> Interesting point - however , I think Nolondil'sQuote
What about 'sin' prior to the churches'
> declaration of such a concept.
> point about the etymology of the word explains
> That is mis-representing me somewhat - I used theQuote
Susan's extreme point is that the serial
> murderer, who plots ways to kill hurt and maim, is
> just making a "mistake" which can't be sin. Rather
> simplistic, don't you think?
> word mistake to start with but have since made it
> clear that all wrong-doing can be put on a scale
> of least harmful to maximum harmful.
Okay, you've shifted the goal posts in mid-game, as we say
sometimes in sports. That's fine, but where are you going
with this thread. What was your intention, other than to
have a chat?
It sounds as if your objection is others' use of the word
'sin' vs something else, 'mistakes' or a worse term, if the
violation warrants such a label. If your objection is to the
word 'sin', then aren't you really just projecting your
secular philosophy here, picking another subject that will
predictably lead to the same (secular specific) conclusion?
We all know that you don't believe
in 'sin', as a believer might use the term. What's new about
this post, Susan?
To Nolondil's point, as you describe it here. I still find it
lacking. Frankly, I am in very firm agreement with the idea
of transgressions, or many of them, evolving from 'missing the
target' to excessive guilt. No dispute there, but to describe
the worst of humanity's premeditated acts as 'missing the
target' which later became distorted as 'sin', overlooks a lot.
So Susan, what's you're take on how those worst behaviors relate
to Nolondil's discussion on the etymology of 'sin'?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31-May-18 15:37 by Poster Boy.