I hadn't heard the song before then either, and that record is still the only place I've heard it. But it definitely qualified in the UK; at the time, it was the highest selling single ever there.

I stated that the first two definitions you posted had a religious component. I didnt say exclusively a religious component. You added that word to try and imply that if a definition didnt exclusively have a religious component then somehow religion wasnt a factor in that definition at all.

Really. How have I demonstrated an anti bible bias? I said it would be treated like any other book irt not providing a pass for posting hate speech. I didnt indicate it would be treated in any negative way because its the bible. Please explain what I said that you believe I have shown an anti bible bias. I suspect that the opposite is true. That you are miffed that I didnt display a pro bible bias by granting it some special, higher level of authority over other books.

You're going to need to explain this to me as if I've never taken a philosophy course. Because I haven't.

I was just looking into this myself. Nearly every source I find online says it is basically the claim that because something happens in the natural world it must be good.

However, the Wikipedia entry specifically states that claim is "appeal to nature" and distinct from the NF. However, what it describes the NF to mean makes no sense to me.

I agree that one can have moral standards that are not dependent on religion. However, I don't think one can have a justification for moral standards outside of religion.

All secular moral arguments that I am aware of commit the Naturalistic Fallacy.

So?

Niceness is a virtue

A bit worried about the spin on sins. Without sins what am I going to do all day?

Of course there are. We created RGT to get this stuff out of SMP after doing it to death. I seriosuly doubt here is a good place for it

I agree with you that in a secular worldview all morality is based on personal judgement.

Sure. But that's not a moral argument against racism. It's also a debatable thesis. I think racism is morally wrong even if being a racist is more economically effecient.

Fair enough. So we also agree that two of the three definitions had a non-religious component, which makes my point that "sin" can be used in either a religious or non-religious matter.


A couple of weeks ago i quoted the Bible in a manner that was in so sense negative and you deleted it.

I certainly don't expect a pro-bible bias, nor would that be appropriate in a pluralistic forum.

My experience is that folks are fine with me quoting Jesus when he is saying how important it is to feed the hungry and take care of widows and orphans. But whenever I quote Jesus saying things that secularists don't like, then it's "who cares what the Bible says?"

I deleted that post bc it was off topic. Wouldn't have matter what book it was from. And I told you that then.

The Naturalistic Fallacy is attempting to deduce prescriptive claims (e.g. "One ought not to be racist") solely from descriptive claims (e.g. "Racism makes minorities less likely to be economically prosperous.")

"One ought to do X" is the typical form of a prescriptive statement. (An "ought" statement)

"X is observed in nature" or "X is observed in society" are descriptive statements (An "is" statement).

Another way of expressing of Naturalistic Fallacy is, "One cannot logically deduce an "ought" from an "is.")

I don't think the word "sin" is really widely used in the sense of the third definition given.

I would make suggestions, but since they'd come from the Bible, browser will probably auto-delete them.

Hopefully I'm wrong about that.

What say you, Browser?

Maybe I misremembered. Sorry about that.

For clarification, quoting the Bible is fine as long as it is not "hate speech" (as defined by the moderators) and is totally on-topic?

You're probably right.

So what?

Most people aren't referring to a meat market when they use the term "shambles." That doesn't mean that "shambles" isn't another word for a meat market.

But those are he main kinds of things he said. I mean I doubt one person said all the things attributed to Jesus in the gospels, but there isn't much attributed to him that would be objectionable to many people in terms of moral precepts.

He definitely didn't say anything negative about homosexuals, and he basically told his followers to forget all of the weird laws given by the old testament. He was also against capital punishment, which seems not to be noticed by most Christians. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Well your point seemed to be that the word "sin" can be used outside of a religious context. I would say, sure it could be, but it generally isn't, so I don't think that point matters to this discussion (and the rules of this thread).

Most of Jesus' sayings most folks find unobjectionable. But those aren't the things he said that got him crucified.

That is in no way, shape or form an accurate take on what Jesus said.

That quote is not a indictment against the death penalty per se. It was an indictment against a mob of self-righteous vigilantes.

If your point is that "sin" is typically only used in a religious context, then you are certainly correct and I never disagreed with that.

Did you have some sort of agreement with Cuepee to pick up the slack misrepresenting my policies until he gets back?

The issue isnt whether a quote comes from the bible or any other book. It's whether the quote is on topic and advances the discussion in some way. Simply dropping quotes (from anywhere) into a thread without any comment or explanation of how they apply to the discussion at hand makes them no content or off topic posts and they will get deleted faster than the firstborn of Egypt.

Yes. How am I doing so far?

All seriousness aside (as the late, great Steve Allen used to say), I wasn't sure exactly what your policy is, which is why I posted this earlier:

Thank you for your nice response above. I don't want any of my posts to be smoted, so I'll be careful.

This is all speculation. That no direct quote attributed to Jesus about homosexual appears in the gospels is hardly proof he didn't think or say anything bad about them. Especially when stuff that did make the gospels, like the quote you reference, are hugely problematic. Only found in John, the youngest and least reliable gospel and isn't even found in the earliest versions of john but likely added 200 years after the event supposedly happened.

It is possible to come to a moral framework based on economics.
Utilitarianism is basically an economic ethical system.

Sure, there might even have been no historical figure of Jesus, but if there was, he certainly said more things than are in any of the gospels. I don't see what is "hugely problematic" about references to what is there. That's all Christians have to go on anyway.

He explicitly said it was ok to do work on the sabbath, and he said that only those without sin (so effectively no one) should pass judgment or inflict punishment on others.

To me these incidents imply that he had no use for all the ridiculous rules in the old testament, and probably even for the 10 commandments, as he said there were only two important rules.

My second Bible quote;

"You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye"