I was thinking about the meaning of the Original Sin and I thought maybe we could discuss what we progressive intelligent people make of the idea
of SIN.
In other words what is your own personal interpretation of Sin, if any?
Printable View
I was thinking about the meaning of the Original Sin and I thought maybe we could discuss what we progressive intelligent people make of the idea
of SIN.
In other words what is your own personal interpretation of Sin, if any?
Sin is to kill the mystery and postulate something in its place as true. Or to support the ones that claim to have the answers to mystery.
When one begins to define a term according to one's own determinations, there are several issues that arise. One will be compelled to justify their own desires as it meets selfish wants. When the desires are acted upon without regard to the consequences, a social breakdown occurs. It seems that this is neither progressive, nor intelligent. There is a truth of reality to be sought, but when that reality is not valued among some, there is a striving to redefine terms in order to ease the conscience.
well, according to the Bible, there are two types of sin that are referred to- the verb of sin (hamartano), and the noun sin (hamartia). The verb form basically means to "miss the mark." Harmatia refers to the presence of sin in our lives.
Of course, this is all based on the premise that Christianity is the authority on sin. If you do not believe this, then you do not believe my definition of sin, which is fine. But if you base sin on the Bible, then... read on!
to hamartano, or to "miss the mark" is to basically go against God's laws (love others, forgive, don't kill, etc). to have the presence of sin in our lives means that we are basically flawed human beings, born with the inability to be "perfect," as God is perfect.
"Sin" basically means "what is morally wrong," doesn't it? There are a lot of stupid ones in the bible, like "men should not cut their hair" or "children who make fun of bald men should be stonned," but that's from thousands of years ago. Many of the "sins" in the bible are outdated, but I think that we could conceptualize a modern standard of very basic morality.
I suppose I would say that I can identify two things which I would consider "sins:"
1. Causing physical or excessive psychological harm to another person deliberately or through wanton neglect.
2. Refusing to allow another person the equal standard of legal rights (which will vary from country to country) on the basis of their gender, race or sexual preference.
People are getting confused and mixing the idea of sin with what's against the law. The concept of sin is biblical and has nothing to do with a well-published law violation.
Biblically sin was postulated to try to overcome the mystery of life with false commandments invented by the leaders. The leaders had all the answers up their sleeves. And they acted, under protection of any of the invented Gods, to make the punishments impersonal enough so as not to be responsible for their decrees and executions. They are still doing this in countries like Iran, just to mention one of the many others.
It's not about "law," it's about morality. Isn't that the purpose of "sin?" To instill some form of morality into followers? I don't think that we need religion to tell us what's right and wrong anymore, but we could still formulate some basic principles which are agreed upon by most people, "sins" by modern standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Of course it's about morality, a very subjective and most often hypocritical judgment as such. It was always dealt with as morality. All religions claimed and still claim the right morality. But when something is a law, the violation is not a sin. It is a crime punishable by law. Sins are moral, religious violations that depend on the morality of the congregation. The advanced concept is well-published law and crime. And the law protects the rights, not the morality of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
You are beating a dead horse. The law protects the moral rights of people if the execution of those morals do not violate the laws. Otherwise, no matter what morality they may claim, they go to jail.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
But wether the word sinful apply is perhaps taking to another level.
I would say both what you said are sinful but without consequences.
But if it is condemned as not right/unacceptable then it is reprimended.
The idea of something done is a sin has no direct bearing on the person said sinner.
I was thinking about the Original Sin for example.
The idea of taking an apple off a tree is not in my eyes a sin.
It is simply an act that is going against a warning.
Human nature is naturally prone to doing what we have guarded or told them what not to do.
It is what children do. The more you tell them not to the more they will want to do it.
I see 'this original sin' as totally unfounded because whilst Adam and Eve 'disobeyed' God their act of taking a fruit from a tree is neither themselves or others and therefore dismiss it as sin.
Going back to what the definition of a sin is, accroding what I know, it is simply an act that we have been FORBIDDEN or TOLD not to.
For example A Priest, in catholicism, is not to marry or have sexual contacts and if it is brokem then he or she has committed a sin.
The actions is entirely harmless but because it is within a religious context it becomes a sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
morality and sins I see in a religious context quite reliant but in a modern outside the laws of God is not.Quote:
it's about morality. Isn't that the purpose of "sin?"
However sins do not prevent immorality from happening.
For example a peadophile is an immoral person and has 'sinned' but who is he to report to his sins? A god that is not around to reprimend.
I do not believe of the existence of Hell and therefore do not believe in the word SIN
what is the purpose of a SIN?
How does it help anyone go about their lives unharmed?
*sigh* Whatever. This precurser to what I predict will be a tedious and long-winded debate isn't even about anything, so you win I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I agree, it does mean what is morally wrong, and I would add one more thing to your list-Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
3. Extreme selfishness, with no regard for others-which could be added on to your psychological harm one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
No, he didn't win!! The law does NOT protect people from being victims of neglect- so I think the law and morality are two different things. Or maybe I am misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
We have hundreds of welfare laws in the United States that protect people from neglect and they are evolving. And we have hundreds of laws that protect people from negligence. I won this one before I started. Smiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
That's not the perception we have here. We see a society which protects the middle class and rich of course, whilst neglecting the poor. i was really shocked to see the after effects of Katrina and the neglect of New Orleans and its population. The treatment was third world.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Obama has done some good with the health reforms.
I don't think this is right. Morality is about what's right and wrong in a given situation, and may have nothing to do with the law. Immoral actions may not be a crime - such as cheating on a partner.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
But when something is a law, the violation is not a sin. It is a crime punishable by law.
It may be. It is morally wrong to kill, it is a sin to kill and it is a crime to kill.
The law protects the moral rights of people if the execution of those morals do not violate the laws. Otherwise, no matter what morality they may claim, they go to jail.
The law protects the legal rights of people. It does not necessarily protect the moral laws. The law says you can't steal from your partner, but it doesn't say you can't cheat on them. Both these actions are morally wrong.
Still winning?
Exactly. This thread isn't about the law. The question was "what is your concept of sin?" My response was that while the bible's "sins" are outdated, widely common modern ideas of that which is considered exceptionally morally wrong might be considered modern "sins" and these include blah blah blah. What does the law have to do with it? The law is written because of human morality, it isn't the other way around. Laws haven't replaced morality (which means that they haven't replaced the concept of "sin" as I've defined it). We don't change the way we feel and think about moral issues because of the law, we write laws to reflect how we think and feel. The vast majority of humans feel physical sickness when they see another human being hurt or killed. Ergo, we write laws to to prevent people from being hurt and killed and to enforce what we believe is "right," ie. not morally wrong, ie. my concept of a modern "sin" as I've defined it in my first post. Aaaaand that's what this thread is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I trust my conscious. If something makes me feel guilty or bad, it is a "sin"Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
The thread is about morality, not laws anyways. We can argue laws in another thread. Not all laws protect us from immorality.
To me, an immoral act is the same as a sin. Even though sin is a religious term, it means the same thing. And most people agree on what is basically moral and what isn't.
murder- unless it's self defense or to protect someone
causing harm- that could mean greed, cheating, emotional, physical
selfishness-disregard for others
Good rule to live by, it can be that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Can we stay away from another U.S. bad, U.K. good thread? I personally love both countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Your perception is grossly perverted by the almighty media. You have no clue what was done for the Katrina victims, and how people did nothing for themselves. I thought better of your perception of things. I am disappointed. Don't mention Obama, this shouldn't turn into a political discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Yes, the almighty media, whose shareholders and advertisers, whose owners, of course distort things in favour of the poor and against the rich. That leftist network CNN with its host Erin Burnett, wife of a Citigroup executive.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
The media has always been leftists. If you don't think that CNN distorts the truth, then they have been successful in Canada. I'm not getting into a political discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Its a media discussion. And its a comically absurd talking point you are spilling here. Billionaires own the big networks. If you want to observe some unabashedly leftist media check out Democracy Now. If the mainstream media is left wing then why do I so profoundly despise it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
There are many leftist billionaires, so I don't understand your point. Do you think that all the executives of all the companies are staunch conservatives. It's a discussion of media right now, but to establish my point would require me to go into politics. Just to examine the campaign stories that the mainstream media focuses upon, and how they use their muscle to control the people's way of thought will show their leftest leanings. Of course is someone is further left it would be impossible for them to see it. I don't expect anyone here to concede to this reality, because most people here are pretty far left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I will try my best to keep this as non-political as possible. The mainstream media does not question the status quo. It reflects the corporate establishment. Compare Anderson Cooper to Mike Malloy or Tom Hartmann or any other left-wing personality. True leftist sentiments find their most eloquent expression in such speakers as Chris Hedges, Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky. Viewpoints such as theirs have no place in the mainstream media.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Yeah, I think you're right. There is no way to discuss this without it becoming a political discussion.
Haha yeah, let's discuss political influences on the retardedly politicized United States news networks while at the same time not discussing politics. That's sure not impossible.*
*sarcasm
Sometimes perception is just that, perception. Let's not delude ourselves, every place has negligence in one form or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
What health reforms? All I'm aware of is they changed the food pyramid.Quote:
Obama has done some good with the health reforms.
Ever heard of the "liberal media"? MSNBC is a prime example, even though they are part of mainstream media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Good move. To discuss politics here would be a sin. :wink5:Quote:
Yeah, I think you're right. There is no way to discuss this without it becoming a political discussion.
...of varying degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
(I hope you don't mind that I completed your sentence there)
Yeah I had a big response typed up and then realized it was purely political. There's no point. Minds don't get changed on internet forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
Yeah. (I think this is the first time we agree on anything.)Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
To further that thought, some are honest mistakes, some are downright criminal.
I'm cool with that.Quote:
(I hope you don't mind that I completed your sentence there)
So true. It has a tendency to deteriorate into arguments and even name calling and that's bad, though not quite a sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I think both politics and religion are moot points. Religion discussions should be limited to the texts and not the validity of religion as it's a matter of faith and that's an indisputable personal choice. Then again I don't make the rules here.
originally posted by Haunted;
What health reforms? All I'm aware of is they changed the food pyramid.
:hurray::smilielol5::lol:
That wasn't the intention. Here in the UK we have a public school elite who run the political parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
I can only report the perception here, although I am aware of the media's influence. The thing is, if there were political interference in our perception of what happened in New Orleans, then it would be pro US. I have to say that I'm not against any country, and I am very well aware of the drawbacks in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I'll mention Obama if I feel he illustrates a point. After all I was responding to this:
We have hundreds of welfare laws in the United States that protect people from neglect and they are evolving. And we have hundreds of laws that protect people from negligence.
from Cafolini. What he says doesn't come across to me from what I see, and this from Haunted:
What health reforms? All I'm aware of is they changed the food pyramid.
seems to support that idea in so far as it's worse than I thought. Now not looking after your own people let alone anyone else - that's a sin.
Well, if people vote for them they get what they deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Yes - but all three parties - Clegg, Milliband and Cameron? Anyway - it's sinful to bring in politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I hope that this is generic enough to say, and is possibly agreeable enough to anyone. I don't care what party, I personally would just prefer anyone who WASN'T a career politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Stop talking politics! I am trying hard to obey the rules but this is like facing all you can eat Chinese on a strict diet.
But Darcy...I can't really see Chinese food (or at least MOST Chinese foods) that can really be off limits to a diet. I just made some stir fry last night for a group of friends. It was all quite healthy (generally speaking) except if you would consider me adding molasses to the chicken's sauce. Then we had fresh fruit with freshly whipped cream for dessert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Besides, if it is a "sin" to talk politics, then we would be defining an aspect of sin and it would all be applicable to the original post.