Why isnt isnt it ok to sin?

[Paradoxum]

Oh that's just lovely. Aborting a life for a mistake that you and another had made.

What's wrong with killing something for minor reasons? Many people eat animals when they don't need to.

 

[Ken-1122]

Hmm. Religions have no concept of harm?

Religious people use the secular definition of harm

I don't see how harm is only a secular concept.

'cause if it were religious concept, you would have a hundred different religions and denominations with a hundred different interpretations of what constitutes harm. You know how you guys can’t agree on nothin’

Are you saying only secular institutions are concerned with people's welfare and religious institutions aren't? Are you saying secular law is the only way to address harm?

No I’m saying in order to maintain a consistent definition of what constitutes harm, the secular interpretation is used by secularists and the religious alike.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

If they consent, why does it matter?

Nothing matters to you it seems. Consenting to pain for the purpose of sexual arousal, however, is considered a disorder.

Sexual masochism disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Resha Caner]

Religious people use the secular definition of harm

Substantiate that, please.

No I’m saying in order to maintain a consistent definition of what constitutes harm, the secular interpretation is used by secularists and the religious alike.

The secular definition is the same across all nations and times? It has never been disputed or changed? Again, you'll need to substantiate that.

 

[Ken-1122]

Substantiate that, please.



The secular definition is the same across all nations and times? It has never been disputed or changed? Again, you'll need to substantiate that.

harm - definition of harm by The Free Dictionary
Click on the link and you will see this is the same definition of harm theists use.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

Click on the link and you will see this is the same definition of harm theists use.

And? Your link says nothing of the source of that definition. For it to be a "secular" source, it would need to be of Greek origin - something like that. How do you know this didn't come from a Christian concept?

I was expecting something more like this -
As I understand it, harm is covered by tort law: Tort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As late as 1959, an article was published in the Oklahoma Law Review discussing the impact of Christianity on tort and other law systems:
http://www.classicapologetics.com/b/berminfl.pdf

Unless tort law has been completely rewritten in the past ~50 years with the intent of eliminating Christian influence, I don't see how your claim is plausible.

 

[Ken-1122]

And? Your link says nothing of the source of that definition. For it to be a "secular" source, it would need to be of Greek origin - something like that. How do you know this didn't come from a Christian concept?

The idea of causing pain, destruction, AKA harm; these ideas have been around long before Christianity. But even if I am wrong; I will continue to assume sin to be a religious term, and harm to be a secular term until proven otherwise

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

No, it all boils down to the state marriage licnece in order to expose men to family law courts. That is it, that is all. Feminists use religion as a form of potential exploitation because they know churches will endorse marriage licences filed with the state so it puts tons of social pressure on a man who is with a woman.

It takes a VERY strong woman to not join in and pressure her man into such a contract. A smart man will allow the relationship to disolve under such conditions.

thanks for your perspective. I've got a feeling the person I was responding to would not share it though.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

The idea of causing pain, destruction, AKA harm; these ideas have been around long before Christianity. But even if I am wrong; I will continue to assume sin to be a religious term, and harm to be a secular term until proven otherwise

Don't you need to back it up? That was your demand of me.

Depending on how one defines Christianity, yes the concept came before Christ's birth, but that still doesn't mean it was secular.

- - -

[edit] FYI, the first use of what is translated "harm" in the Bible (AFAIK) is in Genesis 31:52. It is the Hebrew word ra' ra'ah, which comes from the Hebrew word for evil. So, we might quibble over when Genesis was writen, but I expect we would agree it came before my 1959 quote from the law journal.

- - -

[edit 2] In doing a little further research on the etymology of the word "harm", it originates from the Old Norse language, which was a proto-germanic language. But chasing the word probably wouldn't get you to the root of the concept.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=etymology of harm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse#Relationship_to_other_languages

Rather, it's probably better to think in terms of locating a similar concept in the oldest known language. Now, the "oldest" language is itself a problematic concept because of the fluid manner in which language develops. Still, looking at something like Sumerian, for which extant writing is the oldest, might be a reasonable approach.

In Sumerian, the closest analogy to the idea of "harm" is the word "anzillu", which means an abomination.
https://en.glosbe.com/en/sux/harm

According to Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: New Studies by William R. Gallagher (p. 120), the word was first used to mean the breaking of an oath(*) and its earliest occurrences are in "magical texts, wisdom literature, and penitential psalms", for example in the Legend of Etana (a rather mythio-religious story, where, interestingly enough, Etana is the first king to rule after the flood).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etana

(*) Note: If true that this is the first concept of harm, it is interesting that it is connected to oaths - the ancient contract - and community relations, given that has been my main point all along.

 

[Ken-1122]

Don't you need to back it up? That was your demand of me.

I said I consider "sin" to be a religious term, and I consider "harm" to be a secular term. What are you asking me to back up? That I consider harm to be a secular term? I never claimed to have absolute proof that it was a secular term, I never said I could prove anything I just said I considered it a secular term.

Ken

 

[Dave-W]

How do you define a marriage covenant? Is it when your idea of God says you are married? When the state says you are married? When a person claims his non-existence God says they are married? when 2 people agree to an exclusive relationship? or is it something else?

That is part of it. A covenant is a spoken, solemn, lifelong commitment of exclusivity made before witnesses. As we are told in scripture to obey the laws of the land insofar as they do not require violation of scriptural command, that usually involves some kind of legal proceeding as well; such as signing a wedding licence which is then registered with the civil authorities.

 

[ananda]

That is part of it. A covenant is a spoken, solemn, lifelong commitment of exclusivity made before witnesses. As we are told in scripture to obey the laws of the land insofar as they do not require violation of scriptural command, that usually involves some kind of legal proceeding as well; such as signing a wedding licence which is then registered with the civil authorities.

A state marriage license is not required for Scriptural marriage.

 

[Ken-1122]

That is part of it. A covenant is a spoken, solemn, lifelong commitment of exclusivity made before witnesses. As we are told in scripture to obey the laws of the land insofar as they do not require violation of scriptural command, that usually involves some kind of legal proceeding as well; such as signing a wedding licence which is then registered with the civil authorities.

Even when the law of the land is crooked? My slave ancestors were not allowed to get married because the law of the land forbid it. According to the bible, were they wrong for having a family?

Ken

 

[Dave-W]

A state marriage license is not required for Scriptural marriage.

Not unless your jurisdiction requires it. Then it falls under obeying the law of the land. (funny how people always want to ignore that one ....)

 

[Dave-W]

Even when the law of the land is crooked? My slave ancestors were not allowed to get married because the law of the land forbid it. According to the bible, were they wrong for having a family?

Of course not. The law of the land cannot force us to violate scripture. The command to be fruitful and multiply stands. So does the prohibition on extramarital sex. So if the law of the land says one cannot marry or reproduce then it is forcing someone to violate scripture and MUST be ignored.

As to the laws being crooked, when Paul and Peter wrote this NT command to obey the law of the land and submit to civil authorities, NERO was emperor. A more corrupt and violent man you will not find. He burned Rome just to blame it on christians (and so he could build a bunch of new buildings in his own name).

 

[ananda]

Not unless your jurisdiction requires it. Then it falls under obeying the law of the land. (funny how people always want to ignore that one ....)

Civil jurisdictions only require licenses if two people want to set up a trust managed by the state as trustee

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course not. The law of the land cannot force us to violate scripture. The command to be fruitful and multiply stands. So does the prohibition on extramarital sex. So if the law of the land says one cannot marry or reproduce then it is forcing someone to violate scripture and MUST be ignored.

To be fruitful and multiply is a commandment? Are you saying it is a sin if you choose to remain childless?

Ken

 

[Paradoxum]

Nothing matters to you it seems.

Lots of things matter to me... I just don't think pain, harm, or risk of harm are always to be avoided. If that's what someone wants, it's their life.

Consenting to pain for the purpose of sexual arousal, however, is considered a disorder.

Sexual masochism disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well the link you posted disagrees with what you said. Consent to pain for sexual arousal isn't sexual masochism disorder.

It "is the condition of experiencing recurring and intense sexual arousal in response to enduring extreme pain, suffering, or humiliation."

And "would only apply to individuals also report psychosocial difficulties because of it."

I wouldn't be comfortable inflicting extreme pain on someone.

 

[Resha Caner]

I wouldn't be comfortable inflicting extreme pain on someone.

But it doesn't matter to you if someone else does it as long as they consent.

 

[Paradoxum]

But it doesn't matter to you if someone else does it as long as they consent.

If two other people did it? Well if there is a mental disorder, that gives reason to at least question the consent.

It seems like a terrible idea to me. If they are definitely in their right mind, and have thought through what they want, maybe it's okay though.

As it got more extreme, I'd find it hard to believe it's possible for them to be mentally healthy.