exceptionally unsettling fundy experience

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is it immoral to light up a joint without saying grace?

I don't think it's a sin unless you inhale.

 

[jab]

Even when I was a 10 year old (or perhaps younger) I understood what sin was... good and bad and all that.

At 10, I understood that Protestantism was a sin.

Jesus started a church. It's called the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants are people who ignore Jesus because they think they know better than Him.

You're right, even a 10 year old understands sin.
Tom

At 10, as a fundamentalist Christian (free will, Pelagian heresy branch) I understood that many other variants of Christianity were sins, including predestinationist variants, but that Roman Catholicism (although free will) was a particularly big grievous sin. My parents warned me never to spend any time in the company of a priest, for fear of religious contamination--although they may have had other dangers in mind too, c. 1960.
By the time I was 12 or 13, I understood that the, then nascent, Prosperity Gospel variant of American Protestantism was a sin, as was the American Christian belief of America's being especially chosen by God.
By the time I was 11, I understood that Christian rationales for racial inferiority were grave sins, almost blasphemies against God, who had created us all in his own image.

 

[SIB]

Are you claiming that anybody who points out that Christians don't act like Christ must thereby be affirming the beliefs of your weird subset of Christianity?

No. If you say that Christians are not acting like Christ then you are claiming some sort of authority to do so.
(And yes historically far too many 'Christians' have not acted Christ-like. But they do so in opposition to Christ not in line with him)

What authority are you claiming?

I am making no claims of authority. Those who say that Christians are not Christ-like make such a claim based upon some authority or other.

Position 1:
You say that "far too many 'Christians' have not acted Christ-like."
Also, you say that people who say Christians are not acting like Christ are claiming some sort of authority.

Position 2:
You say, "I am making no claims of authority."

Do you hold these contradictory positions simultaneously, or do you switch back and forth?

Quite simply, Gods moral authority DOES NOT apply to the non-believer! Atheists are not bound by it, when they don't believe in it, only Christians are. Meaning it is ludicrously against the whole biblical concept, which is about freely accepting, trusting, surrendering to the authority of the absolute (God of the bible), when you're forcing Gods 'absolute moral authority' on or against someone's will, which isn't real, just really quite meaningless, when the imposed upon' hearts aren't in acceptance of the moral giver idea - which is absolutely defeating the object of the doctrine.

There is probably a "god" of some type. Meaning it could be something other than a forward thinking, planning thing, that judges us.

Maybe it did what ever it did because that's the best it could do under the conditions it is existing. We may be part of its alive just like a brain cell is part of your alive.

To me, the answer most likely lies between the hateful fundy think type atheist and theist. So stone cold locked into their statement of belief about god (the one they get to define) that they believe any flexing means the death of them.

 

[southernhybrid]

Even when I was a 10 year old (or perhaps younger) I understood what sin was... good and bad and all that.

At 10, I understood that Protestantism was a sin.

Jesus started a church. It's called the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants are people who ignore Jesus because they think they know better than Him.

You're right, even a 10 year old understands sin.
Tom

At 10, as a fundamentalist Christian (free will, Pelagian heresy branch) I understood that many other variants of Christianity were sins, including predestinationist variants, but that Roman Catholicism (although free will) was a particularly big grievous sin. My parents warned me never to spend any time in the company of a priest, for fear of religious contamination--although they may have had other dangers in mind too, c. 1960.
By the time I was 12 or 13, I understood that the, then nascent, Prosperity Gospel variant of American Protestantism was a sin, as was the American Christian belief of America's being especially chosen by God.
By the time I was 11, I understood that Christian rationales for racial inferiority were grave sins, almost blasphemies against God, who had created us all in his own image.

I was told that my Catholic friends were going to hell unless I witnessed to them and helped them repent and be saved. They probably believed that I was going to hell unless I converted t Catholicism. Of course, I would also have to do the catechism thing and take my first holy communion, believing that the wine was literally the blood of Christ and the bread was Christ's flesh. ( Yuck )

I'm not sure my Catholic friends believed all those things literally as they grew a bit older. I just tried not to think too much about what I was taught to believe or I would have gone nuts. In fact, when I left Christianity, as I've mentioned before, one of my church friends told me that my problem was that I think too much. She told me not to think to much about what we had been told. Yes. It's easier to accept these things if you don't think too much about them.

That is probably why so many conservative Christian pastors have become atheists. They committed the sin of thinking too much.

 

[Wiploc]

Does anyone here agree with Learner's claim that practically everyone understands sin?

 

[TomC]

Does anyone here agree with Learner's claim that practically everyone understands sin?

Sure.
Reminds me of my dad and me.

We both knew everything, but it was all different.

Tom

 

[Learner]

Does anyone here agree with Learner's claim that practically everyone understands sin?

Just briefly (limited by phone)
I have to respond to your previous post, BC you put time and effort into it.

'Practically everyone' ... I don't mean those who have never heard the bible and sin.

 

[TomC]

'Practically everyone' ... I don't mean those who have never heard the bible and sin.

I have.
Lots and lots.

The problem I have with the concept of sin is that people make up meanings for the word to suit themselves. To a hardcore racist, miscegenation is a sin. To a homophobe, my sex life is a sin. There are people who think dancing is a sin.

Joke I think is fun:
"Why don't Baptists have sex standing up?

Because someone might think that they're dancing."

Sin has no objective meaning. People use it as a vague word to describe behavior that they, personally, disapprove of and can't explain why.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

As a kid growing up in Catholic schools sin was clear, doing anything the church says not to. Penalty in hell.

There were categories of sin from venial to mortal.

In the Act Of Contrition said at confession one appoligies to god for offending him, or her or it.

Sin, falling, and redemption are universal human themes not limited to religion.

To me 'sin' is that which corrupts your spirit. In that context alcohol, food, ad drug addictions are sins. 'Th Wages Of Sin Are Death', so in the context of addictions the meaning is clear. You loose your self oor soul so to speak, your spirit dies.

Christian biblical literalists tend to know the words but not the meaning.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anyone here agree with Learner's claim that practically everyone understands sin?

Like Steve, I understood it when I was eight years old and didn't know very much. Today it's a meaningless word.

 

[Wiploc]

Thought there was a post by Learner--though I don't see it now--which nuanced or clarified his position. When he says practically everybody understands sin, he isn't talking about people who haven't heard of sin. He isn't talking about people who aren't familiar with the bible.

Infants don't know about sin, and Learner isn't saying that they do. Boys raised by wolves wouldn't know about sin either.

In some contexts, I talk about "babies and wolf boys," but these are representative of larger categories: anybody who either hasn't been exposed to the relevant concepts, or hasn't got the capacity to understand.

So Learner's position as I now understand it is that, of those people who have been exposed to the bible and the concept of sin, and who have the capacity to understand, practically everybody understands and agrees on what sin is.

I think this clarification is helpful and fair. Learner can't be held accountable for people who've never heard of sin.

On the other hand, even babies and wolf boys probably feel that some things are bad. So, if badness truly equates to sin, then wouldn't even babies and wolf boys understand sin?

Maybe not.

And maybe Learner just used badness as a starting place, a place to tee off from, on our way to understanding sin.

In my experience, asking a Christian what sin is will generally get you one of two answers.

A common answer is that sin is distance from Jehovah. But, while Christians say their god is good, they describe him as doing the most terrible things. Very very bad. So distance from the Jehovah of the Christians sounds like a good thing to me. Not a bad thing at all. Not--if badness and sin are the same thing--not a sin at all.

The most common answer Christians gave me is that sin is when you don't do what Jehovah wants. This confuses me. If reprobates (people who are not among the elect, people who are Hellbound, people who not saved) try to be good so as to get into Heaven, Jehovah "darkens their counsels and strengthens their wills." He makes them dumb and impulsive so they'll go back to raping and killing. That way, they'll deserve the fate Jehovah intends for them.

My problem with the not-doing-what-Jehovah-wants-you-to-do definition of sin is that Jehovah obviously wants sinners to sin. He makes them do it because he wants them to do it. But, if we use this definition of sin, then raping and murdering isn't sin. If it's what Jehovah wants you to do, it can't be sin.

So neither of those definitions makes sense to me.

And neither of them is accepted by practically everybody. They are incompatible definitions, and both of them have many advocates; so I see no hope for Learner's claims that there is a consensus definition.

(Imma stipulate that the "everybody" in Learner's "practically everybody" refers only to those with exposure to and capacity to understand the concept of sin.)

And now let me do my own backpeddling, correcting, nuancing, or clarifying: It is not my position that the word "sin" has an agreed meaning. If there is no consensus on the meaning, then maybe we should say the word has no meaning?

If a word has no meaning, can we say that anybody has the capacity to understand it? No. Nobody can understand that which is nonsensical.
So when I talk about people having the capacity to understand sin, I'm talking about a hypothetical world in which the word has an agreed meaning.

According to Learner, there is such a world. It is the real world, the one we live in.

If Learner is right about that, he ought to be able to tell us the meaning of the word "sin."

-

Learner, if I have misrepresented you anywhere, I apologize.
I will never intentionally misrepresent you.
I hope you will correct any such misrepresentations I make.

Feel free to point out any lack of clarity in my positions.

 

[Elixir]

Satan's DNA??

Mumbo jumbo to reinforce the notion that being part of a religious group inoculates you against basic Evil®.

 

[Learner]

Thought there was a post by Learner--though I don't see it now--which nuanced or clarified his position. When he says practically everybody understands sin, he isn't talking about people who haven't heard of sin. He isn't talking about people who aren't familiar with the bible.

Infants don't know about sin, and Learner isn't saying that they do. Boys raised by wolves wouldn't know about sin either.

In some contexts, I talk about "babies and wolf boys," but these are representative of larger categories: anybody who either hasn't been exposed to the relevant concepts, or hasn't got the capacity to understand.

So Learner's position as I now understand it is that, of those people who have been exposed to the bible and the concept of sin, and who have the capacity to understand, practically everybody understands and agrees on what sin is.

I think this clarification is helpful and fair. Learner can't be held accountable for people who've never heard of sin.

Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I only had access to the internet via my phone at the time (my main device needed fixing).

With sin, there are two ways of seeing this... but in the case above, I was trying to determine, in what way do you mean, SIN, - being sure there wasn't any misunderstanding (which there was), and/or to be sure that there wasn't the use of the word, (sin) being purposely placed upon a semantic underlay, so to speak.

A misunderstanding of course - which I'll say was my fault for not clearly stating the position. I don't think it's necessary to respond to your previous post now.

On the other hand, even babies and wolf boys probably feel that some things are bad. So, if badness truly equates to sin, then wouldn't even babies and wolf boys understand sin?

Maybe not.

And maybe Learner just used badness as a starting place, a place to tee off from, on our way to understanding sin.

In my experience, asking a Christian what sin is will generally get you one of two answers.

A common answer is that sin is distance from Jehovah. But, while Christians say their god is good, they describe him as doing the most terrible things. Very very bad. So distance from the Jehovah of the Christians sounds like a good thing to me. Not a bad thing at all. Not--if badness and sin are the same thing--not a sin at all.

This is interesting to mention, when we use the words, good or sin. The previous above, regarding those who have heard the word sin, who would generally know of... or get the idea what sin is about, reading the text literally.

Another context that is different, when the bible says 'we should all know the difference between good and evil, right from wrong', regardless whether or not you have heard of the bible or that you're a believer or not, i.e. each of us having a conscience etc.. Biblically the narrative goes, 'God put this into to all our hearts'.

John 3:20
For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

1 Timothy 1:5
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Romans 9:1
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit

Romans 7:15-25
For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me

The most common answer Christians gave me is that sin is when you don't do what Jehovah wants. This confuses me. If reprobates (people who are not among the elect, people who are Hellbound, people who not saved) try to be good so as to get into Heaven, Jehovah "darkens their counsels and strengthens their wills." He makes them dumb and impulsive so they'll go back to raping and killing. That way, they'll deserve the fate Jehovah intends for them.

As I understand, the 'reprobates', are those who will never repent, who reject God. God will reject them, contrast to people who have done dreadful things like killing others, even those daring to put their fists up to God etc., because they can still be forgiven, when they're repenting in remorse.

 

[Wiploc]

My question remains.

Your position, if I understand it, is that--babies and wolf-boys aside--practically everybody understands sin and agrees on the meaning.

I'm asking this: What is this meaning of sin that most people understand and agree upon.

I'm not one of the people who understands a common meaning, so I'm asking.

 

[Learner]

My question remains.

Your position, if I understand it, is that--babies and wolf-boys aside--practically everybody understands sin and agrees on the meaning.

I'm asking this: What is this meaning of sin that most people understand and agree upon.

I'm not one of the people who understands a common meaning, so I'm asking.

Since you're saying you didn't understand the biblical context, even though you were exposed to a Christian (of sorts) environment. Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws. We can determine here, some of our forum friends seem to acknowledge this.

 

[bilby]

My question remains.

Your position, if I understand it, is that--babies and wolf-boys aside--practically everybody understands sin and agrees on the meaning.

I'm asking this: What is this meaning of sin that most people understand and agree upon.

I'm not one of the people who understands a common meaning, so I'm asking.

Since you're saying you didn't understand the biblical context, even though you were exposed to a Christian (of sorts) environment. Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws. We can determine here, some of our forum friends seem to acknowledge this.

So sin is just doing the stuff your religion prohibits. God and Jesus don't currently intervene in the world, (likely because neither currently exists), so sin boils down to disobeying the rules of whichever church you subscribe to, in the same way that crime is disobeying the rules of whichever jurisdiction you live in.

As an atheist, it's therefore not a thing for me at all, according to your definition. And could only become a thing if I were to live in a theocracy, where religious rules are enforced alongside secular laws, (notably by people, not gods).

 

[southernhybrid]

'Practically everyone' ... I don't mean those who have never heard the bible and sin.

I have.
Lots and lots.

The problem I have with the concept of sin is that people make up meanings for the word to suit themselves. To a hardcore racist, miscegenation is a sin. To a homophobe, my sex life is a sin. There are people who think dancing is a sin.

Joke I think is fun:
"Why don't Baptists have sex standing up?

Because someone might think that they're dancing."

Sin has no objective meaning. People use it as a vague word to describe behavior that they, personally, disapprove of and can't explain why.
Tom

You gave me a chuckle. I was raised by conservative Baptists and dancing was a sin, for some strange reason. So was playing cards, I guess because it was associated with gambling, another sin. Going to the movies was a sin, but we could watch movies on tv. Maybe it was because movies in theaters sometimes had those evil swear words in them, like damn and hell... more sins. My church people were so hung up on all those little sins that I'm not even sure what wasn't a sin. My father used to beat us, so beating your children with your belt wasn't a sin. I think the OT supports that. Sins are so confusing when you associate them with Christianity.

Wouldn't it be more simple to say that sins are things that harm others. You know sort of like the human universal that is similar to the Golden Rule? Treat other people in the same way that you like to be treated, or something along those lines.

 

[Politesse]

I was raised by conservative Baptists and dancing was a sin, for some strange reason.

Ah, the vertical expression of a horizontal intention.

 

[Wiploc]

My question remains.

Your position, if I understand it, is that--babies and wolf-boys aside--practically everybody understands sin and agrees on the meaning.

I'm asking this: What is this meaning of sin that most people understand and agree upon.

I'm not one of the people who understands a common meaning, so I'm asking.

Since you're saying you didn't understand the biblical context,

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

even though you were exposed to a Christian (of sorts) environment.

I take offense on behalf of my parents.

But I do like this definition: A Christian is one who points at another Christian and says, "You're not a real Christian."

You can't distract me by playing no true Scotsman.

Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws. We can determine here, some of our forum friends seem to acknowledge this.

Thanks.

Okay, here's the definition I learned in a Western Civ class:

To sin is to doubt or disobey god. Doubt is worse than
disobedience.

So the first sin was not when Eve tasted the apple. It was
before that, when she entertained the serpent's argument
that Jehovah didn't have her best interests in mind when
he forbade eating the apple. That was the Fall.

Evil is the sources of unhappiness. Anything that makes
anyone unhappy is evil.

By extension, we often use evil to refer to unhappiness itself.
Thus, the problem of evil is often called the problem of suffering.

Good is the sources of happiness. Anything that makes anyone
happy is good. By extension, we can say that happiness is good.

Moral evils are sins that make people unhappy. Gluttony comes
to mind. The existence of moral evils (sins that are evil) may
account for why so many people conflate sin and evil.

Now imagine a poker hand that Sara wins and Joe loses. Sara
may be happy about her win while Joe is unhappy about his
loss. If so, then the poker hand is neither unadulterated good
nor unadulterated evil. It is both.

-

I like these definitions. They seem serviceable and not self
contradictory. I'm happy with them. They are good.

But I don't claim that practically everybody agrees with me.

 

[steve_bank]

Learne, against god's ways?

The problem us atheists have is what that means. There are 613 commandments that can be taken out of the OT. Some strange. One dictates genocide on a rival to the ancient Hebrews.

Leviticus? Do you follow Leviticus? Stoning and execution for moral offense, much like conservative Muslims today will do.

Jesus was a Jew who nowhere in the gospels rejected Jewish costums. Do you keep kosher so to speak?

A Chisrtian saying the ways of god and Jesus has absblutely no meaning, it is what a Christian thinks it is.

If the OT is the inspired word of god as to behavior I will remain atheist.