Another way to frame the notion of sin is the way Sculptor's mother and my grandmother viewed waste - especially, btw, waste of food. That is an archetypical attitude: conservation as the cardinal virtue of scarcity. Wasting food is an offense against the family, the tribe, the future and thus life itself. So we can say: a sin is any crime against life and nature.
Greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. These are the seven deadly sins, as characterised by early Christians. Wasting food is not necessarily a sin, unless you’re simply being greedy, lustful, envious...etc. Wasting food can be a selfish, or an act out of ignorance. Neither position helps to proctect the life of any individuals dual. By “protect life”, I don’t just mean staying alive, or prevention of death. But the quality of life. Jan.
That's only six - and coincidentally in the same order as in the Wikipedia article. Is it also coincidence that you left out pride?
Reminds me of a very fat protester I saw at Earth Day one year. He had a sandwich board talking about how we were all going to hell for the seven deadly sins - pride, greed, lust, envy, wrath and sloth. I was tempted to ask him why he left out gluttony, but looking at the size of his belly - I didn't need to.
Jan is my name. God is more of a job description vocation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan.
There are many more sins than the mortal ones, in all societies with the concept - including the early Christians. Wasting food is - often - one of them. Damaging the fertility of agricultural lands is often another. Usury - originally: charging compound interest on loans of money - is one of the most common.
Agreed. This is astonishingly evolved of you. I never thought I'd see the day when you would willingly admit this. Welcome.
I’m asking if that is the basis of your view. I guess I’m still no further to knowing whether you think sin exists, or not. It sounds like you think it does, but it doesn’t affect a person who does not believe it exists. What say you? Jan.
These acts do not just happen without an underlying notions. Greed for example, can be the reason behind any number of atrocities, even those we would generally associate with “lust”. Everything thing you mentioned could be the result of greed, as an exceedingly, underlying cause. Also it could a combination of at least one other base characteristics. This is what I meant by sin being more than we can comprehend. We could in fact be sinning, and not know we’re sinning due our limited comprehension. Jan.
So? Sins and sinfulness are recognized, identified, by people applying their morality to someone's behavior - in a society that has the concept, in the first place. Many societies do not, apparently, have it. Of these, at least some organize around shame - a different concept than sin, and considerably more universal.
Ah, but we're not Christians! We're pre-pagan. Have no problem with lust and pride; sloth and gluttony are good strategy when you get the chance; wrath and greed are self-punishing; envy is merely contemptible. I don't know what the "quality of life" is when you're starving.
That’s the kind of limited comprehension I’m talking about. You only have a personal opinion of these acts. “Sin” isn’t Christian, Islamic, Hindi, Buddhist etc. Child molesters don’t have a problem with molesting children. They may even think it is a good strategy when they get the chance. Does that make it okay? Jan Do you know what “quality of life” is, if you’re not starving? Jan.
Ah. Well, sin certainly exists conceptually - it is a very real practice. But acknowledging that people adhere to something is not the same thing as granting it any merit. Superstition certainly exists (only a fool would pretend there are no superstitious people), Same with luck or fortune, or astrology or phrenology. They exist by the very nature of people practising them. That says nothing about whether they have any merit. It goes without saying that, as I do not believe there is a God, I also do not believe that there is merit to the idea of sin. Clearer?
Dave Superstition is subjective. Sin - transgression of the law, is actual. It doesn’t matter if you accept God, or not. Not accepting, or believing in God, only changes the value of sin, in your mind. Jan.
They're personal acts. Really? How many child-molesters do you know well enough to discuss their innermost feelings about it? I think we're capable of making of far more rational, consistent, enforceable laws through legislation than by trying to adopt the mores of ancient xenophobic slave-owning genocidal tribes. Huh? I know many things that contribute to quality of life, but not a single one of them apply to a starving person.
irony that you see soo many of those pyramid evangelical church leaders soo fat and wearing soo much gold trying to show off materialism. they are soo evil it makes me laugh & cringe at the same time.
