Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Patience, guys. A change of heart comes slow.
How do you stop yourself from thinking?Sin starts in the heart, doesn't it? And it's the heart that ultimately needs changing...
How many of the 7 deadly sins would you consider immoral? maybe wrath in certain contexts, but probably none of the others. They're population pacifiers.
And thought crimes like 'thou shall not covet' are certainly not immoral
Is homosexuality not considered a sin by many of the religious persuasion?
Well, I think part of the problem is that there is no real definition of sin. If you want to get into what sins are universally agreed upon, if we are calling sins religious, you will come up with almost nothing. Which I think gives this discussion a lot of problems.You have to understand that I am assuming that there is an actual "real" definition of sin that is not necessarily the same as what many practitioners of faith call "sin."
Here is an analogy that I'm taking from a discussion that cropped up on another thread awhile back. One could argue that a true definition of "Communism" is out there but that none of the so-called Communist countries actually meet that "real definition." In the same way, I'm maintaining that there is a "true" definition of sin out there but that some of things
believers call sin do not actually meet that "real" definition of sin.
Of course if you've already made up your mind that religion is bankrupt, then it would certainly suit your purposes to attack what in my mind are poor, misguided, or flat out wrong descriptions of sin.
I refuse to believe that an author who so properly worded the commandment not to "bear false witness against thou neighbor" (which is one of the few commandments I think we should value) would have such a tough time figuring out a way to word that commandment unless A) he truly meant it to be a thoughtcrime or B) the commandments were pieced together from multiple sources, i.e. not one God.
Sin starts in the heart, doesn't it? And it's the heart that ultimately needs changing...
Sure, but it's manifested in other sins. Stealing, hurting, etc. It's silly to argue that these sins aren't meant as feeling about ones self
Well, I think part of the problem is that there is no real definition of sin. If you want to get into what sins are universally agreed upon, if we are calling sins religious, you will come up with almost nothing. Which I think gives this discussion a lot of problems.
He means that if we, collectively, refer to sin as a "religious" term, we won't be able to properly define sin as each religion has a different set of rules/commandments.
If sin is defined by Christianity, we can maybe come up with something resembling universality. Less so if we throw in Judaism and Islam.
I actually don't know what the Seven Deadly Sins are. That really is a denomination-specific thing--the Catholic denomination to be specific. There is no discussion of the SDS or any other number of sins in my faith tradition.
Well, I mean it's a thread about sins. I hardly think bringing up the 7 deadly sins should be out of bounds. And I think in a round about way, that's kind of what peef was getting at
I like BVS simplified definition "anything that seperates you from God" but I agree with him that it is such a simplification of the term that may have little practical meaning for most people.
I do believe that sin is less about outward behavior (though that's a big part of it, of course) and more about the state one's "heart." A person's motives and "true self"--the person you are when no one is watching.
A more practical definition would be "What ever hurts someone else, hurts me, or damages my connection to God" constitutes sin. But again this still has more to do with my intentions and motives than it does to specific "sinful behaviors" at least in my opinion.
At any rate, the Christian view is that sin (and its ultimate consequence, death) is the natural state of human beings. We believe that we are incapable of extricating ourselves from a sinful state of being, and are in need of someone to get us out. That's where Jesus comes in. As you can see, without the idea of sin, Christianity doesn't really amount to much as a theology. What Jesus provides is freedom from sin and its ultimate consequence, death.
At the end of the day nobody (while they are happy and healthy anyway) wants to die, and Christianity like most all religions addresses the why of death (sin) and provides the get out death free card (Jesus).
By that I mean, if we try to find sins that are agreed upon across most faiths (excluding your Westboro Baptists and other tiny, insignificant religions, let's say), you'll basically be left with nothing. At various times in religious texts and in various popular interpretations, there is almost nothing actually considered a sin that is universally agreed upon. Not even murder in many cases.I'm not making an argument for what sins are universally agreed upon anymore than I'm making an argument into what aspects of God are universally agreed on. There is some general agreement within particular faith traditions on what sin is which keeps the discussion from being completely moot. Moonlit Angel asked me to share my perspective on sin and that's what I'm doing.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "if we are calling all sins religious, you will come up with almost nothing."
I'm not saying about its usage, I'm saying it's actually well worded in its original meaning and intention. So, basically, I'm saying the exact opposite of what you think I said. Plenty of religious people find plenty of interpretations out of these texts. I'm specifically talking about the way they are actually worded on the page.Actually, I think "bear false witness" is misused all the time. It is often oversimplified to "do not lie". As for the "thou shalt not covet", I don't suppose there's much need to get all worked up about that one. After all, that's one commandment that no could possibly know whether you are breaking anyway--the Minority Report imagery is a tad premature,no?--so it really is a thing between you and God, which is where it should be.
I respect the fact that you don't feel the need to convince others that they are sinning, and I only wish some of your religious brethren would take your cues on that.That is what we believe as Christians. And as I mentioned earlier, Christianity is basically a non-starter without first coming to that conclusion. And I would further add that I don't see it as my business to convince a person that they have a "sin problem." I personally believe that kind of conviction can only come from God and I don't think he needs my help to get people to that point.
I do want to reiterate though, because I did say this at the beginning, that Christians do believe that ultimately the real source of sin is an internal state of being and less on outward actions. It seems several posters are arguing that all that matters is what you do, not your motives, attitudes, or the "state of your heart." I get that. It just doesn't happen to work with Christian theology. (Not that those making the argument are all that concerned about that )
I'm certainly not trying to argue that your motives and attitudes don't matter and that actions shall be the sole judge of character. But I am saying that you have practically no control over fleeting thoughts. Let's say I meet a neighbor who has an attractive wife. Am I a sinner if my first, unchecked thought is that I would enjoy having sex with her? According to that commandment, I am.
That's what I mean when I talk about thoughtcrime.
nathan1977 said:Most Biblical scholars interpret the whole "if you look at a woman lustfully, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart" thing as not a fleeting, one-time glance, but willful, unchecked lasciviousness.
Or, as my dad once put it, "looking once isn't a sin. Looking twice is."
Nothing wrong with looking 10 times. That's the point. Add her to your spank bank if you want. Perfectly normal. Anybody that says otherwise is either dangerously repressed or a liar
Wow. You know, you're absolutely right. Objectifying people for your own personal sexual gratification is absolutely the way to go.
nathan1977 said:Most Biblical scholars interpret the whole "if you look at a woman lustfully, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart" thing as not a fleeting, one-time glance, but willful, unchecked lasciviousness.
Or, as my dad once put it, "looking once isn't a sin. Looking twice is."
normal
I'll never forget something I heard once: "to a liar, the world is full of liars, and to a thief, the world is full of thieves."
Wow. You know, you're absolutely right. Objectifying people for your own personal sexual gratification is absolutely the way to go.
in our own eyes, our dysfunctional behavior sometimes seems very normal. That doesn't make it right.
What is it to a repressed, shamed prude?