What is sin? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-22-2007, 04:40 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


I have given a lot of thought to sin.

I reject the concept completely.
I think it is one of the most abused terms that is in existance. I think it should cease to be.
I believe it is a human construct to give the creators authority and control over anyone they can get to accept the concept.


Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780

Why is it a poisonous idea to believe that us as human beings don't inherently deserving to enter God's presence? From my own experiences I can say I'm definitely not deserving of that, because I've done things I've been pretty disgusted with. I'm amazed God puts up with so much ugliness.


You don't think you are controlled by the concept of sin?


Look at the shame and self- disgust you express.


Sometimes I do things I thing are wrong, that injure other people.

I take responsibility for them and apologise. I really do a lot less of them since I no longer care or think about "God and the afterlife." My actions have immediate consequences and are not part of some much bigger picture with an imaginary 3rd person there.

My dealings are more honest and direct. I don't get any "golden pass".

I find I am much more considerate of people dealing with them in the here and now on terms that exist in real time.

Also, if I do make a mistake, I don't shame myself and add it to some big score card, and see how it all adds up.

I just make better choices and I find I am making a lot less offenses to others and myself.
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 04:41 PM   #22
More 5G Than Man
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 68,434
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


Well, I do look up to plenty of people, but I still wouldn't consider them holy because of that. To me being holy is more of a spiritual supernatural thing that only God has achieved. I think all humans are equally important, but I wouldn't consider any of us (inluding the most devout followers of Christ, i.e. the apostles) as holy.
Same here...

Mankind isn't, in and of himself, holy. Leave a human being to his own devices with no authority or law and see what happens.
__________________

LemonMelon is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 04:52 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,725
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


Well, what exactly does immorality mean to you? I mean, when someone does something "bad" what are the consequences? Also, who decides what's right and wrong?
Greed, killing for pleasure or money or whatever, exploiting others and so on is immoral. Morality is not exclusive to religious people. I don't see it as a religious term. It's a highly philosophical term, though I'm not much into philosophy either.

Society defines what is right and what is wrong. But not solely. The law, developed over centuries and revisted 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.

Well, what are the consequences for criminal behaviour. Either he gets fined, or goes to jail. Some behaviour is immoral yet not criminal. You then have to decide whether you are going to forgive that person or try to get out of his way. Just don't get criminal yourself, that would be stupid and immoral either.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:00 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep








You don't think you are controlled by the concept of sin?


Look at the shame and self- disgust you express.


Sometimes I do things I thing are wrong, that injure other people.

I take responsibility for them and apologise. I really do a lot less of them since I no longer care or think about "God and the afterlife." My actions have immediate consequences and are not part of some much bigger picture with an imaginary 3rd person there.

My dealings are more honest and direct. I don't get any "golden pass".

I find I am much more considerate of people dealing with them in the here and now on terms that exist in real time.

Also, if I do make a mistake, I don't shame myself and add it to some big score card, and see how it all adds up.

I just make better choices and I find I am making a lot less offenses to others and myself.
When did I say I'm disgusted with myself? I said I've done some disgusting things. However, because I'm able to repent for them the burden is taken off of me. I've also done things that hurt others and when I personally make it right with them I feel better because I care about others as well. It's not about earning marls on a score card.

See, this is the thing that kind of gets on my nerves, and I hear a lot. When I talk to people about these things they very often talk like you are. That I treat right and wrong as like positive and negative points that will go on my eternal life score card. That I have no TRUE emotional feelings towards others, and that how others feel around me really isn't that important. I love the company of others, whether they're Christians or not, and I care a lot about how people feel. I do have the capacity, you know. You're iplying that the only reason I give a crap for others' feelings is so I can get to Heaven. No. Do you think Jesus would respect that? Of course not. I treat others well because I like to see them happy. The fact that God smiles on that is GREAT, but it's not the reason I do it. I'm not a heartless bastard who uses people as tokens to get a free ride into Heaven.

I find it disturbing to see what you rally think of people like me. You make our exisistences sound hollow.
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:01 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 06:32 PM
For me, sin = the absence of good (thought, intent, action...).
Liesje is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:09 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Greed, killing for pleasure or money or whatever, exploiting others and so on is immoral. Morality is not exclusive to religious people. I don't see it as a religious term. It's a highly philosophical term, though I'm not much into philosophy either.

Society defines what is right and what is wrong. But not solely. The law, developed over centuries and revisted 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.

Well, what are the consequences for criminal behaviour. Either he gets fined, or goes to jail. Some behaviour is immoral yet not criminal. You then have to decide whether you are going to forgive that person or try to get out of his way. Just don't get criminal yourself, that would be stupid and immoral either.
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.
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:15 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

What, in your view, is the reason for being holy? Why aspire to it?
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.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:15 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
A very good question,
maycocksean.

As someone that is doing missionary work I think you have to live with the concept.


I have given a lot of thought to sin.

I reject the concept completely.
I think it is one of the most abused terms that is in existance. I think it should cease to be.
I believe it is a human construct to give the creators authority and control over anyone they can get to accept the concept.
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? Maybe you feel already did so in your subsequent dialogue with shart1780 but I feel like I missed it. If you don't mind. . .
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:17 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
Oh man I remember I made a thread like this around a year ago (I think it was called "Do you believe in sin?" or something) and the discussion went on a long, long time. I wrote a short essay on it a while back, but I doubt I'll be able to track it down. I might type up the main points later.

Oh snap. I do remember that thread. . .gosh, I hope it wasn't me that started it. I'll feel kind of foolish!
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:20 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Why foolish?
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:22 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest


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 is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:23 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
Why foolish?
Cuz we would have already hashed this out and I totally forgot.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:24 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Oh well. It was a good discussion in the past. Don't see why it can't be good now.
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:31 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


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 is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:32 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
Oh well. It was a good discussion in the past. Don't see why it can't be good now.
True, true.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:36 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,725
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


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.

Quote:
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 is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:44 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,725
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


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.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:46 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


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 is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 05:50 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780

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.
deep is offline  
Old 07-22-2007, 06:04 PM   #40
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
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.
__________________

Diemen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×