We'll learn eventually but it takes a long long long time.
What is sin?
- Thread starter Northwind
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
I offer this quote by G.K. Chesterton:
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried."
As for leaving the faith, this is nothing new under the sun. It will always be there in every generation. And so will God.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Were it a "revelation", there would be more to demonstrate that. Christians would be demonstrably better people. They would be happier and more successful. No one would leave Christianity for non-belief. None of these things are true. Quickly, people are leaving faith.
What sort of "revelation" produces no obvious results?
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
And that was an excellent misdirection. It's not that Christianity is a scam, it's that Christians aren't doing it properly!
Okay, so again, what's the point? Apparently, Christianity doesn't produce results because it's impossible to get right. So, how can you tell the difference between a faith that is a scam and produces no results, and one that is true but impossible to live up to, and therefore produces no results?
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
It's not a revelation. It's not the disclosing of some amazing truth. It's an observation. It's the recognition that faith hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Christians - happier? I don't think so. Jesus warned that there would be trouble for his followers. What Christians do experience that others may not is joy in the Spirit of God. Happiness and joy are not the same thing.
Christians - more successful? That would depend - of course - on how one chooses to define success. We have been given the gift of eternal life through our Lord Christ Jesus.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Which brings me to another aspect of the scam. It's the scammer who says, "If you give me a little now, I'll repay you many times over later." In that way, Nigerian email scammers are Christians at heart. Give them a little now, and later, you'll reap the bounty. Just trust them. Honest.
I didn't say it was impossible.
Really? How did you arrive at the conclusion that God isn't real? Wasn't it revealed to you through your searching for truth?
There are many "benefits" (although the very word denotes an ulterior motive) on a personal level and when Christianity is taken beyond ourselves we also benefit the world with compassion and caring for others. We should be giving and serving, not taking, to glorify God.
Last edited:
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
What is your conclusion on Zeus? Some things are just completely unsupported and you couldn't believe them if you tried. I can not believe in God - not because I choose not to, but because nothing I've been presented with in my life has come close to persuading me.
And that, I think, is a message worth spreading, and worth telling to kids in religious households - that if you don't believe, or have doubts, there are pretty damn good reasons for those doubts, and you're not crazy.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
That is to say that other faiths and the non-religious do not care or provide compassion, and that's not true. I can also show how some Christians are not compassionate. On balance, it would be difficult to show Christians being significantly more or less compassionate.
We can safely remove "to glorify God". I agree with everything else in that sentence, but "to glorify God" just cheapens the sentiment. Why can't we do good for the sake of it? Because it feels right?
revjohn
Well-Known Member
chansen said:
Sin, or as is often the case in the Greek texts hamartia, means to miss the mark or fall short of some standard. Christianity didn't define the word it originates out of archery. Early archery didn't have the pretty coloured rings and award points for almost. It was a life skill and it was thought that if you couldn't hit a bull's eye you probably wouldn't last very long on the battlefield.
To hit the bull's eye was the standard the Greeks expected of their archers. Those who couldn't were deemed hamartalos, one who had fallen short. Eventually it translates into English as Sinner which still means, one who has fallen short.
Christianity has narrowed the scope only in that it defines God as the standard setter, key texts of scripture or doctrine as the standard expected and for some a very morbid fascination with pointing the finger and applying the term.
You may not use the same precise language but all your allegation of scam amounts to the same thing. You presume a standard and you judge what meets the standard and what falls short. That you as an atheist do this freely is, I think, proof enough that the concept of sin equating to a failure to meet a standard is not really a problem for you.
What I suspect is the actual problem is that you object to the standards and those who evaluate who has or hasn't met them. And, like most of us it is really only a problem when someone else is evaluating you by a standard you don't agree with whereas it is never much of a problem for you to evaluate others by standards we may not agree with.
Last edited:
People of other faiths - and people of no faith - can be very compassionate - caring - loving - and giving - on a horizontal plane.
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
Its not as simple as you make it to be
One does not have to show the objective to come to the conclusion that objectivity exists , that’s like telling an archeologist who finds pottery artifacts and wont conclude that they were created because he can’t show the creators of them .
Furthermore if only subjectivity exists, right and wrong morality in the hands of subjective evolution is nonexistent , for example you cannot prove what Hitler did was wrong based on its subjective evolved morality.
JRT
Me on the left.
In any discussion of moral standards I think that it might be helpful to discuss the difference between sin and evil. But before attempting that, let us examine a similar situation in the secular realm. Governments at every level pass legislation that probits certain actions. We use the word 'crime' to refer to the deliberate breaking of such a law. However, is the commission of a crime the same thing as committing an evil act? Here we come up against just how we might define evil. For the purposes of this discussion let me give a very simple definition:
Evil --- any deliberate action or inaction which compromises the physical or psychological integrity of a human being.
This, of course, is a narrow definition and we could likely spend a very long time extending it and refining it. Let us leave that at least for the moment. The point that I am sneaking up on here is that 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime' and conversely 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. To me this is obvious but let me just attempt an illustration of each statement.
First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime'. By my definition above, the killing of another human being is to be regarded as an evil act. However, the law does not regard this as a crime if it is done in self defence or in war.
Second, 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. In Singapore, for example, it is a crime to chew gum. I think most would not quibble about this not being evil according to the above definition.
Can we make similar distinctions in the spiritual realm concerning sin and evil? I believe that we can. First, we need a working definition of sin. Let me suggest a very simple definition:
Sin --- doing that which is forbidden by a spiritual authority.
Once again, we could debate this definition. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this definition might involve whether or not a spiritual authority, such as a church or a scripture, can actually express the will of a Deity. Setting that aside, we once again are faced with two problems. The point being that 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin' and conversely 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'.
First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin'. I think that most would agree that to torture someone is an evil. However, if we just look at Christian scripture, I do not see any specific prohibition that would make torture a sin. A similar argument could be applied to female genital mutilation (circumcision).
Second, 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'. Here, we can get into a very much more controversial debates. It is certainly true that Christian scripture regards homosexual actions as sinful. However, within society at large and within a number of Christian churches in particular, homosexual behaviour is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself. It is also certainly true that Jewish scripture regards the breaking of the dietary laws as sinful and even an abomination. However, within society at large and within a number of Jewish traditions in particular, the breaking of the dietary laws is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself.
The distinctions made here between crime and evil and also between sin and evil lead us in a real quandry for society at large. The western world has become, and is increasingly becoming, extremely diverse in language, culture and religion. There is also no real way of reversing this. Since different religions cannot agree on what is sin, I do not think that we can rely on religion entirely to inform our moral and ethical behaviour. Since what is regarded as sin has so often in the past led us into framing our laws to determine what is criminal, I think we need a new approach to the problem. We need an approach that avoids the imposition of one set of religious beliefs on society at large --- an approach broadly constructed on a concensus of what is evil and therefore what is criminal. Leave what is regarded as sin to the consciences of those in particular religious traditions.
Evil --- any deliberate action or inaction which compromises the physical or psychological integrity of a human being.
This, of course, is a narrow definition and we could likely spend a very long time extending it and refining it. Let us leave that at least for the moment. The point that I am sneaking up on here is that 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime' and conversely 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. To me this is obvious but let me just attempt an illustration of each statement.
First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime'. By my definition above, the killing of another human being is to be regarded as an evil act. However, the law does not regard this as a crime if it is done in self defence or in war.
Second, 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. In Singapore, for example, it is a crime to chew gum. I think most would not quibble about this not being evil according to the above definition.
Can we make similar distinctions in the spiritual realm concerning sin and evil? I believe that we can. First, we need a working definition of sin. Let me suggest a very simple definition:
Sin --- doing that which is forbidden by a spiritual authority.
Once again, we could debate this definition. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this definition might involve whether or not a spiritual authority, such as a church or a scripture, can actually express the will of a Deity. Setting that aside, we once again are faced with two problems. The point being that 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin' and conversely 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'.
First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin'. I think that most would agree that to torture someone is an evil. However, if we just look at Christian scripture, I do not see any specific prohibition that would make torture a sin. A similar argument could be applied to female genital mutilation (circumcision).
Second, 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'. Here, we can get into a very much more controversial debates. It is certainly true that Christian scripture regards homosexual actions as sinful. However, within society at large and within a number of Christian churches in particular, homosexual behaviour is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself. It is also certainly true that Jewish scripture regards the breaking of the dietary laws as sinful and even an abomination. However, within society at large and within a number of Jewish traditions in particular, the breaking of the dietary laws is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself.
The distinctions made here between crime and evil and also between sin and evil lead us in a real quandry for society at large. The western world has become, and is increasingly becoming, extremely diverse in language, culture and religion. There is also no real way of reversing this. Since different religions cannot agree on what is sin, I do not think that we can rely on religion entirely to inform our moral and ethical behaviour. Since what is regarded as sin has so often in the past led us into framing our laws to determine what is criminal, I think we need a new approach to the problem. We need an approach that avoids the imposition of one set of religious beliefs on society at large --- an approach broadly constructed on a concensus of what is evil and therefore what is criminal. Leave what is regarded as sin to the consciences of those in particular religious traditions.
Last edited:
Witch
Well-Known Member
For morality to be objective it has to have a source outside the human condition. If humans only are the source for morality then it cannot be objective.
Thus if God doesn't exist then objective morality cannot exist.
If you cannot show God exists, then you have no reasonable basis for claiming an objective morality exists.