Sin

Originally posted by josephw
That's like saying that since there's no God one can do whatever one pleases because there will be no consequences or accountability.

Who here has claimed anything remotely like this?

Originally posted by sonship
I think rather we should heed this -

[b] Let no one deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience.

And one has to have some idea of what straight is in order to recognize the crooked. The law of God was given that we may know what straight is.[/b]

People can recognize crooked well enough without the input of god. There have been many civilizations throughout history who have not recognized your god, but yet still manage to have their own moral and legal codes.

Originally posted by josephw
An honest post. That's all I was looking for.

Now all I have to do is prove God exists! 😛

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I would prefer we refer to that as "arete" then instead of mixing terminology. "Sin" is a term defined in terms of various gods - the morals of which are usually questionable.

No it's not, sin is more general than transgression against divine laws. Arete is good moral well-being, it is what is adversely affected by sin, they are not even opposites. I checked the Oxford online dictionary and it gives two definitions for sin. The first is transgression against a divine law, the second is as follows:

An act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offence, or omission:
'he committed the unforgivable sin of refusing to give interviews'

The dictionary gives the etymology of the word as coming from Old English synn probably related to the Latin sons which means guilty. So both the second definition and the etymology are more general than just transgression against a divine entity. It is perfectly reasonable to use the term sin in a secular context.

Originally posted by rwingett
As I said earlier, if you cared to look, I recognize the concept of wrong doing, but not of sin.

What makes something "wrong"?

Originally posted by DeepThought
It is perfectly reasonable to use the term sin in a secular context.

I disagree ~ not on a Spirituality Forum where both "sin" and "morality" are discussed regularly and where religious and non-religious people engage each other.

Originally posted by FMF
I disagree ~ not on a Spirituality Forum where both "sin" and "morality" are discussed regularly and where religious and non-religious people engage each other.

Clear something up for me.
If God exists is God secular or religious?

Originally posted by sonship
Clear something up for me.
If God exists is God secular or religious?

Religion is a human preoccupation and activity.

Originally posted by whodey
What makes something "wrong"?

As a working definition, if it reduces arete then it's wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
Religion is a human preoccupation and activity.

Thankyou. So then God is not necessarily "religious".

That explains why the most opposition Christ received was not from the secular world but from the religious world.

Originally posted by sonship
Thankyou. So then God is not necessarily "religious".

That explains why the most opposition Christ received was not from the secular world but from the religious world.

Well, who wants competition?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, who wants competition?

Did you notice that Pontius Pilate really wanted to free Jesus.
He was forced into executing Christ by fear because the chief religionists showed their true colors by saying " We have no king but Caesar ".

What leverage they gained on the imperlialist reminding him that if he didn't crucify this "King of the Jews" he would be no friend of his boss Caesar.

He caved in.
The secular world caved in.

Originally posted by sonship
Thankyou. So then God is not necessarily "religious".

That explains why the most opposition Christ received was not from the secular world but from the religious world.

Yes, it's people who are religious. If you want to declare certain or even all actions or thoughts of mine to be violations against the will of your God, by way of your own personal religious doctrine, then it's a matter for you. As for me, I don't "sin" and I stopped believing that I was a "sinner" over ten years ago.

Originally posted by josephw

Why do you think acknowledging the concept of sin requires a God?

Because (even by your definition) sin requires a god.

And different gods have different rules.

So "sins" are actually an arbitrary set of rules.

Now if you want to talk about right and wrong ... that's a different thread.

Originally posted by josephw
That's like saying that since there's no God one can do whatever one pleases because there will be no consequences or accountability.

So without your belief in god you would go around doing bad things?
I guess the only redeeming factor of religion is to control sociopaths then?