SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim S who wrote (877)9/14/2006 6:45:39 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
So, sins are redundant to secular laws?

Isn't that the way it started, at least in the US? We made it illegal to act immorally. Over time we've gotten rid of many of the laws that don't have a strong secular purpose although some would like to change that direction.

The same goes for the word "evil."

I don't normally use those words either. I don't even use "good" and "bad." I prefer "constructive" or "useful" "or helpful." My posts are full of them. Nor do I use "moral." The closest I get to "moral" is "ethical." But I do use the religious words here when discussing religious topics with people who do use those words, although perhaps not in quite the same way. Often I put them in quotes. It's just not constructive <g> to insist on my own vocabulary so I don't. That would be a "sin." <g>



To: Jim S who wrote (877)9/15/2006 9:14:27 AM
From: JeffA  Respond to of 10087
 
That's good. So, sins are redundant to secular laws? (Maybe vice-versa...) Which makes speeding or drunk in public "sins?" But saying "goddammit" isn't a sin?

I consider all of them sins. Esp the last. We are directed to obey those put in place above us and we are directed to obey the laws and rules of the land. When we do not, a fundamentalist would say you are not following the Word, and that is a sin.