🚀 go-pugleaf

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message 
news:b4c50488-9887-41b5-940c-810bc1250178@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 10:12�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 10:35 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 30, 3:29 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...@thanks.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:bc036a34-ce99-476c-852f-7fab58fc9c4f@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > On Jul 29, 10:38 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >> On Jul 27, 3:10 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> skrev 
>> > > >> > i en
>> > > >> > meddelelsenews:34fb05b4-6c3a-40ac-9f83-cce0aec23a28@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > >> > > On Jul 25, 3:33 am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> 
>> > > >> > >> wrote in
>> > > >> > >> messagenews:0e62a809-81a3-4f16-a6d5-fb09b5f8ccb8@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > >> > >> > On Jul 24, 5:56 am, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> 
>> > > >> > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> > >> >> Alex W. wrote:
>> > > >> > >> >> > "BuddyThunder" <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> > > >> > >> >> >news:48864044$1@clear.net.nz...
>>
>> > > >> > >> >> >> There is no sin. It's a silly idea that you haven't 
>> > > >> > >> >> >> been able
>> > > >> > >> >> >> to
>> > > >> > >> >> >> back
>> > > >> > >> >> >> up
>> > > >> > >> >> >> at all. I just believe that people should be free to go 
>> > > >> > >> >> >> about
>> > > >> > >> >> >> their
>> > > >> > >> >> >> lives
>> > > >> > >> >> >> free of inexplicable religious bigotry. If you don't 
>> > > >> > >> >> >> think you
>> > > >> > >> >> >> fall
>> > > >> > >> >> >> into
>> > > >> > >> >> >> that category, then explain yourself. Otherwise worry 
>> > > >> > >> >> >> about
>> > > >> > >> >> >> your
>> > > >> > >> >> >> own
>> > > >> > >> >> >> failings before the perceived ones of others.
>>
>> > > >> > >> >> > Sorry, mate, you're wrong on this one.
>> > > >> > >> >> > There is sin.
>> > > >> > >> >> > Sin is an infraction of the moral code; it is a social
>> > > >> > >> >> > construct.
>>
>> > > >> > >> >> I disagree. Some people would see me as sinful, I would 
>> > > >> > >> >> just go
>> > > >> > >> >> with
>> > > >> > >> >> immoral when I fall short of my own values.
>>
>> > > >> > >> > Which would gel with sin being the social construct. It's a
>> > > >> > >> > loaded
>> > > >> > >> > word though. Everyone has their own meaning and inferences, 
>> > > >> > >> > so I
>> > > >> > >> > suggest we use other more concise words.
>>
>> > > >> > >> What would you suggest by way of alternatives?
>>
>> > > >> > >> I actually think that a great many people nowadays see "sin" 
>> > > >> > >> no
>> > > >> > >> longer in
>> > > >> > >> strictly religious terms. Eating a Mars bar or binging on 
>> > > >> > >> double
>> > > >> > >> chocolate
>> > > >> > >> chip ice cream is regarded as "sinful", or fly-tipping your
>> > > >> > >> household
>> > > >> > >> rubbish.
>>
>> > > >> > >> Words are often loaded one way or another -- but that can and 
>> > > >> > >> does
>> > > >> > >> change.
>> > > >> > >> Not too long ago, "gay" was a perfectly innocent cheerful 
>> > > >> > >> word
>> > > >> > >> gambolling
>> > > >> > >> along the byways of the English language. Ditto 
>> > > >> > >> homosexuality: we
>> > > >> > >> may
>> > > >> > >> not
>> > > >> > >> find it particularly tasteful when having our faces thrust in 
>> > > >> > >> it,
>> > > >> > >> but
>> > > >> > >> most
>> > > >> > >> of us no longer regard this sexual orientation as a sin in 
>> > > >> > >> either
>> > > >> > >> the
>> > > >> > >> religious or the secular sense.
>>
>> > > >> > > Well, considering the context, I would avoid using the term 
>> > > >> > > and be
>> > > >> > > more specific, due to theists often jumping on meanings hidden
>> > > >> > > insentences that were never intended etc etc.
>> > > >> > > Yes, "Sin" has come into more generalised use esp in regards 
>> > > >> > > to food
>> > > >> > > consumption. But in this case it's more of a case of
>> > > >> > > self-destructive
>> > > >> > > behaviour and not counter-moralistic. Again, I think being 
>> > > >> > > specific
>> > > >> > > is useful.
>> > > >> > > And technically I was arguing that "sin" is a social 
>> > > >> > > construct. Not
>> > > >> > > religious, but that using the term in a discussion between 
>> > > >> > > atheists
>> > > >> > > and theists might lead to miscommunication.
>>
>> > > >> > > Al
>>
>> > > >> > Discussion between atheists and theists leads to 
>> > > >> > miscommunication.-
>> > > >> > Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > >> No, the minds of atheist are clear.
>> > > >> The minds of theists are clouded, holding their ancient book to 
>> > > >> guide
>> > > >> them.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > Well, in the case of Hezekiah's tunnel, the ancient book was right 
>> > > > and
>> > > > atheists were wrong. How do you explain it?
>> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> > > In what way were atheists wrong about Hezekiah's tunnel?
>>
>> > > --
>>
>> > Well, atheists said originally that there was nothing in the Bible
>> > that could be proven by anything that exists today.

I'm an atheist and I've never said any such thing.
Have you spoken to ALL atheists?
I'm sure you will find that quite a few agree that at least SOME of the 
events in the bible are reasonably accurate.
The only thing we agree on is that all of the "special" or supernatural 
events described in the bible could not have occurred.


>> > Actually, they have not yet moved from that position. �They still
>> > claim that just because there is a tunnel used as a conduit for water
>> > where three books of the Old Testament say a conduit for water was
>> > dug, that does not mean that the Bible was talking about the same
>> > tunnel.
>> > Robert B. Winn

You're delusional.
All they were asking for , in view of the fact there is more than one 
tunnel, was for evidence that the tunnel known today as Hezekiah's tunnel is 
the same tunnel described in the bible.
Do you understand this or would you like me to break it down into simpler 
chunks for you?
>>
>> No-one made that claim. �This has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
>>
>> Al- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> The claim was made.  It was stated several times that just because the
> Bible described the construction of a tunnel, it did not mean that
> Hezekiah's tunnel was the tunnel described in the Bible.  The fact
> that it was where the Bible said the tunnel was built was just a co-
> incidence.
> Robert B. Winn
>
Stop lying.

-- 
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence