Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

12/15/2008 06:24:05 PM · #1751

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm a bit surprised at some of the statements here. I might have come in on the middle of a conversation, but did Dahkota claim to be "without sin"? For real? Forget the Bible, use your own moral code. Are you saying you perfectly follow your own code of conduct? I find that highly dubious. And Jeb says all you have to do is follow the moral constraints of society, but how can anybody even claim to accomplish that?

I think the idea that none of us perfectly follow a moral code (forgetting the Bible) should be self-evident and obvious.

Yes. I am without sin. Just like I am without unicorns and heffalumps. There is a difference between 'sin' and following a moral code.

Sin: 1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology
1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

I don't break my own moral codes, deliberately or otherwise. Of course, I don't believe in rules, so I have few. My number one rule, or law if you prefer, is treat others as you would like to be treated. And I do. Always. I am not disobeying the known will of God as I don't know it. Nor am I estranged from God - he and I get along very well, thank you very much. I don't do anything I would be ashamed of, nothing deplorable, nothing utterly wrong, according to my moral code.

Yes, according to the common definition of sin, I am without it.

BTW - just to cover any arguments, there are things I have done in my life that I regret now, on looking back. And when I realized that I didn't agree with my actions, I adjusted my moral code to 'add' that to a list of things I will not do.

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 18:31:15.

12/15/2008 06:30:54 PM · #1752

Originally posted by dahkota:

I don't break my own moral codes, deliberately or otherwise. Of course, I don't believe in rules, so I have few. My number one rule, or law if you prefer, is treat others as you would like to be treated. And I do. Always. I am not disobeying the known will of God as I don't know it. Nor am I estranged from God - he and I get along very well, thank you very much. I don't do anything I would be ashamed of, nothing deplorable, nothing utterly wrong, according to my moral code.

Yes, according to the common definition of sin, I am without it.

Wow. Either a very impressive display of self-discipline or a very impressive display of denial. You mean you have ALWAYS treated your neighbor as yourself? Even when you are cranky? Even when you are tired? Even when they really did deserve it after all? Always and forever? You have NEVER once not put out your utmost of effort in following the golden rule?

Impressive. I bow before you.

12/15/2008 06:31:23 PM · #1753

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's something to ascribe to, and if you do a reasonably good job of being a basically honorable person, then you don't have to necessarily go through life being cast as a sinner.

There are plenty of good and decent people who are human and fallible.....flawed does not necessarily mean bad, yet the general concensus that's ascribed to the race as a whole, certainly by a lot of organized religions, is that we are a sinful lot.

Some people do NOT ascribe to that line of thinking and will not accept being called such, or be treated as such, which is their right.

What these people want, myself included, is to not be judged by YOUR standards, and held accountable to them if our beliefs differ.

You have no right to do so.

You may think and feel what you like, but as soon as you express that, you're violating my right to freedom from religion.

I agree to be held accountable to God, but not by you, the guy next door, or some guy in an elaborate headdress surrounded by a bunch of bowing and scraping sycophants.

Even though the US of A was founded "One nation under God" the freedom of religion as established is also the freedom FROM religion, and some of us take that REAL seriously.

And guess what, dude.....if I say I ain't a sinner, and you don't have me locked up by a jury of my peers by incontestable evidence to the contrary, I ain't!

12/15/2008 06:33:48 PM · #1754

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When I was six I probably stole crayons. And when I was 14 I probably lied to my mother. The whole point of life is to grow and learn. In the last 10 years, I can honestly say that there is nothing I have done that I would question with regard to your idea of sin.

12/15/2008 06:37:12 PM · #1755

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wow. Either a very impressive display of self-discipline or a very impressive display of denial. You mean you have ALWAYS treated your neighbor as yourself? Even when you are cranky? Even when you are tired? Even when they really did deserve it after all? Always and forever? You have NEVER once not put out your utmost of effort in following the golden rule?
Impressive. I bow before you.

When I was six I probably stole crayons. And when I was 14 I probably lied to my mother. The whole point of life is to grow and learn. In the last 10 years, I can honestly say that there is nothing I have done that I would question with regard to your idea of sin.

Uh uh uh. I didn't say my idea of sin. I said yours. In 10 years you have followed your own code perfectly? Utterly perfectly? I already see cracks in the wall. So twice at least you haven't kept it. Certainly you knew stealing was wrong at 6. You knew lying was wrong at 14.

Same thing for Jeb. He suddenly thinks I'm judging him according to my code. When did I do that? I asked about his own code.

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 18:37:57.

12/15/2008 06:42:34 PM · #1756

Besides, I remember when I was eight and having to to confession to confess my sins, to tell the priest all the things I did wrong that week. "I took my friend's favorite crayon. I told my mother a fib about what happened to the pie. I stepped on a crack and broke my mommie's back." I mean, really. What kind of crap is that to force a child to endure? In the end, after dozens of our father's and even more hail marys, My sins were absolved. At least according to the priest and the catholic church. Everything I did before age 16 is absolved. So I'm pretty clean.

the whole idea of sin and absolution by confession to a priest is utterly ridiculous. My God knows what I do. We discuss everything.

Additionally, my co-workers think I'm moral crazy. I won't even take candy from our vendors (I work for the state - its illegal). My husband gets angry because I fully believe in not killing. Anything. Including crickets. I have a strict moral code and I follow it. Just because I don't call it sinning doesn't mean you have to be sarcastic and condescending.

12/15/2008 06:46:36 PM · #1757

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My idea of sin - as I said before, sin does not exist. Do I follow my moral code perfectly? Yes.

12/15/2008 06:47:14 PM · #1758

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Under those conditions there are lots of statements we use every day that become "false".

The sun rises in the east.
Water freezes at 32 degrees.

Oh, horsepuckey!

Thise are ludicrous examples......they are easily proven.

And just because I understand a concept doesn't mean that it either holds water OR applies to me.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Going back to my specific question, I wanted to know if Dahkota and Jeb managed to perfectly follow their own moral code? It's a reasonable question. No need for your obfuscation.

I had an obfuscation once.......third gear broke, and I had it towed away.....8>)

No, I absolutely don't follow my moral code exactly........hey, I get disgusted with you because I don't think you're as intent on trying to understand some of our views if you can further the argument.

That's not charitable of nature in my book.

HOWEVER.......just because I act like d*ck at times doesn't mean that I feel that I'm a sinner.....I also don't think that because I look at a beautiful woman with desire that it makes me a sinner.

I accept the fact that there is unattainable things in my life that I long to have that I won't. How is that sinful to want to have beautiful and fascinating things in my life?

If I act in an unacceptable way trying to get them in spite of my knowledge that it's neither appropriate nor reasonable, THAT'S possibly sinful.

To just desire something is sinful?

PLEASE!!!!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ross, I get your point. If you want to use "sin" to mean failing to meet up to the specific moral code of Christianity then likely we are all still "sinners" but it may not matter to some people. I'm trying to generalize here. Sin, in essence, means "to miss the mark". I'm just pointing out we all miss the mark of our own codes. It's universal. Nobody can really claim ignorance (with the exception of Shannon's innocents) because nobody meets their own standard.

I think that the general working definition that most people have has a much worse connotation than you're trying to pass off.

What you're describing hardly fits my working definition......from Dictionary.com

Sin
-noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
â��verb (used without object) 4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
â��verb (used with object) 6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.

12/15/2008 06:48:17 PM · #1759

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Is pointed sarcasm and derisive commentary sinful?........8>)

12/15/2008 06:52:48 PM · #1760

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Same thing for Jeb. He suddenly thinks I'm judging him according to my code. When did I do that? I asked about his own code.

But that's exactly what you're doing.....you're telling us we're sinners if we fall short.

I say I'm human and WILL fall short.

I don't believe it's a sin to be human.

You do, and you're trying to get us to accept that we're sinners if we fall short of OUR moral code by YOUR definition of sin(ning).

It won't work for either of us.

12/15/2008 06:56:25 PM · #1761

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Under those conditions there are lots of statements we use every day that become "false".

The sun rises in the east.
Water freezes at 32 degrees.
Oh, horsepuckey!

Thise are ludicrous examples......they are easily proven.

The sun doesn't rise in the east at the north pole. Heck the sun rarely rises exactly in the east nearly everywhere. Does this make the statement useless?

Water doesn't freeze at 32 if it is under pressure or is part of a solution. Does this make the statement useless?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

No, I absolutely don't follow my moral code exactly........

Of course you don't. I don't either. Dahkota being excepted (really I plainly don't believe her), we all do. The problem is, now you are guilty as charged and we haven't even brought in the Bible.

Originally posted by nikonjeb:

Sin
-noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
â��verb (used without object) 4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
â��verb (used with object) 6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.

Let's be careful though, and I didn't catch the whole conversation, but I'm guessing Flash was quoting the bible. They, of course, didn't use the word "sin", because they didn't write it in English. They used the word "hamartia" which, according to Wiki, "In Classical Greek, it means "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target" which was also used in Old English archery."

So basically the NT is saying "Everybody has missed the mark." The statement is so easily proven you can allow anybody their own standard of what "the mark" is and it can be demonstrated that they don't even meet that meager level. We are all pretty pathetic when it comes right down to it (except for Dahkota).

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 18:57:05.

12/15/2008 07:08:33 PM · #1762

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So basically the NT is saying "Everybody has missed the mark." The statement is so easily proven you can allow anybody their own standard of what "the mark" is and it can be demonstrated that they don't even meet that meager level. We are all pretty pathetic when it comes right down to it (except for Dahkota).

You see, this is where we disagree. you state we are all pretty pathetic. I disagree. You say we all miss the mark, that we are imperfect. I disagree. You start with and accept the idea that everyone sins. I disagree. We have a fundamental difference in our belief system. there is no way, coming from two sides of the same coin, we will ever meet in the middle.

for me, your beliefs are depressing. If I walked around all day thinking I was a bad person, what's to stop me from fulfilling the promise?

and why is it so difficult for you to accept that I, and others, do not believe in sin? that we have an unbiblical idea of moral values?

It doesn't matter to me what the NT says. It only matters what I feel in my heart. And, at the end of the day, I feel pretty damn good.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/15/2008 07:39:33 PM · #1763

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If you can understand it, you most likely fit it. If you can't understand it, it may not pertain to you.

Yes, but if there's even one person that it doesn't pertain to, then the statement itself is false. It's a "fortune cookie" claim, where the parameters are generalized enough for most people to think of something that fits, so it must be "universal."

Under those conditions there are lots of statements we use every day that become "false".

The sun rises in the east.
Water freezes at 32 degrees.

Neither statement is considered an absolute. We all know perfectly well that pressure affects the freezing point and east depends upon latitude, but I never heard someone say "We are usually sinners except..." Four year olds are taught to beg forgiveness for their sins as a given. There is no evaluation of their "pressure or latitude," and no possibility of exception is assumed. They just ARe because somebody wrote it in a book 2000 years ago.

12/15/2008 07:42:33 PM · #1764

Originally posted by dahkota:

and why is it so difficult for you to accept that I, and others, do not believe in sin?

Because I live in the world every friggin day. Holy cow. How can you walk around and NOT believe people do wrong?

I agree though. If you think you never miss the mark of your own code, then we have nothing to talk about. I have nothing to offer you because you don't need anything. Still you already admitted to missing it. That's the problem, where do you draw the line? Let's pretend you have failed only twice (the lying and the stealing). Is that "good enough"? What about the person who fails three times? or four? or five? Once you've failed once there is no line to be drawn. There are those who have never failed and everybody else. By your own admission you are in the second group, even if you are at the front of the line. So what's so hard to believe about the statement "All have failed"? We haven't found someone here who makes that statement untrue.

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 19:43:24.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/15/2008 07:59:53 PM · #1765

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
and why is it so difficult for you to accept that I, and others, do not believe in sin?

Because I live in the world every friggin day. Holy cow. How can you walk around and NOT believe people do wrong?

I never said people don't do wrong. the only thing I know is when people violate my moral code. But, I understand that people have different morals. For my husband, killing is not against his morals. He goes hunting all the time. His morals, not mine - I can't judge him by his moral code and I can't judge him by mine. I can disagree with him, but I can't judge him.

I have not violated my moral code. As I stated before, I went to confession until I was 16. I developed my code after that. And all my sins before that were absolved by a priest so I was told. Once I stopped believing in sin, I no longer cared about my absolution.

See, for you, there is an absolute list of morals to live by, given to you by the Bible. To violate that moral code is a sin. I don't have that. You obviously have a list of what is right and wrong. I don't. So, while we both live in the world every friggin day, we view it completely differently. you walk around with a scorecard checking right and wrong depending on the action. I walk around with a smile on my face.

rossbilly

Nikon D200

12/15/2008 08:03:55 PM · #1766

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
and why is it so difficult for you to accept that I, and others, do not believe in sin?

Because I live in the world every friggin day. Holy cow. How can you walk around and NOT believe people do wrong?

Because you are, somewhat cleverly, leaving out the rest of the common phrase: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." [Romans 3:23]

Again... when one does not believe in said deity, this becomes a problem. While you are partly correct about people missing the mark (except children, etc.), that last bit is inherently implied & why many object to the entire statement.

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 20:05:33.

JMart

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

12/15/2008 08:06:43 PM · #1767

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So what's so hard to believe about the statement "All have failed"? We haven't found someone here who makes that statement untrue.

JMart is without sin :P

Doc, I'd agree that I have failed at some things and made mistakes in my life, but doesn't the use of "sin" as a euphemism for failures and mistakes a rejection of the spiritual component of what sin allegedly is? I'm without sin, not because I haven't made mistakes but because I don't accept the assertion that there is a spiritual realm.

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

12/15/2008 08:18:59 PM · #1768

I don't disagree with you guys, Jmart and Ross. Here's my simple point. Everybody has failed. Period. You, me, dahkota (who in one post says she doesn't have a list of right and wrong and in another says she lives by the golden rule (which would obviously include right and wrong action)), everybody. So, launching off into fantasyland, IF you died and suddenly found yourself before God and he refused to let you into heaven because you weren't perfect, you couldn't claim ignorance because you are not perfect even by your own standards. Now that could all be hooey. But maybe it isn't.

My simple point is that "all HAVE failed". It's an obvious given in our world. Whether you fall short of the "glory of God" of course depends on whether God even exists. That can be left for another day.

Carry on.

JMart

Nikon D80

12/15/2008 08:44:37 PM · #1769

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But again, failed and sinned are different. If I fail to run a marathon then most reasonable religious people would say that such a failure is not a sin. Sin as a concept is tough to pin down since even believers in the supernatural will disagree about what is or is not a sin.

If I die and find a god exists and wants me to explain myself I will most certainly plead ignorance on the basis of a lack of evidence. I will also point out that even if I accepted the premise of the supernatural that I really had no good way to tell which religious sect had the correct set of rules and it comes across as particularly dubious that most peoples' rule set seems to be determined more as a matter of geography than any serious intellectual inquiry.

I do appreciate that you called the existence of god "fantasyland" and I accept your apology. :D

JMart

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

12/15/2008 08:55:16 PM · #1770

BTW: There is some evidence that

dahkota committed a dreaded double cliche sin in 2006 [gasp].

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/15/2008 08:56:47 PM · #1771

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Everybody has failed. Period. My simple point is that "all HAVE failed". It's an obvious given in our world.

Bzzzt! We already established that there are exceptions, thus your statement is patently false. Further, sin has a specific religious context. It's not equivalent to right and wrong, but merely something that's prohibited by a god. For example, killing is considered a sin, but not necessarily wrong because God supposedly demands stoning and other untimely deaths for certain crimes. Now, if you think that particular god is complete fiction, then whatever he/she/it supposedly prohibited is a moot point. So if Athena declared that eating broccoli is a sin, would you consider yourself a sinner for that? Probably not. You'd have a chuckle and a second helping because Athena is fiction and never existed to make such a rule. The same applies to Horus, Odin, Vishnu and 1,000 other gods that you believe to be myths. Most of the world doesn't believe your god existed either, and so those associated sins are simply not applicable. We can still believe in right and wrong... just not because your god said so.

12/15/2008 09:03:36 PM · #1772

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Achoo, I never said I haven't failed. I said I haven't sinned and I haven't broken my moral rule. there is a vast difference, even if you don't see it. I have 1 rule - treat others..., but that is a rule for me, which I always follow. While it is inconceivable to you that I can follow it without fail, it is not inconceivable to me. My rule is not yours but your rules are not mine. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue nor unlikely. I don't believe in sin. For me, it is the same as unicorns and heffalumps. You telling me I have sinned makes as much sense to me as calling me a unicorn. Except, I know what you intend when you tell me I have sinned - you are passing judgement on me. It is not your right to do so, nor am I obligated to accept your pronouncement. Nothing against you or your beliefs, I just don't believe them myself. I accept that you believe in sin and that you worry about doing right and wrong. Can't you accept that I hold a differing belief, one that doesn't include eternal damnation?

12/15/2008 09:05:15 PM · #1773

Originally posted by JMart:

BTW: There is some evidence that dahkota committed a dreaded double cliche sin in 2006 [gasp].

Yes, and while that makes me fair game for damnation, it does not leave me open for eternal damnation. I have paid my penance. I am absolved. :P

12/15/2008 09:07:23 PM · #1774

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Same thing for Jeb. He suddenly thinks I'm judging him according to my code. When did I do that? I asked about his own code.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Back to.....

You're trying to get us to accept that we're sinners if we fall short of OUR moral code by YOUR definition of sin(ning).

NOT gonna happen......

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 21:10:44.