There is no such thing as a sin therefore we are innocent

[bahman]

You are either wise enough or not. In the first case, you don't do mistakes and in the second case, you do. Either way, we are innocent because in the second case doing mistakes are unavoidable.

The point is to be open that you can do mistakes and learn from them once you realize that you did a mistake. You become wise when you are old enough and learn from your mistakes.

[Impenitent]

innocence is no excuse

-Imp

[blissfulmole]

innocence is no excuse word wipe

-Imp

Yes that's how is done.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are either wise enough or not. In the first case, you don't do mistakes and in the second case, you do. Either way, we are innocent because in the second case doing mistakes are unavoidable.

The point is to be open that you can do mistakes and learn from them once you realize that you did a mistake. You become wise when you are old enough and learn from your mistakes.

Yours is not a wise OP.
I don't get what you are trying to point out?

As long as one is a contracted-Christian with the Christian God and Jesus, there is sin as defined within the terms of contract [covenant].
Thus if a Christian commit a sin as defined, he is not innocent in respect to that sin.

Within the secular there is no concept of sin rather there is a crime or infraction against certain specified laws or rules.

[bahman]

You are either wise enough or not. In the first case, you don't do mistakes and in the second case, you do. Either way, we are innocent because in the second case doing mistakes are unavoidable.

The point is to be open that you can do mistakes and learn from them once you realize that you did a mistake. You become wise when you are old enough and learn from your mistakes.

Yours is not a wise OP.
I don't get what you are trying to point out?

As long as one is a contracted-Christian with the Christian God and Jesus, there is sin as defined within the terms of contract [covenant].
Thus if a Christian commit a sin as defined, he is not innocent in respect to that sin.

Within the secular there is no concept of sin rather there is a crime or infraction against certain specified laws or rules.

Read sin as a wrong action.

[Harbal]

Read sin as a wrong action.

Wrong in relation to what?

[bahman]

Read sin as a wrong action.

Wrong in relation to what?

What do you mean?

[Harbal]

Read sin as a wrong action.

Wrong in relation to what?

What do you mean?

Well, adultery is a sin (wrong) because God has decreed it so. The wrongness of it lies in God's disapproval of it. How do you define "wrong" in a secular context?

[bahman]

Wrong in relation to what?

What do you mean?

Well, adultery is a sin (wrong) because God has decreed it so. The wrongness of it lies in God's disapproval of it. How do you define "wrong" in a secular context?

Morality is about the rightness and wrongness of an action. Normally two people are involved when we are discussing morality and that is where we could have a conflict of interest. Other than that you have all right about your life. You however have no right to the life of other people so there could be no tension between two people if you accept this rule. For example, adultery is not wrong since it is the right of another person to have sex with another partner.

[Harbal]

Morality is about the rightness and wrongness of an action. Normally two people are involved when we are discussing morality and that is where we could have a conflict of interest. Other than that you have all right about your life. You however have no right to the life of other people so there could be no tension between two people if you accept this rule. For example, adultery is not wrong since it is the right of another person to have sex with another partner.

But adultery doesn't just affect the two parties directly involved in it. If others are hurt because of it, then it would be legitimate to regard it as being morally wrong, and when you judge someone to have committed a morally wrong act, how are you to consider them "innocent?

[bahman]

Morality is about the rightness and wrongness of an action. Normally two people are involved when we are discussing morality and that is where we could have a conflict of interest. Other than that you have all right about your life. You however have no right to the life of other people so there could be no tension between two people if you accept this rule. For example, adultery is not wrong since it is the right of another person to have sex with another partner.

But adultery doesn't just affect the two parties directly involved in it. If others are hurt because of it, then it would be legitimate to regard it as being morally wrong, and when you judge someone to have committed a morally wrong act, how are you to consider them "innocent?

Others should not get hurt if they are open-minded and realize that they don't own people.

[Harbal]

Others should not get hurt if they are open-minded and realize that they don't own people.

So if some woman's husband is unfaithful to her, she shouldn't let it bother her, because you say so?

[bahman]

Others should not get hurt if they are open-minded and realize that they don't own people.

So if some woman's husband is unfaithful to her, she shouldn't let it bother her, because you say so?

Not because I say so but because it is the right thing to do. Her husband is not part of her property.

[Harbal]

Not because I say so but because it is the right thing to do. Her husband is not part of her property.

So she has no claim on his loyalty, even though he has made a commitment to her?

[bahman]

Not because I say so but because it is the right thing to do. Her husband is not part of her property.

So she has no claim on his loyalty, even though he has made a commitment to her?

People make wrong commitments all the time.