ST Alpha - "I've been pondering the Duck Dynasty guy thing. I think a lot of people who self-identify as religious or morally conservative make a mistake when" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 161

I've been pondering the Duck Dynasty guy thing. I think a lot of people who self-identify as religious or morally conservative make a mistake when

Posted by landbeck Dec 19 '13, 07:48

they create a false distinction between two types of sins.

One is a sin of indulgence, where the act itself isn't bad but the circumstance. Like breaking the Sabbath by doing something on the Sabbath, or committing adultery/fornication by having a sexual relationship with someone you aren't married to.

The other is a sin of deviance, where you do something that is always wrong, all the time. I don't think anyone is really *that* surprised that conservative guy thinks homosexual behavior is a sin.

The trouble people get into is when they attempt to explain how *this* sin is somehow worse than *that* sin.

The thing is, like I said, it's a false distinction. You can go right through the 10 commandments, and create situational justifications for each of the acts (like killing in war is OK by the sixth commandment, or privateering/seizing assets is OK by the seventh).

All sins are the same, religiously, and its bad to try and rank or distinguish them from one another.

Plus, people need to hire some PR folks to help them talk to the public.

Responses:

It's pretty simple, really. - Spawn Dec 19, 08:19
is "sin" and the large amout of rules in the bible the same if you violate a rule you're performing a sin? -- nm - DaneDukeNuuk Dec 19, 08:15
I've said this before, I think, but some people must be legitimately confused about "the rules" - Reagen Dec 19, 08:14
nice try on the explanation with predictable responses. -- nm - spamlet Dec 19, 08:06
Or, and this is crazy, stop looking at homosexuality as a sin. Just a thought. -- nm - TWuG Dec 19, 07:59 12
- While that's a legitimate and compassionate stance, it's also not compatible with religious history. -- nm - landbeck Dec 19, 08:06 7
  - So compassion loses out to dogma? Nice. -- nm - TWuG Dec 19, 08:16
  - slavery and stoning on the other hand? pretty much ok. -- nm - mafic Dec 19, 08:10 4
    - Execution is a good example of how the sixth commandment can be interpreted. And I don't think slavery was per se ever "OK". - landbeck Dec 19, 08:15 3
      - it was used on both ends of it. - Reagen Dec 19, 08:17 2
        
        I could argue Jesus actually never said anything specific about homosexuality, but he did say slaves should be faithful to their masters. -- nm - mafic Dec 19, 08:21 1
        
        we presume ! -- nm - DaneDukeNuuk Dec 19, 08:23
  - [deleted]
- ridiculous,next you'll say we should be allowed to wear clothes of mixed fiber, and eat meat and dairy together! madness! -- nm - znufrii Dec 19, 08:04 3
  - Do you think religion-based clothing or eating practices are good analogs for the basic relationships comprising society? -- nm - landbeck Dec 19, 08:10 2
    - I think selectively looking at morality through a 2,000+ year old lens might be a little pointless. -- nm - mafic Dec 19, 08:17
    - I think it's illustrative of rules that probably had a benefit when they were first imposed being cast aside once they were no longer needed. - znufrii Dec 19, 08:13

Post a message top

I've been pondering the Duck Dynasty guy thing. I think a lot of people who self-identify as religious or morally conservative make a mistake when

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.