the nature of sin

[Gwaithmir]

---

Yes, I remember that tale from my Catholic school Bible study. It proved just how fucked up and unreasonable biblical morality is. Uzzah didn't commit an immoral act. God did. 

again uzzah is an example sin is not about moral and imorality only. as uzzah's sin was not a matter of morality. this makes sin something bigger than a failure in morality. sin is like a virus, and if you do something to catch it back then you had to die which was the only way to contain it. now we have the vaccine.

Yes, we do have a vaccine. To wit:

“The human race has suffered for centuries and is still suffering from the mental disorder known as religion, and atheism is the only physician that will be able to effect a permanent cure.” (Joseph Lewis) 

[Sal]

'Sin' has no relation with reality, it's an invented concept that is about tying down morality around blaming people for thought "crimes" for the most part.

Does morality have an "ontological existence"?

It seems to me that it's something made up by people. Yet it does exist in some way. Do laws have "ontological existence," or guidelines for safe driving?

If sin is also made up by people, then wouldn't it "exist ontologically" in the same way as morality?

Morality relates to actions between people with harm/pleasure/benefit/etc. as vectors, and ethics is the codification of that, so yes. 'Sin' doesn't enter into it.

Laws are man-made codifications of behavior, so they exist as much as behavior  that has an impact on people's lives, so yes.

One is not like the other. 'Sin' is made up, without referrals, unlike what morality or laws do.

---

Ultimately, 'sin' is about transgression against god(s) laws or 'divine' laws, whereas morality is about interaction between people.

[Belacqua]

Morality relates to actions between people with harm/pleasure/benefit/etc. as vectors, and ethics is the codification of that, so yes. 'Sin' doesn't enter into it.

Laws are man-made codifications of behavior, so they exist as much as behavior  that has an impact on people's lives, so yes.

Thank you, this is much clearer to me now. (I wasn't clear on what you meant by "ontological existence," for example. Is there existence which isn't ontological?)

So if I'm reading you right, morality and ethics are about real-world behavior and consequences. 

It seems to me that the consequences of our actions are often concrete (e.g. people died because of his actions) but the morality of the consequence (e.g. it is bad to cause people's death) is in the minds of people. There is no way that a physicist could measure the badness of a consequence in an objective way -- it is bad because society agrees it's bad. And of course all of this is open-ended and subject to debate: to what extent the goal of morality is pleasure, for example, and when it is good to give up one's pleasure for moral reasons is a tricky issue. Perhaps there are situations in which we should behave a certain way and everyone would end up miserable anyway. 

But I think I see the point. Morality for you is about human real world consequences, whereas sin is based on divine dictates.

One is not like the other. 'Sin' is made up, without referrals, unlike what morality or laws do.
---
Ultimately, 'sin' is about transgression against god(s) laws or 'divine' laws, whereas morality is about interaction between people.

Here, as always on this forum, I think you are arguing against the literalists, the TV evangelists, and people like that. Also perhaps against Drich, although I haven't read his posts closely. 

It is one view of how sin and divine law operate. It was certainly given a popular description by Hitchens, who described heaven as a kind of North Korea with God as its tyrannical law-giver. 

If this is the way some Christians see sin, then I agree it should be argued against. 

Naturally, it is not the view of Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, or any other major Christian thinker. For such people, God is the Good, and his Logos is the order and principles according to which the universe operates. Morality is when we act in accordance with those principles and aim for the Good of ourselves and everyone else, and sin is when we desire things that don't accord with the Good. The laws and aims are not laid down tyrannically or arbitrarily -- they are just the paths we need to aim for our own best outcome. Such a view is compatible with what you say about morality, in that it has positive outcomes for real people. It differs from your view, as far as I can tell, because it posits -- in the largest possible sense -- a universality that transcends local contingencies in mores. 

But experience shows that on this forum people only address the literalist view, and deny that the God of the theologians and philosophers has any consequence within Christianity.

[Paleophyte]

And i was demonstrating your morality your right and wrong is another pronunciation for sin.

No. It isn't. Morality requires no higher deity, no scripture, and no pulpit. I trust you can see the difference.

this is all one liners/trollish zingers. nothing of substance that i saw let me know if you have a legit question in there i missed.

The absence of question marks is typically a give away that I had no questions whatsoever. You've failed to demonstrate your very peculiar deity and by extension failed to demonstrate sin. Sin's nature can be reduced to a single word: Imaginary.

[Fake Messiah]

Sin is the foundation of a religion as a scam - they convince you that you are suffering from a non-existing disease (sin) so they can sell you a cure for it (religion). The same is with Karma in Buddhism and thetan levels in Scientology.

[Sal]

The concept of sin tries is an attempt to hijack morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

No more so than alchemy is an attempt to hijack chemistry. Early moral systems look exactly like early -anything else-.

Fundamentally, sin isn't even controversial. Human beings possess moral agency, and because of this we can all recognize sin - that there is such a thing as sin. We disagree on the contents of the set.

[Drich]

---

again uzzah is an example sin is not about moral and imorality only. as uzzah's sin was not a matter of morality. this makes sin something bigger than a failure in morality. sin is like a virus, and if you do something to catch it back then you had to die which was the only way to contain it. now we have the vaccine.

Yes, we do have a vaccine. To wit:

“The human race has suffered for centuries and is still suffering from the mental disorder known as religion, and atheism is the only physician that will be able to effect a permanent cure.” (Joseph Lewis) 

the only people susceptible to suffering are those indoctrinated to the point where they need to quote others to validate their own thoughts.

---

Does morality have an "ontological existence"?

It seems to me that it's something made up by people. Yet it does exist in some way. Do laws have "ontological existence," or guidelines for safe driving?

If sin is also made up by people, then wouldn't it "exist ontologically" in the same way as morality?

Morality relates to actions between people with harm/pleasure/benefit/etc. as vectors, and ethics is the codification of that, so yes. 'Sin' doesn't enter into it.

Laws are man-made codifications of behavior, so they exist as much as behavior  that has an impact on people's lives, so yes.

One is not like the other. 'Sin' is made up, without referrals, unlike what morality or laws do.

---

Ultimately, 'sin' is about transgression against god(s) laws or 'divine' laws, whereas morality is about interaction between people.

actually morality is anything you say it is. what is moral today would have had you executed a generation prior. and like wise what was moral then would have you executed today. morality is simply the evil in which you can justify one want to accept into your life.

[The Grand Nudger]

If that's what morality is, it would also apply for a gods morality.

[Gwaithmir]

Yes, we do have a vaccine. To wit:

“The human race has suffered for centuries and is still suffering from the mental disorder known as religion, and atheism is the only physician that will be able to effect a permanent cure.” (Joseph Lewis) 

the only people susceptible to suffering are those indoctrinated to the point where they need to quote others to validate their own thoughts.

And your evidence for this outrageous statement is.........????