Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, being a Buddhist frees me from delusions like that one you are suffering from. Good and evil are not fixed, they are relative.
No they aren't. WTH have you been smoking?
You seem to be as delusional as all the rest of the theists.
And yes, lying IS a sin.
But who gives a rat's ass?
Everyone -- every single soul -- has one way or the other lied during the course of their lifetime.
Everyone is tainted with sin. Even I (ie. I tell my parents I don't masturbate even if I do regularly)
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
🤨No they aren't. WTH have you been smoking?
You seem to be as delusional as all the rest of the theists.And yes, lying IS a sin.
But who gives a rat's ass?
Everyone -- every single soul -- has one way or the other lied during the course of their lifetime.
Everyone is tainted with sin. Even I (ie. I tell my parents I don't masturbate even if I do regularly)
I never said anything about sin. I said that good and evil are relative. Sin is another matter.
Sin - transgression of the law of God.
The Christian god is man made therefore, the idea of sin is also man made. Sin is not even relative; it's arbitrary.
delusional
Delusional? It doesn't sound smart to call an entire worldview as 'delusional' to me.
Since people believe sins are sometimes acceptable it creates a justification for doing evil. In a world where such a word view is tolerated great acts of evil are manufactured.
I'm trying to get my head around this. Are you saying that any sin opens up the possibility of more? This post was (presumably) intended to explain why good and evil are not relative.
Doing "good" in one situation may require an action that would be considered "bad" somewhere else. Is that situation one in which it is impossible to do good? (Is a subjectively good act that could be evil somewhere else still evil?)
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Since people believe sins are sometimes acceptable it creates a justification for doing evil. In a world where such a word view is tolerated great acts of evil are manufactured.
Since you have both decided to jump on the delusional comment I invite you to visit the comments initial context and note that it is clearly a reference to the use of delusional by Shaky.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Delusional? It doesn't sound smart to call an entire worldview as 'delusional' to me.I'm trying to get my head around this. Are you saying that any sin opens up the possibility of more? This post was (presumably) intended to explain why good and evil are not relative.
Doing "good" in one situation may require an action that would be considered "bad" somewhere else. Is that situation one in which it is impossible to do good? (Is a subjectively good act that could be evil somewhere else still evil?)
Originally posted by backdoorman
At best, in such a world great acts of evil COULD be manufactured. I still doubt it's a philosophical belief of the flexibility of morality that drives people to do evil and at any rate that belief, or "delusion" as you call it, is most certainly not what leads to the greatest suffering and evil
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Since you have both decided to jump on the delusional comment I invite you to visit the comments initial context and note that it is clearly a reference to the use of delusional by Shaky.
My bad, I was responding to
You seem to be as delusional as all the rest of the theists.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Certain acts are always sinful, i.e. lying. In a world in which there was no sin there would never be lies. Ergo any arguments based on the merits of telling a lie (merits of a sin) would fall apart.
Originally posted by Red NemesisBut we live in a world in which there is sin. (By your definition.) Therefore lies can sometimes be used to avert other sins or minimize the damage of other sins. In the case of a choice between two evils isn't choosing to lie (and therefore sin) less bad than not doing anything? (and therefore allowing a greater 'evil' to occur?) [/B]
As I said, sometimes lying is the lesser of two evils...that doesn't make it good though.
In a world where some sins are considered acceptable in some situations, you would have the apparatus for reasoning for evil. In a world where all sins are considered evil all of the time that apparatus would not exist.
Originally posted by backdoorman
And since when is a solid foundation of reasoning the motive behind an evil action?
Are you telling me Hitler's eugenics wasn't well thought out and based on coherent arguments?
Any sin is evil, so that white lie you tell your wife is considered evil. I suppose though that it was well thought out and such.