Sin - Crime - Immorality > same? similar? different??

[deep]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Lets talk about sin. On a scale of normal to dysfunctional, where do you suppose this guy falls?

separated from God

[yolland]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Also, despite some differences on specific activities, I don't think that there is that much disagreement between people of faith on what constitutes sin, at least not to the point that understanding is impossible.

I don't really disagree with this, but would point out that your "despite some differences on specific activities..." itself implies a Christian viewpoint. In Judaism and Islam, "sin" consists exclusively of specific (wrong or proscribed) activities; it isn't the ongoing existential condition that it is in Christian theology. In this regard I'd almost want to say that the Christian concept of sin actually more resembles the concept of karma in Hinduism and Buddhism than the concept of sin in Judaism and Islam. On the other hand, if we're talking religious evaluation of "specific activities," then obviously on that front the three Abrahamic religions would have more in common.



As far as the application of "love the sinner, hate the sin" to homosexuality specifically (since that seems to be what led to this thread)--it doesn't seem to me that the anger that platitude provokes has much to do with general objections to the concept of sin. The problem is that it feels like an evasion of acknowledgment that declaring homosexual activity wrong/sinful/sick harms gay people by causing them to feel constant shame and guilt about themselves. It is true that in other contexts (like staging an intervention with an alcoholic, for example) we sometimes accept such a consequence as a necessary evil of getting unacceptable behavior to stop. But we don't usually make a big contrivance of declaring the distinction between our goodwill towards the person vs. our rejection of their behavior in those situations.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by yolland

I don't really disagree with this, but would point out that your "despite some differences on specific activities..." itself implies a Christian viewpoint. In Judaism and Islam, "sin" consists exclusively of specific (wrong or proscribed) activities;

I would be interested in hearing more about this. What are some of the specific activities?

Originally Posted by yolland

As far as the application of "love the sinner, hate the sin" to homosexuality specifically (since that seems to be what led to this thread)--it doesn't seem to me that the anger that platitude provokes has much to do with general objections to the concept of sin. The problem is that it feels like an evasion of acknowledgment that declaring homosexual activity wrong/sinful/sick harms gay people by causing them to feel constant shame and guilt about themselves. It is true that in other contexts (like staging an intervention with an alcoholic, for example) we sometimes accept such a consequence as a necessary evil of getting unacceptable behavior to stop. But we don't usually make a big contrivance of declaring the distinction between our goodwill towards the person vs. our rejection of their behavior in those situations.

The very fact that people feel the need to make a distinction tells you something.

I understand the "love the sinner, hate the sin" problem even though I once ascribed to that in relation to homosexuality. It also comes across as rather condescending too, but I don't think it's intentional. I think it is very hard for straight people to understand the experience of being gay in a culture that treats you as second class citizens. We have no correlating experience that we can use to help us understand. Even now that my views have changed, I still have a hard time understanding "what it would feel like if your most important relationships were declared sick and wrong."

Well, then again that's not entirely true. I think being black there is a comparison available. Certainly for me marrying a white woman and hearing comments like "Well, it's okay, I suppose, as long as you don't have children" was pretty hard. But even then, we didn't live in a time when were literally not allowed to get married. This was the condemnation of a few people here and there not society as a whole. Likewise racial prejudice.

Having grown up hearing casual racism as the only black among mostly white friends in Central Florida, I am struck by how similar it is in tone and even wording to the casual homophobia I hear among my mostly black colleagues and students where I teach now.

It's sad.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by yolland

I don't really disagree with this, but would point out that your "despite some differences on specific activities..." itself implies a Christian viewpoint. In Judaism and Islam, "sin" consists exclusively of specific (wrong or proscribed) activities; it isn't the ongoing existential condition that it is in Christian theology. In this regard I'd almost want to say that the Christian concept of sin actually more resembles the concept of karma in Hinduism and Buddhism than the concept of sin in Judaism and Islam. On the other hand, if we're talking religious evaluation of "specific activities," then obviously on that front the three Abrahamic religions would have more in common.

As far as the application of "love the sinner, hate the sin" to homosexuality specifically (since that seems to be what led to this thread)--it doesn't seem to me that the anger that platitude provokes has much to do with general objections to the concept of sin. The problem is that it feels like an evasion of acknowledgment that declaring homosexual activity wrong/sinful/sick harms gay people by causing them to feel constant shame and guilt about themselves. It is true that in other contexts (like staging an intervention with an alcoholic, for example) we sometimes accept such a consequence as a necessary evil of getting unacceptable behavior to stop. But we don't usually make a big contrivance of declaring the distinction between our goodwill towards the person vs. our rejection of their behavior in those situations.

Exactly. I don't think having sins is bad. But I think the selective method of employing them is more the issue. Treating homosexuality like its an ailment is the issue. And excusing it as religious compassion is infuriating.

I think part of my frustration stems from the fact that I am surrounded constantly by very religious people and wish they could understand where I am coming from. But I know they cannot. So I have to live the lie of being a lapsed Catholic instead of an anti-theist with conviction. I fear that I have taken out on some religious people here my personal frustrations with the way that religion has misled my friends and family.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by deep

separated from God

Not anymore than this guy may be:


http://www.dobhran.com/images/pastor-3.gif

[cobl04]

So your family/friends don't know you don't believe peef? Are you anticipating a time when they're going to found out and there's going to be a massive argument?

I can't understand where you're coming from at all, the only people in my life who were/are religious were my grandparents on my dad's side, who passed away long before I even cared about (or even had any) thoughts on religion, and my cousins on my mum's side, who have moved to Queensland and I only see once in a blue moon. I went to a religious high school (I actually took theology in Yr 11 too) but to me it's always been the people who believe, believe, and don't try and push it, and those who don't, don't.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by cobl04

So your family/friends don't know you don't believe peef? Are you anticipating a time when they're going to found out and there's going to be a massive argument?

I can't understand where you're coming from at all, the only people in my life who were/are religious were my grandparents on my dad's side, who passed away long before I even cared about (or even had any) thoughts on religion, and my cousins on my mum's side, who have moved to Queensland and I only see once in a blue moon. I went to a religious high school (I actually took theology in Yr 11 too) but to me it's always been the people who believe, believe, and don't try and push it, and those who don't, don't.

Well, my friends have a pretty clear idea, but they're all believers. In America, being anti-religious is considered insulting to those who are religious, so it would be impolite for me to push very hard.

I think stating that I didn't believe would create a massive rift between myself and my family, especially on my mother's side. My grandmother attended church every single day until she was no longer physically able to. She didn't even own a car, she would just walk. My mother isn't quite that aggressively religious, but she is still pretty thorough.

I think I've said before: I could say I was gay, I could marry a person of a different race, and my family would not abandon me. But if I came out against religion, I could absolutely see my mother shunning me.

Maybe this is a uniquely American thing. I don't know. I hate it.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

This is why the Olympics should never be held in Europe. Look at the crap sports they come up with.

[INDY500]

When you have philosophy on "truth" running from Hume to Jesus. Definitions of virtue and vice running from John Paul II to Nietzsche... excuse me if I generalize here.

Sin is defined, judged and punished by God -- crime is defined, judged and punished by man.

Morality is the worldview one uses to differentiate between good and evil, right or wrong. Morality in Western civilization has traditionally been based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Elsewhere other religions, political philosophy or cultural traditions shape the moral codes of society. The new kid on the block is moral relativism. We had an interesting thread awhile ago about younger generations and their situational ethics when dealing with stealing, cheating, sex, lying, etc.

So slowly moral standards are being replaced by personal tastes and feelings. Count me as one who sees that as a danger to a civil society and self-governance.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I would be interested in hearing more about this. What are some of the specific activities?

Hmmm, well, not sure what kinds of themes you're interested in? In Judaism, this would mean any act which violates Jewish law (which is derived from Torah, obviously). So, "sin" could be anything from committing murder to eating shellfish, from gossiping to getting a tattoo, from bearing grudges to mixing meat and milk, from "coveting" your neighbor's possessions (which means contriving to acquire them, BTW) to failing to feed the dog before the family sits down to eat. And on and on. Although we do break down the laws into various conceptual subcategories, like for example mishpatim ("justice," ethical laws governing relations between men, which can be analyzed rationally) as opposed to chukkim ("fiat," arbitrary and irrational laws, typically forms of ritual discipline), in principle Jewish law establishes no formal priorities for observance whereby some "sins" would be "worse" than others.* But in practice, unquestionably it's the ethical laws which receive the lion's share of attention. (In general, Reform Jews commit only to following the ethical laws, treating the ritual ones as optional. So while there is some overlap in specific proscribed acts, they couldn't really be said to follow the same view I do of "the nature of sin.")

I'm not qualified to say much regarding Islam, but the basic principle is the same: "sin" consists of discrete acts which violate Islamic law; it isn't an ongoing existential condition of alienation from God which humans are powerless to redress on our own. However, Islam--unlike Judaism, but like almost all forms of Christianity--does have a doctrine of "Hell," so that would be a difference with important implications for the understanding of sin.


[* There is somewhat of a Jewish equivalent of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" that you'll occasionally hear antigay religious Jews invoke regarding homosexuality, where they'll protest that they find it no more or less wrong than all the hundreds of other violations they strive but often fail to avoid, such as not gossiping, not eating this or that, etc. I find this equally disingenuous, for pretty much the same reasons.]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The new kid on the block is moral relativism.

This isn't new; it's the core dilemma of modernity, and we've been brooding over it since the Renaissance. A central theme of Hamlet, for example, is the paralyzing indecision which results from having grown too far away from the feudal world to submit one's will to its imperatives (something Laertes still finds easy), yet having no alternative means available for attaining absolute conviction as to how to proceed righteously. (And speaking of "elsewhere," when I taught Hamlet in seminar in HK a few years back, my Chinese students, most of them mainlanders, had no difficulty recognizing this dilemma. There were other aspects to the text they had difficulty understanding, but not that.)

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

So slowly moral standards are being replaced by personal tastes and feelings. Count me as one who sees that as a danger to a civil society and self-governance.

The younger generation, if I may speak for it, is getting exhausted by the older generation's need to tell us how shitty we are all the time.

[Irvine511]

yeah, the people fucking things up with their selfishness are the people born 1945-1965. they want health care and social security for themselves, but not for poor people or for younger people. nor do they want to pay taxes. they want all that shit for free, yo.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

yeah, the people fucking things up with their selfishness are the people born 1945-1965. they want health care and social security for themselves, but not for poor people or for younger people. nor do they want to pay taxes. they want all that shit for free, yo.

B.S. The Great Society started an $8 trillion War on Poverty to provide food, shelter and health care to the poor. Now it's also been very destructive to communities and families so I'd vote to replace it. Would you?

I'd support letting young people opt out of S.S and raise the retirement age. Would you?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Exactly. I don't think having sins is bad. But I think the selective method of employing them is more the issue. Treating homosexuality like its an ailment is the issue. And excusing it as religious compassion is infuriating.

I think part of my frustration stems from the fact that I am surrounded constantly by very religious people and wish they could understand where I am coming from. But I know they cannot. So I have to live the lie of being a lapsed Catholic instead of an anti-theist with conviction. I fear that I have taken out on some religious people here my personal frustrations with the way that religion has misled my friends and family.

If your parents are as religious and politically conservative as you make them out to be I'd just remind them of this. Our Founders thought enough of the importance of faith to our survival as a country that they tied our rights to God, not man. But they also saw religious tyranny and coercion as an affront to liberty.

It's easy for a Christian to speak out when Catholics, for example, are mandated to act against their religious conscience. It's much harder, but no less important, to respect the right of "free exercise" of those that practice a different religion or choose not to practice a religion.

The younger generation, if I may speak for it, is getting exhausted by the older generation's need to tell us how shitty we are all the time.

Yes it must be exhausting to be the first generation ridiculed by older generations.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

If your parents are as religious and politically conservative as you make them out to be I'd just remind them of this. Our Founders thought enough of the importance of faith to our survival as a country that they tied our rights to God, not man. But they also saw religious tyranny and coercion as an affront to liberty.

It's easy for a Christian to speak out when Catholics, for example, are mandated to act against their religious conscience. It's much harder, but no less important, to respect the right of "free exercise" of those that practice a different religion or choose not to practice a religion.

I'm not sure what you're on about here, unless you honestly think name-dropping the Founding Fathers is a game-changer in normal discourse.

Originally Posted by INDY500

Yes it must be exhausting to be the first generation ridiculed by older generations.

At least our generation still has a chance to not continue the cycle of blaming all of its woes on young people.

[LemonMelon]

Peef, are you anti-theism or anti-religion? Two very different ideas. My father is a fundie and hates church, the people there, etc.

[PhilsFan]

Both. I don't believe in God.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

B.S. The Great Society started an $8 trillion War on Poverty to provide food, shelter and health care to the poor. Now it's also been very destructive to communities and families so I'd vote to replace it. Would you?

I'd support letting young people opt out of S.S and raise the retirement age. Would you?

both your information and conclusions are wrong.

American society today is vastly less harsh and much more merciful than it was in the 1950s. today, children don't starve and the elderly don't die in poverty the way that they did in the good old days. there were no good old days. it's a lie conservatives tell themselves.

i agree with raising the retirement age.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I'm not sure what you're on about here, unless you honestly think name-dropping the Founding Fathers is a game-changer in normal discourse.

for Tea Mobsters, it's a trump card similar to, "why that sounds like something Hitler would say."

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Both. I don't believe in God.

I think you're looking for the term "atheist," unless you're saying that you consider a belief in a deity to be a dangerous idea that should be wiped from a public consciousness, in which case you would be "anti-theist." Really not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to figure out what your beliefs are via pretty useless labels.