(November 16, 2018 at 7:03 pm)tackattack Wrote:(November 16, 2018 at 6:41 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think it's the other way around as Khem has been saying. Without moral knowledge, "sin" becomes impossible.
I personally find meaning in the Adam and Eve story when interpreted in the way CL has done above. When we evolved to have enough intelligence to distinguish moral and immoral behavior, we then became morally responsible.
That would entirely depend on your definition of sin and morality. If you define sin as: what is morally wrong to my person, then a moral knowledge would be necessary. I do not define sin that way so I disagree and we have not discussed morality
Do you define morality as having conscience or remorse for perceived wrongdoing?
If you do, by CL and your definition: Socipaths couldn't sin because they have no moral knowledge
I'm open to persuasion though.
I think sociopaths do have moral knowledge, they just don't care.
As for insanity, I do think that a person who is insane enough may not be culpable for their immoral action, and so is not guilty of sinning.
Sin requires wrongful action AND moral culpability.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
