Thrown in a lake of fire perhaps....held into eternity without possibility of appeal?  Disposed of a by a singular authority that answers to no one?   Right alongside the non-believers, those heinous bastards, ofc.

You tell me, lol.

the point I am making is we are not all equal that their is a division in 'morality' for a lack of a better term. That we are not all just 'human.' That Human describes a phyiological classification, one that does not account for behaivor or the principles that govern behaivor. In all soceity their are those who 'follow' the rules and those who do not. the word 'sin' describes those who do not. Which again points to all of us to one degree or another. However those who embrace their sin and do not seek redemption for it. rather they look to 'moralize' their sin then become Evil. The people who shot up Paris can be identified as Evil, because to them their 'sin' was justifiable in their version of morality.

So the question then becomes, if Stims wants to judge us all as simply human what is to be done to those in whom he classified and performing in-human acts? Nothing/keep pretending they are like everyone else who don't murder and kill? So they can prey on others again and again, giving more like minded people the courage to perform more and more in-humane acts. Or do they need to be punished somehow?

Yes, yes, we know, sinners are evil.  Terrorists and atheists, both sinners, both evil. Hell, just human beings in general...all sinners, predominantly evil. It's a wash.  Let's cut to the chase and call the executioner, what's the problem?  

I think I'll have to let Stimbo answer those questions you have for Stimbo.

(November 17, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Drich Wrote: the point I am making is we are not all equal that their is a division in 'morality' for a lack of a better term. That we are not all just 'human.' That Human describes a phyiological classification, one that does not account for behaivor or the principles that govern behaivor. In all soceity their are those who 'follow' the rules and those who do not. the word 'sin' describes those who do not. Which again points to all of us to one degree or another. However those who embrace their sin and do not seek redemption for it. rather they look to 'moralize' their sin then become Evil. The people who shot up Paris can be identified as Evil, because to them their 'sin' was justifiable in their version of morality.

So the question then becomes, if Stims wants to judge us all as simply human what is to be done to those in whom he classified and performing in-human acts? Nothing/keep pretending they are like everyone else who don't murder and kill? So they can prey on others again and again, giving more like minded people the courage to perform more and more in-humane acts. Or do they need to be punished somehow?

I don't understand the point of this post. You act as though Stimbo didn't already address this.

For my part, I avoid a loose usage of 'sin' since, to me, it is a meaningless concept outside of specific theistic belief systems.

(November 17, 2015 at 1:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, yes, we know, sinners are evil.  Terrorists and atheists, both sinners, both evil, it's a wash.  Let's cut to the chase and call the executioner, what's the problem?  

I think I'll have to let Stimbo answer those questions you have for Stimbo.

That's the thing not all sinners are evil. We are all sinners, but not all are evil. That's the reason Jesus died, to provide redemption for those who did not want to be evil.

So the next question then becomes what to do with evil people? Should they be allowed access to you and your family?

(November 17, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(November 17, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Drich Wrote: the point I am making is we are not all equal that their is a division in 'morality' for a lack of a better term. That we are not all just 'human.' That Human describes a phyiological classification, one that does not account for behaivor or the principles that govern behaivor. In all soceity their are those who 'follow' the rules and those who do not. the word 'sin' describes those who do not. Which again points to all of us to one degree or another. However those who embrace their sin and do not seek redemption for it. rather they look to 'moralize' their sin then become Evil. The people who shot up Paris can be identified as Evil, because to them their 'sin' was justifiable in their version of morality.

So the question then becomes, if Stims wants to judge us all as simply human what is to be done to those in whom he classified and performing in-human acts? Nothing/keep pretending they are like everyone else who don't murder and kill? So they can prey on others again and again, giving more like minded people the courage to perform more and more in-humane acts. Or do they need to be punished somehow?

I don't understand the point of this post. You act as though Stimbo didn't already address this.

For my part, I avoid a loose usage of 'sin' since, to me, it is a meaningless concept outside of specific theistic belief systems.

what best describes the picture above?
Red
Apple
Fruit

(November 17, 2015 at 1:59 pm)Drich Wrote:

(November 17, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: I don't understand the point of this post. You act as though Stimbo didn't already address this.

For my part, I avoid a loose usage of 'sin' since, to me, it is a meaningless concept outside of specific theistic belief systems.

what best describes the picture above?
Red
Apple
Fruit

Obscured image of a fence.  

(November 17, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Drich Wrote: That's the thing not all sinners are evil. We are all sinners, but not all are evil. That's the reason Jesus died, to provide redemption for those who did not want to be evil.

Yes, we know, you're so very discerning.......it must take herculean amounts of consideration for you to decide who's evil and who isn't, applying the exhaustive criteria of "Got jesus?"  

(November 17, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, for starters, Stimbo...then you can't say "No True Human™"....which might be a problem, for some folks.......who like to make such claims.  

Culpability must be acknowledged, rather than denied, and that could interfere with their hobbies.  

Actually, if history has taught us anything it is that they are all too human.  We are our own worst enemies.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(November 17, 2015 at 1:59 pm)Drich Wrote: what best describes the picture above?
Red
Apple
Fruit

Obscured image of a fence.  

The point being, no matter how you want to describe the pic, we both acknowledge that it is there. your preference for the use of the word sin is irrelevant. At some point in the catalog of all human behavior we will agree certain acts to be the work of an evil mind and heart, even if we can not agree on the terminology used to describe it. Bottom line will be that some humans will ultimately turn on others and do pretty sick things, and justify them with a different 'morlaity' than what you hold to. You can use whatever words you want to to describe this behavior, but again we both (as with the apple pic have to acknowledge it is there.

God has done the same exact thing with sin. He has found a common thread in our behavior that we all share and can do nothing about. this is sin. He sent his son to die for our sin so that we did not have to be held accountable to it. Those who embraced/loved their sin more than the one who died to provide a way out of sin, have been identified as evil. Evil determines it's own right and wrong. 'Evil' makes the sinner's sin 'moral' to the sinner. Just like the Paris attackers were justified by their morality, and they (the attackers) see what they did as being justified, those who do not repent of their sin also moralize their sin and fall into the same evil.

the only difference here is God selects the 'picture' of sin and evil.