Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

If only God had differentiated and said "Thou shalt not murder but manslaughter shalt be okay..."

awkward...but He did...perhaps you should study more....obviously you still have not looked into that pesky Hebrew word "Retzach" yet....you might also want to check out article of faith #8 while you are at it.

And the subject we are talking about is "killing" rather than murder.
You agreed that all killing was bad (except for cows and vegetables) and manslaughter is killing.

i still hold that position...but my view of killing as "bad" is the same as murder in this context...just because you still have no understanding of the word "Retzach" does not mean that you can re-define the moral context. In other words, as i made clear, taking the life of a cow is not "killing" as the moral structure defines it.

If you had said at the time, "not all killing is bad, for instance manslaughter can be good" you wouldn't now appear to backtracking.

no backtrack...just trying to illustrate to you that "killing" does not mean what you want it to mean, you are revising concepts to generics so that you can make blanket assumptions and ill-conceived conclusions......again brush up on your Hebrew and then we can discuss.

[_Themis]

Just which "moral fabric of society" are you referring to?

is there more than one fabric? reality seems to dictate that there is, in fact, only one fabric.

Why not trying defining what you specifically think it is.

[_subgenius]

Why not trying defining what you specifically think it is.

not sure you actually understand what people mean by "moral fabric"?
to imply that there is "more than one" for society is antithetical to the idea of a moral fabric....the euphemism being for a "shared standard"...if there is one distinct fabric over there and another distinct fabric over here...then quite obviously they are not "shared".
It is a contradictory concept to state that "more than one" moral fabric exists within society, for it is a defining and singular attribute of "a society".
For example, a society is not cohesive if it considers stealing a virtue and not-stealing a virtue...what you actually have is two different societies.
In the context of "fabric", this virtue of "not stealing" is a thread...common to the entire fabric, but woven with others....remove the thread and the fabric weakens, etc...replace the thread with a different thread and the fabric becomes a different fabric.
simple concept really, made obvious by the concept when using the term "fabric" to describe it.

[_schreech]

to imply that there is "more than one" for society is antithetical to the idea of a moral fabric....the euphemism being for a "shared standard"...if there is one distinct fabric over there and another distinct fabric over here...then quite obviously they are not "shared".
It is a contradictory concept to state that "more than one" moral fabric exists within society, for it is a defining and singular attribute of "a society".
For example, a society is not cohesive if it considers stealing a virtue and not-stealing a virtue...what you actually have is two different societies.

In other words, when SUBgenius says ""moral fabric of SOCIETY", he is referring to the small "society" of gullible, believing, Mormon dimwits who choose to spend their time, online, blindly defending a pseudo-religious corporation and its geriatric leaders...The moral fabric of the society that myself and most rational people are part of (normal, accepting, intelligent human beings who are not impeded by religious bigotry and dogma) is very different than the small society of "peculiar" people that SUBgenius chooses to associate with...

I know its confusing (like most of the barely coherent things SUBgenius posts), but, once you realize that he doesn't really understand basic logic/the English language/how silly he looks/etc. his posts start to make more sense.

[_Themis]

to imply that there is "more than one" for society is antithetical to the idea of a moral fabric....the euphemism being for a "shared standard"...if there is one distinct fabric over there and another distinct fabric over here...then quite obviously they are not "shared".
It is a contradictory concept to state that "more than one" moral fabric exists within society, for it is a defining and singular attribute of "a society".

Which society? It's a subjective term. One can belong to several societies. LDS have their own society, but they would also belong to a state society in which they live. How about an ethnic society.

For example, a society is not cohesive if it considers stealing a virtue and not-stealing a virtue...what you actually have is two different societies.

The US is a multicultural society made up of many societies based on religion, culture, etc. You will find more cohesion in societies with less diversity in culture and religion or other ideologies. Some you may not want to live in. Stealing being wrong is a fairly universal moral for all societies. Sex though can have much wider moral of what is wrong or right. Particularly in diverse societies. Peace is better achieved if people stop trying to force others to live their religious values.

In the context of "fabric", this virtue of "not stealing" is a thread...common to the entire fabric, but woven with others....remove the thread and the fabric weakens, etc...replace the thread with a different thread and the fabric becomes a different fabric.
simple concept really, made obvious by the concept when using the term "fabric" to describe it.

Sure we can change the fabric or replace it, which is not necessarily a bad thing. This is why laws can change. Some things that were considered good in the past no longer are. Slavery is a good example.

[_subgenius]

to imply that there is "more than one" for society is antithetical to the idea of a moral fabric....the euphemism being for a "shared standard"...if there is one distinct fabric over there and another distinct fabric over here...then quite obviously they are not "shared".
It is a contradictory concept to state that "more than one" moral fabric exists within society, for it is a defining and singular attribute of "a society".

Which society? It's a subjective term. One can belong to several societies. LDS have their own society, but they would also belong to a state society in which they live. How about an ethnic society.

ask the poster which society, but it seems relatively clear when you read the post in question.

quote="Themis"]

For example, a society is not cohesive if it considers stealing a virtue and not-stealing a virtue...what you actually have is two different societies.

The US is a multicultural society made up of many societies based on religion, culture, etc. You will find more cohesion in societies with less diversity in culture and religion or other ideologies. Some you may not want to live in. Stealing being wrong is a fairly universal moral for all societies. Sex though can have much wider moral of what is wrong or right. Particularly in diverse societies. Peace is better achieved if people stop trying to force others to live their religious values.[/quote]
So, society is made from a "bunch of" societies...insightful, yet the end result is the same...one society...thanks for bringing the mud to the water.

quote="Themis"]

In the context of "fabric", this virtue of "not stealing" is a thread...common to the entire fabric, but woven with others....remove the thread and the fabric weakens, etc...replace the thread with a different thread and the fabric becomes a different fabric.
simple concept really, made obvious by the concept when using the term "fabric" to describe it.

Sure we can change the fabric or replace it, which is not necessarily a bad thing. This is why laws can change. Some things that were considered good in the past no longer are. Slavery is a good example.[/quote]
slavery is no longer considered a good example - funny how things change ain't it?
though you went around the barn to get to the woodshed, it is good to read that you actually agree with the poster's assertion about the decay of moral fabric.
However, it has already been supported by you that this idea of "good or bad" is absurd...change solely for the sake of change is your only justifiable position...change for the sake of a "hunch" is crystal ball stuff that denigrates your already non-cohesive position.

[_Bazooka]

Interestingly,

On a local radio programme each morning there is a slot for a five minute "thought for the day" made by various religious leaders of all sorts of differing denominations. Todays episode contained a musing about the definition/explanation of "Original Sin". This particular speaker suggested that the term original sin referred not to a specific wrongdoing, but instead was a comment on human kinds natural susceptibility to death. In that Original Sin means that we are prone to being hurt, harmed, injured, damaged and, ultimately, in a state of weakness that results in death.

I'm not sure I have got my head around this thought yet, but I am giving it due consideration and thought it may add something to the thread.

[_Themis]

Subby,

Most people can make mistakes when trying to quote others, but we usually fix it right after.

ask the poster which society, but it seems relatively clear when you read the post in question.

Which ever one it is he never showed how.

So, society is made from a "bunch of" societies...insightful, yet the end result is the same...one society...thanks for bringing the mud to the water.

No mud, just reality that there can be more then one moral fabric in diverse groups. It can be a colorful tapestry.

slavery is no longer considered a good example - funny how things change ain't it?

That can only be true if you consider slavery to be a good thing. It will always be a good example as long as society considers slavery bad. I would hope you think it a good thing for a society changing it's view of having slaves from being a right to being considered wrong.

though you went around the barn to get to the woodshed, it is good to read that you actually agree with the poster's assertion about the decay of moral fabric.

You like to just make things up all the time. People have asked him how zelph's comments are destructive to the moral decay of society. We are still waiting.

However, it has already been supported by you that this idea of "good or bad" is absurd

No one said that. In fact the post that stated this line of discussion brought up the best way to decide on what is good and bad. He just thinks sin is arbitrary rules made by men claiming to represent God in order to control people.

change solely for the sake of change is your only justifiable position...change for the sake of a "hunch" is crystal ball stuff that denigrates your already non-cohesive position.

No one said that either. No wonder people cannot have a reasonable discussion with you. It's a waste of time. Change to moral codes are done when a group may see that something should now be considered bad or good. Again slavery is a great example.

[_subgenius]

Interestingly,

On a local radio programme each morning there is a slot for a five minute "thought for the day" made by various religious leaders of all sorts of differing denominations. Todays episode contained a musing about the definition/explanation of "Original Sin". This particular speaker suggested that the term original sin referred not to a specific wrongdoing, but instead was a comment on human kinds natural susceptibility to death. In that Original Sin means that we are prone to being hurt, harmed, injured, damaged and, ultimately, in a state of weakness that results in death.

I'm not sure I have got my head around this thought yet, but I am giving it due consideration and thought it may add something to the thread.

+1

[_Tobin]

Interestingly,

On a local radio programme each morning there is a slot for a five minute "thought for the day" made by various religious leaders of all sorts of differing denominations. Todays episode contained a musing about the definition/explanation of "Original Sin". This particular speaker suggested that the term original sin referred not to a specific wrongdoing, but instead was a comment on human kinds natural susceptibility to death. In that Original Sin means that we are prone to being hurt, harmed, injured, damaged and, ultimately, in a state of weakness that results in death.

I'm not sure I have got my head around this thought yet, but I am giving it due consideration and thought it may add something to the thread.

+1

I agree. I have Bazooka on ignore because he usually has nothing meaningful to say. Who knew? Anyway, what he reported is an interesting thought.
+1