🚀 go-pugleaf

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