NationStates Jolt Archive

And that would be theft.

Murder? Theft of life.

Adultery? Theft of wife.

Slavery? Theft of free will, happiness, etc.

Can anyone think of any crime that can't in some way be covered by theft? Why do many Christians these days think that so many things are "wrong" that technically do not harm anyone?

Great. Another ad hominem, Christian-bashing thread. :headbang:

*makes a note to ignore this thread from here on out*

I have to disagree. Its not theft, its hunger, unchecked hunger, be it for money, people, power, pleasure, entertainment, validation, respect.

You don't get it.

"Sin" is a breach in the relationship with God.

Jaywalking, underage drinking/smoking, prostitution, incest, the list goes on.

You don't get it.

"Sin" is a breach in the relationship with God.

Hits the spot. Breach against God, not necessarily against man.

Edited:
Ahh fuck it I was just flame baiting anyways ... was bored ...
Plus that was really offensive ... and derailing

Actually, ignoring the Christian-bashing aspect of it, it's not such a ridiculous point. Crimes usually are theft, in one form of another, theft of property, dignity, right to choose, etc. Then there's a second category of things that are illegal but only to protect you (jaywalking, underage drinking/smoking). I would argue that prostitution not be a crime, and in most places it isn't but solicitation is and profitting from another person's prostitution is - and rightly so.

We increasingly live in a world where civil cases follow criminal ones, and a money value is placed on the "theft" whether it is of life or property or whatever. Which is vvery interesting, because in much of mediaeval europe, and especially Germanic and Anglo-Saxon areas the principle of "weregeld" was the underscore of law, if you killed my brother you ahd to pay me money (fixed at a level depending on his social status), if you stole from me you paid me money, if you cheated with my wife, you paid me money.

Sin = something christians made up back in the day to make the population of Europe do what they wanted.

Twaddle. Sin as a concept is thousands of years older than Christianity, and sin is only a breach of God's law, that's why Jews only attone for breaches of Torah commandments on Yom Kippur and not for anything they did to another human being - that you have to fix yourself and make right with the person you wronged. Sin is and only is a religious concept, crime is another matter entirely. That the two sometimes overlap is irrelevant.

You want a sin? Inhospitability to strangers. Try equating that one with theft.

"Right" & "Wrong" are human preconceptions are therefore wrong by default.

I'm not quite sure of the definition of sin, but I assume its just one of those nonsensical things that humans believe in to avoid going insane.

As to whether or not god exists I neither know nor care. If he does exist then I approve of him because he obviously hates humans as much as I do.

""Right" & "Wrong" are human preconceptions are therefore wrong by default."

Ooh! Onward, postmodern soldiers!

Next time I need a defense for raping my retarded brother and throwing his body in a wood chipper I'll come to you.

"Next time I need a defense for raping my retarded brother and throwing his body in a wood chipper I'll come to you.

Next time??? Crikey!

;)

Yeah, last time I just said I was following orders.

Worked like a charm.

to Texpunditistan: I had no particular desire to bash Christians until they attempted to force me to live my life according to their precepts. I still have no desire to bash non-prosletyzing/non-evangelical Christians. Along those lines, I had no desire to bash Muslims until they started deliberately killing innnocent people to send a political message. I have no problem with fasicts as long as they let me pack my things and leave the country whenever I want, and don't invade wherever I go, or otherwise persecute those who do not wish to be among fascits. Those who attempt to bring others into their belief system, or way of life, have always encountered hostility. Christianity has been the largest and longest lasting evangelical religion in human history, and many forms of it condemn and attempt to surpress non-christian behavior. If it had not been for the positive messages within Christianity, it would likely have gone the way of the Roman gods, and perished with the empire that spread it. Count yourselves lucky that the killings of so many heretics, heathens, and other infidels has been returned upon you so lightly. I understand the Christian desire to have their moral standards reflected by their nations laws, but the fact is that founders of this nation made it very clear that they believed that religious beliefs and morals should be protected from persecution by other religions, with larger popular bases. You might be happier founding a new nation, and I would encourage you to do so. The land between the Appalacians and the Rockies would be an excellent location.

to The Downmarching Void: The hunger is the motivator, the theft is the action. Which is the sin depends on the person's relationship with god, but only the theft can be the crime, policing thoughts is neither practical nor desireable.

to Theao: The point of this thread, and the reason it was construed as Christian-bashing, both stem from the fact the none of the things you list require a victim. With the exception of jaywalking, they are illegal because the society we live in has been shaped by two thousand years of Christian morality to consider these things wrong. While people are harmed by underage drinking/smoking, for example, the people harmed are the perpetrators. When, however, a person encourages an underage person to drink, or provides them with the means, they are stealing a small amount of innocence. The fact that people can be victimized by prostitution does not mean that prostitution is the cause of the victimization. People are frequently harmed in cases of incest, but that does not mean that incest universally causes harm. The argument being made is that these are not inherently bad things, and need not be crimes. (Or sins, depending on the theological base, since sin is, as Pirates put it, a breach of one's relationship with God). I made the exceptions for jaywalking earlier because jaywalking is a moving violation, not a crime, and for the same basic reason that running red lights is a moving violation, namely, because without rules governing their operation, public roads would be too chaotic for practical use.

"Right" & "Wrong" are human preconceptions are therefore wrong by default.

So the human judgement of what is wrong is...wrong. Of course!

Seriously though, to me, all wrong doing is destruction of happiness. Therefore, I declare being bored is indefensibly immoral.

Basically I experience happiness and joy as the ultimate goal because of it's existence as the basic reward. And other beings with similar cognitive functions probably exist, there happiness being equivelant to mine. So I desire the highest total amount of happiness for all cognitive entities in the universe. Deviation from this is wrong in a certain amount proportional to the amount of happiness destroyed.

So I believe sin is destruction, not theft.

Wow, alot happened while I was writing that.
We increasingly live in a world where civil cases follow criminal ones, and a money value is placed on the "theft" whether it is of life or property or whatever. Which is vvery interesting, because in much of mediaeval europe, and especially Germanic and Anglo-Saxon areas the principle of "weregeld" was the underscore of law, if you killed my brother you ahd to pay me money (fixed at a level depending on his social status), if you stole from me you paid me money, if you cheated with my wife, you paid me money.
You don't really mean Medeival Europe, you mean Germanic pre-Christian Europe, but you are more or less correct. There was effectively no Criminal law, there was only civil law, that is to say, suits for compensation, (Almost always financial) as a result of harm done. 'Wereguild,' by the way, is a term for the compensation paid for a killing. As far as I know, the concept became part of American law when the American founders decided to retain English common law as a source of precedents, and had been part of English common law, albeit becoming more formalized and less invoked under Norman rule, ever since the Saxons more or less took over the south of Great Britain.

And that would be theft.

Murder? Theft of life.

Adultery? Theft of wife.

Slavery? Theft of free will, happiness, etc.

Can anyone think of any crime that can't in some way be covered by theft? Why do many Christians these days think that so many things are "wrong" that technically do not harm anyone?

This is idiotic. Are you the victim of a theft of your sense of logical coherency? Theft doesn't mean any of those things. I could just as easily claim that all evils boil down to murder.

Theft? Murder of ownership.
Slander? Murder of persona.
This thread? Murder of standards of intelligence.

Before claiming that one sin is the equivalant of another check to see what your words mean.

I wouldn't even have bothered to respond here had it not been for recent politicians claiming that Democrats didn't mearly want to filibuster judicial appointments but to "kill" and "assassinate" the judges themselves. Clearly they meant those judges' careers, but that's not what they said. They accused the entire democratic party of attempted murder, indulging yet again in their favorite vice, projection.

People, figurative use of language can not be taken literally. If it is then the entire English language becomes nothing but gibberish. Words have meaning, if you don't know what they are then don't pretend that you can engage in meaningful discussions.

... What? You don't think much, do you?

Sin is somthing people can only commit if they have a conscience. A dog can not commit sin because it dos'nt know wrong from right. Humans feel guilt (Most of them) but I wonder if schizophrenics can commit a sin, thats not to say they have no souls. But they do have trouble knowing right from wrong?

... What? You don't think much, do you?

*blink* Who is that in reference to? Domici? The original poster?

You don't really mean Medeival Europe, you mean Germanic pre-Christian Europe, but you are more or less correct.

I assure you, I did mean Mediaeval Europe, I meant Anglo-Saxon England in particular but I did also say Germanic regions. I'm a mediaeval historian by profession, I grant that "early mediaeval europe" might have been a better term, but I was not talking about pre-Christian Europe.

The creator of this thread obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

You challenge us to find a crime that can be described as not being theft, when the topic of your thread is "Every sin...". Sin is different then crime and most definately cannot all be defined by theft.

You also ask about the 'not right, but nobody get's hurt' thing with Christians. It's not that people are getting hurt, it's that they're disobeying God's law and His will are literally causing they're own demise. You may call me a Christian fanatic with a horrible outlook on life, but it's true, and I stand by my beliefs and my faith.

If it weren't for the saving grace of Jesus Christ, all of us would be hell-bound. Every last person - even the Pope (which I don't recognize, btw).

S

Seriously though, to me, all wrong doing is destruction of happiness. Therefore, I declare being bored is indefensibly immoral.

Basically I experience happiness and joy as the ultimate goal because of it's existence as the basic reward. And other beings with similar cognitive functions probably exist, there happiness being equivelant to mine. So I desire the highest total amount of happiness for all cognitive entities in the universe. Deviation from this is wrong in a certain amount proportional to the amount of happiness destroyed.


You're right, a purely utilitarian system is one of the most appealing ethical theories for those who really sit down and think about it. However, there are a couple fairly big problems with any moral system that completely avoids deontological considerations. Two major problems:

1. It's too demanding. If my goal is to provide the greatest happiness for all humans (let alone all conscious beings in the universe), why should I be typing right now? Shouldn't I be out working so I can make more money so I can give more to charity? Sure, I wouldn't have a computer, because that $800 would make a starving child in Africa MUCH more happy than it would make me. Of course you could say that this is what I should be doing, and I would respond that any moral system which makes outrageous demands of imperfect beings is stupid and detrimental.

2. It allows too much. Let's do a thought experiment. I'm a doctor, and Harry came in for a check-up. He's in great health, but I've got 5 other people who are dying for lack of organ transplants. Interestingly, Harry is a perfect genetic match for all five. Let's assume that I can create the "perfect accidental murder" of Harry and no one would ever know that I killed him for his organs. According to a Utilitarian system, I would be obligated to kill Harry and harvest his organs. Remember, this is a thought experiment, so we can assume that all the transplants are successful and the five saved patients had cumulatively more happiness gained by living than Harry did by dying.

If you can fix those two, Utilitarianism is damn near perfect.

I always wonder why muslims commit more sins then other people, is their something wrong with them?

2. It allows too much. Let's do a thought experiment. I'm a doctor, and Harry came in for a check-up. He's in great health, but I've got 5 other people who are dying for lack of organ transplants. Interestingly, Harry is a perfect genetic match for all five. Let's assume that I can create the "perfect accidental murder" of Harry and no one would ever know that I killed him for his organs. According to a Utilitarian system, I would be obligated to kill Harry and harvest his organs. Remember, this is a thought experiment, so we can assume that all the transplants are successful and the five saved patients had cumulatively more happiness gained by living than Harry did by dying.

... and this is why I don't believe in Utilitarianism.

I always wonder why muslims commit more sins then other people, is their something wrong with them?

W-what? Muslims don't necessarily commit more sin, but it's just that they have a false beliefs within their religion that they do not see as sin. ( For example, committing suicide to kill the enemy get's them into their Heaven )

... and this is why I don't believe in Utilitarianism.



W-what? Muslims don't necessarily commit more sin, but it's just that they have a false beliefs within their religion that they do not see as sin. ( For example, committing suicide to kill the enemy get's them into their Heaven )

But muslims commit so many sin I don't understand why they would think they can get into heaven? Why do muslims kill people?

It isn't "theft". Theft is a sin, therefore it would require something higher to motivate it itself.

In essence, Christian sin is caused by a lack or over-application/sensation of fear. To lack fear, namely that of God, which is commanded of humanity, is to make ourselves the judges of our own fate, thereby disturbing one of the many facets of divine power. Too much fear, however, is to show a lack of faith that God is powerful enough to enact His own design, and, therefore, states that God is lying to us, in that He is less of a deity than He would so tell us. Fear itself, controlled and righteous, is not a sin, but actually a more neutral, guiding force - and so, it, when twisted out of proportion, becomes cause enough to create a "breach with God" (as said before - and well-stated).

But muslims commit so many sin I don't understand why they would think they can get into heaven? Why do muslims kill people?

For the same reasons any other people kill people. I don't think this is a productive line of discussion, and I think the assumption that muslims are worse offenders is a very flawed one.

-snip-

to The Downmarching Void: The hunger is the motivator, the theft is the action. Which is the sin depends on the person's relationship with god, but only the theft can be the crime, policing thoughts is neither practical nor desireable.

-snip-

Without motivation, there is no action. Besides, many religions hold that merely thinking about commiting a sin is nearly or as bad as commiting it.

But muslims commit so many sin I don't understand why they would think they can get into heaven? Why do muslims kill people?

Onward Christian Soldiers?

Onward Muslim Terrorists?

Odd...

Adultery? Theft of wife.

Yeah, because implying that a human being is owned by another human being, that's just fine. *insert eye roll here*

And that would be theft.

Murder? Theft of life.

Adultery? Theft of wife.

Slavery? Theft of free will, happiness, etc.

Can anyone think of any crime that can't in some way be covered by theft? Why do many Christians these days think that so many things are "wrong" that technically do not harm anyone? The crimes that harm no one else actually harm yourself.

Sin is somthing people can only commit if they have a conscience. A dog can not commit sin because it dos'nt know wrong from right. Humans feel guilt (Most of them) but I wonder if schizophrenics can commit a sin, thats not to say they have no souls. But they do have trouble knowing right from wrong? If you are insane, you are not responsible for your own actions, therefore you cannot do wrong - nor right.

I myself have been diagnosed with schizophrenia (and a whole bunch of other shit...psychologists are all morons), but I doubt I would believe in 'right' and 'wrong' even if I was (quote)normal(unquote). Pfft, normal. No such thing.

I hear voices inside my head and outside my head. Voices are voices, wherever they come from. I listen to none of them, as I know they are all ultimately, pitifully, stupidly WRONG.

Everything is wrong. This world will stop soon. It must.

You want a sin? Inhospitability to strangers. Try equating that one with theft.



You're stealing their right to hospitality ;)

Why is everyone beating up on Christians? It's not like they invented sin or have meanest laws out there.

Why is everyone beating up on Christians? It's not like they invented sin or have meanest laws out there.

*slinks in* Yeah....I was pretty tired last night...randomly posted....I didn't mean to sound so anti-Christian... But to at least attempt to answer your question... Christians are generally the only religious group I have day to day contact with, and as a whole (by no means all, I know many religious people who are very nice and let other people live their lives how they see fit) they have un-failingly struck me as rather....uncompromising on things that I disagree with. If it hurts noone, it shouldn't be considered "wrong" (forget the akward phrasing of "crime" or "sin"). I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-zealot...so I'm sorry if I"ve offended anyone.

Why is everyone beating up on Christians? It's not like they invented sin or have meanest laws out there.
Meh, Christians control all three branches of my government and have their holidays nationally recognized and endorsed. If people feel cranky and want to vent, they can take a few for the team :).

You're right, a purely utilitarian system is one of the most appealing ethical theories for those who really sit down and think about it. However, there are a couple fairly big problems with any moral system that completely avoids deontological considerations. Two major problems:

1. It's too demanding. If my goal is to provide the greatest happiness for all humans (let alone all conscious beings in the universe), why should I be typing right now? Shouldn't I be out working so I can make more money so I can give more to charity? Sure, I wouldn't have a computer, because that $800 would make a starving child in Africa MUCH more happy than it would make me. Of course you could say that this is what I should be doing, and I would respond that any moral system which makes outrageous demands of imperfect beings is stupid and detrimental.

2. It allows too much. Let's do a thought experiment. I'm a doctor, and Harry came in for a check-up. He's in great health, but I've got 5 other people who are dying for lack of organ transplants. Interestingly, Harry is a perfect genetic match for all five. Let's assume that I can create the "perfect accidental murder" of Harry and no one would ever know that I killed him for his organs. According to a Utilitarian system, I would be obligated to kill Harry and harvest his organs. Remember, this is a thought experiment, so we can assume that all the transplants are successful and the five saved patients had cumulatively more happiness gained by living than Harry did by dying.

If you can fix those two, Utilitarianism is damn near perfect.

1. I'm typing on a computer my parents bought. And I could sell it I suppose, but that would greatly deppreciate it's value (plus my parents wouldn't let me). Plus, while I'm using the computer, I'm developing important skills to use for a job which would earn me more money, enabling me to spend more on charity. Why would a moral system that has difficult demands be stupid? It would be a lot easier to have no morals, wouldn't it? But you don't go around killing people when you won't get caught, because you know it's wrong. It's the same thing with letting children die in Africa, they're just farther away.

2. The assumption that all the transplants would work is unnecessary. Plus, transplanted organs would shorten the lives of the people compared to if they had originally healthy organs, such as Harry. Plus, killing Harry would make me very unhappy, as well as Harry's family, who do not expect him to die, as opposed to the five people who are already dying. I suppose if Harry was very old, it may be the right thing to do to kill him. But in my opinion, you shouldn't disregard a moral philosophy simply because it appears ugly from the point of view of accepted moral philosophy.

And not everybody will be perfect. But it is still better to try to attain as close to moral perfection as reasonably possible.

Sin is somthing people can only commit if they have a conscience. A dog can not commit sin because it dos'nt know wrong from right.

Oh yes dogs do! I don't know if you've had a pet dog before, but they clearly understand when they did something they weren't supposed to. Otherwise you'd never be able to housetrain them.

Why is everyone beating up on Christians? It's not like they invented sin or have meanest laws out there.

For the same reason you try to beat up on conservatives. It makes them feel superior to someone else. Fortunately it is something most grow out of to a certain extent, depending on one's security within themselves.

deleted - misunderstood

You don't get it.

"Sin" is a breach in the relationship with God.


Wow, uh...I hope you are "saved", "born again", or however you want to say it. you just showed more wisdom in your 2 sentences than I have seen in the whole time I have been on here.

And that would be theft.

Murder? Theft of life.

Adultery? Theft of wife.

Slavery? Theft of free will, happiness, etc.

Can anyone think of any crime that can't in some way be covered by theft? Why do many Christians these days think that so many things are "wrong" that technically do not harm anyone?

Masturbation? Theft of spermies.

Why is everyone beating up on Christians? It's not like they invented sin or have meanest laws out there.

Because in this country they're the only ones who have both the political power and the inclination to push their view of morality on to others. It's also leading them to be fairly intolerant. Remember that whole "Jews are destroying Christmas" parade FOX was on last year?

I don't really feel like looking for the news stories, so I'll just share this. (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18270)

You want a sin? Inhospitability to strangers. Try equating that one with theft.


While that IS rude, I cant honestly back it as a sin.

But muslims commit so many sin I don't understand why they would think they can get into heaven? Why do muslims kill people?

Why were there Crusades? People from any religion can twist righteous teachings to there own gain

I have to disagree. Its not theft, its hunger, unchecked hunger, be it for money, people, power, pleasure, entertainment, validation, respect.

Greed leads to hunger leads to theft. That way the darkside is. mmmmmm.

Any law based on enforcing civility as a certain morality/ethos views it:

Speeding, improper lane changes, most moving violations including DUI (any "theft" of life or porperty as a result of DUI infractions are secondary to the DUI, which, barring a nearly psychotic misanthropy, isn't stealing).*
Littering.
Loitering.
Obscenity laws / "Blue" laws.
Narcotics laws.
Laws against prostitution**, polygamy, gay marriage, sodomy, bestiality and other "consensual" crimes (NOTE, I'm not in FAVOR of besitality, it's just an example).
Jaywalking.
Drunk & disorderly in public / disturbing the peace.

That's all I have off the top of my addled pate.



*However, NOT parking violations, 'cause that can boil down to theft of parking services / spaces. Theft implies intent or at least a wanton disregard of others' property.

**However, NOT pimping. Profiting off someone else's work by extortion and violence qualifies as theft.

While most people have tried to put some thoght into this discussion, I've seen two of the biggest idiots since Drunk Commies' puppet died. Of course it would be impolite to name them.

I guess I'm hell-bound along with all those murdering muslims.

How about all those absurd Leviticus sins? You know, the ones you can cure by walking three times counter-clockwise around a slaughtered calf while holding a dead chicken in your outstretched hand, etc.?

What am I stealing by touching my wife while she is menstruating? (braces for the answer...)

I assure you, I did mean Mediaeval Europe, I meant Anglo-Saxon England in particular but I did also say Germanic regions. I'm a mediaeval historian by profession, I grant that "early mediaeval europe" might have been a better term, but I was not talking about pre-Christian Europe.

Ah. I will defer to you, being as yet only a student. I'm not as well grounded as I might be in the rest of european history, but I was under the impresion that outside of Saxon England, and Scandinavia, the arrival of Christianity more or less put an end to the use of the wereguild, at least for a few centuries.

What am I stealing by touching my wife while she is menstruating? (braces for the answer...) Doesn't that come under the "ewwwwwww" heading? ;)

Am I the only one who started hearing the beginnings of another religion's famous dictates in the first post?

All problems stem from desire.

Desire is to want things, to want things means to try to take them; thus stealing.

With this most basic of understandings, Buddhism was born.

It would later be turned into a priesthood and an orthodoxy or three...all of which have fairly little to do with its' founder's ideals.

And that would be theft.

Actually according to Kant it would be using a human merely as a means, without seeing him as an end at the same time ;) Or to rephrase in the words of Granny Weatherwax:

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."

I personally would replace people/humans by "things with feelings", but that's just me.

Every sin or wrong doing boils down to one thing...

And that would be theft.

Murder? Theft of life.

Adultery? Theft of wife.

Slavery? Theft of free will, happiness, etc.

Can anyone think of any crime that can't in some way be covered by theft? Why do many Christians these days think that so many things are "wrong" that technically do not harm anyone?

Allow me to put in my part of this discussion.

Now if you don't believe in God, I really don't care. I am not going to tell you that my faith is the true faith, or even argue the validity of my faith. All I ask is thatyou be the best person you could possibly be.

Now, the basic point is simple:

All sin is equal in God's eyes.

Some might say that every sin boils down to the theft of something. Hmmm, let's check this, shall we, using the ten commandments, which can all be found in Exodus 20:1-17:

1 - Thou shalt have none other gods before me ~ So, what are we stealing here? God's right to be worship? Not quite.

2 - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments ~ Here what has been stolen? Again, you could attempt to argue that we are stealing God's "spotlight" (for lack of a better word), but God is always in the "spotlight" so all we are doing robbing ourselves the joy of worshipping God, but by legal definition, you cannot steal from yourself.

3 - Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain ~ You could argue that we are stealing God's name, but actually we are abusing it - there is a difference.

4 - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it ~ Do not dare say "we are stealing the Sabbath Day" because I might just have to slap you. Again, not keeping the day holy is ABUSING it, not stealing it.

5 - Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee ~ Stealing what, here? The father's and mother's respect? Nope, because you can have respect for others, but if you choose not to, you are stealing anything, you are simply not giving them something. Hmm, that's six commandments without stealinga single thing so far. Let us continue.

6 - Thou shalt not kill ~ Ah, now we reach the first commandment that fits your argument! Murder - the stealing of life. Well done. We have found a huge total of 1!

7 - Thou shalt not commit adultery ~ Hey, the stealing of someone's wife or husband. Hey, that's 2 now. Rock on.

8 - Thou shalt not steal ~ 3 - wow.

9 - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour ~ Lying huh? Stealing the truth? NO! Try again. Whilststealing and dishonesty are simlar, they are not identical.

10 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's ~ So, being jealous and wanting what other people have is now stealing is it? I think not, my friend.

So out of the Ten Commandments we have found a grand total of three that support your claim, yet one of those was "Thou Shalt Steal"....

Ofcourse there are other sins. Vanity...Alcholism...drug-taking...but as I have proven, NOT ALL SINS BOIL DOWN TO THE THEFT OF SOMETHING!

A few of them can , but not all of them.

Sorry to burst your bubble...

Of course, the Ten Commandments, important though they are, do not even begin to encompass the body of law contained in the Old Testament. There's another 603 commandments to consider.

Yes, but the argument that the guy who created this thread was that ALL sin is stealing.

I have proved that wrong with the Ten Commandements.

Therefore, I need not mention the other 600+ commandements.