Homosexuality is not a sin!

[thormas]

 

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

I understand your position. My whole and only real point/position is my summary (6 posts above) and (the epilogue) in the the Zen quote above.  If you can't see it there, then perhaps there is nothing i can say to make it clearer. If you do see it there, you win and i take back everything else i said  in this thread as my failure to communicate clearly and adequately. Happy New Year.

I do see it but my points remain and if you don't see the inevitable contradiction in your position, that is fine and is what it is................may be ;+}

As to winning, that was never the point of the exercise.

What's with you guys and winning?  

[JosephM]

Thomas,

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201908/perception-is-not-reality

[PaulS]

7 hours ago, thormas said:

 .

 

On 12/27/2019 at 6:29 AM, PaulS said:

Maybe if I put it this way - if you were to reduce Hitler's crimes, at what point would you qualify that Hitler ceases being a direct opposite of Jesus?  If he killed half as many Jews?  What about if he only killed a few hundred thousand.  What if he only killed one Jew?  What are the parameters for you that specifically detail Hitler as direct opposite to Jesus and not a shade in between somewhere along the spectrum of behaviors? 

We all know Hitler committed horrendous acts, but what qualifies those acts as opposite to Jesus and not say the acts of Charles Manson (or do you consider Manson to be the opposite of Jesus as well as Hitler?  Where do you draw the line about what is opposite to Jesus and what is not?  Perception.

Maybe, as we're talking about people being opposites, you could consider more recent circumstances - could you contemplate an opposite for Donald Trump?  I imagine you could - and if you did so, could you possibly recognize the 'opposite' you have in mind is affected by your perception of Trump?  I know mine would be, but I can accept and acknowledge that.

Thormas,

Sill on the subject of opposites, have you considered my questions about Hitler and if so, can you see the difficulty in determining a point on the continuum when Hitler would cease being the opposite of Jesus?  Our perception of things inclines us to 'taking sides' and saying this is wrong and that is right, etc, but when you try and drill down to capture what exactly an opposite is to another, the whole process is found wanting in my opinion.

[romansh]

On 12/25/2019 at 4:20 PM, PaulS said:

- Thormas' reality that using somebody for sex is wrong is his reality, whereas my reality is that one can use another for sex and it be a good thing. 

Not quite my point Paul … 1) Thormas's expression of his reality is a perception as is yours. 2) Depending on the circumstances this supposedly sinful sex might be seen as harmful or beneficial depending on the circumstances. It's all perceptions and desires. 3) If we have no free will, good and evil/sin are not even coherent concepts.

On 12/26/2019 at 8:10 AM, thormas said:

Indulging in cheese cake as sinful is simply an self admonishment, most times said in jest or even, "oh well" -

While I agree with you, I could see someone fretting anxiously over eating a forbidden cheese cake and someone else sleeping soundly after killing dozens of people. But you have a right to what I consider your aberrant perceptions.

On 12/26/2019 at 8:10 AM, thormas said:

I think red and sin are two different beasts.

Philosophically? I think not. Having said that the chair being red or not won't affect brain functions too much, if I smashed the chair over someone's head for no (apparent) reason then if I were you I'd stay away from me. Would a brain tumour have been a "good" reason? If so what is "good" about the brain tumour? 

I am not advocating doing things that are often thought of as evil (or even at times good), What I am advocating is taking a deep look (or getting an understanding) of our actions and not dividing them into good and evil. That for me is one of the most disappointing things about the Abraham religions. They seem not to understand their own teachings.

[PaulS]

6 minutes ago, romansh said:

Not quite my point Paul … 1) Thormas's expression of his reality is a perception as is yours. 2) Depending on the circumstances this supposedly sinful sex might be seen as harmful or beneficial depending on the circumstances. It's all perceptions and desires. 3) If we have no free will, good and evil/sin are not even coherent concepts.

Thanks Rom,

I agree with all three points you make above, so I am unsure what I am missing.  Could you maybe explain a bit further - do you think there is a single reality for all circumstances or does it come down to one's perception, which is how I interpret the reason there are different realities - there are different perceptions.  Is that different to what you are saying?

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

What's with you guys and winning?  

Ha ha!  You are entertaining Thormas.  Are you still looking for that 'prize' you felt entitled to in the thread "The poor will always be with you..."!

Indeed, what is it with some people here about winning.  Perhaps it has more to do with perception about others who we don't really know.  Planks in eyes comes to mind.  Or perhaps it was more a Freudian slip, sort of giving away your state of mind than genuinely reflecting others?  Indeed, as it was only Joseph who used the word 'winning' this one time, I do wonder who you think of when you write "What's with you guys and winning?  Which 'guys' are you referring to specifically?  Or could you be looking into a mirror?

But anyway, let's try to stick to the subject matter (at this point) about opposites.  I look forward to your response to my questions above about Hitler and any further discussion we may have, when you have time. 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

Ha ha!  You are entertaining Thormas.  Are you still looking for that 'prize' you felt entitled to in the thread "The poor will always be with you..."!

Indeed, what is it with some people here about winning.  Perhaps it has more to do with perception about others who we don't really know.  Planks in eyes comes to mind.  Or perhaps it was more a Freudian slip, sort of giving away your state of mind than genuinely reflecting others?  Indeed, as it was only Joseph who used the word 'winning' this one time, I do wonder who you think of when you write "What's with you guys and winning?  Which 'guys' are you referring to specifically?  Or could you be looking into a mirror?

Paul,

You seem to go there (i.e prizes) and I have never understood why. You're the one who brings it up.

In a section called Debate & Dialogue, I feel it is permissible and within the parameters of the section, to dialogue and debate as long as one wants to, as long as there is a debate or dialogue. I have no expectation that any minds will change but I reserve the right to present my view (when I disagree or have a different slant on things or simply because I want to); I enjoy the dialogue. If someone responds back or I have a further point to make or clarify, I, like everybody, have the right and the choice to respond and continue the Debate and the Dialogue. If you consider that a problem that's on you. If you consider a desire to continue a debate when one disagrees with another's position as a need to win or looking for a prize, that too is on you. I call it a Debate.

If there have been jokes about winning or prizes (the only one I remember is a humorous one by Burl) and for some reason it bothers you, that is on you too. 

Lighten up Paul, you're testy........over imagined issues.

BTW.I did enjoy your foray into psychology - quite entertaining :+}

[thormas]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

Thomas,

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201908/perception-is-not-reality

Thanks Joseph, I will read it in the next few days but I would much prefer your personal response. But that is ok. 

tppg

[PaulS]

59 minutes ago, thormas said:

Paul,

You seem to go there (i.e prizes) and I have never understood why. You're the one who brings it up.

The only reason I have gone 'there' Thormas is because you were the one that mentioned 'prizes', as I have already outlined.

I have never mentioned prizes or winning.  Not once.  You on the other hand, in the thread I referenced, wrote on November 25 - "Where can I pick up my prize for stating the obvious" (maybe there were others as well - I can't be bothered looking). That is why I suspect you are imagining the mindset about 'prizes' and winning of me when you say things like "What's with you guys and winning".  As I asked before and to which you didn't answer - who are the 'you guys' that you are referring to?  

Quote

In a section called Debate & Dialogue, I feel it is permissible and within the parameters of the section, to dialogue and debate as long as one wants to, as long as there is a debate or dialogue. I have no expectation that any minds will change but I reserve the right to present my view (when I disagree or have a different slant on things or simply because I want to); I enjoy the dialogue. If someone responds back or I have a further point to make or clarify, I, like everybody, have the right and the choice to respond and continue the Debate and the Dialogue. If you consider that a problem that's on you. If you consider a desire to continue a debate when one disagrees with another's position as a need to win or looking for a prize, that too is on you. I call it a Debate.

Why on earth would I have a problem with you debating a point?  Where do you get that from?  Because I call you out as one referencing 'prizes' for making a point?  This seems to be your problem Thormas, not mine.  Planks in eyes, brother.  You and I BOTH do like to press our point and we BOTH go very close to wanting the last word (if I need to remind you again, this is not yelling or anger, just highlighting the term both).  Is that what you are perceiving as my desire to win or want prizes when you say I am the one who brings it up (but again, only because you mention it first, not me).

Quote

If there have been jokes about winning or prizes (the only one I remember is a humorous one by Burl) and for some reason it bothers you, that is on you too.

I wasn't referring to jokes per se, just plain old writing that is recorded in these threads. 

Again, it doesn't bother me at all - I'm just pointing out that you called for a 'prize' for stating a point so it seems you have more a connection to 'winning', not me.  I have never mentioned prizes or winning.  Ever.  You have. 

Quote

Lighten up Paul, you're testy........over imagined issues.

Anybody can read who is doing the imagining here and it's not me.  Neither am I testy - that is your perception which I would suggest is totally imagined, but perception is a tricky thing.  I am light as a feather - just pointing things out.  Things that seem to ruffle yours though so to speak (well, enough that you spend time responding to this rather than dealing with the question at hand - opposites).  Priorities I guess.

So back to the issue being discussed (opposites) - have you considered my Hitler questions yet?  I look forward to further discussion with you about that - when you have time to respond.

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

While I agree with you, I could see someone fretting anxiously over eating a forbidden cheese cake and someone else sleeping soundly after killing dozens of people. But you have a right to what I consider your aberrant perceptions.

Just noticed your response.

Thanks and my aberrant perceptions thank you also :+}

If you would rather have the cheese cake lover at a party with you, and perhaps spending the night because of bad weather, rather than the mass murderer, then our aberrant perceptions perceive the same reality so, "coward, take my coward's hand." 

If you prefer the mass murderer and if we're at the same party, I'll brave the weather and the roads.

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Philosophically? I think not. Having said that the chair being red or not won't affect brain functions too much, if I smashed the chair over someone's head for no (apparent) reason then if I were you I'd stay away from me. Would a brain tumour have been a "good" reason? If so what is "good" about the brain tumour? 

I am not advocating doing things that are often thought of as evil (or even at times good), What I am advocating is taking a deep look (or getting an understanding) of our actions and not dividing them into good and evil. That for me is one of the most disappointing things about the Abraham religions. They seem not to understand their own teachings.

Would a brain tumor be a reason or a cause? Self-defense is a reason to whack the guy with the red chair or any available chair, a spider on his head is a reason but perhaps it is over kill to remove the spider with the red chair. However, a tumor is not so much a reason to act but a probable cause of the act. 

However, if the tumor is a reason, it is obviously bad because of what it is but it is good because the individual might not be culpable.

I might not fully get your point about the Abrahamic religions but 'the understandings of actions' is addressed (although not always remembered and practiced) in the idea of blameworthiness or culpability for actions which is different than stating that an act, for example lying or cheating, is (or can be) destructive of relationship (violation of 2nd great commandment). Now we can both make arguments about when lying isn't lying (so to speak) for example the nun lying to the Nazi about the whereabouts of Jewish children that obviously preserves not destroys relationships, but if we take the simple idea of lying - it is not conducive to healthy relationships, generally speaking. Therefore to say it is bad or wrong is an accurate assessment (again, generally speaking).

[thormas]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

.......I have never mentioned prizes or winning.  Not once.  You on the other hand, in the thread I referenced, wrote on November 25 - "Where can I pick up my prize for stating the obvious".  That is why I suspect you are imagining the mindset about 'prizes' and winning of me when you say things like "What's with you guys and winning".  As I asked, and you didn't answer - who are the 'you guys' that you are referring to?  

Again, it doesn't bother me at all - I'm just pointing out that you called for a 'prize' for stating a point so it seems you have more a focus about 'winning', not me.  I have never mentioned prizes or winning.  Ever.  You have.

....... I am light as a feather - just pointing things out.

Paul, you do really need to lighten up and develop a sense of humor. I remember a comment by Burl that was obviously in humor as was the one you quoted above. Was that when I corrected your 'attack' on me about the misunderstanding of the word many? Humor Paul, humor. And just because I thought there might be a prize involved doesn't mean it was about winning - in our present times, even the 6th place kid gets a prize. Humor Paul even in light of your wrong headed attack. 

Paul, you always seem to be angry .........that you 'call me out' for a humorous remark is simply sad and obviously defensive. 

Prize, prize, prize -----------doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, the response is always-------------------- humor, humor, humor.

You definitely have mentioned both prize and winning.

When you said I needed to win and at the same time said 'another win' which suggested that I had to 'win' previously - so winning was really an issue for you:

"Chalk that up as another 'win' if you want." 

That was sufficient in itself to make the point and contradict your claim of innocence but then you simply used the word 'right' in place of 'win' -  as the recipient of the comment, it was the same.

"It seems important to you that you are 'right'........." (i.e. that you win)

And of course your obsession with the word prize and jumping all over my comment about 'you guys and winning' which obviously goes to your guilty conscience (I can do amateur psych too :+)

Paul, you protest too much and it does seem to bother you greatly for some odd reason,  but I do like 'light as a feather' remark - a rather telling self description.

[thormas]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

So back to the issue being discussed (opposites) - have you considered my Hitler questions yet?  I look forward to further discussion with you about that - when you have time to respond.

This was covered in my previous remarks.

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

This was covered in my previous remarks.

I don't think it has been at all Thormas, but so be it.

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Paul, you do really need to lighten up and develop a sense of humor. I remember a comment by Burl that was obviously in humor as was the one you quoted above. Was that when I corrected your 'attack' on me about the misunderstanding of the word many? Humor Paul, humor. And just because I thought there might be a prize involved doesn't mean it was about winning - in our present times, even the 6th place kid gets a prize. Humor Paul even in light of your wrong headed attack. 

Paul, you always seem to be angry .........that you 'call me out' for a humorous remark is simply sad and obviously defensive. 

Prize, prize, prize -----------doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, the response is always-------------------- humor, humor, humor.

You definitely have mentioned both prize and winning.

When you said I needed to win and at the same time said 'another win' which suggested that I had to 'win' previously - so winning was really an issue for you:

"Chalk that up as another 'win' if you want." 

That was sufficient in itself to make the point and contradict your claim of innocence but then you simply used the word 'right' in place of 'win' -  as the recipient of the comment, it was the same.

"It seems important to you that you are 'right'........." (i.e. that you win)

And of course your obsession with the word prize and jumping all over my comment about 'you guys and winning' which obviously goes to your guilty conscience (I can do amateur psych too :+)

Paul, you protest too much and it does seem to bother you greatly for some odd reason,  but I do like 'light as a feather' remark - a rather telling self description.

I can only tell you Thormas that I am not angry but to be honest I do sometimes feel frustration, as I perceive you to obfuscate and avoid subjects and try to duck around them when you may be at a point where you might have to acknowledge that the other has a point.  That's my perception anyhow.

I do have a good sense of humor but I just don't think your 'jokes' funny most of the time.  In fact, I am skeptical you actually mean them as jokes but rather they seem to be little digs at other's views, but again, that's my perception.

I have a bit on between now and 2020 and may not make it back here -  so best wishes.  I hope we can kick 2020 off with a clean slate and try to better appreciate and respect each other's opinions and points of view without judgement and presumptions of attitude.

Peace and goodwill Thormas.  Happy New Year.

 

[JosephM]

8 hours ago, thormas said:

Thanks Joseph, I will read it in the next few days but I would much prefer your personal response. But that is ok. 

tppg

Your welcome. The PH.D in Psychology major Jim Taylor says it much better than i can say and perhaps you will understand my point better.without it being a contradiction to you.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201908/perception-is-not-reality

[thormas]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't think it has been at all Thormas, but so be it.

Well, I just gave a fuller answer but it disappeared when I signed in and I don't feel like doing it all again right now. Later will suffice.

[romansh]

13 hours ago, PaulS said:

I can only tell you Thormas that I am not angry but to be honest I do sometimes feel frustration, as I perceive you to obfuscate and avoid subjects and try to duck around them when you may be at a point where you might have to acknowledge that the other has a point.  That's my perception anyhow.

I do have a good sense of humor but I just don't think your 'jokes' funny most of the time.  In fact, I am skeptical you actually mean them as jokes but rather they seem to be little digs at other's views, but again, that's my perception.

This is a reasonably accurate summary of feelings I experience when dealing with thormas's posts. I wonder if this is a coincidence or maybe there is a cause or a reason behind this?

Have a good time between now and the New Year.

[thormas]

49 minutes ago, romansh said:

This is a reasonably accurate summary of feelings I experience when dealing with thormas's posts. I wonder if this is a coincidence or maybe there is a cause or a reason behind this?

Rom,

Every time I try to bridge the divide or hold out hope for a real dialogue -  you revert to rom-form and disappoint.

You are the poster boy for avoidance, ducking, reneging on commitments and a lack of contribution. I could count the ways but that has been done except to add I have even moved a dialogue, once or twice, to a thread where you are not banned, just so you could participate. Again, all for naught.

It's a shame Rom, I really did have hope for fruitful conversations even if we disagree.

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

8 hours ago, JosephM said:

Your welcome. The PH.D in Psychology major Jim Taylor says it much better than i can say and perhaps you will understand my point better.without it being a contradiction to you.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201908/perception-is-not-reality

Hi Joseph …  here are Taylor's tips and my take on them:

Quote

Don’t assume that your perceptions are reality (just your reality)

This I think is the whole point of your position and in large part mine. Don't assume the colour red and sin exist.

Quote

Be respectful of others’ perceptions (they may be right)

I am not sure I can be respectful of "other's opinions" when I think them fatuitous. But I by and large do try to treat the other person respectfully in this case. Not because they might be right but more because they can't help themselves.

Quote

Don’t hold your perceptions too tightly; they may be wrong (admitting it takes courage)

This is the basis of agnosticism. Science is an agnostic process, though not all scientists are necessarily agnostic as to their findings.

Quote

Recognize the distortions within you that may warp your perceptions (seeing them will better ground your perceptions in reality rather than the other way around)

The problem here is seeing the mote in the other's eye is a lot easier to see. Twelve years ago when I lost my belief in free will, was an interesting time. It changed the way I saw the world. Has the distortion increased. The world seems to make more sense though the lens of no free will.

Quote

Challenge your perceptions (do they hold up under the microscope of reality?)

This I find is difficult. It is easier to observe in others. When my conception of free will (and the casual nature of the universe) was challenged on an agnostic forum (no longer), I realized immediately I had no logical ground to defend my position only my perception. After three weeks of hopelessly defending my position, I started reading on the subject. The pro free will defenses no longer made any sense to me. At the time I still felt I had the perception of free will; but over time the perception of free will has faded.

Quote

Seek out validation from experts and credible others (don’t just ask your friends because they likely have the same perceptions as you)

Well I have done this, philosophers to me seem to miss the simple point and play a rhetorical game (on both sides, three actually) of the debate. Scientists seem to me closer to nub of the matter.

Quote

Be open to modifying your perceptions if the preponderance of evidence demands it (rigidity of mind is far worse than being wrong)

The old adage of being open minded but not so your brains fall out comes to mind here. Well I would have said there were not many examples of people claiming not to be open minded, but with Mitch McConnell working with the President's defense … who knows. Open mindedness is not something we can turn on with switch … it does take some training.

[romansh]

19 hours ago, PaulS said:

Thanks Rom,

I agree with all three points you make above, so I am unsure what I am missing.  Could you maybe explain a bit further - do you think there is a single reality for all circumstances or does it come down to one's perception, which is how I interpret the reason there are different realities - there are different perceptions.  Is that different to what you are saying?

My point, if indeed I have one, is that you were still defending your "useful sex". I would argue it could not have been any other way. I think Joseph would say be accepting of the phenomena, I would suggest understanding rather than defending it as good.

[romansh]

17 hours ago, thormas said:

Would a brain tumor be a reason or a cause?

The answer is yes, as I suspect you well know. What was the reason the house burnt down? Oh there was an electrical fault in a junction box.

Of course reason has the alternative meaning of purpose. Purpose is a tangle of perceptions that we should be careful of.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

If you prefer the mass murderer and if we're at the same party, I'll brave the weather and the roads.

Here you are confounding preference with sin (evil) … 

17 hours ago, thormas said:

Now we can both make arguments about when lying isn't lying (so to speak) for example the nun lying to the Nazi about the whereabouts of Jewish children that obviously preserves not destroys relationships, but if we take the simple idea of lying - it is not conducive to healthy relationships, generally speaking. Therefore to say it is bad or wrong is an accurate assessment (again, generally speaking).

This whole section highlights that you don't get what I am trying to say to you. It is not about whether nuns lying to Nazis is a good  or a bad thing. This is just a perception one way or the other. Building relationships is a useful thing to do. You seem to see it as "good". Fair enough. But you are not bringing a logical argument to the table. Simply asserting something is not an argument.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

Thanks and my aberrant perceptions thank you also :+}

This is an example of the humour that Paul was talking about.

Edited December 29, 2019 by romansh

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

The answer is yes, as I suspect you well know. What was the reason the house burnt down? Oh there was an electrical fault in a junction box.

Of course reason has the alternative meaning of purpose. Purpose is a tangle of perceptions that we should be careful of.

 

Hope springs eternal so I will respond:

So I am using reason as purposeful, thereby suggesting human intent (not all human action is purposeful and you might think much or even any is, but I do). Thus, I distinguish it from cause and effect such as the cause of a tornado, a cancer (generally speaking), a hurricane. etc. 

Purpose may be a tangle of perceptions but there also is or can be intentionality and decision.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Here you are confounding preference with sin (evil) … 

No, I was talking about your preference for a party guest and that guest's action (purposeful or not) as a mass murderer or a cheese cake lover. Your preference is not evil (I assume) but the action of the mass murderer is (again culpability for the action is a further issue).

1 hour ago, romansh said:

This whole section highlights that you don't get what I am trying to say to you. It is not about whether nuns lying to Nazis is a good  or a bad thing. This is just a perception one way or the other. Building relationships is a useful thing to do. You seem to see it as "good". Fair enough. But you are not bringing a logical argument to the table. Simply asserting something is not an argument.

Rom, I can say the same thing: you don't get what I'm saying to you. 

It's not about 'building relationships' and simply I disagree that perception of good/bad is one way or the other; one of those perceptions mirrors and reflects (comes 'closer' to) reality. Thus this is about a falsehood told to protect innocents, which is, in this specific case, a good. If the Nazi discovers the falsehood and thinks it is not good to protect and safeguard the lives of innocent children, he is wrong. It is his perception and that perception is wrong; it is at odds with Reality. If you don't accept there is Reality or you don't accept that Reality can be believed to be X or you believe it is Y, that is fine and I get why you would disagree with what I have said. 

I simply see you as asserting something also which is also not an argument but a belief.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

This is an example of the humour that Paul was talking about.

Just when a new hope was on the horizon, just when we were at least in dialogue, you revert and have to level a criticism ........over humor. Do you guys have a club? If one farts (which goes to cause and effect but can also be purposeful) does the other have to follow, is it always you following? Tough spot to be in. 

I am interested in a dialogue, a simple human dialogue. However if you insist on the insults and cracks, I can play and you're not very good at it :+{  

Nice or nasty? Respectful in disagreement or a different path. Your call. I choose the former but can do the latter if it is your preference.

Good god Rom, lighten the hell up. In the midst of serious conversation is there a rule that says one cannot inject humor? 

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

On 12/26/2019 at 5:29 PM, PaulS said:

I did say that one can be in opposition to Hitler, but I also said that that is different than qualifying Hitler as the direct opposite of something.  To call something an 'opposite' means that you have determined a threshold or a measure by which you have established the direct opposite of the other thing.  Clearly what Hitler did doesn't align with how many (i.e. a lot of) of us think, but trying to qualify it as a direct opposite to somebody else's alleged behavior is only perception.

Maybe if I put it this way - if you were to reduce Hitler's crimes, at what point would you qualify that Hitler ceases being a direct opposite of Jesus?  If he killed half as many Jews?  What about if he only killed a few hundred thousand.  What if he only killed one Jew?  What are the parameters for you that specifically detail Hitler as direct opposite to Jesus and not a shade in between somewhere along the spectrum of behaviors? 

We all know Hitler committed horrendous acts, but what qualifies those acts as opposite to Jesus and not say the acts of Charles Manson (or do you consider Manson to be the opposite of Jesus as well as Hitler?  Where do you draw the line about what is opposite to Jesus and what is not?  Perception.

Maybe, as we're talking about people being opposites, you could consider more recent circumstances - could you contemplate an opposite for Donald Trump?  I imagine you could - and if you did so, could you possibly recognize the 'opposite' you have in mind is affected by your perception of Trump?  I know mine would be, but I can accept and acknowledge that.

Let me try this again in hopes of not erasing it again.

I disagree that opposition to cannot be the same as opposite of. Whether Hitler killed 6+ million, 3 million or 1 - the very act is opposite of what Jesus said and did. The former is unadulterated self-centeredness, the latter is pure love. Would any of us rather that 1 die rather than 6 million? Of course. However, any example of killing (i.e. murder not self-defense or defense of another, etc.) be it Hitler, Manson, the killing of 1 Jew in NYC or a Mormon in Mexico or a rape and murder in Iowa - any such act is the opposite of what Jesus was and how he acted and we should be in opposition to it. 

Jesus interceded, before and to the crowd, on behalf of 1 lone woman in the story of the adulteress and it has resonated down through the ages, even to today. To murder one is, in that act, in that moment, to be the opposite of what Jesus did. If one repents and changes, then that moment is over (obviously not for those who loved the murdered person) and one can then live in 'agreement' with Jesus, live as Jesus did, in some real way. 

I am speaking specifically of Hitler and murder. Not all 'opposition to' means that the other is 'opposite of' another. For example, one can be in opposition to a politician over her policies but not believe and not treat her as the opposite of all that is good. 

I don'y see any line to be drawn or point to consider that reduces the evil (although it could reduce the numbers) that Hitler wrought (again talking specifically about murder). If we want to eliminate all murder and just consider the wrongs committed by a typical tinpot thug it depends on what we're talking about. It is not a point in terms of numbers, it is the act (of murder) in and of itself, an act devoid of all compassion, love, goodness that is the opposite of the act that was Jesus. 

That is my answer. I did speak a good about Hitler in my discussion with Joseph but saw that you asked for a more considered, specific response. I was also, concentrating on the fuller discussion as that was my primary interest. In any case, here it is.

That you might disagree is fine.  

[romansh]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

So I am using reason as purposeful, thereby suggesting human intent (not all human action is purposeful and you might think much or even any is, but I do). Thus, I distinguish it from cause and effect such as the cause of a tornado, a cancer (generally speaking), a hurricane. etc. 

Purpose may be a tangle of perceptions but there also is or can be intentionality and decision.

And it was clear I was using it as cause. Reason could also be logic. As Paul suggested obfuscation. 

Yes intentionality and decision are part of that tangle. 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Rom I was talking about your preference for a party guest and that individual's action (purposeful or not) as a mass murderer or a cheese cake lover.

I don't recall expressing a preference, but I would prefer a cheese cake lover …  my preference is irrelevant. We are talking about sin (in the context of  good). Show me your working for its existence … without preferences.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

It's not about 'building relationships' and simply I disagree that perception of good or bad is one way or the other; one of those perceptions mirrors and reflects reality. Thus this is about a falsehood told to protect innocents,

Then don't mention relationships. Do you think I don't understand the underlying structure of this metaphor? Can you not see it from the Nazis' point of view. I am not asking you to agree with it. Just understand their point of view. 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I simply see you as asserting something also which is also not an argument but a belief.

You are just parroting here

The difference is you do not wish to enter the underlying assumptions in your argument. 

And frankly mine is more of a lack of belief … I don't believe in sin … it is a lack of belief. I have not seen a coherent argument from you thormas. 

Just in a few lines summarize your argument for the existence of sin.

Edited December 29, 2019 by romansh

[Burl]

I would not rely too heavily on an adjunct sports psychology instructor.