romansh

That is a lot of resolutions Many decades ago I gave New Year Resolutions for Lent and I seem to have been successful "Good" luck with them.

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. Here you are confounding preference with sin (evil) … 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. This is an example of the humour that Paul was talking about.

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.

Hi Joseph … here are Taylor's tips and my take on them: This I think is the whole point of your position and in large part mine. Don't assume the colour red and sin exist. 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. This is the basis of agnosticism. Science is an agnostic process, though not all scientists are necessarily agnostic as to their findings. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

Merry Christmas to one and all ….

The concept of sin exists … it might come in different guises from enjoying a delightful cheese cake to, lets say, genocide in the millions. Not everyone may exhibit this concept, but most seem to, in some shape or form. We might put it on some relative scale or in terms of some absolute. That as far as I am concerned is a part of reality; no ifs and buts. Similarly the concept of red exists, some colour blind people might not have this concept, but the concept exists. We are conflating the concept of sin which clearly exists with actual sin. Colour in a sense does not exist. My perception of the kitchen chair is that it is red. That does not mean it is red, not even if seven billion trichromats describe it as red. Similarly with sin. If we want a more accurate description of 'reality' … there is only one reality, but many descriptions, we need to some heavy lifting. Our perceptions are not reality, but they are reflections of that reality; and those reflections may contain aberrations.

Some people refer to these as acts of God Some people see God in everything and play hopeless word games saying God is love and by logical extension tornadoes, fires etc are God too. Speaking as someone who has lost their son to debilitating epilepsy, I have thought about it. Of course the people that do believe in acts of God, natural evil (what is an unnatural evil?) or plain old evil, loving gods, sin etc cannot help themselves. But that is OK; it cannot be otherwise in the moment.

I must admit I don't buy into this post modernist relativism subjectivism business. We don't think ,say, the influenza outbreak of 1918/19 as evil. Today we see it as undesirable but in relatively neutral terms. We don't ascribe a malignant intent to this flu. Yet with people we seem not be able to do otherwise than ascribe a malignancy to phenomena like Hitler. The virus could not do otherwise, yet we seem to believe Hitler whose constituents and the behaviour of his constituents/substrate are more less identical could do otherwise. So I think it is plain nonsense to think of one arrangement of molecules as sinful and another as not, even on a subjective basis. This concept of sin/good/evil should be dumped.

I am reminded of Dante's quote when dealing with thormas's discussion …. 'Abandon hope all ye who enter here'

It was addressed to Paul?

The interesting thing Paul, is that thormas suggests he can do otherwise … but we keep seeing the same ol' patterns behavior from thormas.

No … do you want to play or should I go home?

Yes he did say that … but what exactly is heat?

What I think Joseph is trying to say is that good and evil don't actually exist, beyond that of a concept. It is the conceptual good and evil we think of as being on a continuum or as opposites.

The problem with your logic lies here. Hitler is no different to say AIDS, the Influenza outbreak of 1918, some dirty big meteorite wiping out much of the life on Earth. Each have shaped who we are today. Some things we think could not have done otherwise. Other things we think, erroneously, could have done otherwise.

Funnily enough I have noticed that too.

Your assertions to which I replied. Sin is a recognizable term … as are most terms? Ah an apple that has gone bad, has gone sinful … really? Bad and sin are synonymous. I was questioning whether sin exists, not whether the concept of sin exists. So it is on topic. I never said that. In fact if I break my word the aggrieves party has many paths they can remedy the issue, should they choose to do so. The real explanation lies in the free will topic which you have deemed off topic. I did not say that. I said my responses are a result of conditioning. What are the sources of your responses? If you lived in 0 CE Greece, your responses would be quite different, I suspect. At that time women and children were considered chattel. Yes … I am even nice to you because of my conditioning. I am not a self made man, thereby relieving god of an almighty responsibility. This is a complete non sequitur thormas. For an example, I know of two people who knew they were depressed, yet they killed themselves anyway. This could be discussed on the free will thread. What? In what way am I acting? The fact I can separate an intuitive/conditioned response from a philosophical viewpoint … shows I do "choose". Well you have them now … perhaps you can provide list of books that you read that are not about ultimately apocryphal texts

Depends on whether you believe in free will. Yes … Christians do enjoy their revenge. To be fair others do too. Once one understands that "forgiveness" is just a stepping stone to understanding that there is nothing to forgive anyway. I don't want to harm/hurt my wife. Not even risk it. Its not a case of some universal dictum that something is wrong. In the great scheme of things the universe is just fine. There are bits of it I have been conditioned to dislike. For example a 28 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old. My conditioning gives various responses to female on male, male on female, male on male and female on female. Also I am aware that my conditioned response would vary with the culture and time that I find myself in. No I have not read any ancient books … I have read Ehrman and Weyler on the subject. Read a good deal of Campbell. Started Plato's Republic, but could not get into it. Routinely read the New Scientists and if you actually care about my reading habits … here is a summary of most of the books I have read over the last ten years. Quite possibly … Giving opinions of experts does not tell me about your opinions.

I am currently reading Sapiens by Harari … excellent book As far as I can tell you did not answer my question(s) but different ones. Should try question marks. ;+) But if you want to know what I think about sin … I think it is a crock as concepts go. It does not exist beyond some people's imaginations. Breaking contracts … that is what we have civil courts for. Breaking our word … it happens. Could not be otherwise. Sex outside of marriage … fine, not a problem. Committing adultery … has a potential to hurt people that care about you, I personally would avoid that sort of thing. Would I divvy things up into right and wrong … in the sense of good and bad … certainly not. And the good thing is I don't need expert interpretations of what are ultimately apocryphal texts.

I really do sympathize with Paul's discussions with you. I have made my determinations, I was wondering what yours were. Not those of some nebulous third party.

So … breaking a contract intentionally is a sin in your book? Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Say casual sex for enjoyment? Or casual sex with another when one is married in an open marriage?

So you think these are sins?

indeed and this is recognized yea these many years later, So is fornication outside of marriage a sin according to our assembled experts, and is it Human?