If sin creates victims, then Gays and prostitutes are innocent.
My definition of sin says that sin is something that creates a victim or someone somehow hurt by the action. Someone must stand to complain about any given action before it ca become a sin.
If there is no one that can legitimately say that they were directly or indirectly hurt by the actions of a gay person or prostitute then there is no sin.
The reason I bring up this topic is that I see that secular law will become the law of all nations in the near future. Religious law will become inconsequential to the state.
Even today, there are few states that practice religious law. They are under pressure as we speak to change.
I foresee, that at some point in time, the corner store will become the corner den of legal prostitution, gambling and drugs/alcohol use. Abortion clinics will likely be on the top floor of these corner store.
Some countries presently have laws against these so called victimless crimes. Those laws will eventually disappear.
With my definition of sin, I cannot and would not stop this trend.
I do not see this coming situation as one of a dignified nation populated by dignified men. What used to be restricted to red light districts will be everywhere. This unsightly, some would say ungodly, situation has always existed but at an underground level. Soon it will be above ground.
Is this future as I describe inevitable?
Will religionists have to bite the bullet and just close their eyes as they see their children drawn into this future/present life style?
Regards
DL
I'm guessing you're saying you're not happy that even in your own definition, homosexuality and prostitution isn't sin, and so should be allowed...
Drugs and alcohol are harmful and dangerous. Homosexuals and yes, prostitution, while perhaps morally or biblically reprehensible, are, as you point out, not causing any victims, so I would hardly put them in the same category as drugs.
I'm not sure what your point is, other than the world is going to hell, taking the secular, politically-correct route, and that includes gays, which don't sin but which are as harmful as drugs in contributing to the corruption of all we know.
Perhaps you should rethink and do another draft of your thoughts before you commit them to a forum for discussion, to check for logic errors and clouded thesis.
Jpatt
I am quite happy with my definition of sin.
Gays are a natural condition and should not be discriminated or denigrated as this is basically just cursing nature for being what it is. A rather stupid thing to do, after all nature is what put us all here.
I do not like to see prostitution not because of prostitutes but because prostitutes are often what they are because of abuse in the home. For those at home to then sit back and discriminate or denigrate them is then hypocritical.
I see prostitution as our lowest form of slavery even though they are sometimes well paid for their slavery.
Drugs and alcohol are in and of themselves harmless for most and indeed enjoyable. If not then the custom would die on it's own.
Those who become addicted or do other illegal things while under the influence are the harm you point to. Not the drugs themselves.
How are Gays contributing to corruption and what would be your remedy?
As to my point, I am just showing where we are going and wonder if others see it as an undignified picture as I do.
Regards
DL
SuzieSu
Do you have anything that shows that the parents of Gays are anything but natural people?
If so that would mean that we must weed out these unnatural people before they reproduce. Sterilization is too good for them I tell you.
Here now, Greatest, I'd be a lot more judicious about the way I chose to response to other posters here, even in jest - this forum maintains a high standard of quality and thoughtfulness with fast and efficient enforcement, and has very little tolerance for the kind of response you just gave. You need to be able to discuss things objectively without emotional reaction posts and criticizing other posters themselves. I have two gay aunts, one who got her doctorate in the 60's, founded a world-wide Christian youth organization and wrote a line of Christian children's books, but even if I strongly disagree with someone's viewpoint or logic of their approach to an issue, I try to maintain some decorum, and especially don't post inflammatory accusations - that is the surest way here to be shown the door.
As noted, I've got gay relatives, so have no problem with homosexuals and definitely don't see them as "sinners", but then this opinion is only a hypothetical one, as I'm not a Christian, nor do I believe in sin, so it is what I would think if I were a Christian. I agree it seems like the majority of prostitutes one hears or reads about do seem to come from some sort of dysfunctional environment or even forced into it, and I feel, fall into such a lifestyle and "profession" by desperation or confusion, though there are some I've read about who are proud to be or have previously been a "sex worker", as they call it. I still am not in favor of the practice, but I have to objectively say if it is between truly consenting adults, with one agreeing to pay money to the other for "entertainment", then I think this should be more covered under typical capitalist business policies, with healthcare, workers' rights and insurance and maybe taxes, not sure about that last, due to it being a "service industry".
Author of this Thread is required to respond here: Source 6 before replying or adding anymore content to this Commuity.