The debate started in the Am I a Christian? thread. Mars Horizon said:
To which I replied:
To which Mars Horizon replied:
Well, here it is.
Mars Horizon’s last comment leads me to think that we have fundamentally different definitions of sin. All my life I’ve been told “Sin is the bad stuff we do.” In that sense, I don’t understand how sin could be an outdated concept, since people still do bad stuff. I’m wondering what Mars Horizon would define sin as, and in addition wondering what, if any, definitions of sin are primitive, and what definitions are relevent today. I am NOT interested in debating the second part of his statement. Any thoughts?
I do not want to go into dictionary definitions, because, as **Super Gnat ** has suggested with the OP, sin ciould conceptually be different for many of us, depending on our perspectives.
Overall, I am going to agree with the statement made in the other thread by Mars Horizon.
To my mind sin, in the sense that it is used by theists, is meaningless. This is not to deny the reality of wrongdoing, but to cast aside, conceptually, a morality that has a basis other than (loosely) natural rights. Sin seems to me to have its roots in the idea of the divine, and of divine judgement.
If you then deny the existence of the divine, sin loses meaning.
The word “Sin” carries a religious baggage with it. It is outdated for those who do not believe in the supernatural/religious authority (God).
A Sin is a moral judgement on an action; that is, at some point you will be judged by your “sins”. If one does not believe in a “final” judgement then “Sins” are nonexistent, primative, tied to the supernatural.
That’s not to say Morals and Ethics are nonexistent or outdated, but the concept that you will be judge by your sins can be argued as being outdated.
As I see it, sin is not “the bad stuff we do” but the stuff that God forbids.
If you sin you go against God’s commands, that is something else completley than just ‘doing bad stuff’.
Maybe its what makes up a ‘sin’ that is changing, and that some of the things that were ‘sins’ in the past are outmoded now…and that we have a whole fresh set of new ones to take their place. As you say, maybe your concept of what is a ‘sin’ is different than others. Or maybe its the relation of a sin as being against god thats outmoded. Still, I think the CONCEPT of ‘sin’ IS a primitive concept. It speaks to the need to control the human animal through guilt, instead of through logic and reason.
I think that some things are absolute in the majority of human society as ‘sins’ or bad stuff as you say…murder, robbery, rape, torture, etc. Most humans know that they are wrong (even while they are doing them)…we are almost hardwired that way (lots of reasons for this such as our evolution and how our early societies formed and interacted for survival). Other ‘sins’ though…adultery, gambling, sex outside of wedlock, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, use of intoxicants of various kinds, etc…these have been lumped in the whole ‘sin’ concept as well. But their relative ‘badness’ is in the eyes of the beholder. The human animal is split on many of these issues. Some cultures embraced some of the ‘sins’ mentioned, some ignored them as irrelevant, and some were horrified by them and tried to stamp them out. So yes…the concept of ‘sin’ is both primitive and parochial to boot, depending on your enculturation and perspective…IMO.
God, I love this board! Where else can you debate the nature of sin and have a giggle about sexual disasters all in one place, eh?
OK, (ahem), I believe that “sin” encompasses what we generally know as everyday wrongdoing, such as stealing, lying, murder, greed, etc. However, as well as encompassing the mundane and familiar evils that harm us and each other, sin also encompasses the finer moral and spiritual points that some would say have no bearing on our modern lives.
For example, in Christianity, not believing in God is a sin. In Judaism, eating pork is a sin. While we may argue that we’re not hurting anyone by not believeing in God, or by eating pork, the fact remains that each of these acts is considered sinful by their respective religions, and each religion will offer a variety of reasons why this is so.
So, in essence there are two aspects of sin - I suppose you could call them the mundane and the theological. While it’s not hard to understand why the mundane sins are wrong and destructive, some people would argue that theological sin (the kind that i think Mars Horizon was referring to) is irrelevant, pointless, and therefore primitive.
For my part, I think that both kindsof sin are equally relevant to our daily lives, and equally destructive and harmful.
I have always thought of a sin as an affront to god. Some “sins” seem based on reason, while others are superfluous. These include, resting on certain days of the week, dietary restriction, swearing, maturbation,etc. They seem to be based on outdated morality and dogma and as such could be looked at as primitive.
I certainly have never understood why an omniscient, omnipotent being seems so preoccupied with my penis in any case.
The usage of “sin” that I’ve seen is, in essence, “Something that causes one to be separated from the divine”. Some gods are bitchier than others; this is one of the first problems in coming up with some sort of generalised definition.
“Sin” is tied up at least connotationally in a guilt-redemption dynamic; I tend to be of the opinion that this is almost never useful. (When I have observed people, including myself, under the influence of guilt, it has seemed to me to result in much more breast-beating and declaration of personal wickedness than actually fixing whatever thing was damaged.) I don’t have a religion with a guilt-redemption dynamic; the closest it has is a “Fix the damn thing you broke, stupid!” dynamic. Penance is no use to anyone unless it involves actual repairs.
My major problems with “sin” though are, on the one hand, the whole ‘separation from the divine’ thing, which in my cosmology is not actually possible, and on the other hand, the fact that many gods who declare things sins seem to want to declare positive and beneficial things (or just plain neutral things) to be sins and demand penance of their followers for them. Both of these make my head hurt.
Sin, defined theologically as “deliberate disobedience to the known will of God” is outmoded and primitive because it assumes that there is one moral standard (the “known will of God”) to which all people everywhere can be held. Who’s really to say what the will of God is? And why is “your” interpretation of God’s will valid while “mine” or “theirs” is not? Here are some things about which you or I or some random person might call sin, or might call not-a-sin
Consuming alcoholic beverages
Consuming caffeinated beverages
Working on Saturday
Working on Sunday
Putting the dead flesh of a particular mammal in your mouth and then eating it
Putting the live flesh of another particular mammal in your mouth and enjoying doing it
Attending services at the church
Attending services at the mosque
So sin is not really a word or a concept that is meaningful to humanity as a whole. Thus it is irrelevant at best, and dangerous at worst. Instead, we need to speak of those actions or attitudes which benefit others, and those which harm others (“good” stuff versus “bad” stuff). Religion is not a necessary component of that definition.
I will agree with this, it actually still allows for an absolute basis for morality, ‘nor harming others’ (unless they ask really nicely as per the mammal in the mouth thing), while still allowing freedom of choice on any other matters.
But, instead of perhaps - things which do good, as suggested here, could we keep it to, ‘that which does no harm’?
Mars Horizon, makes perfect sense to me. But then I’m already converted.
I think that the concept of ‘sin’ transends religion…it is too pervasive in the human animal. I think the CONCEPT of ‘sin’ is universal to humans…its the practice of what IS a ‘sin’ that is so divergent, IMO. Maybe its something that we have developed thats almost like a reflex, maybe its a conditioned reflex thats ingrained in our psyke from our ancient past. I think religions CAPATILIZE on this, and always have since the dawn of religion in the human animal. Its humankinds deep seated need to tell others what they should do…in the name of God of course. Because they know best what Gods will REALLY is…
As an aside, my thoughts on god and sin have always been that, even if there IS a god (big if IMO), It wouldn’t be in a proper position to decide what is a sin to a human. After all, what is death to an immortal being? Killing for food, survival and even murder would be meaningless to It. Same with procreation to a unique and immortal being. Sex for procreation vs sex for fun…adultary vs marrage, hetero vs homosexual, again how would an imortal being even understand these concepts or be able to even make the distinction??
Easier for a human to talk comparitive morality to a seal or a fish than for an immortal, limitless, disembodied being to set the standard a living, mortal being such as ourselves.
I do think sin is a primitive concept. To me, good and evil and all that stuff is predicated on a world of absolutes that doesn’t really exist. A sin is a sin because god says so, a church says so… it’s something that’s wrong no matter what and ignores mitigating circumstances. I’m not attempting to suggest there are justifications for rape, murder, etc., but I have a problem with the menality that allows for that attitude. It also leads problems like “We know what’s right for you”…
