There Is No Sin!

[The Grand Nudger]

@Vor

Notice that the big box stores entirely crushed the more specialized mom and pops. The ones that remain are tiny dollar stores..offering a wide variety of cheap and useless trinkets that are marketable by virtue of their accessibility alone. On the opposite end of that are high end retailers who exclude by design and collect more money from fewer customers who perceive that exclusivity as value. This mirrors the status between a mainline church, a megachurch, and a fucking cult, lol.

Religious economy refers to religious persons and organizations interacting within a market framework of competing groups and ideologies.[1] An economy makes it possible for religious suppliers to meet the demands of different religious consumers.[2] By offering an array of religions and religious products, a competitive religious economy stimulates such activity in a market-type setting.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_...us_economy

[Astreja]

Many of us, Banned...don't have any such choice.  Astreja happens to be one of those people..so am I.  We could no more choose to believe in pixies than we could assent to your pixies regime.  This, we're told, will lead to our destruction or punishment.  Well, so be it, nothing I can do to stop that from happening, if it's something that happens.

^^^ This.  I've never found Christianity believable, and the more I learn about its history and doctrines the less believable it becomes.

[vorlon13]

Indeed.

The case for it has deteriorated dramatically over the centuries. Tens of thousands of schisms don't strengthen the case for it at all, obviously, and the current upwelling of change in the US to turn adultery into a sacrament shows just how little actual belief even exists inside the Christian community as it is.

Sucks to be an actual believer in almost any denominations hierarchy and full well knowing any pulpit denunciation of President Trump and his lasciviousness will be reflected in more empty pews next Sunday, and less in the collection plate.

Hell of a way to run a faith . . . . .

[The Grand Nudger]

 I've never found Christianity believable, and the more I learn about its history and doctrines the less believable it becomes.

The initial misapprehension that leads every evangelical apologist to whip out their dick and just stomp the living shit out of it.... is that we're not part of their club, because we've never heard about it.

[Banned]

...
In fairness, I can see why laws would be useful to a person who utterly lacks a moral sense...........and that's precisely what we use them for, in the main. To compel people who just don't know better, or wouldn't care even if they did. Simpletons and aberrant minds. OFC, we end up dragnetting people compelled to commit crimes by their situation. The starving man who steals bread does know better and does care but he can't help but do it. It's unfortunate that it happens...but it's also amusing that gods law, in his great beneficent omniscience...... appears to be flawed in precisely this same way. Unlike our laws, however, god only has the one punishment. The harshest punishment..regardless of the nature of the crime or perpetrator.

Judge Jeff, super good at law, too!

Without ignoring the rest of your post, it is obvious that human laws require the human element of moral sensibility, as you put it, common sense and compassion - to judge the various situations where the law has been broken.

"Moral sensibility"
Can it be defined or not?

I believe it can be defined by the law of God, and I challenge anyone to tell me what is wrong with the law of God.

The ten laws are,
Don't kid yourself,
Don't make an idiot of yourself,
Don't say retarded stuff,
Give yourself a break,
Get on with your parents,
Be generous,
Be faithful,
Be nurturing,
Mind your own business,
and Don't be jealous.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that's a faithful translation of the laws of god..but who cares?  I wouldn't follow the laws of god for their own sake anyway..because I have moral sense. You could only be hoping to suggest to me..here..in this, that god's laws are in accord with my moral sense.

[Amarok]

Don't kid yourself,
ill defined 

Don't make an idiot of yourself,
Then you have failed horribly and again i'll defined

Don't say retarded stuff,
Then you have breached the law over and over . And again ill defined . 

Give yourself a break,
Again multiple was interpreted not all them positive  

Get on with your parents,
Only if they earned it 

Be generous,
Again i'll defined and can be interpreted multiple was not all of them positive 

Be faithful,
To those who have earned it 

Be nurturing,
Again i'll defined and can be interpreted multiple was not all of them positive

Mind your own business,
That's a contradiction with others on this list and that's awful advice 

and Don't be jealous.
Says a jealous god

---

I doubt that's a faithful translation of the laws of god..but who cares?  I wouldn't follow the laws of god for their own sake anyway..because I have moral sense.  You could only be hoping to suggest to me..here..in this, that god's laws are in accord with my moral sense.

Indeed 

[Banned]

I doubt that's a faithful translation of the laws of god..but who cares?  I wouldn't follow the laws of god for their own sake anyway..because I have moral sense. You could only be hoping to suggest to me..here..in this, that god's laws are in accord with my moral sense.

Yes, that wouldn't be a coincidence, or is it?
What some people say is that our moral sense has nothing to do with the conscience that God has given humans, but that they developed it by themselves, by copying the animals or whatever, but what they don't explain is that the moral sense is the same regardless of era, culture etc.

This can be explained by the idea that we all have a common ancestry, but that smells of Adam and Eve,
so let's make up something else...
I know - deny that we all have the same code, and make up things like cultural differences, especially a radical example like an extremist group...

I did touch on the physical reasons for the moral code before, which would explain the uniformity and need for it, such as the law against murder - which is supposed to guard life itself.
The law against stealing protects the quality of life, and so forth, these are physical realities, governed by the facts of living.

[Banned]

The laws of God match the needs of the physical universe to have life and quality of life.
The immediate opposing response to that is -nature breaks those rules.

The laws of God describe a harmonious existence for all living creatures, if nature was fully respondent to them, we would have a perfect world, without death, decay and violence.

The infidel dismisses the law of God and presumes that the world is just a horrendous circus of mutations and survival. Granted of course that nature has mysteriously borrowed the tenacity for life, and a sense of perfectly designed conditions necessary for life, when there wasn't and isn't any logical reason for it to be so.

In this mental scenario, sin doesn't exist and it cannot be said that there is any such thing as morality, since in evolution that is always relative, it has absolutely no reference point, and it is certainly not permanent.

What is defined as crime in that society, can only boil down to a principle that concerns a moral issue, or sin, a thing which directly affects physical life and its relationships.

So there cannot be any such thing as a "crime" if nature has no tenacity for life, and even more so, if nature didn't need the right and perfect conditions to flourish.

But perfect conditions are necessary for life, and are not accidental, never have been and never will be.
Perfect conditions, organisations and design setups DO NOT happen in anything that isn't caused by nature, which is made by God, and which has been subject to the effects of sin.
If they did, we wouldn't need factories, all we'd have to do is stumble across the fully developed item in the jungle.

[chimp3]

The laws of God match the needs of the physical universe to have life and quality of life.
The immediate opposing response to that is  -nature breaks those rules.

The laws of God describe a harmonious existence for all living creatures, if nature was fully respondent to them, we would have a perfect world, without death, decay and violence.

The infidel dismisses the law of God and presumes that the world is just a horrendous circus of mutations and survival. Granted of course that nature has mysteriously borrowed the tenacity for life, and a sense of perfectly designed conditions necessary for life, when there wasn't and isn't any logical reason for it to be so.

In this mental scenario, sin doesn't exist and it cannot be said that there is any such thing as morality, since in evolution that is always relative, it has absolutely no reference point, and it is certainly not permanent.

What is defined as crime in that society, can only boil down to a principle that concerns a moral issue, or sin, a thing which directly affects physical life and its relationships.

So there cannot be any such thing as a "crime" if nature has no tenacity for life, and even more so, if nature didn't need the right and perfect conditions to flourish.

But perfect conditions are necessary for life, and are not accidental, never have been and never will be.
Perfect conditions, organisations and design setups DO NOT happen in anything that isn't caused by nature, which is made by God, and which has been subject to the effects of sin.
If they did, we wouldn't need factories, all we'd have to do is stumble across the fully developed item in the jungle.

Deepak! Is that you!