Homosexuality is not a sin!

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

Rom,

There is no obfuscation, I made it clear how I use it. What exactly is unclear?

Again parroting Paul. Rom, I am beginning to feel badly about your obvious dependency and inability to speak for yourself when you're trying to attack someone. Let's try another approach: I give you a quote from another site: Be nice!  good advise if one can follow it.

Rom, read, I presented two characters to invite to your party and now you have made known your preference which is relevant given who they are and if the others at the party want to live.

I can actually imagine a few different reasons why an ordinary Nazi soldier would have a different view that the nun. Can you, what are they?

 

"Show me your working for its existence … without preferences." What are you asking? 

I have written a good deal on sin, what exactly is not coherent (be specific)? What specific underlying assumptions are you referring to?

Your lack of belief is as much belief as my belief.

 

[romansh]

1 hour ago, Burl said:

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

That is like me saying I would rely on a theologian.

[thormas]

18 minutes ago, romansh said:

That is like me saying I would rely on a theologian.

Who are much more reliable..............

[Burl]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

That is like me saying I would rely on a theologian.

Why would anyone rely on a theologian regarding sensory psychology?  I lectured at Tulane on sensory psychology and I would not rely on myself.  The entire field is a tangle of incredibly different, intricate and detailed explorations.

[romansh]

3 hours ago, Burl said:

Why would anyone rely on a theologian regarding sensory psychology?

You missed my point Burl

3 hours ago, Burl said:

I lectured at Tulane on sensory psychology and I would not rely on myself.

I will note not rely on you when it comes to that aspect of the human condition.

[thormas]

8 hours ago, romansh said:

You missed my point Burl

No, Rom............you miss his point :+}

[romansh]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

No, Rom............you miss his point :+}

Well I thought his point (a fallacy) was not to rely too much on the opinion of a adjunct professional in only a related field. 

Do you agree? 

What so you think my point was?

[thormas]

18 minutes ago, romansh said:

Well I thought his point (a fallacy) was not to rely too much on the opinion of a adjunct professional in only a related field. 

Do you agree? 

What so you think my point was?

You are a literal guy, aren't you?

Humor Rom - if it has to be explained...........it's already too late.

 

 

[romansh]

Do you agree with Burl?

[thormas]

10 minutes ago, romansh said:

Do you agree with Burl?

Still very literal..................remember .............Humor.

 

It would probably be more productive for you to return to the other posts: sin, nuns, underlying assumptions, etc.

 

[thormas]

On 12/25/2019 at 7:20 PM, PaulS said:

Clearly, physically speaking, something like the sun existing is a single reality.  But what we think of that sun, how we regard it, whether we see it as a God or simply as a combusting star, are all different realities to different people.  We can argue that one reality is superior to the other, but the only reality is that everyone has a different reality! 

We can say that the 'sun existing is a single reality' or, simply, has its reality, and also that people have different perspectives on or of (that) reality. We can also understand some of what goes into a perspective. I think the best word to describe them is perspectives but I can understand why some would want to call these realities. Whether that is accurate is a question.

If we acknowledge one reality (example the sun) then it is evident that some have had more accurate 'perspectives' of (this) reality. In the case of the sun, we recognize different perspectives throughout history and also state and know that some of these perspectives were inaccurate or simly wrong. It is also the case that (a) reality's reality (so to speak) is not dependent on perspective and retains its 'reality' even in the face of inaccurate perspectives.

A present scientific perspective of the sun is more accurate than a geocentric perspective/reality or the sun as a god perspective. In addition, not everyone has a different perspective of the sun, many have a shared perspective of that one reality, although where they are standing or if one has sunglasses and another doesn't might have s slightly different view of the sun (at that time) but their perspective is still in overall agreement..

Although we can acknowledge an earlier man's perspective of the sun and how this might have, at least in part, affected him - we can still say that there are more accurate (superior) perspectives of the sun, that actually are much closer to the reality that is the sun. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by thormas

[Burl]

[thormas]

20 minutes ago, Burl said:

 

I like it - a good caution for all.

Edited December 30, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

On 12/30/2019 at 8:53 AM, thormas said:

You are a literal guy, aren't you?

Humor Rom - if it has to be explained...........it's already too late.

 

 

Didn't answer my serious question.

[romansh]

On 12/30/2019 at 9:07 AM, thormas said:

Still very literal..................remember .............Humor.

It would probably be more productive for you to return to the other posts: sin, nuns, underlying assumptions, etc.

Still did not answer a question.

What are your underlying assumptions for the existence of sin? Other than one's perception of it?

[thormas]

 

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Still did not answer a question.

What are your underlying assumptions for the existence of sin? Other than one's perception of it?

The assumptions are God is (exists), life is meaningful, man as co-creator is responsible for his life and sin hinders human fulfillment.

I think it was Whitehead who said, the human desire, is "to be, to be better, to be best" (in oneself). A more religious take would be that man is born to be the likeness of God and yet another way to put it is man is born to 'become (truly) Human.'  And, sin deals with decisions that thwart human fulfillment.

Putting aside that you don't believe in God, becoming, choice or intentionality, the further assumption is there is a 'way' to become and be human. Sometimes, for reasons beyond anyone's control, this is not possible, it is not in the cards (we can leave until another time what this means for the individual). However, most times, there are choices, decisions to make and if one chooses a way that prohibits or interferes or stop his movement to such human becoming, that is what the term sin speaks to; sin deals with actions that thwart human fulfillment. 

 We can also at another time discuss the issues of culpability, repentance, metanoia, and basically what this becoming human or being the likeness means. 

 

I should add that another underlying assumptions and my personal favorite 'that all will be saved.' I should also add that one does not have to be a Christian or a religious person at all to strive to be the best and to be (truly) human. Two of my best friends are atheists and both are among the best people, the most 'human' people I have ever encountered. 

I fully accept that these assumptions are not your cup of tea and I totally get that these assumptions and the more detailed explanations do not resonate with all (including my friends).

 

[thormas]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Didn't answer my serious question.

Humor - if it has to be explained...........it's already too late.

[romansh]

15 hours ago, thormas said:

Humor - if it has to be explained...........it's already too late.

Yes I understand your reply was an attempt to be humorous. But do you agree with Burl is a separate point.

 

15 hours ago, thormas said:

The assumptions are God is (exists), life is meaningful, man as co-creator is responsible for his life and sin hinders human fulfillment.

I suspect we should examine these assumptions eventually. I suspect there are a few more hidden here.

But in the meantime could you build up your case for the existence of sin from these assumptions please? 

[thormas]

23 minutes ago, romansh said:

Yes I understand your reply was an attempt to be humorous. But do you agree with Burl is a separate point.

Actually it wasn't an attempt to be humorous, it was a direct response and, I suppose, some would find it humorous also.

 

 

[thormas]

23 minutes ago, romansh said:

But in the meantime could you build up your case for the existence of sin from these assumptions please? 

No...................And it is not a case, it is belief as I 'suspect' your case against sin is also a belief (or non-belief). 

Your turn, I have given my assumptions, so you have a go at it and present your assumptions and your case.

 

 

[romansh]

7 hours ago, thormas said:

No...................And it is not a case, it is belief as I 'suspect' your case against sin is also a belief (or non-belief). 

Fundamentally you have nothing … no evidence, no logic/reason.

Just an assertion.

Not even a belief … just faith

[thormas]

43 minutes ago, romansh said:

Fundamentally you have nothing … no evidence, no logic/reason.

Just an assertion.

Not even a belief … just faith

Rom, rom, rom - you're exactly correct: no evidence. However you are wrong because it is belief, specifically religious belief, and among those beliefs are theism and panentheism under which the underlying assumptions that I mentioned could fit nicely. Faith, on the other hand, is all about relationship.

But nice dodge as we await your beliefs or the non-beliefs that you believe.

 

[thormas]

16 hours ago, romansh said:

Well I have defined faith and belief here. Perhaps thormas you may want to clarify what you mean by believe and belief.

You were not asked for definitions, you were asked to provide the underlying assumptions for your beliefs (or non beliefs) as I was asked and did provide. So far nothing from you, Rom.

This looks like obfuscation, avoidance and ducking, rom.

 

Plus, as you mentioned, these definitions were your first crack - and they do leave much to be desired. 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by thormas

[thormas]

20 hours ago, romansh said:

Assumptions

• The universe beyond my perception actually exists … this is closer to faith than belief as I can't see a way to test this.
• All actions are a result of the following … cause and effect type processes (determinism), random processes (indeterminism) or some combination. (while we can't test "all" we can test a sufficiently large population of these actions to make it a reasonable assumption).
• If I am not responsible for the fundamental state of the universe, I am not an independent cause

I do not control the myriad of processes that are necessary to form my actions (eg I do not control the diffusion rates of chemicals, electron flow, potentials across synapses, any quantum phenomena that might be occurring, I do not control the strengthening of certain neural pathways, though I am aware repetition might do that, but I have no control over the desire to repeat). This not to say my actions do not affect the underlying process.
I do not control the underlying processes of thought

So any sense of freedom I might possess is an illusion.

The processes that cause people to divvy up actions into either good or evil would be appear to be driven by the environment and our individual body chemistries. eg the reaction to female genital mutilation is driven by environmental circumstance. Although people's minds might be swayed one way or another, in the moment they cannot do otherwise in that their actions are driven by the underlying processes.

So in this sense, actions that are considered a sin (some of us cannot help but think they exist), they are formed in the conjunction of the unfolding universe.  The illusions that we see as good and evil, are part of an integral whole.

Took a while and needed some prodding but ultimately you did chose to do it :+}

However, is there anywhere to go from here? Although I do agree with your 1st assumption and the 3rd. However, I would add it is not merely the universe (i.e. all) that exists: that which enables the universe, enables all to be,  IS (it does not exist as all else does but is the very possibility of all) - this too is belief. And I am not at the first cause/creator so I agree that I am, we are, all is dependent, contingent being. As for the 2nd assumption, I agree there is determinism (and indeterminism, although if all is cause and effect, not sure what is indeterminate), however there is intentionality (another article of belief). Thus, freedom is not an illusion.............and 'evil' can put a crimp in the 'unfolding' or, better, the fulfillment of the whole (belief).

I do note that for you, even the dividing up into good and evil only 'appears to be' so driven. 

Both positions are belief statements (and/or statements of unbelief also).

 

 

 

 

 

[thormas]

On 1/1/2020 at 7:45 PM, romansh said:

 

 

 

Rom, I don't agree with your understanding of free will. And humor. Rom, it helps to lighten things up. Enjoy it, use it. 

Also, merely because you don't accept something such as IS - does not mean it's nonsense. It is part of the biblical insight (I AM) and also found in philosophy, specifically metaphysics and even more specifically, ontology (Being). 

And, in spite of my repeating this is belief you still demand evidence. Just as you believe that the universe (beyond your perception) exists, I believe that the very possibility of that universe is Being/IS or what some call God.

However, all this stuff aside and more importantly, how long have you had an issue with a smiley face? Come on Rom...........it's just a little smiley face. 

Rom, you are extremely intolerance of another's position or belief ('nonsense, you don't understand, nonsensical made-up beliefs, you've got nothing' - and that's just from one post). Is that why got you banned from another section? Again, lighten up, it's a discussion. Your posts seem to lack compassion and they also violate your own website which instructs people to 'be nice.' 

 

Rom: both positions are belief statements and with religious belief, there is no evidence: it is belief, yet a reasonable belief. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by thormas