🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwhipp@optusnet.com.au> skrev i en 
meddelelse 
news: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.