Sin

[desiresjab]

The Ten Commandments made an early attempt at listing some sins.

It is a strange observation, but nothing we call a sin is universally recognized as such in all cultures or religions. It was religiously fine with their Gods if Cheyenne stole ponys from Crow. Child marriage is acceptable in various branches of several major religions. Murder is acceptable many places as honor killing.

Is there one thing that is or has ever been universally recognized as a sin by our species??

[YALASH]

...

Is there one thing that is or has ever been universally recognized as a sin by our species??

Injustice.

[Anna Komnena]

same sex marriage i guess

[YesNo]

Until we are saints or gurus or whatever we become when we are perfect, we will probably always feel inadequate in some way and that inadequacy could be considered sin. Our understandings of what it is might change just as our views of perfection might change. As we flip between sin and perfection we express our views of each a little as we go. At the moment I'm in the mood where I don't want to take things "literally" and so I'll say we shouldn't take these expressions too literally either. Just because the expressions we come up with are not universal doesn't mean we aren't talking about something real when we use those expressions. Our expressions, not reality, are the problem.

It is sort of like a number, say 6. It can mean a lot of things although we think it is a rock solid idea of something. However, unlike rocks, we can't find 6 anywhere in the universe, at least, not like a rock. So, where is it? In Plato's cave? Outside the cave? It could be the number of things in our shopping cart. It could be an element in a mathematical ring of integers. It could be a label for an equivalence class in a finite field. It could represent "harmony". It could represent the Lover's card in the Tarot. It could be the number of the third eye chakra.

[bounty]

rather than just looking at external/observable actions, id also suggest that sin is an inner spiritual state indicating a separation from god.

[Ecurb]

All human societies about which we know have incest taboos (in anthropology this is the sole universal human rule). The precise nature of the rule varies, although we know of no societies in which parents are permitted to have sex with their own children. Brother and sister incest has been allowed only in rare cases, usually among royalty (Egyptian pharoahs sometimes married siblings, their only divine equals).

There have been many "explanations" of the universality of these rules, including psychological, biological, political and economic theories. The most common, biological explanation (greater likelihood of recessive traits leading to deformity) is highly dubious, mainly because it is falsified by the very common marriage rule that although one cannot marry one's "parallel cousin", one must marry one's "cross cousin". A cross cousin is one's mother's brother's or father's sister's child; a parallel cousin is one's father's brother's or mother's sister's child. Although in English we call all these relative's "cousins", in many languages they are referred to by distinct kinship terms. Also, in small, tribal societies, everyone is a relative to everyone else, so you must marry some sort of relative.

Freud was fascinated by the incest taboo, and wrote a book about it ("Totem and Taboo"). It's an entertaining book, although anthropologists pooh-pooh the ethnography and the wild speculations. "Exogamy" ("marrying out") certainly has economic and political advantages. After all, if you married your sister, your child would have only two grandparents to help him out, instead of four. In general, "cross cousins" are members of different clans, so marrying them builds economic and political alliances that would not exist if someone married a "parallel cousin" (who would generally be in the same clan). It may also be he case that sexual rivalries, disputes, and jealousies within a family (or clan) are disruptive and societies that allow them have not lasted.

[desiresjab]

All human societies about which we know have incest taboos (in anthropology this is the sole universal human rule). The precise nature of the rule varies, although we know of no societies in which parents are permitted to have sex with their own children. Brother and sister incest has been allowed only in rare cases, usually among royalty (Egyptian pharoahs sometimes married siblings, their only divine equals).

There have been many "explanations" of the universality of these rules, including psychological, biological, political and economic theories. The most common, biological explanation (greater likelihood of recessive traits leading to deformity) is highly dubious, mainly because it is falsified by the very common marriage rule that although one cannot marry one's "parallel cousin", one must marry one's "cross cousin". A cross cousin is one's mother's brother's or father's sister's child; a parallel cousin is one's father's brother's or mother's sister's child. Although in English we call all these relative's "cousins", in many languages they are referred to by distinct kinship terms. Also, in small, tribal societies, everyone is a relative to everyone else, so you must marry some sort of relative.

Freud was fascinated by the incest taboo, and wrote a book about it ("Totem and Taboo"). It's an entertaining book, although anthropologists pooh-pooh the ethnography and the wild speculations. "Exogamy" ("marrying out") certainly has economic and political advantages. After all, if you married your sister, your child would have only two grandparents to help him out, instead of four. In general, "cross cousins" are members of different clans, so marrying them builds economic and political alliances that would not exist if someone married a "parallel cousin" (who would generally be in the same clan). It may also be he case that sexual rivalries, disputes, and jealousies within a family (or clan) are disruptive and societies that allow them have not lasted.

You made some imformative points. But the taboo is not universal if a number of societies existed and exist where you could marry a cousin as long as it ws a cross cousin. The biological relationship is the same. That is a first cousin anyway you cut it.

I know the taboo is very widespread. The taboo against theft is too, but it was a virtue in plains Indian tribes, so we find an exception.

How widespread was this cross cousin marrying? Wasn't this stuff done all over Europe, for starters? You may have found our closest to a universal taboo. I suppose the most taboo brand of incest would be the Electra and Oedipus taboos.

[Ecurb]

When I studied anthropology, the incest taboo was considered to be the one universal human rule (the rule about parents and children is universal,and the taboo against sex with siblings is almost universal, the only exceptions being divine royalty, as far as we know). Europeans didn't differentiate between cross and parallel cousins;they did not prohibit (and sometimes encouraged) marriage between cousins (I'm not sure if that is true in, say, Scotland where clans were important). The cross cousin marriage rule is very common in simple societies (Australia, Africa, and the Americas). It's often a little more complicated than it seems, because kinship terms are "classificatory" in some societies. In other words, you might call your fellow clan members "brother" or "sister" when they are parallel cousins biologically, and the term for "cross cousins" might apply to both first cousins and slightly more distant relatives. Obviously, cross and parallel cousins are equally closely related to someone biologically , which is why the biological explanation of the incest taboo doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. However, socially, politically, and economically they might be more "distant', because they belong to different political and economic groups (clans).

[Ecurb]

By the way, "theft" refers to taking something illegally. By definition it is universally prohibited, but many societies have notions of property and usufruct rights that are very different from ours. Whatever word the Cheyenne used for taking Crow ponies would not properly be translated as "theft" or "stealing". The ancient Greeks considered trading with non-Greeks wimpy. Why not just take the stuff they wanted by main force? But they did not consider this "theft" -- a translation might be "raiding". In general, property rights are necessary for "theft" to be a meaningful term, and many smaller societies have definitions of "property" so different from ours that "theft" is often not an applicable term (or translation of a word in their language).

[desiresjab]

However, socially, politically, and economically they might be more "distant', because they belong to different political and economic groups (clans).

On of the best reasons for marrying out of the family or clan is the additional knowledge and experience brought to the table (Flintstone table) by the new party.

[desiresjab]

When I studied anthropology, the incest taboo was considered to be the one universal human rule.

And there it is. I was not far wrong. I missed it by one rule.

The only thing the human race can get together on universally is don't f*ck your own kids. Sweet.

Sentimental bunch, aren't they?

[Ecurb]

Is there one thing that is or has ever been universally recognized as a sin by our species??

Are there "laws" (or moral rules) in heaven? It seems self evident that there is no need to recognize behaviors as sinful, evil, or unlawful unless we humans have a proclivity for them. We might consider it wicked to eat pork (Muslims and Jews) or cows (Hindus), but there is no reason to deem it wicked to eat mud pies.

Laws - by their nature -- restrict freedom. If freedom is of value, utopia must be an anarchy. Perhaps rather than seeing the scarcity of universally acknowledged mores as evidence of human immorality, we could see it as evidence that, in some cultures, "stealing" or "adultery", or "murder" are not temptations, and need not be forbidden. We forbid pork or beef.

I'm not sure what this theory says about the incest taboo -- but I'm pretty sure Freud would figure it out. My point is that the paucity of universal human moral codes may be the result of our generosity and social decorum, instead of our fallen natures (acc. the Bible).

By the way, I've often wondered how Christians view heaven. God is "King", but he allows Lucifer and his angels to leave. Do the angels obey God as a "ruler"? If so, can heaven be a utopia, when its inhabitants are not "free"? I'm sure Christians have some answer to these questions, but I don't know what it is.

[desiresjab]

Are there "laws" (or moral rules) in heaven?

By the way, I've often wondered how Christians view heaven. I'm sure Christians have some answer to these questions, but I don't know what it is.

If you mean Christian theologians, even they differ widely. If you mean just folks, that really varies.

My mother was a Christian and spent a lot of time thinking about what heaven was like. She believed it was a place of immense learning and exploration.

To me, If there is no danger in heaven, how interesting could it be? Heaven's danger must be another perspective of that which goes under the name of evil here. Evil appears to keep things interesting.

What would God do without evil to combat? He'd have his finger up his butt and his mind in South America, is what. Evil is God's creation, too. If the fellow created everything, then he created evil too. I see two possible reasons.

1 Evil was an ineluctable by product of creation, like two is the successor of one, even God could not avoid it.

2 God created evil to keep things interesting.

Perhaps evil is one those infinitely enfolded emergent properties that just. had to express itself. That would fall under 1 above.

[desiresjab]

I do not think God created the universe and then took a 13 billion year nap while he waited for man and evil to show up.

If I were God maybe I would have made everything happen at once from my perspective. I would not imprison myself in a tiny, travelling mono-rail of time with them. I don't know why I put them in that cage. Perhaps to give them something asymptotically close to free will, so close they could never know the difference, though they might spot its possibility philosophically and have suspicions.

Most of all, I made them like I am--curious, combative, jealous, creative, loving, vengeful.

I created this universe all right, but I did not create existence.

[YALASH]

Peace be on all.
According to my understanding*, God has been Maker since ever to ever.
Our universe is part of all Making.
God made universe through
1-Creation
2-Guided-at-each-step evolution.
Human are here for purpose. They are born pure, without any internal sin.
They are born with raw faculties. They have to shine them. A true religion [a true religion is the one which is not tempered by corruption latter] provides them ways to shine these raw capacities to get connection with God with worship, a worship which must lead to good works for ALL humanity. They have to grow their soul.

When they die, soul reaches to heavens for full bounties. But those who chose to follow bad ways and accepted calls of satan [whispers of evil forces, sunk self] God will judge them with justice, see their environment and fix responsibility why they did so, then they shall be cured and they shall start from first rung of blessings in heavens.


* Ahmadiyya-Muslim