🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
> 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

No-one made that claim.  This has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Al