[QUOTE="Goldtop, post: 3562273, member: ] So, do you now or have you raised your children with or without the concept of sin? How's it working for you?[/QUOTE] Concepts seem to creep into conscious being regardless of parenting. Though the word " sin" was never mentioned in my house, I can't imagine going through life without being exposed to the concept. As far as my children go, they are the product of their conditioning, which involved all the people all the experiences of their lives. I doubt a parent can control life for very long.
a "law" is a moral code in practice. usually defined by a mechanism of force. the vast majority of people define laws are not laws unles they have a force to punish those whom break them. this is a definition of express morality as it fashions morality in action. the obvious confusion about this fact is common among many religious people whom have been brainwashed to believe that there is no ability to have free will. free will is then used to only allow for actions that are in obedience to the dictatorship brainwashing of the child. closed circle ... no free will all actions are actions lied about to suggest free will, while following a command that defines a choice, in life, life style. a free will choice to obey a set of actions that defines a style of life. pretend free will to define a set of actions that defines culture and then labels it as no free will and absolute culture. it is all very dishonest the vast majority of fundamental(old-worldy) Christianity is evil if there is no morality in sin, then there must be no judgment of what sin is. is there any judgement of the actions that are defined as sin ? fyi ... supplanting ego into the discussion to play the victim doesn't change the subject
Well, divine ~ God, and law ~ decree, so that would be God's decree. But it's not my definition; I simply looked it up. I would entertain better definitions. Sin exists inasmuch as people believe it exists, and therefore take tangible action based on that belief. Whether there's teeth behind it is actually immaterial; it's humans who follow it. It's much like asking if superstition exists. Of course it does. Lots of people knock on wood or throw salt over their shoulder. Whether there's teeth behind it is actually immaterial; it's humans who follow it.
the cross over between the theist & atheist concepts of sin along with the differing concepts of sin, original sin, mortal sin etc etc seems to differ greatly. if one removes all the aspects that drive behavior then what is left from the concept ? does the concept "sin" have any existence outside the practice of human actions ? while jan uses the word "law" & divine together, i have been lucky enough to converse with people who have greatly differing concepts of spirituality which in so have differing concepts of divinity. divinity & sin ... ? law & divinity ? is divinity wholly a christian theological word & concept ? (i dont think so, i think it is more so a spiritual reference to a concept of belief). if one is able to not seek to modify others behaviors while holding a belief, then i would expect it to be not of moral expectation. it is quite a tricky subject to get involved in because (as i eluded to above) it connects to soo many aspects of peoples ideas about them self. a certain amount of detachment is required to get technical. should someones self belief feel in jeopardy because they are debating the concept of morality inside a theological semi secular concept such as social interaction of group behaviors ?
Sin is in some ways the opposite of morality. Morals are choices that we implement in order to maximize well-being, primarily of human beings, and being a moral person means you must evaluate these choices based on the situations we are confronted with. Sin bypasses this responsibility by using lists of preordained rules codified in religious doctrine.
That's where "original sin", "fallen angel", and so forth - the Adam and Eve story - come in. Nobody has to go forth, to sin. In the standard Abrahamic approach. The identification of sins does. Morality includes the criteria of evaluation of "well-being" - the choices follow, rather than constitute.
The concept itself is not hard to grasp. Some crimes are not sinful and most sins are not criminal; it's the distinction between canon law (for believers in a particular canon, this means divine; that which regulates man's interactions with his deity) and secular law (enacted by human societies to regulate the interactions of men with one another.) A sin, therefore, is any act or state of being that violates the god's ideals. In the bible story, the first sin was the acquisition of an autonomous moral sense - the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, all secular law is the product of Eve and Adam's sin. Their second sin was the discovery of their own genitalia, and associating shame with sex. Original sin, then is being born of sexual congress: the shame sticks to you at conception. (That's the point of the Jesus ideal: his mother was not yet aware of her own sexuality and he was conceived not with sperm, but with an idea.) The sin of normal birth is not one you can ever expiate through an act of your own. So you're born in debt and die in debt, having paid compound interest all through life. It's slavery. And that is an evil concept.
Somewhere around the net one can probably still find the long discussions comparing societies that have sin (Western with Abrahamic religions, largely but not iirc exclusively) and societies that have shame (Eastern or tribal with varied theisms or nontheistic religions).
I manage to get my share of sinning done without working hard at it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would ask: Of all the thousands the Romans crucified on their way to empire: Why does this guy stand out? Perhaps we may see something similar in Roland who accompanied Charlemagne into Spain?
But there is no such identification, only acceptance of things ancient people once considered immoral, which ignores both individual moral responsibility and new circumstances. What if a new moral question arises that isn't covered in the Bible? The recognition of slavery as a moral error comes to mind. I agree, but the concept of sin avoids any criteria of social or sentient well-being. It's simply the rule dictated from above, whether they are arbitrary or not.
Probably. But he became the chief deity of the Romans, not the Hebrews or any other subject peoples of the Roman empire. The archetype is far older than this method of execution: it goes back to all sacrificial demigods of antiquity. In Roman religious rites, the sacrifice had always been a domestic animals - preferably expensive breeding stock. This prevailed in the Jewish religion, as well, by Roman times. But there is a frequent echo in the OT of earlier human sacrifice: a choice young male, which was replaced with a ram (Abraham and Isaac is the prime example). This is why Jesus is "the lamb of God" - the ideal guilt offering. However, the majority of Jews at the time didn't accept this substitution and anyway, would regard any killing carried out by vulgar occupation soldiers as completely lacking ritual significance.
? Not sure how to take that. Identification of sin seems quite common. As does shame. That is explicit, often: utilitarian calculations, cost/benefit analyses, and the like, are often held to be immoral.
Identification of what is a sin doesn't analyze the action with respect to well-being, only with respect to arbitrary rules. I disagree. What else is there apart from maximizing well-being but the approval of a god, who dictates rules based on his own unknown criteria?
