Calling out Pritybetta

Originally posted by josephw
I can't. I'm not God.

OK, how would God do it?

Originally posted by josephw
How so?

Define gluttony as opposed to open homosexuality.

Do you really believe that homosexuals are ostracised by Christians because there is a log in their eye?

The Bible clearly teaches that all local assemblies are to be autonomous. Who is the head of the church kirksey?
Who decides what the truth is?

Jesus!! I'll have to get to my home computer before I respond to this one.

Originally posted by josephw

Define gluttony as opposed to open homosexuality.

Gluttony only counts if you swallow.

With homosexuality, you have to wait awhile before you can have seconds.

Originally posted by josephw
How so?

Define gluttony as opposed to open homosexuality.

Do you really believe that homosexuals are ostracised by Christians because there is a log in their eye?

The Bible clearly teaches that all local assemblies are to be autonomous. Who is the head of the church kirksey?
Who decides what the truth is?

I don't hear of any groups picketing funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fat People".

Let's look at Prater-Willi Syndrome, a disease in which one of the characteristics is that the person cannot tell when they are full, thus they eat all the time and are obese. Are these individuals guilty of gluttony? Of course not. They have a disease. It would be like saying people with cancer are anorexic because they may be thin.

Now gay people are in a somewhat simiolar situation if you believe that they are somehow hardwired in their brain to be gay. That is who they are. It is like you being hardwired to be straight.

Gluttony is not having any self control with eating. Homosexuality is sex between two people who are the same sex. I like Doc's definition better though.

I think this would qualify as gluttony combined with stupidity.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ODD_911_SANDWICH_CALL?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Originally posted by kirksey957
I don't hear of any groups picketing funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fat People".

Let's look at Prater-Willi Syndrome, a disease in which one of the characteristics is that the person cannot tell when they are full, thus they eat all the time and are obese. Are these individuals guilty of gluttony? Of course not. They have a disease. It wou ted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ODD_911_SANDWICH_CALL?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Let's look at Prater-Willi Syndrome, a disease in which one of the characteristics is that the person cannot tell when they are full, thus they eat all the time and are obese.

The situation though is not analogous with homosexuality. A person who suffers from this syndrome is unable to know whether or not they have eaten in excess. For a sin to occur, the person must know that the action is sinful and must consciouslessly will the action desspite knowing its sinfulness. Sufferers of this disease do not meet this criteria for the sin of gluttony because they do not will to be gluttonous; they simply eat in surfeit unknowingly.

Dissimilarly, when a man is ramming another man, at least one of them knows and wills the act.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Let's look at Prater-Willi Syndrome, a disease in which one of the characteristics is that the person cannot tell when they are full, thus they eat all the time and are obese.

The situation though is not analogous with homosexuality. A person who suffers from this syndrome is unable to know whether or not they have eaten in excess. For a sin to oc ...[text shortened]...
Dissimilarly, when a man is ramming another man, at least one of them knows and wills the act.[/b]

Suppose a battyboy has Prater-Willi as well.
Then he cant tell when he is full ! .... 😀

Originally posted by Conrau K

Dissimilarly, when a man is ramming another man, at least one of them knows and wills the act.

But he doesn't necessarily know that it is sinful, which you state as a criterion for a sin to take place.

Under your criteria, a person can be completely sinless merely in virtue of believing that nothing is sinful, since believing that some things are sinful is a necessary condition for knowing that some particular things are sinful.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Under your criteria, a person can be completely sinless merely in virtue of believing that nothing is sinful, since believing that some things are sinful is a necessary condition for knowing that some particular things are sinful.

Of course. Do you rebuke those who commit immoral actions irrespective of whether they are aware of the immorality of those actions?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Of course. Do you rebuke those who commit immoral actions irrespective of whether they are aware of the immorality of those actions?

Yes. For example, I rebuke the Pope for teaching Africans that condoms are sinful, even though he doesn't acknowledge that what he is doing is immoral.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes. For example, I rebuke the Pope for teaching Africans that condoms are sinful, even though he doesn't acknowledge that what he is doing is immoral.

Ok. Do you think it is reasonable to impose punitive (and not simply corrective or rehabilitative) measures against criminals unaware of the laws of their country?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok. Do you think it is reasonable to impose punitive (and not simply corrective or rehabilitative) measures against criminals unaware of the laws of their country?

Possibly.

However, under this analogy, your criterion states something much stronger. It doesn't state merely that homosexuals who deny that they are sinning ought not be punished; it states that they are not sinning at all, merely in virtue of their denial.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Possibly.

However, under this analogy, your criterion states something much stronger. It doesn't state merely that homosexuals who deny that they are sinning ought not be punished; it states that they are not sinning at all, merely in virtue of their denial.

However, under this analogy, your criterion states something much stronger. It doesn't state merely that homosexuals who deny that they are sinning ought not be punished; it states that they are not sinning at all, merely in virtue of their denial.

Perhaps. Is there a difference between not knowing something is a sin and denying that something is a sin?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]However, under this analogy, your criterion states something much stronger. It doesn't state merely that homosexuals who deny that they are sinning ought not be punished; it states that they are not sinning at all, merely in virtue of their denial.

Perhaps. Is there a difference between not knowing something is a sin and denying that something is a sin?[/b]

Yes. If someone said "I didn't know the speed limit was 55 MPH" we would look to see if there was a sufficient reason for their lack of knowledge (perhaps the sign had been stolen or knocked down by the wind and they had no notice that the speed limit was 55 MPH). Contrast that with them saying "55 MPH is a really stupid speed limit for this stretch of the road and I'm not going to obey it".

Originally posted by Conrau K


Perhaps. Is there a difference between not knowing something is a sin and denying that something is a sin?

Of course.

If you take knowledge be justified belief in a true proposition, then in order to know that P, it is necessary to believe that P. But to deny P is to believe that not-P. Hence, denying P entails not knowing P.

However, the converse does not hold. That is, not knowing P does not entail a denial of P. One way this could happen is if a person holds an unjustified belief in P and asserts P. Another way is if a person holds a justified belief in P and asserts P, but P is false.

Thus, not knowing and denying are not equivalent, despite being able to infer from a denial of P that one does not know P.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes. If someone said "I didn't know the speed limit was 55 MPH" we would look to see if there was a sufficient reason for their lack of knowledge (perhaps the sign had been stolen or knocked down by the wind and they had no notice that the speed limit was 55 MPH). Contrast that with them saying "55 MPH is a really stupid speed limit for this stretch of the road and I'm not going to obey it".

This is more the counterexample of which I was thinking. A person can know P yet, irrationally, deny P. He might know, or believe, that some act is wrong yet repress this information and deny it -- although I am not sure whether that is happening in your example.