Homosexuality is not a sin!

[romansh]

19 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, this will fall on deaf ears, but indeed the actions are considered sins. The actors are another story.

If there is a 'way to be' or even a take off on Maslow's actualization, then adultery - breaking one's word, one's commitment, to another -  'misses the mark.'

So …  breaking a contract intentionally is a sin in your book? Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Say casual sex for enjoyment? 

Or casual sex with another when one is married in an open marriage?

[thormas]

9 minutes ago, romansh said:

So …  breaking a contract intentionally is a sin in your book? Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Say casual sex for enjoyment? 

Or casual sex with another when one is married in an open marriage?

Well there are contracts and there are contracts ...........however breaking contracts might be considered wrong (by some, many, most?), as in breaking one's word, and it could be hard to get further work or contracts once this information got out, for example a contractor. Many would consider the breaking of a contract wrong, although I don't know if those many would call it a 'sin' in the secular world. However, it we take it into the realm of the religious, such wrong actions might fall under lying, even stealing - and be considered sins. See how that works?

As to sex, I made a statement and I leave you to make a determination as to what might be right/wrong, moral/immoral/ sin/no sin.

 

 

 

[romansh]

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

As to sex, I made a statement and I leave you to make a determination as to what might be right/wrong, moral/immoral/ sin/no sin.

I really do sympathize with Paul's discussions with you.

I have made my determinations, I was wondering what yours were. Not those of some nebulous third party.

[thormas]

43 minutes ago, romansh said:

I really do sympathize with Paul's discussions with you.

I have made my determinations, I was wondering what yours were. Not those of some nebulous third party.

I'm sure you do sympathize - btw, how is that research going? Any work product yet? Anything at all? :+}

Actually I made determinations and was asking you to actually answer a question rather then merely ask them :+}

Could you direct us to exactly where you have made your 'determinations' on the specific issues you asked me about (in your 2nd to last post)? 

Thanks, I wait with bated breath. 

[romansh]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

btw, how is that research going? Any work product yet? Anything at all?

I am currently reading Sapiens by Harari … excellent book

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually I made determinations 

As far as I can tell you did not answer my question(s) but different ones.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

was asking you to actually answer a question

Should try question marks. ;+)

But if you want to know what I think about sin …  I think it is a crock as concepts go. It does not exist beyond some people's imaginations. 

Breaking contracts … that is what we have civil courts for. 

Breaking our word … it happens. Could not be otherwise.

Sex outside of marriage … fine, not a problem. Committing adultery … has a potential to hurt people that care about you, I personally would avoid that sort of thing. Would I divvy things up into right and wrong … in the sense of good and bad … certainly not.

And the good thing is I don't need expert interpretations of what are ultimately apocryphal texts.

 

[thormas]

58 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am currently reading Sapiens by Harari … excellent book

As far as I can tell you did not answer my question(s) but different ones.

Should try question marks. ;+)

But if you want to know what I think about sin …  I think it is a crock as concepts go. It does not exist beyond some people's imaginations. 

Breaking contracts … that is what we have civil courts for. 

Breaking our word … it happens. Could not be otherwise.

Sex outside of marriage … fine, not a problem. Committing adultery … has a potential to hurt people that care about you, I personally would avoid that sort of thing. Would I divvy things up into right and wrong … in the sense of good and bad … certainly not.

And the good thing is I don't need expert interpretations of what are ultimately apocryphal texts.

 

You asked and I responded to adultery, divorce and sexual immorality - what didn't I answer in the original question?

 

There you go Rom, good lad! You actually answered questions albeit with no real detail.

I get that a secularist would not buy into the concept of sin (since it pertains also to God). However, once it is equated to right/wrong and moral/immoral, you are then saying that these basic ideas behind sin are a crock. Sin is simply the statement that X, Y or Z are wrong, bad, immoral actions. A bit drastic Rom.

Moving on:

Of course that's one of the reasons we have civil courts which goes to my point that the breaking of a contract is considered wrong. So great, you acknowledge the point.

Say what on breaking our word? It happens? That's it? No greater insight or comment? And what could not be otherwise? Hey, I would hate to be the guy, caught in an adulterous relationship, who says to his wife, "Hey I broke my word (of forsaking all others), it happens." Hope there is no prenup for the wife's sake as revenge is a dish ........well you get it. 

So you see the potential or perhaps the inevitability of harm from adultery and you therefore wouldn't do it - but you wouldn't divvy it up to right/wrong, good/bad?   So let's examine this:  you recognize the harm but such harm -  is neither bad nor wrong? What is it neutral? But if it is neutral why would you avoid it? Makes no sense unless you think to commit adultery is to harm and to harm ......... is bad or wrong. 

Sex outside of marriage, so any sex that is not adulterous is fine? Ok, so you're ok with a teacher having sex with her minor student, you're ok with incest, you're ok with the simple use or misuse of another for your gratification (sort of like a human sex toy), you're ok with sex with kids, you're ok with all sex outside of marriage? Amazing. But if any of these bother you, then you have admitted that they are wrong, bad, immoral.

And in all this, you have never read books written for example by any ancient Romans or Greeks - whose texts are also sometimes in doubt as to their exact authenticty? Interesting selectivity.

BTW, I don't need expert interpretation either, I just refer to them and ancient texts when asked to or for fun.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

22 hours ago, thormas said:

However, once it is equated to right/wrong and moral/immoral, you are then saying that these basic ideas behind sin are a crock. Sin is simply the statement that X, Y or Z are wrong, bad, immoral actions

Depends on whether you believe in free will.

22 hours ago, thormas said:

Say what on breaking our word? It happens? That's it? No greater insight or comment? And what could not be otherwise? Hey, I would hate to be the guy, caught in an adulterous relationship, who says to his wife, "Hey I broke my word (of forsaking all others), it happens." Hope there is no prenup for the wife's sake as revenge is a dish ........well you get it. 

Yes … Christians do enjoy their revenge. To be fair others do too. Once one understands that "forgiveness" is just a stepping stone to understanding that there is nothing to forgive anyway. 

22 hours ago, thormas said:

So you see the potential or perhaps the inevitability of harm from adultery and you therefore wouldn't do it - but you wouldn't divvy it up to right/wrong, good/bad?   So let's examine this:  you recognize the harm but such harm -  is neither bad nor wrong? What is it neutral? But if it is neutral why would you avoid it? Makes no sense unless you think to commit adultery is to harm and to harm ......... is bad or wrong. 

I don't want to harm/hurt my wife. Not even risk it. Its not a case of some universal dictum that something is wrong.

22 hours ago, thormas said:

Sex outside of marriage, so any sex that is not adulterous is fine?

In the great scheme of things the universe is just fine. There are bits of it I have been conditioned to dislike. For example a 28 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old. My conditioning gives various responses to female on male, male on female, male on male and female on female. Also I am aware that my conditioned response would vary with the culture and time that I find myself in. 

22 hours ago, thormas said:

And in all this, you have never read books written for example by any ancient Romans or Greeks - whose texts are also sometimes in doubt as to their exact authenticty? Interesting selectivity.

No I have not read any ancient books …  I have read Ehrman and Weyler on the subject. Read a good deal of Campbell. Started Plato's Republic, but could not get into it. Routinely read the New Scientists and if you actually care about my reading habits … here is a summary of most of the books I have read over the last ten years.

 

22 hours ago, thormas said:

I don't need expert interpretation either, I just refer to them and ancient texts when asked to or for fun.

Quite possibly … Giving opinions of experts does not tell me about your opinions.

Edited November 14, 2019 by romansh

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Depends on whether you believe in free will.

What depends on whether you believe in free will? That sin, a recognizable religious term, is basically equivalent to bad, wrong or immoral? How does that equivalency depend on whether one believes in free will? We're not yet talking culpability or blameworthiness (which does go to free will), we're simply discussing a basic understanding of what is meant by the term sin. Stay on topic it will be easier for you in the long run.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Yes … Christians do enjoy their revenge. To be fair others do too. Once one understands that "forgiveness" is just a stepping stone to understanding that there is nothing to forgive anyway. 

No Rom, the issue was not revenge that was a mere throwaway (I refer you to Star Trek II). The issue which you dodged is that breaking one's word 'just happens.' So if word breaking is something that just happens then the aggrieved party should have no issue with it. Lots of stuff just happens: a sneeze, a cough, a fart. No one is going to really get upset if any of this 'just happen' but people do get upset if another breaks their word, especially in the intimate relationship example that I gave. It seems therefore that breaking one's word does not 'just happen.' But I see you have no real explanation or defense of that statement.

2 hours ago, romansh said:

I don't want to harm/hurt my wife. Not even risk it. Its not a case of some universal dictum that something is wrong.

Again, another dodge. Forget universal dictums: do you or do you not recognize that (possibly) harming your wife is bad (not good and not neutral but bad) and therefore you won't do it?  If it is not bad, then how can it, in the specific example of adultery, cause harm?

2 hours ago, romansh said:

In the great scheme of things the universe is just fine. There are bits of it I have been conditioned to dislike. For example a 28 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old. My conditioning gives various responses to female on male, male on female, male on male and female on female. Also I am aware that my conditioned response would vary with the culture and time that I find myself in. 

Amazing, another dodge. There really is a difference when you're not just asking endless questions but have to answer some. We're not talking about the universe right now, we're talking about non-adulterous, non-marriage sex - and the universe doesn't really care about our sex lives, so let us answer the questions.

So conditioning or not, you have just said that the 28/14 sex relationship is something to be disliked. Sort of like other 'bad' things that we dislike, like the hot stove hurting a child or an adulterous act harming/hurting a spouse. So these things, these harmful actions are bad or wrong - and to be avoided.

I really don't care who is on whom, just tell us if you dislike the other examples I presented: incest,  a teacher with her minor student,  the use or misuse of another for your gratification (sort of like a human sex toy), sex with kids, all sex outside of marriage. And let's for fun not complicated it and stick to our culture and time - don't dodge, just answer specifically.

BTW, does this mean that you are nice to particularly important people in your life because of your conditioning? That must go over well: so it's not your choice, it's not an ongoing choice and commitment to behave and act a certain way - it's just conditioning. That must make everybody feel very special.

In addition, knowledge is power: if you are 'aware of your conditioned responses,' you should be able to 'choose' to act in a different way. That you don't, given the examples of adultery and the 28/14 sex example, speaks volumes. Perhaps you are aware that the universe if only fine if you help it along (in your own individual way).

2 hours ago, romansh said:

No I have not read any ancient books …  I have read Ehrman and Weyler on the subject. Read a good deal of Campbell. Started Plato's Republic, but could not get into it. Routinely read the New Scientists and if you actually care about my reading habits … here is a summary of most of the books I have read over the last ten years.

No Rom, I wasn't asking for your reading list, I was merely pointing out that scholars, and I believe Ehrman has also acknowledged this, recognize that many other ancient books are also - what did you say about the books of the Bible -  "ultimately apocryphal texts."  Welcome to ancient history and texts 101!

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Quite possibly … Giving opinions of experts does not tell me about your opinions.

Quite actually... I have given many opinions, including in this thread. However, I also look to experts and other trusted people to continually learn and consider their positions :+}

[PaulS]

On 11/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, Burl said:

Jesus was clear that fornication outside of marriage was sinful.  

If he was clear, I think he was mistaken.

[PaulS]

I think I agree with Thormas that sin is nonsense (unless you happen to be religous and then you value the term).  Sin as a religous term has always been used to portray a negative view of somebody's actions.  It's an antiquated term and I do wish religious people would move past using it and all its connotations, but alas, they don't seem to be able to.  Human being's do do things that harm themselves and/or for all sorts of reasons - deliberately, accidentally, because of addictions, etc.  This is not 'sin', this is being human, warts and all.  There is no 'mark' we are missing other than a mark we imagine for ourselves, which is why we all have different 'marks'!  Again, it is nonsensical to pretend that there is a perfect way of being.  It's in our heads.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

If he was clear, I think he was mistaken.

The question is was anything said.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I think I agree with Thormas that sin is nonsense (unless you happen to be religous and then you value the term).  Sin as a religous term has always been used to portray a negative view of somebody's actions.  It's an antiquated term and I do wish religious people would move past using it and all its connotations, but alas, they don't seem to be able to.  Human being's do do things that harm themselves and/or for all sorts of reasons - deliberately, accidentally, because of addictions, etc.  This is not 'sin', this is being human, warts and all.  There is no 'mark' we are missing other than a mark we imagine for ourselves, which is why we all have different 'marks'!  Again, it is nonsensical to pretend that there is a perfect way of being.  It's in our heads.

Of course, a non-religious person has no interest in the concept of sin because (I assume) they don't accept the basic idea.

Sin, like bad, wrong or immoral, is used to speak of certain actions that are negative, in religious terms they diminish or break the relationship with God. Of course if one doesn't believe in God, it is a moot point.

Whether or not it is an antiquated term is a matter of opinion. That it has been 'updated' especially for and by non-theist religious people, is the case.

Without studying your opinion in depth, I would agree that not all the things you list are sin. If one accidentally kills or injures another, it is not necessarily considered a sinful action; so too addictions. However, deliberate harm seems to fall into another category as is evident even in secular, non-religious society. All sorts of actions are done by human beings and thus human actions but some 'harmful' actions are not considered humane, or exemplary behavior, or the best of us, or in ancient Greek terms, a recognition of or representative of the Good. Even in ordinary life, some particularly 'harmful' actions are described as inhuman, monstrous, lacking all humanity, and those who indulge are called animals, monsters, inhuman and we warn all other people to avoid them, we hunt them down, we lock them away and in some cases they are put to death. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, there is a difference, there is a world of difference in certain 'harmful' horrific human actions.

Just as in sports there is a spot to hit, a line to cross, a goal to achieve, a mark to aim for (btw, these are analogies and no one is comparing life to sport) when used regarding sin, it simply means that some choices 'miss' out altogether on being good, humane, helpful, loving, etc. Simply they miss the mark, the goal or, to complete the analogy, they have not only not hit a home run, they haven't even drawn a walk to get remotely close to being on base.

Is it imaginary? It is apparent that it is not and too often it is our sad reality. 

However, all this being said, if one doesn't like the concept of sin, or the idea of 'missing the mark' or considers it nonsensical - that is fine (for them) and not even considered sin :+}

 

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by thormas

[Burl]

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think I agree with Thormas that sin is nonsense (unless you happen to be religous and then you value the term).  Sin as a religous term has always been used to portray a negative view of somebody's actions.  It's an antiquated term and I do wish religious people would move past using it and all its connotations, but alas, they don't seem to be able to.  Human being's do do things that harm themselves and/or for all sorts of reasons - deliberately, accidentally, because of addictions, etc.  This is not 'sin', this is being human, warts and all.  There is no 'mark' we are missing other than a mark we imagine for ourselves, which is why we all have different 'marks'!  Again, it is nonsensical to pretend that there is a perfect way of being.  It's in our heads.

Your incorrect interpretation of sin is a variety of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, Paul.

Sin is the degree of impurity.  It is the difference between God’s will and personal will.  It can be an action, but can also also intention or empathy or a lack of love.

 

[Burl]

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

If he was clear, I think he was mistaken.

No.  You are mistaken.

[romansh]

On 11/14/2019 at 4:08 PM, thormas said:

What depends on whether you believe in free will? That sin, a recognizable religious term, is basically equivalent to bad, wrong or immoral? How does that equivalency depend on whether one believes in free will? We're not yet talking culpability or blameworthiness (which does go to free will), we're simply discussing a basic understanding of what is meant by the term sin. Stay on topic it will be easier for you in the long run.

Your assertions to which I replied. Sin is a recognizable term … as are most terms? Ah an apple that has gone bad, has gone sinful … really? Bad and sin are synonymous. I was questioning whether sin exists, not whether the concept of sin exists. So it is on topic.

On 11/14/2019 at 4:08 PM, thormas said:

The issue which you dodged is that breaking one's word 'just happens.' So if word breaking is something that just happens then the aggrieved party should have no issue with it.

I never said that. In fact if I break my word the aggrieves party has many paths they can remedy the issue, should they choose to do so. The real explanation lies in the free will topic which you have deemed off topic.

On 11/14/2019 at 4:08 PM, thormas said:

So conditioning or not, you have just said that the 28/14 sex relationship is something to be disliked.

I did not say that. I said my responses are a result of conditioning. What are the sources of your responses? If you lived in 0 CE Greece, your responses would be quite different, I suspect. At that time women and children were considered chattel.

On 11/14/2019 at 4:08 PM, thormas said:

BTW, does this mean that you are nice to particularly important people in your life because of your conditioning? That must go over well: so it's not your choice, it's not an ongoing choice and commitment to behave and act a certain way - it's just conditioning. That must make everybody feel very special.

Yes … I am even nice to you because of my conditioning. I am not a self made man, thereby relieving god of an almighty responsibility.

On 11/14/2019 at 4:08 PM, thormas said:

In addition, knowledge is power: if you are 'aware of your conditioned responses,' you should be able to 'choose' to act in a different way.

This is a complete non sequitur thormas. For an example, I know of two people who knew they were depressed, yet they killed themselves anyway. This could be discussed on the free will thread.

On 11/14/2019 at 4:08 PM, thormas said:

That you don't, given the examples of adultery and the 28/14 sex example, speaks volumes. Perhaps you are aware that the universe if only fine if you help it along (in your own individual way).

What?

In what way am I acting? 

The fact I can separate an intuitive/conditioned response from a philosophical viewpoint … shows I do "choose". 

On 11/14/2019 at 4:08 PM, thormas said:

No Rom, I wasn't asking for your reading list, I was merely pointing out that scholars, and I believe Ehrman has also acknowledged this, recognize that many other ancient books are also - what did you say about the books of the Bible -  "ultimately apocryphal texts."  Welcome to ancient history and texts 101!

Well you have them now … perhaps you can provide list of books that you read that are not about  ultimately apocryphal texts

 

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Your assertions to which I replied. Sin is a recognizable term … as are most terms? Ah an apple that has gone bad, has gone sinful … really? Bad and sin are synonymous. I was questioning whether sin exists, not whether the concept of sin exists. So it is on topic.

Sinful apples is merely an expression - it this case, that they are a waste:+}

Yes, sin exists and you know this since you have stated that sin is synonymous with bad and bad exists - therefore sin exists. It is after all, a recognizable term and the evidence of bad/sinful actions are rampant in the history of mankind.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I never said that. In fact if I break my word the aggrieves party has many paths they can remedy the issue, should they choose to do so. The real explanation lies in the free will topic which you have deemed off topic.

You never disappoint: of course you did (above). And, of course there are legal remedies but we were not talking legal remedies. We have discussed free will previously, so simply stay on topic with the current posts and all will be clear.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I did not say that. I said my responses are a result of conditioning. What are the sources of your responses? If you lived in 0 CE Greece, your responses would be quite different, I suspect. At that time women and children were considered chattel.

Again..........of course you did (above).  

What responses do you seek sources for?

When was O CE Greece? We can discuss ancient Greece also, but let us first deal with 2019 CE. 

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Yes … I am even nice to you because of my conditioning. I am not a self made man, thereby relieving god of an almighty responsibility.

If you call this nice, your conditioning must have been rather unique. Who is a self-made man? Is this the introduction of yet another topic?

However, my point remains and remains un-responded to: therefore, your good actions are not your choice and not a commitment to behave and act a certain way - it's just conditioning. That must make everybody feel very special? Sounds a bit sad.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

This is a complete non sequitur thormas. For an example, I know of two people who knew they were depressed, yet they killed themselves anyway. This could be discussed on the free will thread.

Actually it's not: if A knows he is conditioned to think a certain way, then it is in the realm of possibility that A could overcome or reverse that conditioning. See how that works? 

Depression is different in kind than a view on sex between your 28 and 14 year old people.  Many people were 'conditioned' by their culture, family and religion to be against homosexuality and look how thinks have changed in our short lifetimes. A little new knowledge, some actual knowing of gay people, the revelation of a loved one as gay .........all this knowledge is power, the power to change.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

................ shows I do "choose". 

Wait - what happened to conditioning? So if you do choose, what is your opinion on the examples of 'sex outside of marriage' that was asked of you? 

Maybe it's not sad as I was led to believe - you choose, you choose!

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Well you have them now … perhaps you can provide list of books that you read that are not about  ultimately apocryphal texts

Does that mean I can't include certain works of Plato or other, non-biblical ancient texts? 

 

All in all Rom, you ask lots of questions but when put to the test, when situations are reversed, when asked to provide answers to questions - you are not as verbose. Odd?? That you can't or won't provide answers to the topic in our last few posts is a bit baffling. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

If sin is something immoral (e.g homosexuality once upon a time), but that thing later becomes moral, where does the sin go?  

[thormas]

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

If sin is something immoral (e.g homosexuality once upon a time), but that thing later becomes moral, where does the sin go?  

This is not something I catalogue: is homosexuality listed somewhere as a sin?  I know it is not by Jesus and that, being the new covenant, is what is most important. 

Neither do I get into the old Catholic division of mortal and venial sins - although I do agree that certain actions can pose a 'mortal' threat to one's spirit or be a major hinderance to one's actualization. For me the be all and end all are the two great commandments which come down to one: Love. That which truly violates Love is immoral and never changes.

 

 

[JosephM]

On 11/15/2019 at 6:01 AM, PaulS said:

I think I agree with Thormas that sin is nonsense (unless you happen to be religous and then you value the term).  Sin as a religous term has always been used to portray a negative view of somebody's actions.  It's an antiquated term and I do wish religious people would move past using it and all its connotations, but alas, they don't seem to be able to.  Human being's do do things that harm themselves and/or for all sorts of reasons - deliberately, accidentally, because of addictions, etc.  This is not 'sin', this is being human, warts and all.  There is no 'mark' we are missing other than a mark we imagine for ourselves, which is why we all have different 'marks'!  Again, it is nonsensical to pretend that there is a perfect way of being.  It's in our heads.

In my view the confusion here is that Sin is a particular action itself per-se when it is in reality actually not . Sin is what results in your psyche as a result of breaking a law that you have created/acknowledged as valid by your beliefs. It has very real earthly consequences. (conscious/unconscious guilt and self condemnation) Without a law (written or unwritten) sin would not exist.  In that sense it is not nonsense except to one who is not familiar with the concept and its effects. The concept and consequences are not limited to a religion nor its absence although the specific use of the word (sin) might be.

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, JosephM said:

In my view the confusion here is that Sin is a particular action itself per-se when it is in reality actually not . Sin is what results in your psyche as a result of breaking a law that you have created/acknowledged as valid by your beliefs. It has very real earthly consequences. (conscious/unconscious guilt and self condemnation) Without a law (written or unwritten) sin would not exist.  In that sense it is not nonsense except to one who is not familiar with the concept and its effects. The concept and consequences are not limited to a religion nor its absence although the specific use of the word (sin) might be.

It's the word 'sin' to me and it's religious connotations that I see as nonsense.  I think it's time to dispense with that word because of its baggage.  To try and turn the term into something else, seems just a game to me.  Better to boot it altogether.  Sin, as taught by Christianity in general, is an outdated concept.  We know better.

That there are consequences for thoughts and behaviors, is inarguable to me.  That we can feel guilt and self condemnation I also agree with.  That it is only ourselves who can make us feel this way is fair, but there can be a lot of pressure in society and from family to feel that way as well.

[JosephM]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

It's the word 'sin' to me and it's religious connotations that I see as nonsense.  I think it's time to dispense with that word because of its baggage.  To try and turn the term into something else, seems just a game to me.  Better to boot it altogether.  Sin, as taught by Christianity in general, is an outdated concept.  We know better.

That there are consequences for thoughts and behaviors, is inarguable to me.  That we can feel guilt and self condemnation I also agree with.  That it is only ourselves who can make us feel this way is fair, but there can be a lot of pressure in society and from family to feel that way as well.

In a religious context, sin is an act of transgression against divine law. Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin

In my estimation, what i said is the religious Christian connotation in the New Testament as i interpret it from the words of Paul as recorded in his letters to the churches. Read every occurance of the word sin in the NT and i think you might agree. I agree that many may look at it differently from church teachings (there are many , many varieties of Christianity) but Paul, whose writings make up a large part of the NT seem to agree with what i have said. Even the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the OT can be construed to be in agreement. 

PS I also try not to use the term "sin" because of some church teachings and   ------> HERE is an old post on it without using the word

Edited December 1, 2019 by JosephM
add PS

[thormas]

Perhaps in an earlier time sin was simply interpreted as breaking particular laws associated with or given by God. 

From a simple secular POV, it one refers to, for example, Maslow's idea of self-actualization then some will and some will not self-actualize (I leave it to those interested to discover Maslow's meaning). Thus there is a way to accomplish this - to actualize. This is the 'goal' so to speak. Some people are, seemingly, successful at this actualization, some not so much. And one can say that some actions and attitudes pave the way for actualization and some act as barriers to it.

If one doesn't buy into Maslow or a similar idea, that is their right and their opinion.

If one does buy into the general (Maslow like) idea and happens to have a religious or spiritual bent (generalizing here), then they would recognize that this 'mirrors' the Christian understanding of being 'in Christ' or becoming the image of God which, understood religiously, is the goal or challenge (and the invitation to) humanity. It is the our 'mark' to hit (so to speak). It is not about breaking arbitrary laws but it is about actions and attitudes that act as barriers to being the' image of God.'  In this religious context, such actions/attitudes are considered sin (the equivalent to bad, wrong or immoral in a secular, non-legalistic understanding). Sin simply means that some actions or attitudes damaged (or rupture the) relationship with God/Love (and therefore, one's neighbor).

If one doesn't believe in God or if one doesn't believe that God is love or if one doesn't believe that relationship is not acted out in relationship with others or if one doesn't believe that there is something 'more' for us to become -  that is their right and their opinion and discussion is probably for all intents and purposes at a standstill.

Even the 'sin' in Eden is not simply about a particular action or law, not simply about eating the fruit of a particular tree, it is about relationship. Man was born in, born for, invited to be in relationship with God: man was invited to 'trust' God and live in relationship, in harmony with God and thereby, with all of creation. His action/attitude, symbolized by eating the fruit of the tree, broke that relationship and created a barrier to Life (the goal, the mark). 

I don't use the word sin very much but I do use and understand it in the context of a religion discussion. In discussions outside of a religious blog or outside of a discussion where it is readily accepted, I typically 'translate' it in a secular discussion as I did as a teacher. 

 

[Burl]

On 11/30/2019 at 11:15 PM, PaulS said:

It's the word 'sin' to me and it's religious connotations that I see as nonsense.  I think it's time to dispense with that word because of its baggage.  To try and turn the term into something else, seems just a game to me.  Better to boot it altogether.  Sin, as taught by Christianity in general, is an outdated concept.  We know better.

That there are consequences for thoughts and behaviors, is inarguable to me.  That we can feel guilt and self condemnation I also agree with.  That it is only ourselves who can make us feel this way is fair, but there can be a lot of pressure in society and from family to feel that way as well.

Sin👆🏻

[PaulS]

On 12/2/2019 at 12:21 AM, thormas said:

Perhaps in an earlier time sin was simply interpreted as breaking particular laws associated with or given by God. 

From a simple secular POV, it one refers to, for example, Maslow's idea of self-actualization then some will and some will not self-actualize (I leave it to those interested to discover Maslow's meaning). Thus there is a way to accomplish this - to actualize. This is the 'goal' so to speak. Some people are, seemingly, successful at this actualization, some not so much. And one can say that some actions and attitudes pave the way for actualization and some act as barriers to it.

If one doesn't buy into Maslow or a similar idea, that is their right and their opinion.

If one does buy into the general (Maslow like) idea and happens to have a religious or spiritual bent (generalizing here), then they would recognize that this 'mirrors' the Christian understanding of being 'in Christ' or becoming the image of God which, understood religiously, is the goal or challenge (and the invitation to) humanity. It is the our 'mark' to hit (so to speak). It is not about breaking arbitrary laws but it is about actions and attitudes that act as barriers to being the' image of God.'  In this religious context, such actions/attitudes are considered sin (the equivalent to bad, wrong or immoral in a secular, non-legalistic understanding). Sin simply means that some actions or attitudes damaged (or rupture the) relationship with God/Love (and therefore, one's neighbor).

If one doesn't believe in God or if one doesn't believe that God is love or if one doesn't believe that relationship is not acted out in relationship with others or if one doesn't believe that there is something 'more' for us to become -  that is their right and their opinion and discussion is probably for all intents and purposes at a standstill.

Even the 'sin' in Eden is not simply about a particular action or law, not simply about eating the fruit of a particular tree, it is about relationship. Man was born in, born for, invited to be in relationship with God: man was invited to 'trust' God and live in relationship, in harmony with God and thereby, with all of creation. His action/attitude, symbolized by eating the fruit of the tree, broke that relationship and created a barrier to Life (the goal, the mark). 

I don't use the word sin very much but I do use and understand it in the context of a religion discussion. In discussions outside of a religious blog or outside of a discussion where it is readily accepted, I typically 'translate' it in a secular discussion as I did as a teacher. 

 

There are too many shortcomings in equating Maslow's secular hierarchy simply tracking alongside the religious view of 'sin', to marry the two together somehow.  They are not a secular and a religious view equating to the same thing at all.

One could be 'fully actualized' according to the Maslow hierarchy but still be a sinner according to a religious view.  For example, a fully actualized person who isn't married but has consensual sex with another.  To me there is no sin in that arrangement yet in the main, Christianity and other religions will call it such.  Yet if both parties are fully actualized, what even is the relevance of the term sin when considering Maslow in this occasion?

Not being fully actualized is different to being born faulty and needing redemption, which is pretty much any religion's understanding of sin.

 

[PaulS]

On 12/2/2019 at 1:09 PM, Burl said:

Sin👆🏻

You're giving sin the bird?