I guess that depends what one defines "sin" to be.King Mob said:How is it possible for a non-believer to sin? On the basis of your theory then, only religious types commit these terrible acts?
Sin, in any theological, ideological or indeed philosophical form, means nothing to me. If I was to shoplift, assault or indeed kill another human being I would have committed a crime, not a `sin.`
You can't say "I don't care what the definition is - I haven't done it". You cannot make any meaningful statement about sin without a definition.King Mob said:Sin, in any theological, ideological or indeed philosophical form, means nothing to me. If I was to shoplift, assault or indeed kill another human being I would have committed a crime, not a `sin.`
'Sin' is a crime against God's law. He has the right to set the rules you should live by as he created you! You make not like it, but there is nothing you can do about it.
Given lismore's definition, sin exists if and only if god's law exists <=> god existsSithDoughnut said:
'Sin' is a crime against God's law. He has the right to set the rules you should live by as he created you! You make not like it, but there is nothing you can do about it.
...I think you mistake god's law for judicial law. If I break one of the latter laws I go to jail, if I break one of the formers I say ten hail Marys.
Taking everything into account I think I like God's law better, from a punishment pov of course.
If you are having a go at Roman Catholics, I believe there is no forgiveness in their belief system without genuine remorse and contrition. And the confessor would order you to make judicial recompense for what you had done as well. i.e turn yourself in.
Therefore, as usual, your comments are acerbic mumbo-jumbo with no basis in real life.
Information is often concealed in books, why don't you try reading one.
