🚀 go-pugleaf

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