Do you sin against God or man?

I fail to see your point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Typical Theistic non-argument...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if you don't believe in the existence of the narc squad, they also don't represent any enforceable presence ... until a certain morning at 3am I guess

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Christian message of love your enemy and turn the other cheek is connected to the shift to helping the individual achieve maximization. For example, in New York, they wish to make the commandment, thou shall not eat salt. The self righteous will suddenly feel violated if someone eats salt. But if you turn the other cheek and love your neighbor, when someone eats salt, to maximize their personal taste, it will not cause the entire group to get upset. The atheists get self righteous about religion, since it upsets that group's maximization. This is one of their created sins. They can't turn the other cheek, to allow other individuals to maximize if it hurts their group.

St Paul later said, all things are lawful to me, but not all things edify. All things are lawful to me, but I will not be mastered by anything. He was talking about maximizing the individual in light of group laws. His constraint was it can't lead to addiction. (being mastered). Nor will all things edify or advance the individual. Some things can regress you. It is OK to try, but if you go down hill or get mastered, move on.

 

False Dichotomy, just because Sin is not real (being based on a God which does not exist) does not mean Lust is not real (Lust is based on a biological neurological response).

 

Yes, they are, at least some of them. Murder, for example, is a sin, and is punishable; so is bullying (ie. hatred).


Secondly -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, for starters, make ugly. And this is very observable.

 

That is not true, though, as experience readily shows.

If the true nature of eating (or sex, or anger etc.) would be enjoyment, then the more one ate (had sex or angered etc.), the happier one would be.
But this is clearly not the case.

Imagine yourself after eating a pound of chocolate.

 

It is rather important for your well-being, you know.

 

Interesting view!

 

I don't understand?

For example, I was once talking to a devotee on LiveHelp, about how some devotees seemed rude to me and how that made me uncomfortable going there. I made the point that it doesn't make sense to go somewhere where one is not appreciated. She replied that this is the false ego talking.
Apparently, if I wouldn't have such a false ego, I would gladly go somewhere where I am not appreciated.

And things like this abound in interactions with theists. They will find a way to justify, to "spiritualize" and to trivialize anything that one might find problematic about theists, and lay the whole blame on the other person.

Logically, I cannot exclude that this is the proper way to think, feel, speak and act, I cannot exclude that this is precisely what God wants.
Although intuitively, I find it is a shitty way to be.
But what, whom to trust, considering the grave consequences that could ensue from trusting the wrong source?

 

men are not the source; god is the source, for crying out loud!

 

i think it was more her point that false ego designates one's pride as wounded or "not appreciated" or whatever

I don't think theists are such a monolithic body - in fact its easy to find how certain persons group together, usually because they have some sort of similar disposition, aside from being theistic, or even atheistic for that matter

 

wrong. lust is based in incorrect thought and god is the source of all truth and law.

 

False analogy

Lust is not a term of neurological language

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

try again

 

Incorrect.
That's equivocation.

 

Why do you say that??? Put a person in an MRI with another person and you can watch "Lust" as it occurs in the brain (you could also take blood samples to see which hormones are being released).

Lust could be a Sin, except there is no good evidence for the existence of Gods and subsequently no evidence Sin exists. Thus Lust, something that does exist, could be a Sin under one superstitious paradigm and a Grace under another.

 

try again


lust, if you want to include it in the language of science at all, can be found in the softer sciences

an MRI scan won't help you mainly because there is no way to isolate or empirically term "lust" so you don't know what you are looking for or registering
:shrug:

 

Actually lust and sin could be used in a scientific context with an fMRI machine. However, sin doesn't exist, as in a god deems X, Y or Z to be sin. It's just a concept and only exists in an abstract sense. For me there is no sin - and there isn't. There's immoral behavior, but, not sin.

 

We have not agreed that your atheistic perspective is the superior one.

If you don't believe that God exists (and thus don't believe in anything that draws its primary relevance from its relation to God - although even in atheistic Buddhism, they speak of "sin"), then you have no way to meaningfully apply yourself in a thread like this.

 

Perhaps this was the point she was supposed to make.

But apparently, according to the false ego argument, just because one doesn't feel welcome somewhere, this is no reason to not go there.
So perhaps I should start going to pubs and illegal dog fights!