Radorth

Dictionary.com gives these definitions as well:

To violate a religious or moral law.
To commit an offense or violation.

It is also defined as "moral violations" you see. Of course if you have no moral standards, I suppose you are technically correct. I could switch to "moral violations" but I see no reason to so I will continue to refer to same as sin because I imagine you have some moral code.

Here it comes:

"There is no objective code of morality, therefore there are no violations."

Rad

Luiseach

One doesn't require a god of any kind in order to maintain a high moral code, or to behave in a morally responsible manner.

I once encountered the following argument, which has always perplexed me: someone once told me to my face that godless folks can't be moral, because they don't acknowledge (read believe in) God.

What a load of rubbish.

As for 'sin,' this word is intimately connected with theistic belief systems, and as such its applicability is limited. A quaint wee word whose connotations summon up outmoded, and inherently contradictory and unviable, notions of ethics and morality.

Radorth

But that is merely a perception, not the only rational definition.

Rad

Luiseach

Actually, it's not 'merely a perception' to say that the word 'sin' is intimately connected with theistic belief. It's a fact. Religious discourse pervades the English language (and others) because of the powerful history of the Christian Church and its influence on, amongst other things, the linguistic habits of English-speakers.

The word 'sin' is inextricably linked to religious discourse, and is used to describe offences against God; it falls short of inclusivity.

Radorth

Announcement: When Rad says "sin" you can read "moral violations" and still get the point.

It is most unfortunate how the server is so busy, but when the Gang of Four goes into personal attack mode, and people are so easily distracted from the thread subject, the server fills in for the moderators.

Re Ciphergirl,

I never said he was "only love." In fact I have often stated otherwise.

Another of your simplistic assumptons bites the dust, along with the "logic" which follows.

Rad

winstonjen

Rad, according to your description of god, he is not willing to love anyone except those that worship him. Why should we worship a being because we fear hell? That is worship for the wrong reasons. Why should we worship someone who only loves us conditionally?

Yellum Notnef

I can`t speak for anyone else here,but the busy server has not slowed me down or kept from responding to you at all.
Looks like the busy server and Jesus have something in common. Neither one of them can protect you and your inane bullshit from criticism.

Radorth

Of course you haven't seriously argued anything related to the thread, or any other thread I've seen you on, so I will have to assume you are just a troll. Come to think of it, all you do is ask one or two inane questions when you do make an attempt.

Rad

"Wisdom is justified by all her children."

Radorth

I never said that either. In fact, I've said at least five times he loves Fenton, who would rather worship a snow shovel.

You must have me confused with somebody down at the abortion clinic.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Like my inane question about where sin came from that you danced around for three days before giving a piss poor answer that was ripped apart before I even got to read it?
Inane questions like that? Or why are you even here and whats the point of all this?

The general consensus here is that theres no point arguing anything of any importance with you since you are completely incoherent. It`s an utter waste of time and the only people who don`t know this are those who have never dealt with you before.

Nice try weasel,but I won`t be intimated by a guy who thinks ghosts and fairies control the world.