On the Relevancy of The Institutionalization of Sin

by Perry 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LisaRose

  If there is no God why should you worry,

  I don't.

  or if your conviciton is that we are free to do whatever crosses our heart why feeling attacked?

  Who said we thought we were free to do whatever crosses our heart? Just because we reject bible morality does not mean we reject morality. It's frustrating that so many believers repeat this nonsense, as if they cannot understand the concept of morality without God.

  want to point to a more grave problem related to sexuality. Worldwide some 40 000 000 humans are killed by abortion each year. This is very immoral in my eyes and unmatched in history.

  I am sorry you feel that way. I do not equate a few cells that could be a human with an actual human. I fully support your right not to get an abortion, I just don't support your right to push your version of morality into others.

  There is much blood being shed in the name of liberty and freedom. If people would respect the law of the Bible this misery would be prevented to a high degree.

  And if people quit thinking their religion was the only path to salvation we could stop 90% of all wars. That would end a lot of misery right there.

  The concept of sin is more and more rejected by most, to the point of criminalizing those who dare to say that same-sex relations are wrong in the eyes of the God of the Bible.

  Who said anything about criminalizing words? We all have free speech, I have seen nothing saying we don't.
• 

  TTWSYF

  Morality is an interesting thing. There were certainly moral people throughout history, but there was no standard of morality until the church established it.
  The same is true of civil/human rights. Of education, of healthcare,of caring of the old, the poor, the feable, the handicap, etc. There were always some people who did these things, but there was no standard until the Church [the Catholic church} established it.

  just saying it cause it's true
• 

  tim3l0rd

  Who said anything about criminalizing words? We all have free speech, I have seen nothing saying we don't.

  It may not be long before words are criminalized. "Hate speech" is being denounced more and more. Donald Sterling is one example where the majority of people (rightfully) denounced his words. Many others have denounced the "hate speech" of anti-gay groups and the Westboro Baptist Church.

  I'm not defending any of what these groups/people say or stand for, but there has been a lot of talk in the media about censuring "hate speech". If this concept gains popularity, it wouldn't be long before "free speech" is no longer free.
• 

  fulltimestudent

  TTWSYF12 minutes ago

  There were certainly moral people throughout history, but there was no standard of morality until the church established it.

  This is plain bullshit!

  There were 'standards' - there are a number of west Asian 'standards' (if you want to say that there is such a thing as a standard). In Hellenic thought, there were the pre-Socratic thinkers, then Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, without even mentioning the Stoics.

  Early Christians drew on the ideas of the Stoics and Plato in particular.

  Going East from the Mediterranean early Buddhism certainly established "standards' of morality with a strong emphasis on compassion. In East Asia, Kongzi (Confucius - 6th C BCE) established a systematic morality that influences East Asia until now. His near contemporary Mozi taught a system of Universal love, that is more detailed than the vague references Jesus makes to 'love.' Standards exist in all these systems of thought.

  Take your head out of the nether regions of Christianity and look around at the real world.
• 

  tim3l0rd

  Morality is an interesting thing. There were certainly moral people throughout history, but there was no standard of morality until the church established it.

  An interesting study would be the morals of atheists/agnostics in a country like China vs atheists/agnostics in a predominantly christian country. An example of how different the morals are: I have been told by those living in China that if you hit someone with your car it is better to back up over them and hit them again to make sure they are dead. Why? If they are alive, the driver is responsible for all their medical bills, but if they are dead then the driver will more than likely pay out less than the medical bills will have totaled.

  I did a Google search and found this article that details examples of this.
• 

  nicolaou

  there was no standard of morality until the (Catholic) church established it.

  I think the ancient Greeks would have something to say about that,as does this modern Greek.

  Read a little more widely my friend.
• 

  freemindfade

  I've heard this nonsense about morality and charity resulting from the Catholic Church. It is one of the craziest things I've had the pleasure of reading on here.

  I like to go back to the Egyptians.

  
  
• 

  LisaRose

  t may not be long before words are criminalized. "Hate speech" is being denounced more and more. Donald Sterling is one example where the majority of people (rightfully) denounced his words. Many others have denounced the "hate speech" of anti-gay groups and the Westboro Baptist Church.
  I'm not defending any of what these groups/people say or stand for, but there has been a lot of talk in the media about censuring "hate speech". If this concept gains popularity, it wouldn't be long before "free speech" is no longer free.

  Nonsense, there is the little matter of the constitution. What is discussed when people talk about hate speech is similar to what Donald Trump experienced. He made some very racist remarks regarding people from Mexico. He has not been arrested as far as I am aware, but he there have been repercussions, as businesses try to distance themselves from him. That is certainly their right, just as it was his right to say what he did. I disagree with his remarks (which were not only racist but completely inaccurate), but I would defend his right to say what he believes.

  Denouncing is one thing, forbidding is another.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  What's scary about Perry is that if he could be convinced that God said so, he would do it, no matter what it is.
• 

  DJS

  As usual, LisaRose is right: "Nonsense, there is the little matter of the constitution." If you all have been paying attention the past 50 years, you will notice that the SCOTUS has given more and more power to freedom of speech. Society, on the other hand, has evolved to have its own say about freedom of speech.

  FIFA, the NFL, NBA, Duck Dynasty network, NBC, Cisco, Nike, etc. all have anti-hate speech policies. These aren't criminal issues, which would be ridiculous in addition to unconstitutional. But the same courts have determined that a business, for example, has a right to be the type of business it wishes. The aforementioned businesses profits hinge on having as wide of a market as possible. Any employee or representative of the business who hurts that image and that market can legally be subject to business imposed penalties.

  It is almost a certainty that these policies are in writing and vetted by legal. And it is almost a certainty that every large or major company where all those on this site work also have written policies against hate speech and discrimination. Penalties can mean termination of employment, for example.

  It is an effectively beautiful process in a democracy. It's essentially the same things we tell Perry and the other x-tian haters; have your say in your religious temple of choice and you are free as a bird to hate, hate hate as Taylor would say. Taking it into the public carries with it some consequences. And that is most excellent.