What Exactly Are Sins?

[Chad32]

Might as well get the best out of a bad situation. If I'm going to burn for having lustful thoughts, I may as well burn for committing lustful actions.

[vorlon13]

Ah, but you'll burn at 3,750,000 degrees instead of 2,500,000.

Hell is nothing if not fair.

[Mudhammam]

Which is a stupid idea. The idea of thoughts equaling actions, or that as soon as you're married you're only attracted to one single person now, is ridiculous. If you're attracted to a woman, who you convince to date you, you're still going to be attracted to similar looking women. Having some random thought about a stranger, then forgetting about it and going about your day, doesn't mean you've committed adultery.

Indeed.  Promoting such a ridiculous idea promotes actually acting on those feelings.  After all, if you are going to burn in hell for thinking about your neighbor's wife, you might as well really have an affair with her, if she is willing.

It is really a stupid, moronic idea that thinking about something is as bad as doing it.  But because this stupid, moronic idea is in the Bible, many people believe it.  But the simple fact is, it is impossible to not ever have "bad" thoughts, and it does not hurt anyone if you do have such thoughts occasionally.  Acting on them, though, is an entirely different matter, and it is an insane "morality" that does not properly distinguish between the two.  They are not even close to being equivalent.

If the mass of Christendom didn't pride themselves on ignorance, what all too often appears to be an obviously half-baked and primitive morality could easily be spun into a piece of practical wisdom. In this instance, one could say that Jesus is referring to the hypocrisy of those who snub their noses at degenerates and is making the point that intentions are far more important than actual deeds, at least in many instances. Of course, as evidenced by our resident Christians, most believers have an extremely vulgar and simplistic view of the world, and hence, their faith, and think all sins are no-no's of equal merit because even the most harmless earns its offender hellfire on the Day of Judgment. All that said, you won't ever hear a defense from me of the really ridiculous shit that the NT advocates under the pretense of righteousness.

[wiploc]

Sin is doubting or disobeying Jehovah.  If Jehovah isn't real, then sin isn't real either. 

Don't conflate sin with evil.  Evil (things that make people unhappy) is the punishment for sin.  Evil exists regardless of whether gods exist. 

Moral evils are one reason why people conflate sin and evil.  Gluttony, for instance, is disobedient, but it can also make people unhappy.  So, sometimes it is both a sin and an evil.  

Sin is doubting or disobeying.  Doubt is the bigger part.  Eve's first sin wasn't when she bit the apple; it was when she entertained the serpent's argument that god didn't have her best interests in mind.

 

I am trying to understand how your beliefs work. Would something like rape be evil but not a sin?

Rape makes people unhappy, so it is evil. 
Jehovah does not exist, so there is no such thing as sin. 
So, yes, rape is evil without being sin.  

[robvalue]

If adulterous thoughts equal adultery, I doubt anyone has not been "guilty". It's a ridiculous notion designed just so that everyone will fail and Christianity can come to the rescue of us wretches.

Bollocks. What goes on in people's heads hurts no one, and is no one's business but their own, or those they choose to share it with. To say a thought is the same as the action is absurd, and one of the most harmful ideas Christianity brings. If I really believed God was judging me for every thought I had, my life would be a constant misery.

According to Jesus, I cheat on my wife several times a day. According to reality, I have never and will never cheat on my wife. So fuck Jesus. If it upsets Jesus and God, they need to grow up and stop being cry babies. I care about actual people and actions, not people's private thoughts or the opinions of magical pencil toppers.

[Pyrrho]

Indeed.  Promoting such a ridiculous idea promotes actually acting on those feelings.  After all, if you are going to burn in hell for thinking about your neighbor's wife, you might as well really have an affair with her, if she is willing.

It is really a stupid, moronic idea that thinking about something is as bad as doing it.  But because this stupid, moronic idea is in the Bible, many people believe it.  But the simple fact is, it is impossible to not ever have "bad" thoughts, and it does not hurt anyone if you do have such thoughts occasionally.  Acting on them, though, is an entirely different matter, and it is an insane "morality" that does not properly distinguish between the two.  They are not even close to being equivalent.

If the mass of Christendom didn't pride themselves on ignorance, what all too often appears to be an obviously half-baked and primitive morality could easily be spun into a piece of practical wisdom. In this instance, one could say that Jesus is referring to the hypocrisy of those who snub their noses at degenerates and is making the point that intentions are far more important than actual deeds, at least in many instances. Of course, as evidenced by our resident Christians, most believers have an extremely vulgar and simplistic view of the world, and hence, their faith, and think all sins are no-no's of equal merit because even the most harmless earns its offender hellfire on the Day of Judgment. All that said, you won't ever hear a defense from me of the really ridiculous shit that the NT advocates under the pretense of righteousness.

The thing is, there is a difference between looking at someone with sexual desire, and actually intending to have sex with the person.  If, as a passing thought, my wife does the former with someone else, it is not anything I care much about, but I very much care if she actually intends to have sexual relations with someone else.  The difference on this is important.  An idle fantasy and an actual plan of action are quite different from each other.

Also, I don't think intentions are usually more important than actions.  Intentions might reflect more on the morality of the person, but it is their actions that impact the world.  If you intend to cut off my arm, but don't, that will bother me less than if you don't intend to cut off my arm and you do.  My guess is that you feel the same way about my intentions and actions and your arm.

[Nope]

The point of that passage is, if you're married and have sexual thoughts of someone who is not your spouse, you're cheating on them.

How do you not have sexual thoughts about the sex you find attractive? As long as you don't believe the person you desire owes you attention then your secret fantasies aren't hurting anyone.In your case, your thoughts couldn't hurt the woman's marriage because,I assume, you didn't tell her.

Putting so much emphasis on your imagination cheapens the reason why adultery is wrong. It is ultimately the lie and breaking your pledge that causes problems in marriage and not the actual act of sex.

[Pyrrho]

The point of that passage is, if you're married and have sexual thoughts of someone who is not your spouse, you're cheating on them.

How do you not have sexual thoughts about the sex you find attractive? As long as you don't believe the person you desire owes you attention then your secret fantasies aren't hurting anyone.In your case, your thoughts couldn't hurt the woman's marriage because,I assume, you didn't tell her.

Putting so much emphasis on your imagination cheapens the reason why adultery is wrong. It is ultimately the lie and breaking your pledge that causes problems in marriage and not the actual act of sex.

Other than the last conjunct of the last sentence, you are right.  But you left off the fact that actual adultery can lead to pregnancy and/or STDs being transmitted.  Those are far from nothing.  And they are only a potential problem when one acts, not when one fantasizes.

The idea that a fantasy is the same as an action is so ludicrously stupid it is breathtaking.  But breathtaking stupidity is common in religion.

[Nope]

How do you not have sexual thoughts about the sex you find attractive? As long as you don't believe the person you desire owes you attention then your secret fantasies aren't hurting anyone.In your case, your thoughts couldn't hurt the woman's marriage because,I assume, you didn't tell her.

Putting so much emphasis on your imagination cheapens the reason why adultery is wrong. It is ultimately the lie and breaking your pledge that causes problems in marriage and not the actual act of sex.

Other than the last conjunct of the last sentence, you are right.  But you left off the fact that actual adultery can lead to pregnancy and/or STDs being transmitted.  Those are far from nothing.  And they are only a potential problem when one acts, not when one fantasizes.

The idea that a fantasy is the same as an action is so ludicrously stupid it is breathtaking.  But breathtaking stupidity is common in religion.

 I would hope that people in an open marriage would take precautions to prevent STDs  and pregnancy but  admittedly, I might be giving people to much credit.  Very much off topic but it would interesting to do a study to discover if people in open marriages have a higher rate of STDs and unwanted pregnancies than traditional marriages where one partner cheats. From what have been told, successful open marriages involve a lot of discussion about comfort levels so maybe the openness would mean an increased use protection. (sorry for the derail)

Equating a thought with the action is probably why some Christians insist that they can't help but sin.  Of course, most people are going to have an occasional stray thought pop into their head so it is a losing battle that will cause a lot of unnecessary guilt.

When you think about it, it is a brilliant marketing device. Make people feel guilt about harmless acts that hurt no one and they will feel the need for religion even more. Worse, when you tell people not to think about something they will think about that thing even more which will mean that they feel even stronger that they need religion.

[Mudhammam]

If the mass of Christendom didn't pride themselves on ignorance, what all too often appears to be an obviously half-baked and primitive morality could easily be spun into a piece of practical wisdom. In this instance, one could say that Jesus is referring to the hypocrisy of those who snub their noses at degenerates and is making the point that intentions are far more important than actual deeds, at least in many instances. Of course, as evidenced by our resident Christians, most believers have an extremely vulgar and simplistic view of the world, and hence, their faith, and think all sins are no-no's of equal merit because even the most harmless earns its offender hellfire on the Day of Judgment. All that said, you won't ever hear a defense from me of the really ridiculous shit that the NT advocates under the pretense of righteousness.

The thing is, there is a difference between looking at someone with sexual desire, and actually intending to have sex with the person.  If, as a passing thought, my wife does the former with someone else, it is not anything I care much about, but I very much care if she actually intends to have sexual relations with someone else.  The difference on this is important.  An idle fantasy and an actual plan of action are quite different from each other.

Also, I don't think intentions are usually more important than actions.  Intentions might reflect more on the morality of the person, but it is their actions that impact the world.  If you intend to cut off my arm, but don't, that will bother me less than if you don't intend to cut off my arm and you do.  My guess is that you feel the same way about my intentions and actions and your arm.

I'm not disputing that there is a difference between thoughts and actions, and I think you're right to be critical of any doctrine that equates the two. But I also think it's missing the point to make that the primary emphasis of Jesus' words, even if that's what he intended to imply. After all, it's no secret that Christianity is founded upon the belief that something is inherently wrong with mankind, and that "all have sinned and fallen short" of perfection. I look at Jesus as a reformer within an oppressive environment dictated by religious leaders who were all too often quick to point out the spec of dust in another's eye while ignoring the plank in their own, a statement he is specifically said to have made. His message was not one of reforming outward appearances, as he was no mere politician, but one of transforming the hearts and minds of men and women. A person who fucks another's spouse is acting on a thought and intention that has been allowed to foster from within. Jesus is saying, I think, that one must change their attitudes before their behaviors can be expected to reflect whatever notions of virtue they claim to esteem, and that giving residence to bad attitudes and ill conceptions of one another are, to moral perfection, no less worthy of blame.