What is sin?

[maycocksean]

Personally, I believe I don't aspire to be holy. I try to make choices that line up with what I think God wants me to be. That has nothing to do with holiness. I'm called holy by God because I chose to accept what Jesus did for me not because of any action on my part.

I thought Yolland's question was a good one and it raises another question.

How do you define "holy"? Is there even any practical definitiion outside of the theological one?

I find that Christians (and I'm sure othe faiths, but I'm a Christian so I'll speak about what I know) throw around these terms "sin" "holiness" "grace" etc and I often wonder if they have any real significance to anyone outside the Christian faith, and furthermore if they even have the correct connotatin within the faith?(though the second part of that question would certainly be subject to a lof debate among Christians)

Again, the question is open to all regardless of faith.

 

[maycocksean]

Why foolish?

Cuz we would have already hashed this out and I totally forgot.

 

[shart1780]

Oh well. It was a good discussion in the past. Don't see why it can't be good now.

 

[maycocksean]

I've never understood how this view could be logically defended.

If there is no God, and if we are truly sophisticated animals with no true soul, then what does right and wrong really matter at all? It wouldn't.

Let's say The human race evolved from soulless creatures and we're still soulless creatures that will just dissolve into the dust when we die like every other animal. How is there truly any wrong at all? If there is no universal right or wrong we are simply masses of flesh bumping into eachother on a tiny ball in space.

If we are fleshy masses with no real purpose (except maybe the percieve purpose society makes up for us), why is it wrong to kill? All it would be is the act of causing another mass of flesh to cease to live. Why is that "wrong"? Why is it not wrong for my cat to kill a mouse for sport?

And if morals are decided by society, then who's to say the ancient Mayan cultures who practiced savage human sacrifice were morally wrong? In there minds that was perfectly acceptable because society said so. Something can't be wrong in one part of the world and right in another.

If right and wrong are only dictated by society than I'd say that morals are a pretty stupid and petty thing.

So your definition of sin, put simply would be sin=immorality=whatever God says is bad. Correct?

So based on your definition, people who don't believe in God could not then believe in sin. I know you can't see a rationale for morality outside of faith (remember the atheism thread you brought down last summer?) So let's leave it at that for a moment.

It is clear that most atheists/agnostics DO believe that some things are immoral. Addressing those of you on the forum with those views, do you have a practical use for the term "sin" or do you see it strictly theological term. Whether as practical "secular" term, or as you understand believers to use it, what do you understand the term sin to mean. A Wanderer said "The good stuff." Vincent Vega mentioned "things that Christians believe God doesn't want them to do" or something to that affect.

Any other thoughts?

 

[maycocksean]

Oh well. It was a good discussion in the past. Don't see why it can't be good now.

True, true.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I've never understood how this view could be logically defended.

If there is no God, and if we are truly sophisticated animals with no true soul, then what does right and wrong really matter at all? It wouldn't.

Let's say The human race evolved from soulless creatures and we're still soulless creatures that will just dissolve into the dust when we die like every other animal. How is there truly any wrong at all? If there is no universal right or wrong we are simply masses of flesh bumping into eachother on a tiny ball in space.

If we are fleshy masses with no real purpose (except maybe the percieve purpose society makes up for us), why is it wrong to kill? Al it would be is the act of causing another mass of flesh to cease to live. Why is that "wrong"? Why is it not wrong for my cat to kill a mouse for sport?

And if morals are decided by society, then who's to say the ancient Mayan cultures who practice savage human sacrifice were morally wrong? In there minds that was perfectly acceptable because society said so. Something can't be wrong in one part of the world and right in another. It just doesn't make sense.

If right and wrong are only dictated by society than I'd say that morals are a pretty stupid and petty thing.

And that is what I don't get with religious people. The notion that they have a monopoly on morality. That they are the only ones capable of feelings, forgiveness, and so on.
Ever read Kant? He gives some answers.

I'm sure you have interacted with other non-religious people, or read some posts on here from people like me, A_Wanderer or dazzlingamy. Did you ever get the feeling that we are blood thirsty, immoral creature seeing every person as a pile of flesh and bones?

As I said, morality is not a religious term that doesn't apply to atheists or agnostics, or people from other religions.

I value other people, as I value other creatures. I reject any killing for fun.

I don't think we are so much superior of animals. But on the other hand, animals usually don't kill for pleasure. Either they are hungry, or they are defending themselves.
I'm not a cat expert to know why they play with a mouse, but I think it's insulting to say a non-religious person like me would do the same thing, only because we don't believe that there is something in Heaven or whereever controlling and steering us. I don't need God for my set of morals.

I don't know what our purpose is, but when the useless flesh of my father's died one and a half months ago there was so much more that left than just that. There left loads of purpose. When people kill each other, they don't just take the life of another person.

I really don't get how you could imply we are viewing people just like atoms without a reason for being on earth.

Other cultures had other sets of principles and morals. And mind you, the reason the Mayans sacrificed people, like other cultures did, was to please their Gods. Am I to say whether this was moral or not? Today, it would be far from moral.

But then think about what the Catholic church did to people not applying to their set of principles. The Malleus Maleficarum, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, the crusades, the support of the Nazis (also done by the Lutherian Protestants) and so on. And all in the name of God.
It took centuries to be able to say that the earth isn't flat, that there doesn't need to be a higher being, or that we might not be the middle of the universe, without getting brutally tortured and killed by those oh so moral higher people.

by myself:
Society defines what is right and what is wrong. But not solely. The law, developed over centuries and revisited over and over again provides for a basis we can use to define what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. Not one person, and never one book.

Please reread that again, and if need be, I will clarify.

 

[Vincent Vega]

So your definition of sin, put simply would be sin=immorality=whatever God says is bad. Correct?

So based on your definition, people who don't believe in God could not then believe in sin. I know you can't see a rationale for morality outside of faith (remember the atheism thread you brought down last summer?) So let's leave it at that for a moment.

It is clear that most atheists/agnostics DO believe that some things are immoral. Addressing those of you on the forum with those views, do you have a practical use for the term "sin" or do you see it strictly theological term. Whether as practical "secular" term, or as you understand believers to use it, what do you understand the term sin to mean. A Wanderer said "The good stuff." Vincent Vega mentioned "things that Christians believe God doesn't want them to do" or something to that affect.

Any other thoughts?

Hmm, I really don't use sin. When I read of someone doing something criminal, I don't say "Oh, he committed a sin."
When I think about the term, it's mostly the seven mortal sins that come to mind.
So it's really closely connected to religion.
I know the word, but I wouldn't use it.

 

[deep]

Thanks everyone for your responses so far. It's been really interesting. Deep, I wanted address your response in particular. . .

You reject the concept of sin. Fair enough. But could you define the concept you are rejecting?

I don't have a lot of time today

but I think this is an excellent topic

I will add more tomorrow.

 

[deep]

I've never understood how this view could be logically defended.

If there is no God, and if we are truly sophisticated animals with no true soul, then what does right and wrong really matter at all? It wouldn't.

Let's say The human race evolved from soulless creatures and we're still soulless creatures that will just dissolve into the dust when we die like every other animal. How is there truly any wrong at all? If there is no universal right or wrong we are simply masses of flesh bumping into eachother on a tiny ball in space.

If we are fleshy masses with no real purpose (except maybe the percieve purpose society makes up for us), why is it wrong to kill? Al it would be is the act of causing another mass of flesh to cease to live. Why is that "wrong"? Why is it not wrong for my cat to kill a mouse for sport?

And if morals are decided by society, then who's to say the ancient Mayan cultures who practice savage human sacrifice were morally wrong? In there minds that was perfectly acceptable because society said so. Something can't be wrong in one part of the world and right in another. It just doesn't make sense.

If right and wrong are only dictated by society than I'd say that morals are a pretty stupid and petty thing.

it is not a sin for your cat to kill mice.

Hopefully,
humans are smarter than cats


and if you only choose to do what is right because
you want to believe you get to go to heaven

what good are your values?

I don't care about heaven
and my values are steadfast.

 

[Diemen]

And if morals are decided by society, then who's to say the ancient Mayan cultures who practiced savage human sacrifice were morally wrong? In there minds that was perfectly acceptable because society said so. Something can't be wrong in one part of the world and right in another.

It's funny you bring the Mayans up as an argument for what could happen if morals don't come from God. Those savage human sacrifices were not their own idea - they performed those sacrifices to appease their gods. So if anything, perhaps the Mayans wouldn't have been so savage if they didn't believe in a creator/creators.

 

[Vincent Vega]

It's funny you bring the Mayans up as an argument for what could happen if morals don't come from God. Those savage human sacrifices were not their own idea - they performed those sacrifices to appease their gods. So if anything, perhaps the Mayans wouldn't have been so savage if they didn't believe in a creator/creators.

I mean that believing the Bible is the one true source for deciding what is and what's not sin is an unpoplar opinion.

So, if the Bible as the one true source, said, that people had to sacrifice a young baby every third month to appease their creator, who would be among those fanatically preying on young newborns for their ultimate sacrifice?

 

[deep]

if the Bible as the one true source, said, that people had to sacrifice a young baby every third month ?

the Bible does not say that

but the Bible (old Testament, in particular) does say plenty of other things are sins and punishable by death

Some Muslims have the decency to follow the Lord

most Christians only pay lip service and many cherry pick the parts that support their prejudices.

 

[Vincent Vega]

In that case, even if they only paid lip service they would deem the sacrifice of a you baby moral.
Or has the Bible ever been wrong?
After all, it's been written by God, and what he said is a commandment.

 

[maycocksean]

I don't have a lot of time today

but I think this is an excellent topic

I will add more tomorrow.

I understand about lack of time, believe me. . .I'm leaving for the first leg of my journey home on Wednesday and my schedule is quickly filling up.

I'm thinking to myself, why on earth did I start this thread now, when I may not have time to really get into the discussion myself!

Ah well, I shall do my best and try to weigh in tomorrow as well.

At any rate I'm finding everyone's responses interesting and thought-provoking. Thanks all for keeping it relativity civil so far!

 

[U2isthebest]

I thought Yolland's question was a good one and it raises another question.

How do you define "holy"? Is there even any practical definitiion outside of the theological one?

I find that Christians (and I'm sure othe faiths, but I'm a Christian so I'll speak about what I know) throw around these terms "sin" "holiness" "grace" etc and I often wonder if they have any real significance to anyone outside the Christian faith, and furthermore if they even have the correct connotatin within the faith?(though the second part of that question would certainly be subject to a lof debate among Christians)

Again, the question is open to all regardless of faith.

Holy, to me, simply means that I accepted the work Jesus did for me on the cross, and I'm now looked at as perfect in his sight even though I still fuck up. It has nothing to do with any action on my part. I think a lot of Christians would say word like "moral" for a secular definition because they see holiness (from personal experiences here) as actions we choose to do or not do. I've noticed that those who are well-read in The Bible, pray a great deal, those who don't drink/smoke/do drugs/have premarital sex, etc. are looked at as holy. However, that's saying Jesus' death isn't good enough. It's saying I'm holy based on what I do rather than on what Jesus has already done. There are plenty of non-Christians who don't partake in any of those actions, yet that isn't going bring them into a relationship with God. I'm not saying we should all go out and do said activities, but we're missing it if we think doing/not doing ANYTHING is going to make us holy or pure in the eyes of God. That, according to The Bible, only comes from accepting the work Jesus did.

 

[LemonMelon]

Holy, to me, simply means that I accepted the work Jesus did for me on the cross, and I'm now looked at as perfect in his sight even though I still fuck up. It has nothing to do with any action on my part.

Preach it, sister.

So, does this mean "holy" has any meaning outside of religious context? Err...probably not. But does that matter? Why would an atheist care to become holy, when the whole point of becoming holy is to get closer to God?

 

[U2isthebest]

Preach it, sister.

So, does this mean "holy" has any meaning outside of religious context? Err...probably not. But does that matter? Why would an atheist care to become holy, when the whole point of becoming holy is to get closer to God?

I edited my last post. That might make a bit more sense. I tried to define what holy might mean if we as Christians don't really understand it, and try and present it to the world. It's the post you quoted. Check it out if you can and let me know if it makes any more sense now m'dear.

 

[LemonMelon]

I edited my last post. That might make a bit more sense. I tried to define what holy might mean if we as Christians don't really understand it, and try and present it to the world. It's the post you quoted. Check it out if you can and let me know if it makes any more sense now m'dear.

Again, it all checks out well with me. Nothing confusing about it.

I don't expect anyone to believe the same way I do, and I'm just fine with that. Arguing won't solve anything, but the point of a Christian's life is to tell people what they believe and then leave it at that. It just makes me sad that some flip out over it.

So, to get this back on topic, I do indeed believe that "sin" is not relative. There has to be some template for it. IMO, it's unreasonable to think that some things are sin in some countries/nations and not sin in others. Then again, perhaps God doesn't judge citizens in those countries for their sins because they don't know any better...

It's really a fascinating topic.

 

[U2isthebest]

Again, it all checks out well with me. Nothing confusing about it.

I don't expect anyone to believe the same way I do, and I'm just fine with that. Arguing won't solve anything, but the point of a Christian's life is to tell people what they believe and then leave it at that. It just makes me sad that some flip out over it.

So, to get this back on topic, I do indeed believe that "sin" is not relative. There has to be some template for it. IMO, it's unreasonable to think that some things are sin in some countries/nations and not sin in others. Then again, perhaps God doesn't judge citizens in those countries for their sins because they don't know any better...

It's really a fascinating topic.

That's good to hear! I pretty much agree with you too at least in this area.

 

[BonosSaint]

Sin as a religious concept never much resonated with me even when I believed. I never saw sins against god. I saw sins against humanity. That's what became my touchstone. I became a much better person when I stopped looking to god and started looking all around me.

I wanted to see humanity and all the extraordinary and good it is capable of elevated, with or without god in the equation.

deep summarized it well. Actually this is a pretty interesting thread (or continuation of one). A lot of these posts have made me think.

 

[anitram]

Sin as a religious concept never much resonated with me even when I believed. I never saw sins against god. I saw sins against humanity. That's what became my touchstone. I became a much better person when I stopped looking to god and started looking all around me.

I think I became a better person when I became more aware of the world around me and what role we play in it. I don't concern myself with "sin" or the afterlife much; it is what it is. Live, love, laugh, be a decent citizen and continue to get better as you get older. That's all I really ask for.

 

[shart1780]

And that is what I don't get with religious people. The notion that they have a monopoly on morality. That they are the only ones capable of feelings, forgiveness, and so on.
Ever read Kant? He gives some answers.

I'm sure you have interacted with other non-religious people, or read some posts on here from people like me, A_Wanderer or dazzlingamy. Did you ever get the feeling that we are blood thirsty, immoral creature seeing every person as a pile of flesh and bones?

As I said, morality is not a religious term that doesn't apply to atheists or agnostics, or people from other religions.

I value other people, as I value other creatures. I reject any killing for fun.

I don't think we are so much superior of animals. But on the other hand, animals usually don't kill for pleasure. Either they are hungry, or they are defending themselves.
I'm not a cat expert to know why they play with a mouse, but I think it's insulting to say a non-religious person like me would do the same thing, only because we don't believe that there is something in Heaven or whereever controlling and steering us. I don't need God for my set of morals.

I don't know what our purpose is, but when the useless flesh of my father's died one and a half months ago there was so much more that left than just that. There left loads of purpose. When people kill each other, they don't just take the life of another person.

I really don't get how you could imply we are viewing people just like atoms without a reason for being on earth.

Other cultures had other sets of principles and morals. And mind you, the reason the Mayans sacrificed people, like other cultures did, was to please their Gods. Am I to say whether this was moral or not? Today, it would be far from moral.

But then think about what the Catholic church did to people not applying to their set of principles. The Malleus Maleficarum, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, the crusades, the support of the Nazis (also done by the Lutherian Protestants) and so on. And all in the name of God.
It took centuries to be able to say that the earth isn't flat, that there doesn't need to be a higher being, or that we might not be the middle of the universe, without getting brutally tortured and killed by those oh so moral higher people.



Please reread that again, and if need be, I will clarify.

I think you missed my point entirely. I'm not saying you DON'T value life. I'm saying that without the beliefe that there is a higher cause, and that we don't have a soul, there really is no logical reason to believe that we as humans have meaningful feelings or lives. Without the igher cause there is no logical reason to believe so, so it seems to me like we'd all be fooling ourselves. Again, my point was NEVER that you don't value other people. I'm just asking what value do we truly have if we're just basically atoms moving about?

And I will never justify the travesties you listed that were done in te name of religion. While I am religious, I would never claim that ANY of those could be justified. I can guarantee you Jesus would never approve of those things.

And there's another point I'd like to bring up. Why would someone who doesn't believe in a higher power, or that we have souls, believe that we as humans have meaningful feelings? That is to say, why would it matter if I made my friend sad? Why would that be wrong? If I stole my friend's money it would logically just be the moving of some paper from one being to another. If I hurt my friend's feelings very badly why would it matter? What would make hurt "bad"? It seems to me that in a universe like this there would be absolutely no right and wrong, but only left and right (so to speak). There would be actions and reactions, but no real consequences beyond that.

Whenever I bring this point up I usually get the same response. Something like "but it's bad because it hurt my friend!!". So? That's my whole point. Why is hurting your friend bad in a material universe? Why is "hurt" bad? Why is pain bad? Why is complete chaos bad? Why is ANYTHING bad? There would be no bad. Like I said, just right or left. Actions and reactions.

 

[BVS]

Whenever I bring this point up I usually get the same response. Something like "but it's bad because it hurt my friend!!". So? That's my whole point. Why is hurting your friend bad in a material universe? Why is "hurt" bad? Why is pain bad? Why is complete chaos bad? Why is ANYTHING bad? There would be no bad. Like I said, just right or left. Actions and reactions.

This is very telling.

Do you honestly think it took God for you to understand pain is "bad"?

When a young child grows out of the selfish stage, and realizes the hurt they inflict on others when they don't share or they truly understand when they see someone they love cry, do you think they need a god or set of rules to understand that? It's amazing when you see a child understand that difference, I've seen it happen.

 

[Diemen]

shart, are you saying that friendships only make sense if we believe in a higher being? Or that caring about someone is only possible if we believe in God?

Because that's utter nonsense. If I hurt my friend, it's bad because I like that person and want to have them in my life. It has absolutely nothing to do with God-instilled morals. It's called being a nice person. To suggest, indirectly as you are, that Christians have cornered the market on manners and being good to those around them is patently absurd. One does not need God's influence in order to understand that hurting people is generally a bad thing.

 

[shart1780]

Again, you're completely missing my point. I don't believe only Christians have these God-instilled morals. I think everyone has a basic sense of obvious right and wrong. I never said you have to be a Christian to understand the concept.

My point is that if there is no higher power and we have no souls there is no logical reason to believe there actually is right and wrong. If you disagree I'd like to hear a reason besides "because I don't want to hurt my friend" or something similar. You're also assuming that in a Godless universe there actually is such a thing as right and wrong, which in my mind makes no sense.

 

[shart1780]

This is very telling.

Do you honestly think it took God for you to understand pain is "bad"?

When a young child grows out of the selfish stage, and realizes the hurt they inflict on others when they don't share or they truly understand when they see someone they love cry, do you think they need a god or set of rules to understand that? It's amazing when you see a child understand that difference, I've seen it happen.

They don't need to understand God and they don't need to understand the basic standards of right and wrong I believe are ingrained in people's heads. I never said those who don't believe in God are inconsiderate animals, I'm saying that if there is no higher power, why wouldn't we be?

 

[BVS]

Again, you're completely missing my point. I don't believe only Christians have these God-instilled morals. I think everyone has a basic sense of obvious right and wrong. I never said you have to be a Christian to understand the concept.

My point is that if there is no higher power and we have no souls there is no logical reason to believe there actually is right and wrong. If you disagree I'd like to hear a reason besides "because I don't want to hurt my friend" or something similar.

And once again you are missing the point. No one is saying anything about a specific Christian God.

You haven't made any logical reason as to why someone who didn't believe in god, or at least your god can't have a sense of right and wrong. I gave you an example and asked you questions, can you answer them?

 

[BVS]

They don't need to understand God and they don't need to understand the basic standards of right and wrong I believe are ingrained in people's heads. I never said those who don't believe in God are inconsiderate animals, I'm saying that if there is no higher power, why wouldn't we be?

No, that's not what you said.

So now you are saying these right and wrongs are "ingrained", do you realize you are contradicting yourself?

 

[shart1780]

I'm saying there are basic concepts that are ingrained in us BECAUSE of God. I do think the reason we can recognize hurt in others and feel bad about it is because God has ingrained some basic standards into us. So to answer your question, yes I do believe we need God to understand that. Do we need to acknowledge that we need God to understand that? No.

Maybe I shouldn't say there would need to be a Christian God. I'll say any God. Any higher power that sets rules and programs us.

I think most of you are missing my point entirely. I'msaying that I believe there is a God, and I believe that he has prgrammed us to have a basic sense of how to treat others. Am I saying you need to believe in God to have these the basic sense? No. Because I think that whether you believe in God or not it will be there.

I'm also saying that if there is no higher power then there is no reason to believe that there is right and wrong. There is no reason to believe there is good and bad. It's all action and reaction. Am I saying those of you who don't believe in God are animals? No. But USING YOUR REASONG I'd like you to tell me WHY our lifes and feelings would matter in a completely material universe. I can see absolutely no logic in it.

 

[BonosSaint]

Because we have consciousness and because we have self-consciousness. Because we can conceptualize. Because we can observe consequences and understand the connections between our actions and those consequences. Because we can recognize what is similar between us and others. Because we choose to matter.