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, 09:59 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 07:58 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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.

I have been called worse. I tend to not let words bother me.

You were a good son.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 10:09 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 09:04 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Please read the following web-page: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/iag...oming-gods
Becoming Gods

Putz.
I guess I'll never understand the compulsion to troll.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 10:20 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 06:36 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(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.

We are not agreeing to definitions because the participants here wanting to restrict the vocabulary within a religious context. However, when adjoining atheism into the discussion, we have to use the broader denotations and definitions. One can bandy about synonyms, but these tend to muddy the waters. It is better for the theist and the atheist to agree that "sin" is a transgression against a rule, law, ordinance, or even an accepted norm, irrespective of a deity.

Worship, too, must be expanded beyond the religious norms of rites and traditions. Our English is peppered with expanded meanings, such as "He practices his weight lifting program religiously."

"If we look at the matter from a psychological standpoint, one condition is evident in every instance; it may be consciously realized or it may be nascent, but there iit is—a sense of need. Even if to the individual the act be a mere form imposed by external authority, the imposition implies a realization by someone of this need, while the act often creates the conscious feeling on the part of the one who performs it.
"Professor Leuba points out the “religion in its objective manifestation appears as actions, attitudes, creeds, and institutions; in its subjective expression it consists of impulses, desires, purposes, feelings, emotions, and ideas, connected as cause and as effect with the religious reactions and attitudes.” Worship may be seen as “objective manifestationPsychological Discussion of Worship” or as “subjective expressions,” and both, to a certain extent, are cause and effect. In the crudest worship there is a degree of subjective expression (feeling and desire) acting as cause, but the objective manifestation often reacts, intensifies, and makes conscious that subjective expression, and then is itself the cause."

Again, our English language is peppered with the words worship that have nothing to do with religion: "He worships the ground she walks on."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 10:22 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 10:09 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 09:04 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Please read the following web-page: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/iag...oming-gods
Becoming Gods

Putz.
I guess I'll never understand the compulsion to troll.

Since you were not one of the posters to respond to me, then don't read it. Simple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 10:24 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

It is true: I am an asshole. But I am neither sermonizing nor lecturing. Guess you slept during your rhetoric classes. Oh, wait! They don't teach rhetoric in school any more, do they?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 10:29 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Quote: It is better for the theist and the atheist to agree that "sin" is a transgression against a rule, law, ordinance, or even an accepted norm, irrespective of a deity.

That's bullshit and you know it. The word sin clearly implies a transgression against a rule within a religious setting.
What you're doing here is not new. We've seen this kind of dishonest twisting of words and definitions countless times before your arrival.
Move along now little fella.
Shoo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
08-01-2017, 10:53 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 10:29 PM)pablo Wrote:  
Quote: It is better for the theist and the atheist to agree that "sin" is a transgression against a rule, law, ordinance, or even an accepted norm, irrespective of a deity.

That's bullshit and you know it. The word sin clearly implies a transgression against a rule within a religious setting.
What you're doing here is not new. We've seen this kind of dishonest twisting of words and definitions countless times before your arrival.
Move along now little fella.
Shoo.

And you were made "king" by whom? Ah. American education. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 10:58 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of sin

1. 1a : an offense against religious or moral law
2. b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food>
3. c : an often serious shortcoming : fault

Synonym Discussion of sin
offense, resentment, umbrage, pique, dudgeon, huff mean an emotional response to or an emotional state resulting from a slight or indignity. offense implies hurt displeasure <takes deep offense at racial slurs>. resentment suggests lasting indignation or ill will <harbored a lifelong resentment of his brother>. umbrage may suggest hurt pride, resentment, or suspicion of another's motives <took umbrage at the offer of advice>. pique applies to a transient feeling of wounded vanity <in a pique I foolishly declined the invitation>. dudgeon suggests an angry fit of indignation <stormed out of the meeting in high dudgeon>. huff implies a peevish short-lived spell of anger usually at a petty cause <in a huff he slammed the door>.

offense, sin, vice, crime, scandal mean a transgression of law. offense applies to the infraction of any law, rule, or code <at that school no offense went unpunished>. sin implies an offense against moral or religious law <the sin of blasphemy>. vice applies to a habit or practice that degrades or corrupts <regarded gambling as a vice>. crime implies a serious offense punishable by the law of the state <the crime of murder>. scandal applies to an offense that outrages the public conscience <a career ruined by a sex scandal>.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 11:00 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 10:53 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 10:29 PM)pablo Wrote:  That's bullshit and you know it. The word sin clearly implies a transgression against a rule within a religious setting.
What you're doing here is not new. We've seen this kind of dishonest twisting of words and definitions countless times before your arrival.
Move along now little fella.
Shoo.

And you were made "king" by whom? Ah. American education. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

That was a weak attempt to deflect being called out on your bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 11:02 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 05:32 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Perhaps we should get psychological. You get hungry, you eat. But did you share? You are tired and want to sleep. Did you move someone else out of their sleeping area? You have an opinion, and you think: the first person who disagrees with me dies!

As a matter of fact, I'm eating right now, and not sharing. Because nobody asked.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: