Here be my problem with "God"

Given that there is no evidence that there is a living god, this definition is meaningless. I might as well define sin as anything that exalts itself abive the divine funckle, it has just as much meaning.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

So if society or your father condones or encourages rape and murder you would find these things acceptable? To me, nothing much. It is a term some thiests use to describe the actions they don't want me, or anyone else, to perform.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Except that the first was a question and not a statement. The question was, however, asked in the hope of getting Phatboy to see that his definition for sin could result in actions I'm fairly sure he considers sinful, instead being the norm and therefore not sinful (by his definition). Morals have always evolved. They are a collection of values and stardards of behaviur that society as a whole finds acceptble. As society changes, so does its morals.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Not some, all. Assuming for the moment that the majority of Germans did think like this and that I was there. The thing is, I don't have to agree with the morals of the society in which I live, however, if I cross the line where society no longer finds my actions acceptable, society will punish me. My choices, either conform to their morals, move to a place that share my morals, try to change their morals, or go against the grain and get punished. There is no 'should', or rather what 'should' be done according to your or I is irrelevant. Those in control will enforce the law that they subscibe too. In a democracy or a republic, they people (society) is able to influence what those laws are and so the laws tend to reflect to morals of the citizens in general. Sometimes, as in a dictatorship, those in control get to make the laws as they please, at least until society has had enough and gets rid of them. Shady or not, it is the way things are. Again, 'should' is irrelevant. Society imposes its own morals, those in control enforce the law. If the law and morals are in agreement then most people are happy, if not... well unhappy people eventually lash out at those that are making them unhappy.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations