the nature of sin

[Drich]

Me: I was using the dialectal differences in the pronunciation of the word tomato to describe the difference between sin and your word morality. as they mean the same thing, just held to a different standard.

And I was extending that analogy to reflect the fact that I don't believe in the concept regardless of the accent one pronounces it with.

And i was demonstrating your morality your right and wrong is another pronunciation for sin. then i gave a list of thing which would be considered immoral by all western standards. then i attacked or challenged 'holy subjects like lgbt people being not geneticially dispositioned but simply mentally ill to illustrate morality's version of blaspheme.

Different words same meaning is the point.

I know you believe in some sort of morality even if you like to pretend sin is not real. i am demonstrating you hold the same value to morality as i do to sin which makes that value system whatever defines it or want to call it the same.

me: see point made you do understand what sin is

Yah, it's nonexistant.

despite you feigning ignorance

Stating that something does not exist is hardly feigning ignorance.

(Which btw is your version of acting like a raging jackass which detracts fro your points.) can't you see the cycle?

Is this the bit where you blame me for your bigoted ravings?

I make a middle of the road point you do not want to acknowledge

You made a point that I disagreed with.

then i must step up the scenario to force your compliance.

You don't have to do any such thing. Attempting to "force compliance" during a conversation is a red flag for a closed mind and an inability to hold a civil discussion.

and all you remember is forced compliance, you never remember your own selective passive aggressive ignorance.

Yup, this is the bit where you blame me for your inability to not fly off the handle. I'd call it victim blaming if you weren't so obviously the victim.

no one has it figured out dummy it is an ever changing standard. in 10 years your morality will be seen as high crimes against humanity if we go further left or go back right. either way it will not remain static.

God forfend that our morals change and grow. Clearly we should base our morality on the mistranslated, selectively edited, heavily corrupted ravings of bronze-age goat herders.

perfect response. exactly what i was looking for.
as you judged my question as being out of step with the standard you have in your mind.

Yes? And? It's curious to me that a group who cherry-picks scripture to fit their prejudices and agendas has such a difficult time understanding the moral relativity that you so clearly practice.

Now, how is sin DIFFERENT. not asking you to define anything as that is the lazy minds easy out. i ask a very specific and direct question please provide that answer and not some ad hom.

It's rich that you're asking me to avoid the ad hominem but I suppose that is literally your middle name.

Unlike sin, morality evolves and changes with circumstance. The moral precepts that governed 7th century BC Judea and 1st century AD Israel aren't what you want to use to govern global civilization 2020. Most of us have gotten past stoning people.

Unlike sin, morality requires no higher power. It's all about how you interact with society.

Unlike sin, we can demonstrate that morality actually exists.

I trust this answers your question.

this is all one liners/trollish zingers. nothing of substance that i saw let me know if you have a legit question in there i missed.