In todays

[MWB]

modern world, where the accepted definition of sin has become blurred, we need to protect ourselves against an over-zealous deity keen to promote an out-dated set of rules.

Who agrees?

[FarKenOath]

Here we go again. WTF are you talking about now. Do you have nothing better to do post anti christian bullsh!t like this all the time. Get a life.......sheesh

[MWB]

Sorry to be cerebral, farkenoath. I'll say it like the 4 year old you are then shall I?

Religion is silly.

[chakka35]

FarKenOath really is an unpleasant fellow, isn't he?

MWB's question is perfectly reasonable one. Though I would say that the protection we need is not against a deity, for whose existence there is no evidence, but against his more extreme followers.
And of course the 'rules' are out-dated: there is no mention of rape or child-abuse because the Old Testament makes it clear that such things were perfectly acceptable in the days when the commandments were written.

As I have said before, FarKenOath, you need to employ more reason and debate and less loud-mouthed abuse.

[SK.news.DE]

Just who is the unpleasant one on here? When one of the regular scumbags was happy that a members grandchild had died, MWB was there to defend him. He or she thought it was so funny.

Just another lowlife piece of vermin that has wormed its way on to this site.

[keyplus90]

If the rules are outdated then you were following the wrong rules. If the rules were from an outdated deity then you were following a wrong deity too.

However to test and trial few rules you may have to look at the consequences after having them changed. And if you do that with open mind as well as open eyes, that would help too.

[FarKenOath]

Actually MWB I agree with you, it is silly but that's not the point. If YOU don't believe in a God then why do you feel the need to protect yourself from one? Who is the great "we" that you seem to be the spokesperson for?

[FarKenOath]

By the way MWB, are you planning on giving up Easter & Christmas hols seeing as you don't believe in God or are you on the unemployment?

[MWB]

I don't do easter or xmas, farkenoath; Both far too commercial.
And, of course, they are derived from pagan ceremonies anyway.

[jake-the-peg]

No I don't agree.

Firstly sin is not blurred - it is non existant - it is an offence against God - No God no sin.

Also we don't need to protect ourselves against a non-existant deity, but we do need to be on guard against the minority who want religion in public life.

Those who want Bishops in Parliament, religious assemblies in schools and those who want public money to fund religious schools.

[Octavius]

Jake, you don�t arf talk about that a lot. Are you doing anything about it directly with this �minority� or just repeating it endlessly on an internet forum in the hope that it will change the world?

To sin is to err against your religion. If you don�t have religion then you won�t have sin. That doesn�t seem too blurred to me.

I would imagine most people would align it to a moral code of conduct or suchlike, but if you find the meaning of that ambiguous, then you�ll just have to take your chances

[chakka35]

Jake and Octavius are both right: sin is a purely religious concept and therefore has no meaning for us atheists, who get our standards of behaviour from the laws of the land and our own moral and ethical codes.
They are not blurred.

[mibn2cweus]

For those who seek a knowledge and understanding of right from wrong; look neither to self-proclaimed nor mob instituted rulers but instead to the author and final arbiter of the absolute laws which sustain and promote the existence of those who subscribe to and abide by them, from which only a reasoned comprehension of the nature of reality such can be ascertained.

Those who seek an �easier solution� to the problem, for whom the labour of thinking has grown in proportion to their lack of exercising the art of reason, have become victims of their own inability to envision and subsequent blindness to the values to be obtained by virtue of that requisite process.

Those who lust after the intellectual profits of the sages throughout the ages and whose hope is to cash in on the prize they acknowledge implicitly, without paying the price of an explicit understanding, will fail to distill from scriptures the wisdom that lies hopelessly obscured within. We all, each of us according to our individual ability through acknowledgement of our need to practice reason, reap what we have sown.

[Octavius]

What, you mean like Alan Titchmarsh?

[FarKenOath]

As usual MWB you only answer the questions that don't tax your wee brain too much. I posted the following questions which you are yet to answer, though I am sure one of your heros will jump to your defence seeing as I am such an unpleasant fellow.

If YOU don't believe in a God then why do you feel the need to protect yourself from one? Who is the great "we" that you seem to be the spokesperson for?

Are you planning on giving up Easter & Christmas hols (that means holidays MWB, are you planning on working through Christmas & Easter or do you sponge off the taxpayer)

[FarKenOath]

And please chakka35 and other MWB defenders, don't comment on my post too soon, give MWB a chance to have an opinion of her own otherwise her answer will start with "chakka35 is right,............."

[naomi24]

The concept of sin is non-existent to the non-religious, and therefore to them the definition cannot become blurred. For the religious, I don't believe the concept of sin has become blurred. They are as superstitious, and as terrified of the empty threat of divine retribution as ever they were. Even for those who aren't thoroughly devout now, but have nevertheless been indoctrinated at some time in the past, that lingering fear remains embedded somewhere in the recesses of their minds. It isn't the over-zealous imaginary deities non-believers need to protect themselves from, but the malignant and damaging influence of those who attempt to undermine the intellect of free-thinking individuals by propounding the dubious benefits of religion in any shape or form.

Incidentally, it's a perfectly reasonable question. R&S is a place where religion is freely discussed from all angles and from all points of view - and long may it remain so.

[Octavius]

Yes, even when it is a 'religion is silly' post.