The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is everything fun a sin? 1 John 2:15-17

Practices Christian Living
#68

Even if I (or you) read them, do you UNDERSTAND them? Most are in legalize terminology. And I - for one - am NOT a professional lawyer…

Let me quote a little bit, from the article:

Buried in the terms and conditions of the free network was a “Herod clause”: in exchange for the WiFi, “the recipient agreed to assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity”.

Agustín Reyna of the European consumer-rights organisation BEUC told me why: “It’s a consumer contract. No matter what you call them, it’s a contract.”

To get a sense of just how much legal chaff we’re buried under, I decided to spend a week of my life not checking the box marked “I have read and agreed to the terms and conditions” until I had actually, you know, read them. Worse, I would do it retroactively, sitting down to read the T&Cs of services I’d been using for years.

The end results: I collected 146,000 words of legalese – enough to fill three quarters of Moby Dick, just to explain what I can and can’t do online – from just 33 terms-of-service documents. Each document only took me about 15 minutes to read (or, if I’m honest, to skim-read), but I still spent well over eight hours of the week just sitting reading page after page of dry, impenetrable prose.

P.S. One could “legally,” say they read, the “terms and conditions”…if they read the phrase “terms and conditions”. And be honest and truthful - to boot! Although many companies use phrases like this instead:

I understand, accept, and agree to the following terms and conditions t

There is NO “read” in the wording.

#70

EULA’s are unjust and everyone knows that. No one fully understands them. I think it is important for Christian’s to understand the difference between civil and criminal law. It is my opinion that criminal law is primarily what morality is all about it. Typically criminal actions are immoral actions (though not always). Although in the case of civil law, this is most definitely not the case at all.

If I speed, I do not sin. But I do set myself up for a ticket. If someone claims I may endanger people, I say: Getting into a car already does that. Being alive already does that! Everything we do in life comes with potential dangers. If you see sin as something as trivial as speeding, then I’d suggest you take the next step: walk everywhere. After all, getting into that car has the “potential” to harm someone and if any action that could harm someone is considered sin (as is the argument for speeding) then all actions that have the potential to harm someone should be ceased at once. I mean, how far do you want to carry this argument?

There is enough sin in this world that we ought to care about real sin, not trivial stuff. I know people who are careful to go the speed limit because “It would be a sin not too” and yet these people have much more obvious and glaring moral deficiencies that they don’t seem to notice (blind spots).

Worry about the big stuff, and stop fretting over trivial stuff. Well, that’s what I say.

#71

And one should ask an RC or EO priest…and a Protestant minister…whether THEY think that saying that one read the Internet “terms and conditions”…when they did not…is a lie or a sin. I think they would agree with you.

I was once stopped by an officier…for making an illegal U-Turn. But I keep arguing with the officer. I said that I planned to go straight…but the sign said: “No, U-Turn here”.

#72

Correct, Gabe. I also agree with much of the rest of your post.

However, I am not aware of anyone “fretting over trivial stuff.” Rather the discussion seems to revolve around whether some peoples’ actions (that some regard as trivial) are or are not sin—that is, whether or not these actions actually harm others.

#74

Human presumption doesn’t matter. Actual guilt or the lack thereof is the reality. Unless lying is over-ridden by a higher moral imperative, then lying is wrong (even though you might not see wherein that lie is harmful.)
Employers need to be aware of the work abilities of their employees. What if 50 incapable persons lied to a prospective employer, saying that they had never been fired. Do you not see that the employer would be harmed if he hired them?

#76

Well you do open the door to the idea that if lying is superseded by a higher moral idea, than it could possibly be okay…

#77

Look at this…

2Chron 18:22 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”

2Thess 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,…

#78

No. But employers try to ensure that those they hire are going to do their job well in order to maximize their pecuniary advantage. If a lot of prospective employees who have been fired for their inadequate work habits are hired by an employer, the employer is going to lose money. All of this implies that employees ought to tell the truth about their past work experience.

#79

qaz said:[quote]You love to say we’re not judged based on our past behavior but our present character (or something like that).
[/quote]

What do you mean?

#82

Sorry qaz, I’m not understanding.

#84

1 Like
#85

Of course not! But that’s not the point. Employers hire on the basis of statistics. If a large group of prospective employees have been fired in that past, it is likely that many or most in this group will be inadequate workers, resulting in loss for the company.

#87

I HAVE explained it! And that’s no exaggeration of a lie!

#89

Once, I was visiting someone. I asked what they thought, regarding something. And this person retorted to me:

Are you collecting opinions again? What do you think?

Well, that story reminds me of the novel The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hesse:

Let me quote a bit:

The Glass Bead Game is an ultra-aesthetic game which is played by the scholars, creamed off in childhood and nurtured in elite schools, in the province of Castalia. The Master of the Glass Bead Game, Joseph Knecht, holds the most exalted office in Castalia. He personifies the detachment, serenity and aesthetic vision which reward a life dedicated to the perfection of the intellect. But can, indeed should man live isolated from hunger, family, children, women, in a perfect world where passions are tamed by meditation, where academic discipline and order are paramount? This is Herman Hesse’s great novel. It is a major contribution to contemporary philosophic literature and has a powerful vision of universality, the inner unity of man’s cultural ideals and his search for personal perfection and social responsibility.

As an aside, this came from the newsletter today…of RC priest Richard Rohr:

You wouldn’t guess this from the official creeds but, after all is said and done, doing is more important than believing . Jesus was clearly more concerned with what Buddhists call “right action” (“orthopraxy” in Christianity) than with right saying or right thinking. You can hear this message very clearly in his parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-31: One son says he won’t work in the vineyard, but then does, while the other says he will go, but in fact doesn’t. Jesus told his listeners that he preferred the one who actually goes, although saying the wrong words, over the one who says the right words but does not act. How did we miss that?

Sometimes when I visit the forum…I think I’m in Castalia…and folks are collecting opinions, from the noted scholars there. And I am brought back, to that key line:

Are you collecting opinions again? What do you think?

image

#90

qaz, it seems to me that it is YOU who are rationalizing your lie to your prospective employer. You did so for your own self-interests.

Many a murderer does the same. He denies having killed the person that he murdered in order to escape the death penalty or life imprisonment. He might ask a question analogous to the one you asked, “How does it harm anyone if I lied to save my own skin?”

#92

I haven’t dodged it at all. I explained already that your lie, if practised by many will harm the company, since it may be that a goodly number of those who lied, will have been ineffective workers, and that’s the reason they were fired. Then they lied—in order to get a job for which they are not qualified.

Though in your particular case you are able to do the job, and so your lie did no observable harm, if the lie you provided is generalized to many people, the company is harmed.

The case with the murderer who denied having murdered, may be the same. Some particular murderer who denied it might have repented of having killed a fellow human being and would never do so again. So his lie did no observable harm. But again when generalized, there could be great harm resulting from the murderers’ lies. For many of them will kill again, and so a lot of lives will be lost as a result of their lies being believed.

#95

I have explained how the practice of lying about being fired in general can harm an employer. Now you want to know how I think your lie in your particular case harmed anyone. I don’t know whether it did or not. But because I don’t know, doesn’t imply that it’s not morally wrong.

If you continue to practise your “harmless” lies, then you are a liar, and If the writer of Revelation is to be trusted, you will be harming yourself in the afterlife:

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)

#97

All lies are sins!

#99

So, what is the judgment from God above to those who lie?

#100

I don’t know. But did you note my quote from Revelation— 5 posts up?