The “sin lists” in the NT condemn all habitual sinners!
- Thread starter JamesM
- Start date
Physically, we are designed to stick to our planet because of natural laws like the law of gravity. Likewise, we are spiritually designed to value and respect each other because of spiritual laws like the law of love. Can gravity be suspended? Sure. Can love be interrupted? Absolutely. What prevents gravity and love from being permanently disabled or destroyed? The eternal and immutable Source and Sustainer of both : )
Is that we don't know the difference or is it that we choose to ignore the difference and do what we want to ? I'm of that mind that we do know the difference but go ahead and "test the waters" regardless. As we grow we discover things like consequences and learn to govern ourselves accordingly. Whether we get the rules from a law book or a religious text makes no difference, there are rules to live by. Being a religious person doesn't mean living without rules, it just means the rules are learned from a different source. More often than not the rules are the same no matter where you are learning them, all stemming from basic respect for others, be it respect for their physical safety, their property or what have you.
Last edited:
I think our society and interactions are far too complex for any sort of instinctual reactions.
Thanks, LL. Your comment reminds me of a lesson in Matthew 9, Mark 2 and Luke 5 concerning sewing a new patch on an old garment.
I don't think the nature of right and wrong differs much depending on the situation. Most of the time we can distill an issue down to basic elements and then the right/wrong of it becomes apparent. Where it gets tricky is when we go to any length to justify an action that we know deep down is wrong, such as taking lives in a time of war or other conflict.
OK, here's one. Is it right or wrong to deny someone the benefecial use of your property when you're not using it?
Oh I read it and could not wait till I was old enough to get out of the religion realm
Books of this sort are mere mind control pages. If you do what God says you are
fine if not the kind and loving father of the universe will throw you in a lake of fire go
figure Even for god the cost of keeping that fire going will eventually bankrupt heaven.
Some people want to be spiritual and that is just fine but when it starts with the written word
that God didn't write one word of I drift away being polite lest I tell the poor human soul how
messed up they are in less charitable terms. I can't imagine having life dictated to me by
a list of do's and don'ts in some so called Holy Book
Books of this sort are mere mind control pages. If you do what God says you are
fine if not the kind and loving father of the universe will throw you in a lake of fire go
figure Even for god the cost of keeping that fire going will eventually bankrupt heaven.
Some people want to be spiritual and that is just fine but when it starts with the written word
that God didn't write one word of I drift away being polite lest I tell the poor human soul how
messed up they are in less charitable terms. I can't imagine having life dictated to me by
a list of do's and don'ts in some so called Holy Book
On the surface how can the answer be anything other than "wrong" ? Now you can complicate the hell out of that with all sorts of "what ifs" but in its simplest sense it would be wrong not to share, wouldn't it?
But you do accept societal laws governing things like personal safety and property ownership?
Nope, not gonna complicate anything with hypotheticals, just observe that one of the bedrock principles of your law and ours is that "property is not a thing, it is a bundle of rights, chief of which is the right to exclude others." Lord Coke.
So your assertion that it's wrong would hold that one of the fundamental tenets of Anglo-American-Canadian common law is morally wrong.
Accept 'em? I'll uphold 'em with my life.
Well, your life, maybe.
I guess it is. But let's not forget that that particular law was put in place to protect us from those who cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, it was born of necessity, not morality.
Just out of curiosity, what are you speaking of when you speak of "your law and ours"?
Even if religious laws essentially cover the same territory? It's not uncommon to see people discount religious beliefs as useless even though the ultimate goal of most religious rules is not dissimilar to societal law, lliving with mutual respect.
I'm assuming you're Canadian. If not, didn't mean nothing by it. Property law's pretty much the same in both.
By the way, do you have any evidence that property law was put into place to protect us from people that can't tell right from wrong?
If, as you hold, right and wrong are instinctive, then religious law is no more necessary than common, code, or statutory law.
Religious laws come from the time when the church and the state were pretty much the same thing. Funny part is I never saw nobody imprisoned for failing to be charitable. Seen a lot of 'em imprisoned for making use of somebody else's property, or for using certain substances, or suchlike.
The gravity of these discussions is suspended all the time, TB by trolling and other forms of levity : )
Don't be silly. Vacuum has nothing to do with it, and gravity is everywhere, at the gravitational constant. The gravity of an electron on the far side of the galaxy is affecting you right now.
Likewise, spiritual reality, TB. It is everywhere and is affecting you right now.
Of course it is. I'm no less given to fantasy than anybody else. I just know the difference.
Not a shred, other than the thought that laws are generally enacted to discourage wrongful behavior. Perhaps "can't tell right from wrong" was a poor choice of words, a better description would have been "People who care little for the difference between right and wrong".
Laws are not for the law abiding as much as they are for laying out standards of behavior for people prone to deviating from those standards. And it's certainly not unusual for moral law and statutory law to be at quite a distance from each other. People can be imprisoned for making use of someone else's property without permission, That doesn't mean that there isn't a moral obligation on the owner's part to make his/her property available to others should the need warrant.
In most situations there's nothing illegal about being selfish, but it is still being selfish.