The Nature of Sin

[Rakawi]

This is why I detest the Bible. While it is beautiful poetry, it represents the paths for some men, but not all. It is the assumption that this book, written by men, is the absolutist path, which has caused such heartache and turmoil within the Christian faith.

The Bible is just a book. It's the narrow significance assigned to it that I resent.

We should remind ourselves to attack reverence, not objects: ideas, not people.

I'll argue that the greatest and only sin known to man is self-indulgence. This implies moderation is the greatest virtue.

 

[NeverAmI]

I'll argue that the greatest and only sin known to man is self-indulgence... exempting no one. This implies moderation is the greatest virtue.

If you ask Zarathustra from Nietzsche's work it is the one who does not seek laughter.

"What has been the greatest sin here on earth so far? Was it not the word of him who said: 'Woe unto those who laugh now!'

Did he himself find no grounds on earth for laughter? Then he simply did not look. Even a child can find such grounds here."

But yes, balance is important and something I strive for most of all.

 

[Rakawi]

If you ask Zarathustra from Nietzsche's work it is the one who does not seek laughter.

"What has been the greatest sin here on earth so far? Was it not the word of him who said: 'Woe unto those who laugh now!'

Did he himself find no grounds on earth for laughter? Then he simply did not look. Even a child can find such grounds here."

But yes, balance is important and something I strive for most of all.

Sounds like an Artisan/Dionysian strength, which is why I value their company. SPs guiltlessly extract me from the existential pretzels I knot myself into, and my reminders that sobriety has as much a place in this world as mirth are for naught.

Balance... moderation... equilibrium... a sailor's best friend on a rolling ship, lads!

 

[NeverAmI]

Sobriety is a necessary evil. <grin>

 

[Rakawi]

Sobriety is a necessary evil. <grin>

Uh-oh. Are you an ExxP or a Se-savvy INFJ?

 

[NeverAmI]

Uh-oh. Are you an ExxP or a Se-savvy INFJ?

I prefer to pick a new one each day. Collect the whole set!

(INTP shooting for XXXX)

 

[Rakawi]

I prefer to pick a new one each day. Collect the whole set!

Guess the INFJ!

(INTP shooting for XXXX)

Masochist!

 

[NeverAmI]

Guess the INFJ!



Masochist!

Dang, I will have to get back to you on the pic, blocked at work.

I am definitely my own worst enemy.

 

[Rakawi]

De-rail. Whoops.

Dang, I will have to get back to you on the pic, blocked at work.

I am definitely my own worst enemy.

Doh. Power Rangers in all their rainbowed glory = your loss.

Time to re-rail this mothah.

Sin is inevitable, so why stigmatize it? The op's mention of the word's etymological origin should inform our treatment of it, no?

 

[NeverAmI]

Sin as missing the mark makes sense. Of course, that begs the question as to what mark? Why is the mark there? Who put it there? What is the purpose of hitting that mark? Is it the only mark there or are there many? If there are many, why this one? Why am I trying to hit a mark in the first place?

My understanding of theological sin in the terms of Abrahamic religions is falling from god in a spiritual sense. In my understanding, each of those religions involve submitting yourself to the will of a higher power in order to live the life (acting in ways god would prefer) instilled into your essence which was predetermined prior to your existence.

As for my personal interpretation of sin:

Sin is ignorance.

 

[Rakawi]

Sin is ignorance.

Doesn't willful ignorance qualify as self-indulgence? :whistle:

What about inadvertent ignorance? Personally, I believe that as individuals we're still responsible for what we don't know, but does God make a qualitative distinction? Should the law? Should we?

 

[Entyqua]

hmmmm...I think i have a very unique view on all this...but who knows...When I went through the Caticizm (SP) in my very Lutheran church in a very Mormon town...I asked my pastor so many questions about the bible...I remember asking the very questions you did but asked one more...If the apples are so sweet, why oh why did god not want man to enjoy them...Does god hate man? Why would he create something so delicious and make it against his will for man to enjoy. It seems to me that god would have to be mean to do that...My pastor said some of the things here such as moderation, self control blah blah blah...This, of course, all made no sense to me...because I ate apples all the time...I asked him if I was a sinner...He said, no its just a story, to teach us self control...

Thats when all this clicked...its just a story...so all this...this church...the religion...beliefs based on a story...I graduated Catacizm...and I read the bible eight more times before I decided I couldn't base my life on stories....

Anyway...the way I feel about sin is this...There is right and there is wrong...its not black and white there is grey...

I go with the Life is a quest theory, to some extent...but I also believe we are tested...thought I DONT believe in ONE true god...I am spiritual sure...I believe there are unseen things that can guide us....but one god I cannot wrap my head around it.

 

[NeverAmI]

Doesn't willful ignorance qualify as self-indulgence? :whistle:

What about inadvertent ignorance? Personally, I believe that as individuals we're still responsible for what we don't know, but does God make a qualitative distinction? Should the law? Should we?

Yes, of course it does!

As to the latter, that all depends on your philosophy!

If we had a deductive answer beyond doubt for existence then life would probably be quite a bit different. As for reality, we only have cogent claims.

I can never hope to fully shed inadvertent ignorance, those tools have not been bestowed upon me. Hence the name.

I can hope it all becomes clear after death, or I suppose I could hope that I give up being a skeptic long enough to set up some truly functional foundation, that doesn't sound very good to me at the moment though.

 

[Rakawi]

Doesn't willful ignorance qualify as self-indulgence? :whistle:

What about inadvertent ignorance? Personally, I believe that as individuals we're still responsible for what we don't know, but does God make a qualitative distinction? Should the law? Should we?

Yes, of course it does!

As to the latter, that all depends on your philosophy!

If we had a deductive answer beyond doubt for existence then life would probably be quite a bit different. As for reality, we only have cogent claims.

I can never hope to fully shed inadvertent ignorance, those tools have not been bestowed upon me. Hence the name.

I can hope it all becomes clear after death, or I suppose I could hope that I give up being a skeptic long enough to set up some truly functional foundation, that doesn't sound very good to me at the moment though.

Actually, I think the law does, doesn't it? It takes intent into consideration, otherwise murder would be murder as opposed to 1, 2, 3, or manslaughter.

I guess I'm not sure where Christianity stands on this point.

 

[NeverAmI]

Actually, I think the law does, doesn't it? It takes intent into consideration, otherwise murder would be murder as opposed to 1, 2, 3, or manslaughter.

I guess I'm not sure where Christianity stands on this point.

Law is formed around a philosophical understanding. That could be religion (Sharia Law) it could be secular and empirical, just because our culture mandates something is lawfully wrong (crossing a street with an ice cream cone in some state) doesn't necessarily indicate a sin or some universal qualitative distinction between right and wrong, only what serves a purpose.

Law is generally used to foster societal progress, or sometimes manipulated to benefit a few people in the short term, rather than having a true basis on any moral depiction. What the majority sees as ethical, or at least permissable, is usually what goes. It is common though for philosophers to enlighten or be misinterpreted to have a heavy influence on future political policy.

Then again, politics is not a strong suite for me yet philosophically.

 

[Rakawi]

Law is formed around a philosophical understanding. That could be religion (Sharia Law) it could be secular and empirical, just because our culture mandates something is wrong (crossing a street with an ice cream cone in some state) doesn't necessarily indicate a sin or some universal qualitative distinction between right and wrong, only what serves a purpose.

Law is generally used to foster societal progress, or sometimes manipulated to benefit a few people in the short term, rather than having a true basis on any moral depiction. What the majority sees as ethical, or at least permissable, is usually what goes.

Then again, politics is not a strong suite for me yet philosophically.

Religion was the earliest form of governance, so this makes sense. But in our culture, we differentiate them... but by what definitions? Religion mandates beliefs whereas law mandates actions? There's definite overlap though... maybe they're too incestuous to separate. Where's a Venn diagram when a girl needs one?

 

[NeverAmI]

Religion was the earliest form of governance, so this makes sense. But in our culture, we differentiate them... but by what definitions? Religion mandates beliefs whereas law mandates actions? There's definite overlap though... maybe they're too incestuous to separate. Where's a Venn diagram when a girl needs one?

Philosophical branches:

Metaphysics/Ontology - The meaning of existence
Epistemology - How we know what we know, how is knowledge gained?
Ethics - What is right and wrong?
Politics - How do you enforce what is right and what is wrong?
Aesthetics - Art, beauty, life. What is possible?

 

[NeverAmI]

Religion mandates beliefs whereas law mandates actions?

From an epistemological perspective knowledge is generally defined as a belief that is understood to be true. That could be metaphysical beliefs about theological origin, or the belief that we can never know our true original to be true and everything in between in terms of universal truths. We can believe an origin to be true, but one person can only make claims to another, deductive reasoning falters.

So based on what we understand to be true, what beliefs we see as universal and justified then we can expound on to ethical action based on those beliefs. Finally based on our ethical rules, we can create enforcable laws to ensure those ethics through political governence.

Metaphysics is generally (thankfully) not prevailant in many current political systems, although it is still widely used in the Middle-East/Africa through Islam/Sharia law.