What Is Sin

[Ouroboros]

--------

 

And TxViper, another side that you haven't really fully grasped is that just one year ago, or two, a woman that claimed she was Christian killed her kids because "God told her to". Obviously being Christian did not increase her moral attitude. Christianity and Jesus himself, could not make her into a moral being. The moral code in her soul from God himself was not there.

 

Me on the other hand, I am agnostic/atheist and I have never killed anyone, and I have never had the urge to do so. I have never wanted anyone to die.

 

So explain why God would put the moral code so strongly into me, but not give it to one of his own that searches his presence every day? Is it that she was not a true Christian? Wouldn't that mean, that I then, would be the true Christian? And I'm an atheist!

 

Isn't that a marvelous parody? I'm the Atheist Christian and she is Christian Fake!

[NotBlinded]

"Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others"

 

So what? Such behaviour is the driving force behind the survival of the fittest. Repugnance to these things cannot really be accounted for from a natural rationale.

 

 

 

"We know it's wrong to hurt others, murder others, take their things or force ourselves on them - human nature tells us what is truly "sinful"."

 

I would propose that there is no shortage of people who do not seem to "know" about things like this at all. Their "nature" is more in accordance with what is observable in nature.

 

This highlights one of the peculiarities of Christian doctrine; Natural is not the same as normal.

I have a question for you TX. What you see happening in nature and what we see happening in nature is the same. You see a male lion kill another male lion's cubs just as we do. What do you see as the cause of this? Is it something that mankind did years ago to bring about this necessity for animals to kill other animals?

 

It doesn't matter what you or I claim the cause to be, the result is the same. So, is it normal or is it natural?

[Antlerman]

"Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others"

 

So what? Such behaviour is the driving force behind the survival of the fittest. Repugnance to these things cannot really be accounted for from a natural rationale.

That's just plain silly Tx. You really want to believe the worst about anyone who thinks differently than you, don't you?

 

Is murder, rape, etc the driving force of evolution??? Hardly. You have no idea what you are talking about. Murder is an abborition, not the norm! Where did you learn science, Kansas?

[Amanda]

That's just plain silly Tx. You really want to believe the worst about anyone who thinks differently than you, don't you?

 

Is murder, rape, etc the driving force of evolution??? Hardly. You have no idea what you are talking about. Murder is an abborition, not the norm! Where did you learn science, Kansas?

Antlerman, I haven't been around this person Tx Viper too much in these forums. Yet, what little I have seen of him... do you think he's really for real? Why would a "Christian" call himself a "poisionous serpent" from Texas?

[Kuroikaze]

 

Unless Ssel tried to redefine the word sin to mean a necessary opposite to not-sin (or whatever).

 

But I agree, in traditional context and understanding, yin is not sin. Far from it.

 

Yang is the sunny side of the mountain, the hard and supporting muscle in Tai Chi, the man in a marriage.

 

Yin is the shadowy side of the mountain, the soft and relaxed muscle in a Tai Chi stance, the woman in a marriage.

 

My understanding is that the Yin/Yang is about balance and being centered and not being concerned about light and dark, hard and soft or positivie and negative.

 

And the symbol only means that you shouldn't focus on the difference between the black and white, but focus on the center where there is calm and peace.

 

exactly, Taoism is a relativistic belief system. The analogy that I read one Taoist master use is bamboo verses an oak tree. In a storm the oak tree will be uprooted because it refuses to bend or in other words change, while the bamboo survives because it bends easily.

 

To a Taoist absolute moral rules, like saying lying is always wrong, is the essense of being an oak instead of bamboo. absolute moral rules may work great most of the time, but eventually situations will happen that cannot be handled by a system that treats right and wrong as absolutes, In such a case that person will be as the oak in a storm, it will be uprooted.

 

Its a fundamentaly different system because to a fundamentalist christian being spirtual is about believing in absolute standards, while to a Taoist the most spiritual people realize that absolute standards are illusions.

 

Sorry, I know that whole rant was a bit off topic. It just really pisses me off when christians misrepresent other belief systems to support thier own claims. Even more so, because its a belief system that I generally accept, at least to an extent.

[SkepticOfBible]

Antlerman, I haven't been around this person Tx Viper too much in these forums. Yet, what little I have seen of him... do you think he's really for real? Why would a "Christian" call himself a "poisionous serpent" from Texas?

 

He looks genuine to me

[Saviourmachine]

"Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others"

 

So what? Such behaviour is the driving force behind the survival of the fittest. Repugnance to these things cannot really be accounted for from a natural rationale.

Kin Selection.

[Amanda]

"Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others"

 

So what? Such behaviour is the driving force behind the survival of the fittest. Repugnance to these things cannot really be accounted for from a natural rationale.

Kin Selection.

 

Saviourmachine... how do you know so much, in so many diverse areas?

 

Thank you for the Kin Selection theory. I never heard of it. Would you help me understand something from my recent research into it?

 

I read on a site here this:

Kin selection is the evolutionary mechanism that selects for those behaviors that increase the inclusive fitness of the donor. A well known example of kin selection in operation is the study of alarm calls in squirrels by Paul Sherman (1977. Nepotism and the evolution of alarm calls. Science 197:1246-1253). In this study, Sherman studied the likelihood of males (who do not nest near genetic relatives) and females (who do nest near genetic relatives) to give alarm calls that warn others of predators while placing caller at a greater risk of attack. It turns out that males are less likely to give such calls than females, thus supporting the kin selection hypothesis.

If females who do this, place themselves at higher risk, they tend not to live as long and not available to reproduce as long as those who don't. It seems this behavior would die out. SO, are they actually suggesting that should she survive that this altruistic behavior has become admirable/disirable by males and sought after to mate?

[Antlerman]

That's just plain silly Tx. You really want to believe the worst about anyone who thinks differently than you, don't you?

 

Is murder, rape, etc the driving force of evolution??? Hardly. You have no idea what you are talking about. Murder is an abborition, not the norm! Where did you learn science, Kansas?

Antlerman, I haven't been around this person Tx Viper too much in these forums. Yet, what little I have seen of him... do you think he's really for real? Why would a "Christian" call himself a "poisionous serpent" from Texas?

I don't doubt his being what he claims. I'm not sure where you saw the serpent comment or what the context of it was? He's the one who calls mainstream Christians as "idiots' and "pinheads".

[NotBlinded]

That's just plain silly Tx. You really want to believe the worst about anyone who thinks differently than you, don't you?

 

Is murder, rape, etc the driving force of evolution??? Hardly. You have no idea what you are talking about. Murder is an abborition, not the norm! Where did you learn science, Kansas?

Antlerman, I haven't been around this person Tx Viper too much in these forums. Yet, what little I have seen of him... do you think he's really for real? Why would a "Christian" call himself a "poisionous serpent" from Texas?

I don't doubt his being what he claims. I'm not sure where you saw the serpent comment or what the context of it was? He's the one who calls mainstream Christians as "idiots' and "pinheads".

I think she is referring to his name, TXViper!

[Amanda]

I think she is referring to his name, TXViper!

 

Yes, that's what I mean. Sorry I didn't make myself more understood initially.

[EdwardAbbey]

In other words sin is still pure bullshit, it doesn't exist.

 

Hi Edward Abbey!

 

I don't really like the word "sin". Yet, I'm just curious if you have any regards to any behaviors as being objectionable, and what might some of them be?

 

Hi Amanda,

 

I'm sure there is plenty of offensive/objectionable behavior to numerous to mention but sin is nothing more than a primitive/religious idea invented for the purpose of control.

[Ouroboros]

exactly, Taoism is a relativistic belief system. The analogy that I read one Taoist master use is bamboo verses an oak tree. In a storm the oak tree will be uprooted because it refuses to bend or in other words change, while the bamboo survives because it bends easily.

 

To a Taoist absolute moral rules, like saying lying is always wrong, is the essense of being an oak instead of bamboo. absolute moral rules may work great most of the time, but eventually situations will happen that cannot be handled by a system that treats right and wrong as absolutes, In such a case that person will be as the oak in a storm, it will be uprooted.

 

Its a fundamentaly different system because to a fundamentalist christian being spirtual is about believing in absolute standards, while to a Taoist the most spiritual people realize that absolute standards are illusions.

 

Sorry, I know that whole rant was a bit off topic. It just really pisses me off when christians misrepresent other belief systems to support thier own claims. Even more so, because its a belief system that I generally accept, at least to an extent.

Thanks Kuro. You confirmed my understanding of Tao, and I do live (a little bit) by the way of Tao. (But I'm not a taoist) And a very nice allegory you had.

 

That's why Tai Chi have so much to do with Tao.

 

 

Amanda, I must say that you impress me. You really have started to think about and understand the concepts. Keep it up!

[Guest thirstforknowledge]

Therefore, I would like to know how you look at the concept of "sin". And I would also very much like to know how you look at the weird idea that Jesus had to die on a cross to pay for sin.

Sin is analogous to the Taoist concept of Yin. Sin and Yin represent the concept of dispersion/chaos as opposed to order.

 

Life requires order (as well as anything which has a structure to it). Thus "sin" is that which causes the dispersion of the structure and thus death.

 

All of the sins spoken of in the Bible are directly related to that which leads to dispersion of the spirit. This causes intelligence to be lost and death to be the price. The "seven deadly sins" are a list of emotional temptations which disperse rational thinking.

 

The death of Jesus has several ties to this concept.

 

The death of Jesus was the result of such lusting for power by "the world in general". He displayed that no matter how innocent you might be, as long as people are lusting for power and doing whatever they happen to wish to do, then you will die anyway. He "paid the price" of Man being too wanty.

 

Perhaps more importantly, He gave a message as to how to fix the problem (accurate or not) as a result He was exposed as a danger to those many who preferred that people stay confused and over emotional. In this respect, He did what had to be done even though it cost Him His life. Again, He "paid the price that was required to 'save' Man from his sins of wantiness".

 

In addition, people are guided by their sympathies and their angers (love and hate). These 2 opposing forces push and pull people in whatever direction they happen to balance out toward. The sympathy and love factor toward the man who tried so desperately to simply calm the sea and make life easier for everyone was a price to be paid toward gaining enough devotion from people to actually have an effect rather than merely stating a message which would soon be forgotten. Thus the act, in a since, had to be done.

 

In short, He did what had to be done.

 

This is not offered as a preaching, but to directly answer why those things are said about sin and Jesus.

 

Without some way of knowing what a "dispersion of the spirit" looks like, how can we measure the truth behind this?

[SkepticOfBible]

 

Without some way of knowing what a "dispersion of the spirit" looks like, how can we measure the truth behind this?

I think SSel just left. Haven't heard from him for weeks.

[Guest Luci]

Hi,

I forgot his name...obnoxious something...said that sin is the desire for power. In that case religions are the biggest sinners because look how much power they hold over people and they crave more and more of this power. Not to mention god is a sinner because he has power over the universe and bans any competition from other gods because he wants that power all to himself.

[monsterfeets]

"Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others"

 

So what? Such behaviour is the driving force behind the survival of the fittest. Repugnance to these things cannot really be accounted for from a natural rationale.

 

No it isn't. And yes it can. Animals do not 'murder' and 'rape' each other. That would require them to have a sense of morality which they do not. Morality is an invented human concept. You don't see animals getting shipped off to animal jail if they kill one another. Animals kill for food, survival and out of necessity (i.e. lions killing cubs and other lions to secure their place as the head of the pride, mantises eating their mates because they are the closest source of protein). There are some cases of sexual behavior in animals that may seem like 'rape' to us but it is generally some kind of display of dominance. They are not doing it beceause they were abused as a child and need to play out some sick control fantasy.

 

"We know it's wrong to hurt others, murder others, take their things or force ourselves on them - human nature tells us what is truly "sinful"."

 

I would propose that there is no shortage of people who do not seem to "know" about things like this at all. Their "nature" is more in accordance with what is observable in nature.

 

People who want to hurt others, murder others and are prone to stealing, etc, generally have abnormalities in their brains or some kind of serious psychological issues. Their minds are -diseased-. "Crimes of passion" such as anger, revenge, gang violence, religious violence, etc are not normal or natural either, usually they are emotionally charged or a result of a warped concept of reality. Healthy human beings do not have a desire to kill or harm others. Just like healthy animals do not have a "desire" to kill or harm their own. That would be counter-productive to the survival of their species.

[txviper]

M-feets,

 

 

"People who want to hurt others, murder others and are prone to stealing, etc, generally have abnormalities in their brains or some kind of serious psychological issues. Their minds are -diseased-."

 

The things you mention are all moral violations. You said earlier in your post that "Morality is an invented human concept." This would mean that the diseases you mention are also only human constructs.

 

The reality is that conscience is a utility in humans. A design feature.

[crazy-tiger]

M-feets,

 

 

"People who want to hurt others, murder others and are prone to stealing, etc, generally have abnormalities in their brains or some kind of serious psychological issues. Their minds are -diseased-."

 

The things you mention are all moral violations. You said earlier in your post that "Morality is an invented human concept." This would mean that the diseases you mention are also only human constructs.

 

The reality is that conscience is a utility in humans. A design feature.

Here's a thought for you...

 

If a group went around hurting it's own members, killing it's own members, and taking things from it's own members, how long would that group survive?

If you say "not very long" then you'd be right.

 

Any group that does those things is not going to survive to breed and the traits will die out. On the other hand, a group that refrains from hurting itself, killing itself, and taking from it's own members will last a hell of a lot longer and the traits will be reproduced.

 

 

There are animals that refrain from those activities... do they have a set of morals? Do they have a consience?

You said earlier in your post that "Morality is an invented human concept." This would mean that the diseases you mention are also only human constructs.

BZZZT!! No they don't...

 

Spot the difference between a "concept" and a "construct" and stop trying to quote-mine.

 

 

 

 

Hang on... didn't you insist that you don't do that...?

[monsterfeets]

M-feets,

 

 

"People who want to hurt others, murder others and are prone to stealing, etc, generally have abnormalities in their brains or some kind of serious psychological issues. Their minds are -diseased-."

 

The things you mention are all moral violations. You said earlier in your post that "Morality is an invented human concept." This would mean that the diseases you mention are also only human constructs.

 

The reality is that conscience is a utility in humans. A design feature.

 

They are moral violations based on what we learn and are taught. And we tend to believe that hurting others is wrong because we are social animals who are self-aware and are empathetic about our fellow humans. It is not really that complex of an idea. We know that hurt = bad and safety = good. We care about ourselves, and the future of our species and society. That is why destructive anti-social behaviour is largely considered bad. It's just common sense. You don't shit where you eat.

 

When the part of your brain is damaged that controls learned behaviour you would no longer be aware of those things. It would be the same as if you were never taught what society considers correct at all. Why would morality being subjective mean that a malfunctioning or underdeveloped brain is a human construct? It just means that according to societies idea of morality, certain problems with the brain can lead to behaviour that we consider wrong. It's not the ONLY thing that leads to behaviour that we consider wrong, but the "big bads" are almost always a result of something abnormal.

 

Seriously, we are not instilled with an inner supernatural divine voice that knows the Truth about Good and Evil. If we were everyone would believe the same things were right and wrong regardless of health or upbringing. Our idea of a conscience is more like a mixture of what we are taught is acceptable behaviour, simple logic, and survival instinct.

[jrmarlin]

Apparently, even the fundamentalists cannot agree with what the concept of sin truly is... interesting indeed. I find this quite hilarious...

 

Like a previous poster, I believe that sin was handed down from priests / elders in the church and governments in order to make people act a certain way - the way they want them act. It has nothing to dow th God persay, but everything to do with an organization trying to rule/control/possess someone's life and thus, stripping them of their free will. This does have a repurcussions whether or not xians want to accept this is another story.

 

Another thing, the whole concept of sin is just a way of changing someone. Its like when you date someone and you don't like things about them, you're always trying to change them. My question is, if you're always trying to change someone then you don't like them for who and what they are, so why hang out with them? It doesn't make any sense. One thing I have learned over my years on this earth is, you can't change other people -- not in any permanent way -- you can only change your self if you really want it. Otherwise, when a person is changed against their own free will, eventually they become resentful and begin to purposely go out of their way to go back to old or unacceptable behaviors. This is not a way to keep people close to you. It's the best people repellent you can ever use.

 

I would think if God really gives a hoot about religious endeavors that God would be smart enough to know human nature. It's a shame that xians don't...

 

Good thing its xianity's karma and not mine.

 

Taking away someone's free will is bad juju.

[Amanda]

Seriously, we are not instilled with an inner supernatural divine voice that knows the Truth about Good and Evil. If we were everyone would believe the same things were right and wrong regardless of health or upbringing. Our idea of a conscience is more like a mixture of what we are taught is acceptable behaviour, simple logic, and survival instinct.

Hi Monsterfeets! I found your whole post quite insightful! There are probably many ways in which our brains do not function appropriately rather than just brain damage though. Sometimes there are dysfunctional skills learned and sometimes they're classically conditioned responses that cause poor socialization.

 

I think there is an inner voice, not supernatural, that suggests what is good. This is represented by a model called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. He suggests as a certain level is maintained, we then rise to the next level. These levels are are physical needs, safety needs, social needs, self esteem, then a benevolent level called self actualization. It seems to me there is a drive in us to reach this top level, and it is there that ultimate peace and joy may be accomplished.