A sin is painting original molding, or installing pergo flooring, or tearing out a vintage bathroom to install Home Depot fixtures. Beyond that, sin means nothing.

(January 9, 2018 at 11:09 am)alpha male Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 10:33 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: It works for it's intended purpose. Whether you have a weight problem or a murder problem, you need to address it. Being overweight is only used to represent a deficiency of some kind. It's use as an analogy doesn't apply in all regards.

Do you agree that one can't make up for murder by simply not murdering anymore?

I agree with that.

(January 9, 2018 at 11:13 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 11:09 am)alpha male Wrote: Do you agree that one can't make up for murder by simply not murdering anymore?

I agree with that.

Do you agree that the secular doctor telling a murderer how to stop murdering, even if successful, therefore does not remove the problem of past murders?

(January 9, 2018 at 11:24 am)alpha male Wrote: Do you agree that the secular doctor telling a murderer how to stop murdering, even if successful, therefore does not remove the problem of past murders?

Past murders? No. Future murders, yes.

(IDK exactly what you mean by "remove the problem"... You can't bring the dead back to life... that would be the only way to truly "remove the problem.")

(January 9, 2018 at 11:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Past murders? No. Future murders, yes.

(IDK exactly what you mean by "remove the problem"... You can't bring the dead back to life... that would be the only way to truly "remove the problem.")

You should probably define the issues before you declare one methodology to be superior to another.

(January 9, 2018 at 1:18 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 11:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Past murders? No. Future murders, yes.

(IDK exactly what you mean by "remove the problem"... You can't bring the dead back to life... that would be the only way to truly "remove the problem.")

You should probably define the issues before you declare one methodology to be superior to another.

(EDIT: DELETED WHAT I HAD BEFORE)

What needs to be defined? I am mystified here. Look, you can't bring back the dead, so the only way for a murderer to improve is to try to behave morally in the future. That's my position.

I have a question for alpha male, if society makes the killers who is the sinner than? The conditioner or the conditioned?

The whole sin concept makes little sense to me. I can obviously agree we all do good and bad and neutral things in our life On any bell-curve there will be variants between all-good to all-bad actions and most of us live in the curve, not at the extremes.

I am less likely to do bad things, as I am older and have learnt how my behaviour impacts on all around me. Yet, I can still be mistaken in my interactions and make poor choices.

God seems exempt fro our daily grind to try to do the best we can. An omniscient being should be able to be a positive influence at any point and should present a congruent moral reality; we don't see that in holy books or reality.

Psychopaths and sociopaths, great moral teachers and educators have always existed. Gods don't seem to solve the problem. Primate and social animal evolution does though.

I find sin very confusing, and the idea that we are all evil and have no moral compass is demonstrably false.

(January 9, 2018 at 1:23 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: (EDIT: DELETED WHAT I HAD BEFORE)

What needs to be defined? I am mystified here. Look, you can't bring back the dead, so the only way for a murderer to improve is to try to behave morally in the future. That's my position.

From the above I'd say you need to define - or for starters just include - justice in your analysis. I'm mystified that you think a murderer just needs to try to behave morally in the future. Most people (atheists included) aren't going to be satisfied with that.

(January 9, 2018 at 1:54 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 1:23 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: (EDIT: DELETED WHAT I HAD BEFORE)

What needs to be defined? I am mystified here. Look, you can't bring back the dead, so the only way for a murderer to improve is to try to behave morally in the future. That's my position.

From the above I'd say you need to define - or for starters just include - justice in your analysis. I'm mystified that you think a murderer just needs to try to behave morally in the future. Most people (atheists included) aren't going to be satisfied with that.

From a strictly moral perspective, all a murderer can do is behave morally in the future.

We as a society need to impune his offence and make sure he can not/will not repeat the offense, but that's another matter. Justice and morality overlap but are not the same. We are speaking strictly of an action's rightness or wrongness.