Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering experiment

Alec wrote:
> :Jane Jefferson wrote:
> :> The heart and soul of the problem is that "sin", "freedom", "good",
> :> and "evil" are abstract concepts which fluctuate from individual to
> :> individual.

> Not only from individual to individual.
> Please consider the changes in the concepts of "sin", "freedom", "good",
> and "evil" which occur over time even within the same individual; to
> wit the on and off again love affair with our nation's past "enemies;
> individual responses to drug use especially alcohol; premarital sex
> (ok for me but not my daughter).
> This constant flux within both society and individual makes creation
> and implementation of rules extremely difficult and hazardous.

The idea that "sin" and "evil" are abstract and somewhat arbitrary is
merely a human (and therefore faulty) perception.

If God can be perfect by definition (for sake of argument), then "sin"
is taking one's attention from God's intent and turning to man's intent,
which is inherently selfish.  "Evil" is the selfish thing you do, when
you should do the unselfish thing.

These are not that difficult to understand, but are easily twisted by
selfish minds.

A gentleman wrote to Southern Partisan magazine a few years ago and
said "Real freedom is not the license to do whatever you want, but
rather the liberty to do what you ought to do".

Thorn:
> Alec wrote:
> The idea that "sin" and "evil" are abstract and somewhat arbitrary is
> merely a human (and therefore faulty) perception.
> If God can be perfect by definition (for sake of argument), then "sin"

     Somewhere in the above three lines, someone is making a hell of an
asumption. See also "The Euthphro Question", plato.

> A gentleman wrote to Southern Partisan magazine a few years ago and
> said "Real freedom is not the license to do whatever you want, but
> rather the liberty to do what you ought to do".

     No, real freedom is being able to decide for yourself what you ought to
do--or--who the hell decides what I ought to do?

snow wrote:
> Thorn:
> > Alec wrote:
> > The idea that "sin" and "evil" are abstract and somewhat arbitrary is
> > merely a human (and therefore faulty) perception.
> > If God can be perfect by definition (for sake of argument), then "sin"

> Somewhere in the above three lines, someone is making a hell of an
> asumption. See also "The Euthphro Question", plato.

Humans do OK with simple issues, example: 1 + 1 = 2.  Especially true
if the issue has no inherent moral/ethical tie-in.  Once you get past
the simple, however, you start seeing motivation, personal imperative,
etc., which leads to hidden agendas and lies.  When I speak of God,
I'm not surrendering any personal power, or subscribing to your God
concept necessarily (e.g. Plato), I'm just defining an object of
pure reason that is free of human self-interest, for sake of argument.

> > A gentleman wrote to Southern Partisan magazine a few years ago and
> > said "Real freedom is not the license to do whatever you want, but
> > rather the liberty to do what you ought to do".

> No, real freedom is being able to decide for yourself what you ought to
> do--or--who the hell decides what I ought to do?

My example shows that real freedom goes hand-in-hand with
responsibility.
A person could interpret my example in a way that "what you ought to do"
is defined and controlled by external parties, but that was not my point
or the point of the original author.