[PUG] Picking and choosing sins.

[detectivepope]

Humans do the same whatever the reason, that's the point. To achieve order you need balance and to get it usual means giving rules. Rules create frameworks to give life order so that society can function. Abandon such rules and chaos ensues (the idealists usually avoid this fact). My point being is that things of a sexual nature lead to pregnancy in majority of cases in the natural world, to be wary over such things is a natural hard-wired defence, it also deals with idea of selection both from the female and male. Most philosophies of old (and I'm referring to philosophy in its literal meaning) dealt with issues such as unwanted breeding by avoiding said problem, this was the point when rules were applied to already natural determinates. One would assume such outdated models would have dyed out but the fact we have prevention is irrelevant as the philosophies that subscribe to contraception are not popular due to been too cold or try to use rational thinking against theology (you might as well talk another language to such people). Sex comes up a lot (as a subject as well)because its one of humans common grounds, you don't really get people condemning sins such as murder as often because it isn't as prevalent.

on a lighter note
I adore sin, creates the high of virtue, the dark giving light its warmth, without it heaven is void. If you choose, choose the fun ones....

 

[JGirl]

Your actions can extend beyond the range of simply letting yourself down (depending on the circumstances); sin includes inflicting harm onto others. Should you not feel guilty if you killed an entire family? Is it acceptable to just say, I've let myself down... what a shame - I should probably learn something from that? I don't think all sins are equal, but if we can't hold ourselves to higher principles than normal societal standards, we can begin a moral slide so to speak.

Acts that were once considered terrible can become more acceptable, if you're not holding yourself to a higher standard (and taking responsibility) - what can possibly stop this from happening(laws aren't always enough)? Or do you happen to believe that most people are inherently good? Not all are willing to take ownership for their actions, religion can act as an enforcer for higher standards (I personally think that many would be lost if they didn't have the "reward" of heaven). That’s not to say that all need religion of course, but I personally believe that many do... I kind of switched topics, but what I was basically trying to say is that without religion (the sin/guilt, punishment, and rewards it brings) many would be lost (In my opinion).


"there is only bad when you cannot make something good from an experience...any experience."

I'll try to give a more clear example:

Good people may not need religion (or sin/guilt), but unless you believe all are inherently good -> sin does exist/ and you should feel guilty. It can't just be defined as a learning experience, sin includes murder. If I aquired money because I killed someone and stole their wallet does that make it good? - Good did come from it after all -> Not all would see this as a bad action which they needed to take responsibility for; but when these folks are faced with the possibility of burning for an eternity - or being granted an eternal existence in heaven - many will choose the latter (and not participate in such actions). Religion and sin aren't always the main deterrent, but it's something that can certainly have an effect on an individuals actions throughout life. This was an extreme example to illustrate a point, for the most part sin involves issues that are less damaging to others/society - but these can also be important religious/societal rules to keep/maintain (as ignoring some of these issues can lead to a downward shift in morality over time).

i respect what you are saying, although i think we are thinking of guilt in a different way. i see guilt as a bullshit emotion. accountability and responsibility are what i think of when i think of the examples you give here. guilt has no purpose in my life.
and yes i do believe you can accept responsibility for a wrong you did to another without wallowing in guilt over it.

 

[endersgone]

i respect what you are saying, although i think we are thinking of guilt in a different way. i see guilt as a bullshit emotion. accountability and responsibility are what i think of when i think of the examples you give here. guilt has no purpose in my life.
and yes i do believe you can accept responsibility for a wrong you did to another without wallowing in guilt over it.

Yes, but not all feel a sense of responsibility/accountability. Which is the point I'm driving at, so guilt (or even fear) can be a necessity for some people/ or even society as a whole. What I'm saying isn't directed specifically at you, it's directed at those who don't feel accountable for their actions. If people aren't accountable then there's probably going to be trouble, and religion (and the promise of heaven/ hell) serves as accountability to those who won't accept it otherwise.

 

[JGirl]

Yes, but not all feel a sense of responsibility/accountability. Which is the point I'm driving at, so guilt (or even fear) can be a necessity for some people/ or even society as a whole. What I'm saying isn't directed specifically at you, it's directed at those who don't feel accountable for their actions. If people aren't accountable then there's probably going to be trouble, and religion (and the promise of heaven/ hell) serves as accountability to those who won't accept it otherwise.

point taken.
i guess the reason i feel as strongly as i do about guilt is that i grew up buried in guilt and shame. i never knew life without it until long after i was an adult, and i finally realized that none of it belonged to me. my experience is that guilt is something people use against you to produce a desired result.
until i learned to weed through it, i was unable to really look at my actions with any form of objectivity. i am sometimes seen as cold because i refuse to let people push my guilt button, and i will call them on it when they try.
i can't speak for murderers etc. i can only speak for my own actions, which i will never see as sins.

 

[magister343]

i've always thought of it as making amends to something or someone outside oneself.

This understanding fits well with the Latin roots of the word, but not with the meanings of the Greek or Hebrew words that the Latin was used to translate or even the common meaning of the Latin by the time it came into common use. It comes from poena, which is a payment taken from a guilty party and given to those he was wronged in order to appease them. (This could be money, or the satisfaction some get from violent retaliation.) The verb poenitire however came to shift in meaning from "to accept payment from" to "to make sorry," and penitire (which, with an intisifying prefix re-, gives us the word repent) came to mean "to be sorry" or "to regret." For most of history, repentance was synonymous with regrret.



The Hebrew term teshuvah generally translated as repent is more literally translated revert or return. It means to turn away from evil ways and back towards good.

The New Testament Greek term for repentance metanoia literally means "after mind," or a "change in consciousness" that comes from learning from the mistake. Words meaning to turn back or turn again are also used.

 

[Sriracha]

I don't believe the bible is the word of God. It was written by men during a period of great turmoil and lack of social control. Christians have placed God in a box ... THEIR BOX. Historically, how else would politicians manipulate people ... by using religion? hmmmm.

point taken.
i can only speak for my own actions, which i will never see as sins.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[CAptain]

Because organized religions are social constructs that are influenced by economic and political forces more than they are guided by spiritual principles.

Edit:
My question is why do christians, or more specifically "the church" condemn certain sins more than others?

Within social constructs there is a historical basis for most processes/reasons. I believe that many of the "sins" have historical economic and political reasons reasons behind them. Considering the dogmatic nature of organized religions (which makes them more static and inflexible) most people don't remember or grasp what those reasons were. Those sins and/or tenents of the religion become rote and adhered to as a matter of habit rather than an expression of faith or piety.

That's the truth right there. ^^

Many clergy, who are competing in a buyer

 

[just me]

[MENTION=3255]Sali[/MENTION], I have to disagree with your take on Christianity and the scriptures. I regret being a bit tired and having much to do.

 

[CindyLou]

i respect what you are saying, although i think we are thinking of guilt in a different way. i see guilt as a bullshit emotion. accountability and responsibility are what i think of when i think of the examples you give here. guilt has no purpose in my life.
and yes i do believe you can accept responsibility for a wrong you did to another without wallowing in guilt over it.

Guilt is an important component of empathy which is required for moral reasoning. Guilt is a normal emotional response to hurting someone if you have a well developed sense of empathy. Forgiving yourself is important, but guilt is most definitely not a bullshit emotion.

Of course, you are wise to notice those that are trying to manipulate you by pushing your guilt buttons.

 

[894tt3h9]

I like to pick and choose my sins based on whatever I can easily talk my way out of. You can't really talk your way out of sex though... Either you fucked or you didn't. Everything else you can talk your way around and try to rationalize it to make it into something else.

 

[JGirl]

Guilt is an important component of empathy which is required for moral reasoning. Guilt is a normal emotional response to hurting someone if you have a well developed sense of empathy. Forgiving yourself is important, but guilt is most definitely not a bullshit emotion.

Of course, you are wise to notice those that are trying to manipulate you by pushing your guilt buttons.

"When you most need someone's empathy and caring then, it is probably counterproductive to attack them for not caring about you. It is probably not helpful to say things like, "If I were important to you, you would....." or "You don't care about me!" You might be able to get the immediate behavior you want from the person, but you are unlikely to be generating sincere feelings of empathy. More likely you are generating feelings of guilt, which is not a healthy motivation for behavior. It is a common one, but not a healthy one."
(my highlighting and underscore)

quoted from Empathy, Caring, Importance, Defensiveness and Responsibility

http://eqi.org/caring4.htm

while this may be true of your path to moral reasoning, i certainly do not agree with it based on my experience. i am a very empathic person, i care a great deal about other people and the world around me.
and i do not ever entertain feelings of guilt. that isn't a character flaw, but rather a decision i made on my path to moral reasoning.
just a note:
everyone who pushes your guilt button, regardless of their justification, is trying to manipulate you.

 

[CindyLou]

"When you most need someone's empathy and caring then, it is probably counterproductive to attack them for not caring about you. It is probably not helpful to say things like, "If I were important to you, you would....." or "You don't care about me!" You might be able to get the immediate behavior you want from the person, but you are unlikely to be generating sincere feelings of empathy. More likely you are generating feelings of guilt, which is not a healthy motivation for behavior. It is a common one, but not a healthy one."
(my highlighting and underscore)
quoted from Empathy, Caring, Importance, Defensiveness and Responsibility

while this may be true of your path to moral reasoning, i certainly do not agree with it based on my experience. i am a very empathic person, i care a great deal about other people and the world around me.
and i do not ever entertain feelings of guilt. that isn't a character flaw, but rather a decision i made on my path to moral reasoning.
just a note:
everyone who pushes your guilt button, regardless of their justification, is trying to manipulate you.

All the things you typed in quotes do not reference empathy or true guilt and remorse...those are just manipulative statements from people trying to evoke guilt, or possibly statements from frustrated people dealing with those that don't experience empathy. I do understand where you're coming from and why you feel that way. In my opinion the emotion itself it still useful and directly related to empathy. The lack of empathy is directly related to a lack of guilt and remorse. Your link didn't work so I couldn't read what else it said and this is just my opinion but avoiding all internal guilt all together isn't healthy either. Yes, it's unpleasant but it does serve good purpose in the big picture, shutting off your internal guilt temporarily so people can't manipulate and abuse you is one thing, but to shut it down forever is another. Again, just my opinion.

This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica and avoidance or the rejection of avoidance of guilt is at the end..the final phase of moral levels.

Empathy and other forms of social awareness are important in the development of a moral sense. Morality embraces a person's beliefs about the appropriateness or goodness of what he does, thinks, or feels... Childhood is ... the time at which moral standards begin to develop in a process that often extends well into adulthood. The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg hypothesized that people's development of moral standards passes through stages that can be grouped into three moral levels...

At the third level, that of postconventional moral reasoning, the adult bases his moral standards on principles that he himself has evaluated and that he accepts as inherently valid, regardless of society's opinion. He is aware of the arbitrary, subjective nature of social standards and rules, which he regards as relative rather than absolute in authority.

Thus the bases for justifying moral standards pass from avoidance of punishment to avoidance of adult disapproval and rejection to avoidance of internal guilt and self-recrimination. The person's moral reasoning also moves toward increasingly greater social scope (i.e., including more people and institutions) and greater abstraction (i.e., from reasoning about physical events such as pain or pleasure to reasoning about values, rights, and implicit contracts)."

I"m sorry to hear there are people in your life trying to make you feel guilty. I dated a narcissist (the full blown personality disorder) for a long time...I've seen what someone does that does not have guilt/remorse/empathy. It's terrible. I just got the chills.

 

[Matt3737]

"When you most need someone's empathy and caring then, it is probably counterproductive to attack them for not caring about you. It is probably not helpful to say things like, "If I were important to you, you would....." or "You don't care about me!" You might be able to get the immediate behavior you want from the person, but you are unlikely to be generating sincere feelings of empathy. More likely you are generating feelings of guilt, which is not a healthy motivation for behavior. It is a common one, but not a healthy one."
(my highlighting and underscore)
quoted from Empathy, Caring, Importance, Defensiveness and Responsibility

while this may be true of your path to moral reasoning, i certainly do not agree with it based on my experience. i am a very empathic person, i care a great deal about other people and the world around me.
and i do not ever entertain feelings of guilt. that isn't a character flaw, but rather a decision i made on my path to moral reasoning.
just a note:
everyone who pushes your guilt button, regardless of their justification, is trying to manipulate you.

You do not entertain feelings of guilt because you've repressed them. You now regret your past experiences regarding regret. And yes, I am manipulating your perception. That is the natural outcome of trying to communicate a different perspective. The question remains whether you trust me enough to acknowledge my manipulation or ignore it. Regret is not a bad thing, it CAN be bad, but it isn't entirely and neither is manipulation if it can be used for good. You can lead a horse to water, but not cause it to drink.
I can manipulate you, but I cannot force you.

Despite all that though, I'm quite like you. I don't regret much of anything, but I will if I feel it necessary.

 

[JGirl]

CindyLou[/MENTION];553734]All the things you typed in quotes do not reference empathy or true guilt and remorse...those are just manipulative statements from people trying to evoke guilt, or possibly statements from frustrated people dealing with those that don't experience empathy. I do understand where you're coming from and why you feel that way. In my opinion the emotion itself it still useful and directly related to empathy.

I"m sorry to hear there are people in your life trying to make you feel guilty. I dated a narcissist (the full blown personality disorder) for a long time...I've seen what someone does that does not have guilt/remorse/empathy. It's terrible. I just got the chills.

i'm sorry my link didn't work, i should have checked it. i'll try to fix it.
in any case, the quote i referenced was more to demonstrate that guilt is not a healthy way to reach a person, not necessarily focusing on that type of guilt. that particular example is one of direct guilting - but in my eyes there is no difference in how it is meted out. it is still what it is. the end doesn't justify the means.
i must agree to disagree with your idea that one must feel guilt to feel empathy. i know what guilt feels like, and i know for a fact it has no place in my life or in my sense of responsibility toward others or toward actions i take. i also would not use guilt against another person to make them see reason so to speak.
what many seem to be referring to is what i simply call a sense of accountability.
thanks for that last bit, but no worries there. i don't have a problem with people in my life trying to guilt me, because mostly they know it's not worth the hassle lol

 

[JGirl]

You do not entertain feelings of guilt because you've repressed them. You now regret your past experiences regarding regret. And yes, I am manipulating your perception. That is the natural outcome of trying to communicate a different perspective. The question remains whether you trust me enough to acknowledge my manipulation or ignore it. Regret is not a bad thing, it CAN be bad, but it isn't entirely and neither is manipulation if it can be used for good. You can lead a horse to water, but not cause it to drink.
I can manipulate you, but I cannot force you.

Despite all that though, I'm quite like you. I don't regret much of anything, but I will if I feel it necessary.

ah yes, regret.
something else entirely. regret comes from within me. guilt comes from outside of me.

 

[This]

@Sali , I have to disagree with your take on Christianity and the scriptures. I regret being a bit tired and having much to do.

In which ways do you disagree? keep in mind my view is generalized based upon the christianity that takes place in my area, it is not necessarily a reflection of christianity everywhere nor of all christians. Though it does seem common from what I have seen.

 

[GracieRuth]

There are two factors at work.

First, some sins ARE worse than others. That's why there are different penalties. Some things get the death penalty. Some things get you exiled. Some things you pay a fine for. And believe or not there are a great many laws that carry no civil penalty at all. For example, bribery is clearly a sin, fobidden in several different places ("bribes blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of the just" Ex. 23:8; Deut. 16:19) but there is NO PENALTY for bribing. The idea that some people have that all sins are equal is comletely foreign to the Bible.

Second, interpretation of law varies from generation to generation. A century ago, the big nasty that had all the Rabbis publishing lengthy books was "Loshen Hara" or evil tongue, IOW gossip. You read their writings, and they argue that ruining a person's reputation is no different than murder. My sister and I discussed this once. In our parents' generation, the BIGGY sins were smoking, drinking, and gambling; today the BIGGY sins are polluting and killing off species to extinction. Each generation sort of becomes hyper conscious of some wrongs, while numbing itself to other wrongs.

When reading Jewish law, it might help you to remember that we are a KINSHIP group, and our survival depends on two things: procreation and enculturation. Thus many of our laws that you read in the Bible demand the kind of sex that will increase our numbers, while punishing forms of sex that don't create children. Consider that the family purity laws (avoiding sex during menstruation and for a number of days after) virtually guarantees that a couple will have sex during the wife's fertile days. I know, we now live in an overpopulated world with modern medicine and most kids survive to have their own kids, and its VERY difficult for us to imagine ourselves in such a different setting. But if you use your NF spidey sense, I think you can see where such laws DO make sense in that time and place.

 

[This]

There are two factors at work.

First, some sins ARE worse than others. That's why there are different penalties. Some things get the death penalty. Some things get you exiled. Some things you pay a fine for. And believe or not there are a great many laws that carry no civil penalty at all. The idea that some people have that all sins are equal is comletely foreign to the Bible.

Second, interpretation of law varies from generation to generation. A century ago, the big nasty that had all the Rabbis publishing lengthy books was "Loshen Hara" or evil tongue, IOW gossip. You read their writings, and they argue that ruining a person's reputation is no different than murder. My sister and I discussed this once. In our parents' generation, the BIGGY sins were smoking, drinking, and gambling; today the BIGGY sins are polluting and killing off species to extinction. Each generation sort of becomes hyper conscious of some wrongs, while numbing itself to other wrongs.

When reading Jewish law, it might help you to remember that we are a KINSHIP group, and our survival depends on two things: procreation and enculturation. Thus many of our laws that you read in the Bible demand the kind of sex that will increase our numbers, while punishing forms of sex that don't create children. Consider that the family purity laws (avoiding sex during menstruation and for a number of days after) virtually guarantees that a couple will have sex during the wife's fertile days. I know, we now live in an overpopulated world with modern medicine and most kids survive to have their own kids, and its VERY difficult for us to imagine ourselves in such a different setting. But if you use your NF spidey sense, I think you can see where such laws DO make sense in that time and place.

I think the laws make sense for their time, I do see them as far less important since the invention of contraceptives though and think things like sexual immorality probably are lesser sins than they once were going by my perception of the word "sin" itself. I am a little bit confused on your mention of punishment and there being different punishments for different sins, I was of the impression that going by the christian belief system there was no real punishment for sin, but rather that man is inherently sinful and that those sins are forgiven through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

[GracieRuth]

Sali: I get where you are coming from. And in my faith tradition the kinds of questions you bring up are welcome. It seems nutty to others, but the Rabbis actually relish the students that ask questions and challenge things.

I'm reluctant to speak for Christians, but if I'm not mistaken, for Christians Jesus' sacrifice saves them from eternal punishment, but NOT TEMPORAL. Therefore a Christian can look at a repentant murderer and say, Your execution is scheduled for next week, but at least you'll go to heaven. Now a Catholic has the idea of the indulgence, where you do something spiritually uplifting such as giving to a charity or making a pilgrimage, and they believe these actions can MITIGATE temporal punishment. But Christians are not devoid of common sense: if you embezzle from your job, they will willingly send you to jail.

You bring up contraception. In our day and age, because we want to lower the birth rate and practice child spacing, contraception makes sense. Even Catholics use Natural Family Planning to have fewer children born further apart. But I remember the episode of Battlestar Gallactica where humanity was basically down in the thousands, and so having babies was a priority, and for example abortion was outlawed. Survival tends to take precedence -- we are morally obligated to keep ourselves alive, keep our families alive, keep our species from extinction.

One of the things I worry about sometimes is that intelligent people SEE the problems of overpopulation, and usually respond by having few or no children. But the mentally challenged are the opposite. I'm scared that in a thousand years the average IQ of humanity will be significantly lower. My hubby and I decided that it was important for us to have SOME children, but after one of each sex, the rest we would adopt. It was kind of a compromise between dealing with overpopulation and knowing that we had things about us worthy of being passed on to the future.

 

[just me]

Warning: This thread my not be for everyone. If you are easily offended you may want to turn away.

I should preface by saying that I am an agnostic with buddhist leanings.
Alright, so I just got finished reading the Christian Bible. I grew up in a christian house with a christian family and we all went to church every sunday and all that. My question is why do christians, or more specifically "the church" condemn certain sins more than others? Now as far as my personal opinion goes, I don't really believe in sins other than as sort of principles perhaps. It seems to me though that the church I went to focused an inordinate amount on sex and virginity (they also focused a lot on tithing but I do understand their motivation for that .) There's really not much of that in the new testament of the bible, in fact most of the new testament and of Jesus teachings has a lot to do with love, acceptance and withholding judgement. Very little has to do with say having sex outside wedlock for example, but for some reason sexual sins seem to be the be all and end all for many christians (or at least the churches they go to.) I just have to wonder where these perceptions came from. Looking at christian rhetoric you would think that sexual sins are the only sins. What about the other sins, such as sloth? I don't see many christians raising issue with this one and it's one of the apparent seven deadly sins. So basically my question is, why the inconsistency? why are some things weighted more heavily in christian societies even when the Christian Bible doesn't necessarily indicate that they should be?

Inconsistencies could be viewed as differences. There are so many denominations of Christianity, each with different views regarding this or that part of the scriptures. The basic teachings of the New Testament are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and to love your neighbor as yourself(There were times in my life I did not really love myself, so I like to add a twist in that as meaning to love them as one is supposed to and does most of the time their own self). Love is the fulfilling of the law. If we make that attempt and sacrifice to treat others the way they should be treated, according to the scriptures, we really don't have need to worry about the rest of "what not to do". However, sooner or later people get married and have children.

A father does not want a promiscuous daughter in her youth. I think the reasons could be many. A mother does not want a whoremonger as a son in his youth. I think the reasons could be many. The parents do not want older men or women looking at their children with sex on their minds. Being Christ-like would be, in my opinion, trying to live a somewhat holy life. Holiness somewhat resonates with purity. The teachings are not a bunch of rules to "NOT" do, but are rather guidelines for trying to be holy.

Paul fought with the law. He won the battle with all the law that concerned physical actions, but the one law he could not win over was that of the mind: thou shalt not covet. The scriptures explicitly state if one trangresses the law in any way, one is a transgressor of the law. It taught me that what I even think is important in my daily walk. I must seek holiness not only in my flesh, but also in my heart.

We try to promote holiness and purity. We try to promote clean hearts, souls, and minds. The scripture comes to mind when one is walking the narrow path, and few there be that find it: "Then it is no longer I, but Christ that dwelleth within me." This is where the "temple of God" statements come from. "The temple of God is holy; which temple you are."

The desires of the flesh are more than sexual desires, if one would only read the descriptions. I must go for now.