if the father sexually abuses the son or daughter while the wife knowingly does nothing?
This is relatively common.
Should they then still honor their parents

Children should honor their parents to the fullest that they possibly can. If a child is abused, then that would be a different situation.
--------------------------

'You shall not murder.'
This sound like a good commandment.

That's good then.
----------------------------

'You shall not commit adultery.'
What if a couple both wish it with other consenting adults?
Who is to be harmed and who will complain?
Why would God care what humans do with there body parts if there is no victim?

Just because the adults consent to outside marital affairs and no humans are harmed, doesn't mean God would approve of it. Simple as that.

'You shall not steal.'
You are starving and no one will or can help.
Is it wrong to steal food in this case from one who will not share?

I suppose that you also believe that if somebody doesn't have money, they should steal some. If somebody doesn't have a car, they should steal one.

Although there are many people out there who won't share, there are also many who will.


---------------------------

'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
Good one.

---------------------------

'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.'
Good one.

Yes, both those commandments are good indeed.

 

[Greatest I am]

All this commandment is saying is that one shall not hold any person, thing, idol, or false deity above God.

It says God but what the hell.

Yep, if one is bowing down and worshiping a Bible or a Cross than they'd be in violation of this commandment. The book of Leviticus in the Bible clarifies this commandment a little more.
--------------------------------


What ever name somebody chooses to refer to God in, it shall not be used in vain.



There is some debate among Christians about which day should be considered the sabbath. Most Christian denominations celebrate it on Sunday, but some, such as the Seventh Day Adventists choose to celebrate it on Saturday. God says that one should work six days but rest on the seventh, the exact day isn't relevant.



Children should honor their parents to the fullest that they possibly can. If a child is abused, then that would be a different situation.

Unworkable then.

--------------------------


That's good then.
----------------------------


Just because the adults consent to outside marital affairs and no humans are harmed, doesn't mean God would approve of it. Simple as that.

It does not show lack of approval. If hell is at stake disapproval does not a sentence to hell make.

Breaking this is supposed to get you there.

Strange that Gays can do their thing but fornicators withot victims can't.

I suppose that you also believe that if somebody doesn't have money, they should steal some. If somebody doesn't have a car, they should steal one.

Although there are many people out there who won't share, there are also many who will.


---------------------------


---------------------------


Yes, both those commandments are good indeed.

We live in tightly controlled systems. If someone is falling through the cracks then he should grab hold of anything that notifies the systems to his plight.

Regards
DL