What is sin?

[A_Wanderer]

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.

Why is it easy to commit genocide? Why is it easy to murder people from another tribe? Why is it hard to kill a family member?

People do horrific things all the time and while you wax poetical about how perfect humanity is and how this must mean that we are imbued with holy guidance it overlooks this. Empathy and social bonding is important for societies, human beings are social animals and that trait has evolved as a concequence of that, it improves the opportunities for reproductive success within any community. Now the notion of sin and god given goodness may be simple to get your head around but it does get undercut by harmful acts, evil. The burden of the believer becomes either a philosophy of theodicy and/or one of exclusion; things which are not needed in a world without God.

See how far human empathy gets in instances of clan warfare or pretty much any field in the history of human conflict, people are able to do terrible things when they need resources or just have that war switch turned on.

 

[shart1780]

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.

Why do those things matter? Is that somehow "good"?

 

[A_Wanderer]

In the scheme of the universe no, but from the perspective of a sentient organism definitely yes.

 

[shart1780]

Why is chaos in a community somehow a bad thing? It's just atoms more frequntly bouncing around, more unpleasent brainwaves and less flesh clumps entering the world.

You treat survival as this thing that's somehow sacred. Where do you get that notion? Why would the universe care if another little ant farm got crushed?

 

[shart1780]

In the scheme of the universe no, but from the perspective of a sentient organism definitely yes.

Why does the view of a sentient organism mean anything? I doubt the universe can tell a sentient organism from a non-sentient one.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The last part is the key, it is about how well we can compete for resources and reproduce.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Why does the view of a sentient organism mean anything? I doubt the univerese can tell a sentient organism from a non-sentient one.

And if you read the statement then it agrees, but the notion of a self aware intellect (mistake in earlier statement) is important. No outside force gives human life meaning, it is given meaning by the indiividual.

 

[LJT]

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.

If you want to take it from a completely material point of view...we would cease to exist if we didn't if we let things go to chaos, we would destroy ourselves, so evolutionary we very social animals needed to create rules and regulations to follow, in order to maintain survival of the species....as society developed the rules become much more complex so they weren't so animalistic...it is quite simple, really, to bypass God that way.

One should not be moral because it's a ticket to heaven, one should be moral just for the sake of it really...it shouldn't require reasoning to make it so.

Dude you are also not going to get anywhere saying an atheist's reasoning for morality is not logical, but a supremely powerful floaty being in heaven reasoning is more logical....God can not be described as 'logical', he should be left to the realm of faith.

Saying all that I do believe in God, but I tend to think of the Old Testament as a load of crap to try to base any morality or what a sin is, on. Of course we also have the concept of original sin or that we are all a fallen people without the grace of God....why would God condemn his whole people for one man's sin? Or why would be be condemned in general for not believing in him or receiving his grace? Why bother creating us? Toys? Playthings? A fun experiment to mess around with? Maybe he was bored. But he certainly created us to follow a lot of his orders and laws....he did make them up though, they do kinda seem as arbitrary as any other human laws at times, yet we are meant to be so subservient to many of them, yet if they were implemented by human, a few of them we would certainly reject.

 

[shart1780]

And if you read the statement then it agrees, but the notion of a self aware intellect (mistake in earlier statement) is important. No outside force gives human life meaning, it is given meaning by the indiividual.

You keep bringing it back to survival, yet you haven't explained to me why survival is somehow "good".

 

[LJT]

^survival is neither good or bad for the universe, it is good for that species.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You keep bringing it back to survival, yet you haven't explained to me why survival is somehow "good".

You need it to be good, in the sense of morality, but the thing is that biology is amoral. If a species goes extinct then yes it is bad for that species, but at the same time it opens up a niche for a successor to fill that role.

If a species can't survive as well as another within the same niche or something pushes it to extinction then it will cease to be. If it ceases to be then it isn't around, if homo sapiens were outcompeted by some other homonid then this exchange wouldn't be taking place as we would never exist.

The fact that we are around and exchanging information is conditional on human social interaction and luck (and luck isn't God, just that events have to have proceeded in a certain way to produce certain results).

 

[shart1780]

If you want to take it from a completely material point of view...we would cease to exist if we didn't if we let things go to chaos, we would destroy ourselves, so evolutionary we very social animals needed to create rules and regulations to follow, in order to maintain survival of the species....as society developed the rules become much more complex so they weren't so animalistic...it is quite simple, really, to bypass God that way.

One should not be moral because it's a ticket to heaven, one should be moral just for the sake of it really...it shouldn't require reasoning to make it so.

Dude you are also not going to get anywhere saying an atheist's reasoning for morality is not logical, but a supremely powerful floaty being in heaven reasoning is more logical....God can not be described as 'logical', he should be left to the realm of faith.

Saying all that I do believe in God, but I tend to think of the Old Testament as a load of crap to try to base any morality or what a sin is, on. Of course we also have the concept of original sin or that we are all a fallen people without the grace of God....why would God condemn his whole people for one man's sin? Or why would be be condemned in general for not believing in him or receiving his grace? Why bother creating us? Toys? Playthings? A fun experiment to mess around with? Maybe he was bored. But he certainly created us to follow a lot of his orders and laws....he did make them up though, they do kinda seem as arbitrary as any other human laws at times, yet we are meant to be so subservient to many of them, yet if they were implemented by human, a few of them we would certainly reject.

I've been talking a lot about the whole survival thing. I still don't understand how, in a completely material universe our existence somehow matters.

And I'm not moral because God says I should be. I like seeing others happy regardless of God's teachings. I'm happy to know God is pleased with me when I can help others, though. Im not a robot.

I'm a religious person, so I would never claim that all of my views are based on logic. I also would never claim to be able to prove God's existance because that's impossible and would completely diminish the need for faith. I don't claim to base my beliefe in God on logic.

Those who don't believe in God, however, do need to be questioned logically because that's where they base their beliefes. If you can disprove an atheist scientifically he has no choice but to search for a new answer. Arguing with an atheist and arguing with a believer are two totally different things.

I can't say why God created us, really. I don't know if I'm supposed to know why. I'm certainly glad I don't live in the Old Testement times, because quite frankly, that would suck. God didn't seem like a very good God back then, and I have no idea why he acted like He did. I do believe His plans are the best, though. There are a lot of laws even in the New Testement I find myself questioning a lot, but I find that the more I follow them the happier I am. A lot of it is a huge mystery to me. I guess that's why it's hard to keep the faith sometimes. But when I manage to keep it I'm extremely satisfied and happy.

 

[shart1780]

You need it to be good, in the sense of morality, but the thing is that biology is amoral. If a species goes extinct then yes it is bad for that species, but at the same time it opens up a niche for a successor to fill that role.

If a species can't survive as well as another within the same niche or something pushes it to extinction then it will cease to be. If it ceases to be then it isn't around, if homo sapiens were outcompeted by some other homonid then this exchange wouldn't be taking place as we would never exist.

The fact that we are around and exchanging information is conditional on human social interaction and luck (and luck isn't God, just that events have to have proceeded in a certain way to produce certain results).

I still don't think you get my main point. Why is it somehow bad if every species on the planet was wiped out?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Firstly it basically happened at the end of the Permian and secondly you want me to justify mass extinction as bad without adequately defining what you mean.

It isn't bad in a moral sense because it is an event outside of human morality. It is bad for biodiversity but I simply cannot make it bad in reference to some outside actor or human concept of morality.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Those who don't believe in God, however, do need to be questioned logically because that's where they base their beliefes. If you can disprove an atheist scientifically he has no choice but to search for a new answer

If theism isn't based on rational premises then it isn't going to do to well in such an argument, you have to present the evidence for God which you conceed doesn't exist because if it did then it would render faith meaningless. It is a terrific self-perpetuating lie that demands that people turn off their critical faculties in regards to this God or it's machinations; it's little wonder that it took humanity so long to break it's thrall to such a concept.

 

[shart1780]

Firstly it basically happened at the end of the Permian and secondly you want me to justify mass extinction as bad without adequately defining what you mean.

It isn't bad in a moral sense because it is an event outside of human morality. It is bad for biodiversity but I simply cannot make it bad in reference to some outside actor or human concept of morality.

See, that's the thing. Without sin I simply cannot define something as wrong or bad or negative. If there is no higher plain or calling then everything must clearly be about survival. You don't seem to have a problem with that, which is fine with me, but everyone else seems to want to glamourize existence in some way that makes absolutely no sense to me.

In my mind this would mean that there is no objective bad. When I say objective I mean looking beyond the human perspective. Beyond a practical and reproductive standpoint our lives would have no further meaning.

 

[shart1780]

Anyways I'm already late getting to bed. I'm starting a new job tomorrow so I better get going.

Cool talk BTW. See ya tomorrow probably.

 

[LJT]

^night and it has been a decent discussion so far

I've been talking a lot about the whole survival thing. I still don't understand how, in a completely material universe our existence somehow matters.

Our existence doesn't matter in a material universe...if nothing 'lived' the universe would go on.

And I'm not moral because God says I should be. I like seeing others happy regardless of God's teachings. I'm happy to know God is pleased with me when I can help others, though. Im not a robot.

Then does that not answer your question about why does morality matter? 'I like seeing others happy regardless of God's teachings'....it is something that just is...otherwise it would be much easier to destroy ourselves....the universe wouldn't care but us as a sentient being would.

I'm a religious person, so I would never claim that all of my views are based on logic. I also would never claim to be able to prove God's existance because that's impossible and would completely diminish the need for faith. I don't claim to base my beliefe in God on logic.

Those who don't believe in God, however, do need to be questioned logically because that's where they base their beliefes. If you can disprove an atheist scientifically he has no choice but to search for a new answer. Arguing with an atheist and arguing with a believer are two totally different things.

How can you disprove an atheist scientifically when God can never be proved scientifically? An atheist will continue to look for a new scientific answer when a part of science is disproved, they will not suddenly turn to God.

I can't say why God created us, really. I don't know if I'm supposed to know why. I'm certainly glad I don't live in the Old Testement times, because quite frankly, that would suck. God didn't seem like a very good God back then, and I have no idea why he acted like He did. I do believe His plans are the best, though. There are a lot of laws even in the New Testament I find myself questioning a lot, but I find that the more I follow them the happier I am. A lot of it is a huge mystery to me. I guess that's why it's hard to keep the faith sometimes. But when I manage to keep it I'm extremely satisfied and happy.

If God can appear to be a not very good God at a point in time, why is he suddenly a good God all the time these days? Maybe the Bible is quite wrong in their portrayal of God at times? Or maybe God is not so faultless? Why are his plans best when people who follow him have caused a lot of suffering? Probably not his intention but he did not act to stop the crusades which were so obvious an abuse of religion, yet he destroys the world with a flood, or destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, for acts I would consider far less devastating than the crusades or World War II.

His plans to be honest seem to be in a state beyond repair...but why is there this demand to worship him? Why does he need that, is a recognition that he exists not enough? Or does he need to ego boost to?

 

[verte76]

Sin is not following the will of God.

 

[BonosSaint]

Why do those things matter? Is that somehow "good"?

Good or not, it is. And we make use of it. I'd say beneficial more than good. But if we are using good and bad only in the context of human experience. I'd say good. I don't go beyond humanity or the material world for my definitions. I think we have created the concept of good and bad and it does not have a separate existence from us.

 

[Vincent Vega]

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.

I don't really get what you are saying here.
If I understand you right, what am I missing by not doing such things, when I don't even believe in the necessity of doing such? I don't believe in any God, so I don't see any need in getting closer to him.

Or did I misinterpret your post?

 

[Ormus]

Yup. Jesus said to follow two commandments:

1. Love your God.

2. Love your neighbor.

You follow these, and it's all good. The trick, however, is to figure out what that actually entails. Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, and, judging from the times he actually brought up certain common laws of the day (laws concerning divorce, murder, lust, etc...) he didn't make them void, but actually made them more challenging to follow (do not even look at someone in lust, do not be angry towards your brother) this tells me that "love thy neighbor" is pretty damn broad, and almost impossible to do perfectly. However, we are obliged to take it on.

For purposes of discussion:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." - Matthew 5:17

"Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12

Protestantism seems to be an amalgam of archaic Jewish Christian theology (all Christians must follow Mosaic Law in its entirety) haphazardly thrown in with Gentile Christian (i.e., Paul's) theology (God's grace will save us, only faith is required, and Jesus' sole commandment, to "love one another," has become the new and only "Law"). I guess if I were to reply to AEON's question of why I have issues with conservative Protestantism, this issue is probably on top.

 

[U2isthebest]

I don't really get what you are saying here.
If I understand you right, what am I missing by not doing such things, when I don't even believe in the necessity of doing such? I don't believe in any God, so I don't see any need in getting closer to him.

Or did I misinterpret your post?

No, I'm not seeing a misinterpretation! I was speaking more about Christians who seem to not grasp the concept of holiness. To many Christians, holiness=morals. However, the only holiness my Bible really talks about is accepting what Jesus did on the Cross. At that point we're made holy. Then to me, I don't see how a person who's a non-Christian, agnostic, atheist, etc. could be holy or even be interested in the concept of holiness since it seems to go against his/her beliefs. He/she likely doesn't believe in Jesus as Savior, so holiness has no meaning to them. Yet, I've met many non-Christians with better "morals" than Christians. Christians have no market cornered on morality, so I hate to burst the pious bubble so many of my fellow Believers live in. I guess the short answer is, any one who's not a Christian, in this instance anyway, would not even be concerned with holiness because it comes with accepting the Christian belief of Jesus' work on the Cross. Morals don't equal holiness because they won't bring one closer to God. An atheist can practice morals night and day, and not worry they're denying their beliefs because to me morals really have nothing to do with God. Atheists, or any non-Christian, would have no interest in holiness for the reason it can come only through a relationship with God. Really short answer: Morals and holiness are 2 entirely different concepts. Morals are based on human effort that needs no God behind it. Holiness is based only on what God has done.

 

[Vincent Vega]

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.

Explaining you how I feel or see the world, without needing a God entirely, might be as hard as to explain a blind person the color blue. No offense meant here.

Your misconception starts with the implication, that atheists see the whole world, or the universe, only as material, or atoms and molecules. While the whole universe really is just that, it doesn't mean that our lifes and the lifes of other people, or other creatures, are just atoms moving around.
We are capable of feelings, interaction and to develop complex relationships that go way beyond chemicals interchanging to cause reactions in the other persons brain.

You seem to need the concept of God to have "meaningful feelings or lives". Otherwise I don't get why you ask for the logic behind an atheist developing such feelings. I don't need this at all, still have a similar set of values.

Without the igher cause there is no logical reason to believe so, so it seems to me like we'd all be fooling ourselves.

What do you mean by that?

I have been asking myself what we are supposed to do, or why we do all this, when from one second to the other everything ends just like that. But I don't see the need for creating some belief that there will be another level after my life has ended. I don't see the need for creating a belief in some higher being only to feel better about myself. I enjoy being around, and I enjoy interacting with other people and doing stuff I like.

You say morals are ingrained to us by God. That's your belief. I say morals get learned through observation and how our parents and all the people around us teach us morals. That's how I see it. For you a world without God doesn't function, so you'll hardly understand why for me this is all logical without God.

As I told you before, answers may be found by Immanuel Kant.

I don't care why we have meaningful feelings, but I know that we have them. Because I feel them. I think, survival is a good reason. If we didn't feel anything, we would not enjoy our lives. And we would eventually die.

So, by using your logic, hurting your friend is bad because God wouldn't like it and it goes against your belief. Later you say that when you interact with people you don't think about your religion, and of course we just misunderstand you. Yet you are saying that an atheist isn't using logic, as he ust doesn't want to hurt another person's feelings just because he doesn't want to.
I am feeling pain, and as it doesn't feel good, it's bad. Just as french fries are bad for me, as I don't like them, or rap is bad for me as I don't like it.

So, just tell me, why do you think hurting another one's feelings is bad? Why do you think chaos is bad?

I don't want to be a bad person, because it goes against my set or morals. I don't want to hurt other people because I don't see value in it. And I also don't want to get hurt myself. I wouldn't enjoy making people feel bad about themselves, except they try to do the same with me. But even then I'm generally too kind to get mean.

For me, there are real consequences, believe it or not. I view life is much more than just a material being without reason. Even if times are sometimes tough, like they have been recently and continue to be for quite a while.

 

[Vincent Vega]

No, I'm not seeing a misinterpretation! I was speaking more about Christians who seem to not grasp the concept of holiness. To many Christians, holiness=morals. However, the only holiness my Bible really talks about is accepting what Jesus did on the Cross. At that point we're made holy. Then to me, I don't see how a person who's a non-Christian, agnostic, atheist, etc. could be holy or even be interested in the concept of holiness since it seems to go against his/her beliefs. He/she likely doesn't believe in Jesus as Savior, so holiness has no meaning to them. Yet, I've met many non-Christians with better "morals" than Christians. Christians have no market cornered on morality, so I hate to burst the pious bubble so many of my fellow Believers live in. I guess the short answer is, any one who's not a Christian, in this instance anyway, would not even be concerned with holiness because it comes with accepting the Christian belief of Jesus' work on the Cross. Morals don't equal holiness because they won't bring one closer to God. An atheist can practice morals night and day, and not worry they're denying their beliefs because to me morals really have nothing to do with God. Atheists, or any non-Christian, would have no interest in holiness for the reason it can come only through a relationship with God. Really short answer: Morals and holiness are 2 entirely different concepts. Morals are based on human effort that needs no God behind it. Holiness is based only on what God has done.

Yes, that's quite the way I feel.

 

[U2isthebest]

Yes, that's quite the way I feel.

I'm glad you understand what I was trying to say better now. I was afraid I was confusing you even more!

 

[Vincent Vega]

No worries, I got the extract.

 

[BVS]

Explaining you how I feel or see the world, without needing a God entirely, might be as hard as to explain a blind person the color blue. No offense meant here.

Your misconception starts with the implication, that atheists see the whole world, or the universe, only as material, or atoms and molecules. .

Great post.

 

[redhotswami]

I've been thinking about posting this thread for a few weeks now, and some of the recent comments in the "Christianity/Jamie Bakker thread" made think it was time.

The word "Sin" has become a really loaded word in our society today. . .referring to anyone as a "sinner" these days is tantamount to the worst kind of insult. I personally think that is because the word "sin" is misused a lot, ESPECIALLY by Christians. I'm not even sure most of us know what it means anymore.

Merriam Webster's defines sin as:

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

But even this definition is insufficient, I think. Certainly the way many of us use the word sin is not reflected by the above definition.

At any rate, I'd like to ask FYM posters to respond with their own definition of sin. This is open to everybody including people who don't believe in God or even sin at all. I'd want to know what it is that you don't believe in.

I have my own ideas but I'd like to see what other people have to say first.

Wow, very late here, but I wanted to add a bit of mine into the discussion.

I read this one book where this guy retranslated the bible into aramaic. He came to the conclusion that "sin" = "disharmony within the universe" and that "evil" = "unripe" and "good" = "ripe"

I really liked the concept of "evil" being "unripe." I don't think of some human beings as evil. Not even Cho. I think the unripe is a great reflection of darkness that can consume someone, but that does not mean that ultimately that person cannot change. I liken our personal development to that of the fruit. We journey through life taking in experiences, learning from mistakes, and appreciating the wisdom of others. Everything that is unripe within us CAN change. Not saying that it will, but that there is a possibility.

Back to sin...what a definition, "disharmony within the universe." It really makes you look at the overall implications of your actions. To me the big sins are hurting others...not ones that are just on you and your personal life. Causing disharmony in the universe is ignoring the poor, discriminating against the LGBTQ community, killing people, contributing to the cycle of poverty, etc. I could go on for ages.

 

[Irvine511]

sin is a concept that people in positions of power use to increase their power over the relatively powerless, and the reason why sin works so well is that an ultimate, unquestionable authority is invoked -- God -- and an ultimate, unquestionable rule book is sourced -- the Bible -- and dissenters are easily dismissed.