Replies

In re Nobama's definition of sin:

You know, 'anything that goes against 'my' principles' sounds an awful lot like the definition athiests use to define 'immoral' behavior. Athiests will tell you that they are 'principled' without requiring 'moral' reference, arguing that their 'principles' trump religion-based morals because theirs are 'rational' (arrived at through reasoning) whereas 'morals' are based on faith (and therefore religious people are 'blind followers').

The result, of course, is that they grant themselves the permission to include and exclude 'principles' based on their judgement as to whether each should be honored.

For example (this is the one I would always throw in the face of my athiest friend who argued the point): Is adultery a sin? Religion says yes (one of the Big Ten in fact), 'principled' individuals don't agree on the point (some say it is 'wrong', others say it's OK if 2 consenting adults are willing). My reply is that marriage is a public act (culturally speaking -- it's infinitely more in a religious context), a request by two people to the community to recognize them as together; is that not a 'principle' being violated?

It all breaks down sooner or later when 'principled' individuals encounter something they want to do that they know is wrong. Redefining wrong as 'not applicable to me' makes it OK.

One other large point that the 'principled' ones overlook: the Final Solution was also arrived at rationally, and employing moral relativism.

I think Nobama's statement also shows that he is a CHINO: a CHristian In Name Only. (hehehe -- feel free to unceremoniously rip off that one)

But this is a very old concept. How did the old saying go: 'Without God all things are possible (permisible)'???

;-))

Sheesh. permisible=permissible.

Also: Nobama spends 20 years in a UCC church and yet he is unaware of Church doctrine? He has to rely on his own principles? Or maybe a UCC Black Liberation Theology church operates differently...;-))

Good analysis there, Bit!