What Is Sin?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Sociopathy is an interesting case (probably too much of a tangent for this thread).

A being incapable of understanding moral good and evil would actually have no soul, or at least no connection between their soul and their behavior. Such a being could be dealt with like any other animal incapable of moral thought, but if the being had a soul at all it would likely end up in heaven like all other child souls.

There you go passing judgement again. Someone said that was god's job not yours. Was whoever said that wrong, or just another god believing hypocrite making it up as they go along?

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Since we've gotten to the part of the discussion where not answering questions fast enough means I've conceded the poster's point, I'll just go ahead and concede all remaining points.

I may return to the thread when I can, so anyone who is actually interested in my thoughts should feel free to point to or repeat their unaddressed ideas.

Please. You quoted the very post where I asked the question for the second time. But just snipped that part off as if it weren't there.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Let's take a step back.

Can you explain what argument you think I'm making?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I think this is saying that the nature of God is clear enough, based on just what we can all see in the natural world, that choosing to act against Him or deny Him is a deliberate act.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The "homosexuality is a choice" thing is still a non-starter, because choosing to have sex is a choice whether or not you're sexually attracted to some individual or group.
The fact that God made me to be attracted to an opposite-sex adult who is not my spouse doesn't make my choice to commit adultery somehow okay or "natural". Sexual attraction is temptation; giving into temptation is sin. Sexual preference is irrelevant.

I was mainly citing that passage for the "natural theism" argument, not that the sin list was at all comprehensive.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

By which they mean homosexual sex, not homosexual attraction.

Wikipedia says:In Roman Catholicism, homosexual acts are considered contrary to natural law and sinful, while homosexual desires are considered "disordered" but not themselves sinful.

From what I read there you're saying homosexuality is a sin because it's "against nature", yet as we can see now in the twenty-first century instead of the Bronze age, homosexuality and recreational sex is natural, while the missionary, purely procreative sex prescribed by the church is not. Why are the former relegated to the "sinful" pile and subject to "want it, but don't do it" and not the latter?

And how does this reconcile with what you are saying now, which is basically wanting it is a sin too?

I'm not surprised you're getting confused, you keep changing the "sin" rules.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

There's not a direct scripture on this point; it's my own assessment of how a lack of moral cognizance would interact with soteriological principles.

Okay, where are these "soteriological principles" enumerated in the bible?
Where does the bible spell out what constitutes "moral cognizance"?

How does your "own assessment" of how these interact differ from guesswork and/or speculation? Is there any way to verify your assessments?

ETA: Does your assessment mean you do not think A&E had souls before they ate the apple?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

Please. You quoted the very post where I asked the question for the second time. But just snipped that part off as if it weren't there.

Even if he's right, and you're being unreasonable, it would be rather disapointing if he left because one poster said he wasn't answering fast enough. I for one am more than happy to wait until he's ready to answer the questions--I'd rather have the right answer than a fast one. And one poster does not the conversation make.

Originally Posted by Piscivore

From what I read there you're saying homosexuality is a sin because it's "against nature",

Not quite true. It's against nature AND it's sex with someone other than your spouse. I suppose that if the gay people got married it'd be alright.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Ah, yes, good catch. Sermon the mount.

Again, though, Jesus is talking about more than a flash of feeling or a temptation. He's talking about actively fostering a conflict with your brother; about actively fantasizing about someone. He's talking, again, about how the intent matters as much as the act, and an evil heart can still be evil even if you forego the physical act.

He's talking about the fact that, to become perfect, we need to go past just stopping ourselves from sinning and work on cleansing even our hearts from evil.

I don't see where you're getting all this fine distinction. Seems to me that whole story is a caution not to rely on weaseling your way out of guilt on technicalities; e.g. exactly what you're doing here.

Maybe I'm just reading it too literally.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Since we've gotten to the part of the discussion where not answering questions fast enough means I've conceded the poster's point, I'll just go ahead and concede all remaining points.

I may return to the thread when I can, so anyone who is actually interested in my thoughts should feel free to point to or repeat their unaddressed ideas.

It's as much the thought process as the thoughts that I find interesting. I'm intrigued by religious people's amazing capacity to invent nonsensical explanations in order to cling to their superstitions. I find it fascinating that you believe sin is only a sin if the perpetrator feels it's a sin or if you judge it to be a sin, while all the while you claim it's not your position to judge. The ability of Christians to hold such conflicting positions, glaringly obvious from here on the outside, is ignored altogether by the faithful. The whole concept of sin seems like a component of a silly guilt based mental health problem.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Since we've gotten to the part of the discussion where not answering questions fast enough means I've conceded the poster's point, I'll just go ahead and concede all remaining points.

I may return to the thread when I can, so anyone who is actually interested in my thoughts should feel free to point to or repeat their unaddressed ideas.

You posted twelve times between the question in question and quitting in a huff. 40% of the posts filling the thread between were yours. Of all possible lame excuses for leaving, "you people are too impatient" cannot plausibly be one of them this time.

I guess we can chalk up another example of my gross and misplaced bias against you causing me to perceive your departure as a reaction to people calling you on dodging their questions. I'm so unfair to you, Avalon.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

You posted twelve times between the question in question and quitting in a huff. 40% of the posts filling the thread between were yours.

... which I would think supports my proposition that I have a lot of posts to answer, and people should be a little lenient, right?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I guess we can chalk up another example of my gross and misplaced bias against you causing me to perceive your departure as a reaction to people calling you on dodging their questions. I'm so unfair to you, Avalon.

I figured out a while ago that you're going to make the assumptions you make regardless of how I behave on these threads.

The truth is the JREF could hire me to post here full time and I still would never be able to address every dog in the dogpile.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

... which I would think supports my proposition that I have a lot of posts to answer, and people should be a little lenient, right?

If you didn't respond to posts made after that, including one by me where you snipped the part where I restated the question, it may be more believable.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

If you didn't respond to posts made after that, including one by me where you snipped the part where I restated the question, it may be more believable.

Okay, whatever the point was, I concede it.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

It's as much the thought process as the thoughts that I find interesting.

That's part of why I'm sticking with this conversation. Even as a Catholic this stuff didn't make sense to me. It's interesting to see how others deal with it.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Seems to me that whole story is a caution not to rely on weaseling your way out of guilt on technicalities;

It's not just you. Every single sermon I sat through on this topic drew the same conclusion you do: it's not enough to simply not punch the guy, you're not even allowed to WANT to punch the guy. Medieval monks took this to its logical extreme: the world is evil, therefore desiring anything of this world is evil (well, that was the Clunyic ideal, anyway; other orders didn't have that ideal, and many monasteries in the Cluny family didn't exactly live up to that). This also is in line with the Ten Commandments--it's not enough to be physically faithful to your spouse and not steal from your neighbors, you're not allowed to covet your neighbor's stuff or spouse.

AvalonXQ's interpretation isn't unique, but it's certainly also not the only one out there.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

It's not just you. Every single sermon I sat through on this topic drew the same conclusion you do: it's not enough to simply not punch the guy, you're not even allowed to WANT to punch the guy.

I don't disagree with that; wanting to punch the guy is probably an expression that you have malice towards the guy, which is itself a sin and the root of many/most sins.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

...you're not allowed to covet your neighbor's stuff or spouse.

To quote a cartoon I saw many years ago; "If we're not allowed to covet, what's going to happen to the economy?"

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Okay, whatever the point was, I concede it.

That certain arbitrary actions you call sin only separates us from god because god wants it that way. That he, being the freaking omnipotent creator of the universe, could have just as easily made it so it is not this way. And so he is a ginormous dick not worth spending all of eternity with.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

That certain arbitrary actions you call sin only separates us from god because god wants it that way. That he, being the freaking omnipotent creator of the universe, could have just as easily made it so it is not this way.

Nope; the nature of sin is dictated by our nature and the nature of the universe. It's not in any way arbitrary given the constrains of the universe that we live in. I said that earlier.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

There you go passing judgement again. Someone said that was god's job not yours. Was whoever said that wrong, or just another god believing hypocrite making it up as they go along?

The personal attacks are not appreciated.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope; the nature of sin is dictated by our nature and the nature of the universe. It's not in any way arbitrary given the constrains of the universe that we live in. I said that earlier.

But your god created the universe and the rules that govern it. Right?

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope; the nature of sin is dictated by our nature and the nature of the universe. It's not in any way arbitrary given the constrains of the universe that we live in. I said that earlier.

Is there any way, outside the bible, to identify or verify this mechanism you call "sin"?

ETA: Or, for that matter, what is "our nature", and how is it identified and verified? Wouldn't the fact that different humans exhibit vastly different ranges of behaviour tend to suggest that there is no single "human nature" at all?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

But your god created the universe and the rules that govern it. Right?

Right, but a universe with different rules would be different in ways that we can't comprehend. You can't just say, "he could have created a universe exactly like this one only with the sin rules different" - any universe with different sin rules would mean that the nature of man, the soul, and free will are also different in ways we don't understand.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I figured out a while ago that you're going to make the assumptions you make regardless of how I behave on these threads.

The truth is the JREF could hire me to post here full time and I still would never be able to address every dog in the dogpile.

First of all, with how much you post you could get them all coming and going. That's beside the point though, the issue is not the volume of your posts but the content.

When you're having an ongoing conversation with someone and just drop them while responding to other people, that's a little rude.

When you drop them just after they ask a pointed question which may have an embarassing answer for you, that's a little suspicious.

When you don't even drop them, but continue to reply to everything but the question they ask, even going so far as to delete its text from your quotes of their posts, that's an obvious dodge.

When you declare you are leaving the thread due to insults or dogpiles once they call you on the dodge, that's more than a little rude.

When you do this for thread after thead after thread, that's about when I start cluing in.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Is there any way, outside the bible, to identify or verify this mechanism you call "sin"?

Prayer and honest communion with God is the only way to identify sin.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't disagree with that; wanting to punch the guy is probably an expression that you have malice towards the guy, which is itself a sin and the root of many/most sins.

You're getting wrapped up in the concretes of the example without addressing the meaning of my post, I think. It's not just wanting to punch the guy. The sermons I've heard specifically state that anger is a sin (actually, it one of the Seven Deadly Sins--wrath). They specifically say that lust is a sin--even a fleating moment of it. Temptation, as I understood it, was something external. If I'm fasting and someone puts a cake down in front of me, that cake is temptation. My reaction to it is good or evil--but nothing internal is temptation. You seem to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that your reaction is part of the temptation, and that something else has to occur for it to be a sin.

Quote:

Nope; the nature of sin is dictated by our nature and the nature of the universe. It's not in any way arbitrary given the constrains of the universe that we live in.

To be fair, your view of our nature and the nature of the universe is dramatically different from those of an atheist. From an atheistic perspective, you have to admit that many of these seem very arbitrary. "Keep holy the Sabath", for example--to an atheist it's simply picking a random day and saying "Don't work that day".

Originally Posted by Piscivore

To quote a cartoon I saw many years ago; "If we're not allowed to covet, what's going to happen to the economy?"

I asked a few people about that a few times. They never could answer me coherently. Ayn Rand had a good answer, though: to want a coat LIKE your neighbor's is good, because it drives you. To want YOUR NEIGHBOR'S COAT is wrong, because it violates his right to his property. To want your neighbor to not have his coat because you don't have one is evil, because you simply want to make him suffer. Drives me nuts in my company....They try for the egalitarian thing, where management and the lower levels are treated the same. I don't like that. I like to see what benefits I'll get when I move upwards. I WANT my boss to have a big desk, a nice car, and enough money to light cigars with $100s--because eventually, I'm going to be the boss, and I want MY big office and expensive cigars. I'll pass on the car, though--gimme a 4 wheel drive truck with good clearance over a sports car any day. Sports cars get stuck in alluvium too easily for my taste.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

First of all, with how much you post you could get them all coming and going. That's beside the point though, the issue is not the volume of your posts but the content.

When you're having an ongoing conversation with someone and just drop them while responding to other people, that's a little rude.

When you drop them just after they ask a pointed question which may have an embarassing answer for you, that's a little suspicious.

When you don't even drop them, but continue to reply to everything but the question they ask, even going so far as to delete its text from your quotes of their posts, that's an obvious dodge.

When you declare you are leaving the thread due to insults or dogpiles once they call you on the dodge, that's more than a little rude.

When you do this for thread after thead after thread, that's about when I start cluing in.

Ah! I think I finally see what your issue is with my behavior.

You actually have a very valid point. Thanks for spelling it out.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Prayer and honest communion with God is the only way to identify sin.

What if he never answers? I prayed for years, even as a ferven believer, and never once got an answer.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Prayer and honest communion with God is the only way to identify sin.

So how can you call homosexuality a sin? How can you even DEFINE sin? When I'm talking to you I'm not communing with God; therefore, by your statement it seems that this conversation is completely irrelevant.

Again, please understand I'm not upset or anything; I'm merely presenting my understanding of what you're saying, because I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Right, but a universe with different rules would be different in ways that we can't comprehend. You can't just say, "he could have created a universe exactly like this one only with the sin rules different" - any universe with different sin rules would mean that the nature of man, the soul, and free will are also different in ways we don't understand.

If your god is actually omnipotent he could have created the universe so it is exactly the same except that gay sex or whatever isn't a sin. That he didn't, means that he can't, meaning that he is not omnipotent. Or that he didn't want to, meaning he is a dick.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

If your god is actually omnipotent he could have created the universe so it is exactly the same except that gay sex or whatever isn't a sin.

If your definition of "actually omnipotent" requires this to be true, then I don't hold that God is "actually omnipotent" as you define it.

My understanding of God's power doesn't require that God not be restrained by logic, nor does God have to be able to bypass the fact that a world with consistent, logical rules and moral principles will have certain consistent moral realities.

Bottom line: there is value in this world, and this world is only the way it is. We cannot know in what ways changing X about the world will influence Y, or how that would make the world less valuable to God.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Ayn Rand had a good answer, though: to want a coat LIKE your neighbor's is good, because it drives you. To want YOUR NEIGHBOR'S COAT is wrong, because it violates his right to his property. To want your neighbor to not have his coat because you don't have one is evil, because you simply want to make him suffer.

...and if you take your neighbor's coat and give it to a homeless child, because your neighbor is a rich industrialist with coats to spare and the kid is freezing to death, Ayn Rand rises from the grave apopletically spitting fire and brimstone and curses your collectivist soul to the glowing Red heart of Chernobyl.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

My understanding of God's power doesn't require that God not be restrained by logic,

An omnipotent being can CHOOSE to restrain itself to logic, if such a being had free will; however, to say that God is necessarily restrained by logic is to imply that there's something greater than God. As I understand the the RCC's position is that God CREATED logic, and thus is not bound by it any more than the creater of a game's rules is bound by those rules in all things.

Quote:

We cannot know in what ways changing X about the world will influence Y

Depends on what the X and Y are. Scientists do exactly what you're saying we can't all the time when we make predictions. Sci-fi writers and fantasy authors do it as well.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

An omnipotent being can CHOOSE to restrain itself to logic, if such a being had free will; however, to say that God is necessarily restrained by logic is to imply that there's something greater than God.

It's enough to say that if God did not choose to constrain himself by logic in interacting with the world, he would lose whatever value he gets from the world being logically consistent.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

...and if you take your neighbor's coat and give it to a homeless child, because your neighbor is a rich industrialist with coats to spare and the kid is freezing to death, Ayn Rand rises from the grave apopletically spitting fire and brimstone and curses your collectivist soul to the glowing Red heart of Chernobyl.

She'd consider the theft evil, certainly, and wouldn't consider donating it to the kid to be a mitigating circumstance. Property rights, according to O'ism, are absolute--the fact that you need something does not negate my property rights.

That's one of the big misunderstandings people have about O'ism: Rand didn't consider charity evil; she didn't think of it as being of any consequence at all. It's certainly not a valid reason for committing acts of evil. But if you want to donate YOUR coat to the kid, have fun. You might even convince me to help. O'ists can be downright philanthropic if you approach us correctly. For example, my wife and I donate anually to cancer research, because I'd rather have a cure before my sisters reach 35 (when they'll each almost certainly need a breast biopsy). I don't pretend my donations make me a good person, though; they're merely something I do to get something I want.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

It's enough to say that if God did not choose to constrain himself by logic in interacting with the world, he would lose whatever value he gets from the world being logically consistent.

Not really. You're pretending to know the mind of God--which is presumption. If you want to say anything, you have to say "It's enough to say that God did choose to constrain Himself, for His reasons".

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

So how can you call homosexuality a sin? How can you even DEFINE sin? When I'm talking to you I'm not communing with God; therefore, by your statement it seems that this conversation is completely irrelevant.

Again, using the medical analogy: we can learn about sin in the abstract, but the only way to know for certain about an actual, specific circumstance is to be in it.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Not really. You're pretending to know the mind of God--which is presumption. If you want to say anything, you have to say "It's enough to say that God did choose to constrain Himself, for His reasons".

I concede that I have been somewhat speculative here.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If your definition of "actually omnipotent" requires this to be true, then I don't hold that God is "actually omnipotent" as you define it.

My understanding of God's power doesn't require that God not be restrained by logic, nor does God have to be able to bypass the fact that a world with consistent, logical rules and moral principles will have certain consistent moral realities.

Your definition is fine with me. Why does gay sex being a sin have to be a moral reality for the world to have consistent, logical rules and moral principles?

Quote:

Bottom line: there is value in this world, and this world is only the way it is. We cannot know in what ways changing X about the world will influence Y, or how that would make the world less valuable to God.

OK. Maybe, then, changing certain rules would make the world a better place and god doesn't want that because he is a dick.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Again, using the medical analogy: we can learn about sin in the abstract, but the only way to know for certain about an actual, specific circumstance is to be in it.

Yes, but your "medical analogy" fails. And you said that people "in it" sometimes aren't aware of it, so presumably have no "certain knowledge" of sin. And you haven't answered the many times I've asked you how one externally validates the notion of "sin"; which you claim is objective, yet somehow completely subjective now too?

Do you have anything beside a few bible verses and your own feelings to go on here?

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

She'd consider the theft evil, certainly, and wouldn't consider donating it to the kid to be a mitigating circumstance. Property rights, according to O'ism, are absolute--the fact that you need something does not negate my property rights.

That's one of the big misunderstandings people have about O'ism: Rand didn't consider charity evil; she didn't think of it as being of any consequence at all. It's certainly not a valid reason for committing acts of evil. But if you want to donate YOUR coat to the kid, have fun. You might even convince me to help. O'ists can be downright philanthropic if you approach us correctly. For example, my wife and I donate anually to cancer research, because I'd rather have a cure before my sisters reach 35 (when they'll each almost certainly need a breast biopsy). I don't pretend my donations make me a good person, though; they're merely something I do to get something I want.

You missed the smiley at the end, there.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

Your definition is fine with me. Why does gay sex being a sin have to be a moral reality for the world to have consistent, logical rules and moral principles?

I don't know; probably something to do with the very limited conditions under which sexual expression doesn't result in negative emotional consequences.

Quote:

OK. Maybe, then , changing certain rules would make the world a better place and god doesn't want that because he is a dick.

I don't believe that, but you're welcome to.