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?
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?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
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.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
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.
www.greenthumbdepot.com|Hydroponics
"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 Many of the "sins" in the bible are outdated, but I think that we could conceptualize a modern standard of very basic morality.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.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
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.Originally Posted by cafolini
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 01-04-2012 at 08:32 PM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
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.
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.
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.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
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.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
morality and sins I see in a religious context quite reliant but in a modern outside the laws of God is not.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?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
*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.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
I agree, it does mean what is morally wrong, and I would add one more thing to your list-
3. Extreme selfishness, with no regard for others-which could be added on to your psychological harm one.
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.
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.
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.
Obama has done some good with the health reforms.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
