Sin is a figment of peoples imagination

[Treedbear]

You have a very liberal view of the Bible definition of sin. This is what I always heard when I was a Roman Catholic (I'll borrow from abaddon's link):

Question: "What is the definition of sin?"

Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).

What I’m saying is not contrary to the Bible—or at least my intent is to keep what I’m saying from being contrary to it.

First, I have no qualms whatsoever with Bible verses, and it would be a gross misunderstanding to think i’m espousing disagreement with them.

Second, I hold the position that it’s words, not the referent to words, that are defined. Sin is the referent to the word, “sin,” and it’s the word, “sin” that is defined—not sin.

Third, I’m actually being charitable and accept that people sometimes mistakenly make explicit what it is that is defined; that’s why I graciously accept that the intended question is not about the definition of sin but rather the definition of the word, “sin.”

Four, while I have no qualms accepting as true what the Bible verses say, they do not answer the question posed. The Bible verses do a brilliant job in expounding upon what sin is, but my issue is that they are not definitions for the word—nor is it readily discernible that was the intention of them.

Five, there is a subtle ambiguity with the word, “is” that we should not let escape us, as it makes a mighty substantive difference. Consider the three is’s in philosophy. One is the “is of identity.” If I say that “a bachelor is an unmarried male,” that is the “is of identity.” That would be more akin to a definition.

If I say that “my ladder is tall,” that is another use (a different use and thus a different meaning) of “is” that is not akin to a definition. The Bible quotes are saying something many may find valuable, but they are not definitions just because the word “is” is used.

Six, note this definition that I just googled: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

If an act is immoral AND CONSIDERED (oh, by anyone) to be a transgression against divine law, then the act is not only immoral but a sin as well. Notice how no God is required for it to be considered, considered to be ... a transgression ... .

I don’t particularly care for that particular definition, as it lacks something, uh (not sure how to word this), stenographic observed subtelties.

Here's what most Christians are taught. Sinners are punished by God. Not now when it might make a difference, but after they die when it's too late to change. Sinning is transgressing God's laws, period. It's not God making helpful suggestions. They're called commandments for a reason. And it's unlikely that "what the definition of 'is' is" will work as a defense. Society's laws address wrongs against mankind where punishment is served as a corrective action rather than as retribution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any mathematician can tell you sin isn't imaginary. Nor is cos or tan, for that matter.

 

[Tigers!]

There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".

There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

So, how is (I'm)moral a delusion while (in)civilized is a fact?

Both are inventions of man that seek to codify behavior to maximize the acceptable population density. If we didn't have morals, no one could ever learn to play the bagpipes because the neighbors would harvest his organs for long-haggis.
Practicing your bagpipe in a crowded space would be uncivilized behavior...

An objective person is a person who understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes sins.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

FIFY

 

[ronburgundy]

Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.

There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".

There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

There is no sin, b/c that implies there is a divine law that has been contradicted. Nothing can be a sin, if there is no divine being who created a divine law. However, immorality exists in the same exact way that any idea, or pain and pleasure exist, as psychological states created by object or event. The pain directly caused to people by various acts is very much real, there are physical brain states that can be observed which correspond to that pain. People's desire not to feel such pain is equally real, as are people's desire to have rules that minimize such pain and allow for civilization to exist, which requires cooperation and trust than would only exist under a system of ethics and moral rules.

Granted moral claims do not refer to an object outside the human mind in the way that the idea of a chair does. That is why claims of what is moral are inherently opinions and cannot be either objective true or false, b/c the concept of such truth only applies to whether the idea of a thing accurately reflect some actual thing external to the idea. But opinions are states of mind, thus they certainly are real things that exist, even if they don't contain the property of being true or false ideas.

So, it is a delusion to believe that "X is immoral" in any sense other than "X causes harm and I don't like that." And no, we should not respect people's delusions. But it is not a delusion to not to like things that cause harm, and since civilization cannot exist unless we respect each others desires not to be harmed (and you seem to care about "civilization"), then we should respect morals/rules that are based upon not causing unwarranted harm to each other.