To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2017, 05:38 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 05:25 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 11:22 AM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Basically, on the "open to life" stuff. The sex act has to end in the possibility of the creation of new life; and though 98% of Catholics use the condom and the Pill, that's not the church teaching according to Humanae Vitae. Adey67, part of me wants to go "Oh no! to Onanism..." if we could make a DARE-esque, equally ineffective, "don't touch thyself" campaign. Tongue

I don't need religion for my own self imposed guilt complexes sadly. But hey, I do, do, the Catholic guilt thing well, and self impose it well, you are right.


Funny enough, this would fall under the sin of "relativism" as far as Borgy and mine's churches go...which would mean that Chas is agreeing with the Church... I do believe Hell froze over? Yes

You wrote: "You have generalized 'sin' and 'worship' into meaninglessness." Really?

Yes, really. Not only that, you generalize it to all people. How arrogant you are. Drinking Beverage

Quote:Or did I speak outside your sacred teacup?

What does that even mean? Consider

Quote:The speed limit is 40. You drive 41. You have sinned, transgressed, broke the law. How is the word "sin" now made meaningless.

'broken', not 'broke'.
You have generalized 'sin' so that it is no different than rule-breaking or law-breaking. The word exists because it has a narrower meaning.

Quote:You have a car, and that car is your most prized possession. You would kill anyone who touches your car, especially to do it injury. How is that not different from "worship"? Meaningless? I think not.

I don't, so your example is really stupid.

Quote:We have to open-wide the "box" that surrounds our thinking. Arguments and positions that insist on using only one detonation while rejecting the others spins nowhere but into the ground.

'denotation', not 'detonation'.

We use words in specific ways with shades of meaning. You want to elide the meanings of 'sin' and 'worship' so that they are no longer of any real use.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
08-01-2017, 05:42 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Thank you for your comments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 06:36 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2017 08:12 PM by mordant.)
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 05:19 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  You wrote: "Worship is ritual adoration." This is a true statement but not a definitive statement of the word "worship." Take out the word "ritual" and you have a much more definitive statement. People worship their cars, their money, even other people. If someone "hurts" their object of worship, then there is hell to pay.
No, you have a more general and less specific definition which is generally used as hyperbole.

This is no different than a panentheist I've engaged elsewhere who redefines "god" to mean "that which is of supreme importance". That is a dilution of meaning to where it makes no sense to even use the word "god". That which is of supreme importance need not have the slightest special properties or attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, or indeed even agency or consciousness. "God" to most people means something very different and far more specific. It is the same with "worship" in the religious sense. As soon as you define a personal deity who demands worship then you must define the nature of that worship and ritualize / regularize it into approved forms. It is very specific. And you are making a false comparison here essentially between "worship" and "enthusiasm".

This also reminds me of how theists are constantly conflating the primary religious meaning of "faith" with the more generic meaning which is synonymous with "trust". Religious faith is, in a nutshell, affording belief without a requirement of substantiating evidence. It is almost the exact opposite of "trust", which is a belief afforded on the basis of the preponderance of known evidence and past experience. You are committing a very similar conflation here, based on a very similar coincidence: two very different usages of the same word. We should not be looking for similarities that aren't there, we should be defining which meaning we are using and stick with it.
(08-01-2017 05:19 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Likewise, you wrote: "But I do not get messages from my code." This may be a function of some forms of worship, but it does not apply to all forms of worship. Many societies worship their ancestors, but they do not expect to get messages from them. Instead, they show respect and obeisance, which merely raises them in the eyes of society. Although, there are humorous stories about individuals who failed to keep the custom of worshiping the dead and suffering consequences from "the beyond."
Religious worship also has a component of imprecation / ingratiation. It is generally indicated that the deity responds to adoration with favors. That is one of the motivations to worship, because let's face it, no one really gets off on issuing kudos to someone's magnificence endlessly. The supposed ecstasy is contrived and insincere. The real reason is for the god to be pleased and to bless / protect / guide you. So this fits with ancestor worship just fine, as well as worship for demigods, bodhisattvas, and the like; even, in Catholicism, Mary. It is always directed at invisible and powerful supernatural beings, most commonly but not necessarily a deity, for the purpose of currying favor.

Your broader deployment of the word to random persons and objects lacks all of these motivations.
(08-01-2017 05:19 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  You wrote: "Once you understand it that way then you see worship for what it is, it is part of the ritual-based undergirding to support theistic ideation and the immortality project that it represents." At first glance, I would agree with you. However, this statement is not relevant when our ancestors would treat nature as anthropomorphistic in order to influence nature in a positive way.
Yes but here again this is ascribing agency to nature, e.g., "mother nature", and expecting favors in return. Turning nature from what it is (nature) into a supernatural benefactor.
(08-01-2017 05:19 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Yes, self-centeredness. I have boiled it down to one word: ME. I agree with you until you got to the point of helplessness. At this point, you stepped into the theistic nonsense and made this nonsense a denotation of the word worship. A defining denotation, by the way.
Because that's how it's commonly defined and used [shrug].

If we cannot agree on the definition (and we clearly cannot) then we can't discuss beyond that. Agreed-upon definitions are the foundation of meaningful discussion.

I have always held a deep suspicion for people who have to use special words or meanings to make their case or sell their product or whatever they are trying to do. Because in my experience it usually employed to mask some weakness in the underlying premise, or in the alternative, it is used to create a perception of originality for something that's actually quite derivative. Sometimes both. So if you want to sell me on the concept that people have an innate need for religious worship, then make the case for that without resorting to the metaphorical / hyperbolic sort of worship that was a meaning never intended to substitute for the primary religious meaning.

If I neglect my work, wife and family to play with and work on muscle cars, I am not worshiping muscle cars. I am simply assigning higher value to them at the expense of other things. I am not expecting the cars to be pleased or to reciprocate in some way. There are superficial similarities to worship of supernatural entities, that is why there is a hyperbolic usage of the word, but only superficial ones. And there are substantive differences. It would be misleading to reason from one to the other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like mordant's post
08-01-2017, 06:57 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Most all of them seem to think so. Their various religions all have built-in loopholes to allow for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 07:04 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Or to put it more simply....

Most people (who speak English) know what the word "donkey" means.

If you want to switch definitions of words like this, then we get to change the word "donkey" to mean "hat" and then use it to prove you have your head up your ass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 07:49 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(07-01-2017 08:59 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Being human is a "sin," for the single reason that each and everyone of us thinks only of ourselves. Altruism died the moment it left the cranium and was uttered out of some fool's mouth. We live in a "ME-world," live a "ME-existence," and worship a "ME-personal God."
Project much?Drinking Beverage

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
08-01-2017, 07:58 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Hey Wallis.
You're not a nice person.

I nursed my dying mother through MS for a decade. Age 15 to 25.

I donate 20 dollars out of my meagre pension to women's cancer research.

I do this because I want to help.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Banjo's post
08-01-2017, 09:04 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Please read the following web-page: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/iag...oming-gods
Becoming Gods
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 09:22 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Oh goody.
Just what we need.
A patronizing a-hole who thinks what we need are sermons and lectures.
Such a wonderfully effective way to communicate.
Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-01-2017, 09:45 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 09:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh goody.
Just what we need.
A patronizing a-hole who thinks what we need are sermons and lectures.
Such a wonderfully effective way to communicate.
Facepalm
Look on the bright side, at least he hangs around and tries to answer questions unlike peaceful hate Consider Actually maybe that's not such a good thing, I don't think I've ever waded through quite so much faeces I gave up after I nearly face palmed myself into a coma.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: