Sin

[speed]

Sin is such a interesting concept. It has changed so much in the past 2,500 hundred years. In Platonic, neoplatonic, and Socratic terms, no enlightened virtuous person could sin, as such a "one" or god was above sin. The divine or the one, can only work for the good; sin and evil are impossible.

For St. Paul the relationship between knowledge and virtue is based on the conviction that the intellect and the will are two independent human faculties which may not work in unison. There was a holy trinity of Christian sin: 1)a transgression against one of God’s commands; 2) full knowledge that what was done was evil; 3) the possibility of acting otherwise, that is, the reality of freedom.

And today, we have an interesting conception of sin in my opinion. A mixture of Rousseau and genetics. Since Rousseau, many (non conservatives or religious based persons) blame sin on surroundings and environment. Today, the new findings of genetics seem to be leaning in the direction that much behavior, and especially deviant behavior, is genetically imprinted in each individual before birth. Thus, in some ways, one cannot be totally accountable for their sinful transgressions.

So, I ask, is this new direction towards sin a good one?

 

[Hubster]

Sin to me is a Christian term, so as opposed to a newer direction to sin, I would feel that what's really going on is simply that it's breakdown of Christian hold in the world, not so much that we're doing more things which are bad, but more so things which are un-Christian.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Have to agree with Hubster on that one.

People aren't really becomming more bad, just things a lot of the world says is ok is deemed un-christian by the strongly religious people.

You don't need to worry about sins to be good to yourself and to others. You don't need to worry about sins to be a caring person. Likewsie you really don't need a god to do all of these either.

 

[Hubster]

The thing is though, is that a definite collapse of moral systems is taking place in Western society, most noticeably much faster in the last 5 years.

One need look no further than the rise and apparent acceptance of raunch culture.

 

[Lord SteveO]

It depends on whether you think this is a break down of society, or just move to a different stage.

I don't think the world is getting worse with a change to this raunch culture you mention. I don't like the culture we have in the west now, but i don't think it's making the world worse, at least not in developed countries. Ignoring the obvious problems with certain govenments being only concerned with wars and oil, i'd say that life is definately not getting worse in the west.
Just because people do not follow christina values and avoids sins the world is no worse off.
But at the same time it is sad how society is changing into some mass-media controlled-materialistic monster. I hate walking down the high street these days, i see too many people who have lost it and let the shops or media or "want" and not "need" control their lives.

 

[derek]

I'm not convinced sin is anything but mans way of explaining away his guilt.

 

[speed]

Not to steer this discussion away from the previous posts, but, what does everyone think about these new ideas regarding genetics in regards to sin? And if such ideas are accepted, where does that leave us?

 

[Lord SteveO]

It is an interesting idea i'll admit. But as i've said many a time, you don't need religion or sins or anything similar to tell you what's bad or what is good.

I assume by the genetics most people understand this as say, a person who has their genes in such a way that they cannot stop stealing? The genes don't directly make them steal, and the is no gene for stealing or being bad. But the general idea is that genetics affects your development, upbringing etc, so it may well affect you behaviour?

I think sins are useful for those who need them as a way to explain their moral code. I don't need them because i know murder is wrong. I don't need to think about "hmmm, well would God say this is wrong?", i can make that judgement based on my own experience.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Sin is a worthless concept to me. Things aren't that black and white, as things like genetics and environment influence outcomes. Since sin is based on each individual's concept of it, basically, it's just a way for people to communicate their moral evaluations, to show that they disapprove of something.

 

[Hubster]

Great post.

 

[derek]

We know so little about the brain and inherited behavioural characteristics I think we cannot say bad apples are so from birth.

If we accepted sin was genetic, we could presumably find out what gene causes it. That leaves us in a dangerous situation, not necessarily a slippery slope, but certainly paving the way towards a society where we can punish people for things they havent actually done, or at the very least invade there personal autonomy by keeping an eye on them. All things considered i'm not convinced we will ever be able to say things related to behaviour are entirely genetic.

 

[NeverIsForever]

It is an interesting idea i'll admit. But as i've said many a time, you don't need religion or sins or anything similar to tell you what's bad or what is good.

I assume by the genetics most people understand this as say, a person who has their genes in such a way that they cannot stop stealing? The genes don't directly make them steal, and the is no gene for stealing or being bad. But the general idea is that genetics affects your development, upbringing etc, so it may well affect you behaviour?

I think sins are useful for those who need them as a way to explain their moral code. I don't need them because i know murder is wrong. I don't need to think about "hmmm, well would God say this is wrong?", i can make that judgement based on my own experience.

agreed 100%...great post

 

[derek]

Yeah, in saying genetics i think the discussion was aimed at the possibility of badness being related to genetic predisposition. I think the concept of sin is entirely seperate from that. Sin is heavily non-genetic in its nature, it is the effects of society rather than genetics.

Sin only makes sense when applied to a moral system. I dont think it exists outside those boundaries.

 

[Astral Poetry]

Sins are completely abstract, like "truth" and "freedom". They certainly don't exist in nature, but are only brought forth in the doctrines of religions. I'll admit that they are useful in cohersing certain groups from commiting certain actions, but for those that have the innate ability to think, they are unnecessary.

 

[derek]

It isn't necessarily a religious context sins occur in, they are just the way of explaining how someone broke a certain moral code within a structure.

But its my sentiments exactly that they dont exist in themselves and only as abstract ideas.

Useful to whom? I think using concepts of sin to coerce kids to stay off sex by straight faced lying can't really be considered useful. It lets someone push their own agenda as if their moral code is universal.

 

[MURAI]

Sin is such a interesting concept. It has changed so much in the past 2,500 hundred years. In Platonic, neoplatonic, and Socratic terms, no enlightened virtuous person could sin, as such a "one" or god was above sin. The divine or the one, can only work for the good; sin and evil are impossible.

For St. Paul the relationship between knowledge and virtue is based on the conviction that the intellect and the will are two independent human faculties which may not work in unison. There was a holy trinity of Christian sin: a transgression against one of God’s commands; 2) full knowledge that what was done was evil; 3) the possibility of acting otherwise, that is, the reality of freedom.

And today, we have an interesting conception of sin in my opinion. A mixture of Rousseau and genetics. Since Rousseau, many (non conservatives or religious based persons) blame sin on surroundings and environment. Today, the new findings of genetics seem to be leaning in the direction that much behavior, and especially deviant behavior, is genetically imprinted in each individual before birth. Thus, in some ways, one cannot be totally accountable for their sinful transgressions.

So, I ask, is this new direction towards sin a good one?

Earlier in western civilization there was a more clear vision of what is good and evil when Christianity had a strong hold. What was good was the belief in one god and obedience to it and what was evil was any kind of rebellion against god. Now that Christianity doesnt have much power anymore the idea of good vs evil is blurred and what is right is "democracy" and science.

When it comes to genetics it brings up the question that should people who are insane or who are born with more criminal genes should be charged for their crime or not. And some say they are poor human beings who dont have any control over themselves therefore should be treated more with sympathy. I feel that is stupid, because no matter what thier genetic make up is criminals still should be punished. I guess one good thing about the knowledge of genetics is that we are learning that it predetermines our character and tendencies.

I believe there is no ultimate good or evil therefore I believe in no such thing as sin. Judeo-Christians set up a dualism like that to clearly give order to their vision of life and how society should be run. I think it is natural that most human beings are capable of destruction, cheating and backstabbing etc. I think the humanist idea of we are equal and all good in nature is nothing but bullshit.

 

[Lord SteveO]

I think if you're trying say we use genetics to determine if a person is going to be a criminal and then punish them then we are heading down the wrong path.

That's a bad way to go if you ask me. The whole basis of laws in the world are that you are inocent until proven guilty. If you are just assuming a person is going to commit a crime you're going to create a very messed up world where people are punishd because of something beyond their control. You're looking to make a world where only those with "acceptable genes" will go on to have a good life without worry of punishment. That would just be a horrible 1984/Brave New World/Minority Report style world, somewhere i'd never want to live in.

Also, i don't think we are anywhere near being able to predict a persons behaviour based on genetics.
They may play a role but not a person alive can say they know exactly how genetics affects behaviour. We are a long way off having such an understanding, and even when we do you still have to take into account that environmental factors have an effect on development also.

 

[Dushan S]

Well, altogether, people in the west are living in a christian roots society, and sin is a part of that concept. Even if you are openly against certain more or less invisible chains based on christian rules of game incorporated in our western concept of good and evil, you are still playing on hand, because you admit those values even in that way.
Being satanist, or anarchist or whatever is just moral christian western citizen turned inside out. And I do not think there is much room for real freedom, but it is possible thru building new personal values based on our own instincts, knowledge and experience. If something considerer "bad" in usual code of morality is not bad from my point of view, I'll do my own thing against society values, but if I find that I agree about that "badness" than I'll avoid doing that, even if that look like acting according to christian values.

People often confuse real freedom of choice with choosing already pre-formed code of values from some social or religious group that is "alternative" to usual code in their society. They usually consider that code “More advanced” because it solves their inner psychological tensions, and gets them moral base to feel they are not "wrong" because of something that was considered wrong in code of their environment. It can be sometimes very obvious like "I am gothic because I am different", (no matter that person is doing what all other gothic’s do, dresses in the same way, etc) but sometimes it can be much more subtle, like identifying with certain intellectual philosophical views ("Intelligent neo-nazi’s, people that are religious believers in "god" of psychology or science as a whole) or with small group of people that is technically maybe very nice, prosperous, spiritual and good for the community and their own good ("we nice people that are practicing yoga and working on our enlightenment" etc)
Not that I feel freedom means doing what we always want to do, because as we may not take values of our society for granted, we also should not take for granted our inner psychological mechanisms and instead actively strive to change ourselves according to what we learn.

Anyway, if there is something like sin, I could name only one, going against our own nature to accommodate, and thus failing to reach our full potential in this life. Wisdom is to discover what our nature is underneath all this mess of dysfunctional machinery society made of us.

 

[speed]

Well, altogether, people in the west are living in a christian roots society, and sin is a part of that concept. Even if you are openly against certain more or less invisible chains based on christian rules of game incorporated in our western concept of good and evil, you are still playing on hand, because you admit those values even in that way.
Being satanist, or anarchist or whatever is just moral christian western citizen turned inside out. And I do not think there is much room for real freedom, but it is possible thru building new personal values based on our own instincts, knowledge and experience. If something considerer "bad" in usual code of morality is not bad from my point of view, I'll do my own thing against society values, but if I find that I agree about that "badness" than I'll avoid doing that, even if that look like acting according to christian values.

People often confuse real freedom of choice with choosing already pre-formed code of values from some social or religious group that is "alternative" to usual code in their society. They usually consider that code “More advanced” because it solves their inner psychological tensions, and gets them moral base to feel they are not "wrong" because of something that was considered wrong in code of their environment. It can be sometimes very obvious like "I am gothic because I am different", (no matter that person is doing what all other gothic’s do, dresses in the same way, etc) but sometimes it can be much more subtle, like identifying with certain intellectual philosophical views ("Intelligent neo-nazi’s, people that are religious believers in "god" of psychology or science as a whole) or with small group of people that is technically maybe very nice, prosperous, spiritual and good for the community and their own good ("we nice people that are practicing yoga and working on our enlightenment" etc)
Not that I feel freedom means doing what we always want to do, because as we may not take values of our society for granted, we also should not take for granted our inner psychological mechanisms and instead actively strive to change ourselves according to what we learn.

Anyway, if there is something like sin, I could name only one, going against our own nature to accommodate, and thus failing to reach our full potential in this life. Wisdom is to discover what our nature is underneath all this mess of dysfunctional machinery society made of us.

Thats maybe the best post Ive seen on this forum.

 

[derek]

Agreed, makes alot of sense.