Didn't. Just a handy, flagrant, and audience familiar example of a sin against Creation, easily recognized. OK, maybe not so easily recognized.
You missed the point. You are talking about an issue exclusive to politics, since there is no essential teaching of abrahamic theology that requires oppression or what not by necessity
Its kind of like if one doesn't believe in laws. Won't make any difference when the narc squad kicks in your door at 3 am (or alternatively, it won't make any difference if the narc squad is a collective fantasy generated over millenium or whatever)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's a useful abstraction or concept, adaptable to various techniques of acquiring insight - one of the tools in the box. And if you don't own it, it will - like music or narrative as techniques, love or empathy or tribal loyalty as concepts - be taken from your kit and absorbed into one of the monotheistic theologies. And you will have much trouble getting it back undamaged.
Alas, an inept analogy LG. "Sin"s are neither legally enforceable, nor punishable. And lo, the whole point behind my distinction...
When it comes to humans, there are behavior which can maximize the individual. And there are behavior which maximizes the group. Sin is typically connected to behavior which, although it might maximize the individual, it would not maximize the group or would have an adverse effect on the group. For example, stealing might actually maximizes some individuals, since stealing is so much faster than working. This could give one more time to enjoy life. However, stealing will have a negative impact on the group, creating problems while increasing social cost. If you look at the ten commandment, in the light of the individual versus the group, they reflect ways to maximize the group, but not necessarily the individual. Some individuals could be maximized if they could commit adultery, steal the husband's wallet and then kill him. But the group would suffer if everyone did this. Culture might maintain its stability if only a few people were allowed to maximize this way; king. The fair thing is nobody can do this; sin. Lower level sins like gluttony could maximize the individual since food tastes so good and more allows one to enjoy food more. But in terms of the group, this can lead to social costs, since we now need to pay for health issues. That was the logic of sin. The ideal was to find ways to maximize the individuals while also the group.
if you don't hold the existence of god as valid., you have a premise, albeit one lodged solely in the realms of speculation (much like speculating about the narc squad whilst going about one's wheeling and dealing)
Thanks for showing that you do not have any examples. God remains an absentee landlord and proprietor. Regards DL
I see you have listed God's main attributes. We all know of God's wrath. Ask Noah. We all know of his greed when all one need do is reject his sorry ass and off to hell with us. Did he lust after Mary or was she just a tool for his seed? Then again, he did covet her. God showed pride in Jesus. Tsk tsk. I could go on. Regards DL
I appreciate your view of the teachings of Jesus being the antithesis to the O T God. Nevertheless, they are the same God thanks to the Trinity concept. Same mouth different words that day. It is like following Hitler's son. Regards DL
Then he is automatically brighter than literalist and fundamental theists. Not brighter than religionists though. Regards DL
well yeah, for reasons you can are yet to explain .... :shrug: ... on the bright side though I guess now we can comfortably put aside all your attempted arguments about slavery and god (probably about 90% of your posts) , since your convinced (for whatever reason) that god is absent as a proprietor
most commonly, in relationships of love .. although I am suspecting that this too might be an alien concept for you
now I guess you just have to hone this razor sharp perception on your own self Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!