Why are they sins?

[leucanthemum]

I was not asking how the ideas came about, but why were certain "sins" so enforced when there are points to the contra in the bible?...
I used the "pleasure" sins are example because ... well I like pleasure.

Woo hoo! me too! The sin, though, in pleasure, usually falls into the category of excess. The problem lies in loving the action more than the object. Lust is desiring the act of making love more than loving (respecting) the object of one's desire. Gluttony is the act of making the stuffing of food into one's mouth more important than in appreciating the food itself. These are considered mortal sins -- unforgivable. But the occasional blowing off of steam (verbally or physically, on your own) qualifies, in most books, as a venial -- lesser, and therefore, forgivable -- sin. But you have to recognize you've gone wrong, and be contrite about your sin, or forgiveness can't be granted (there's the rub).

I think most Christians acknowledge that a person who apologizes, who tries to avoid repeating his errors, is worth saving. The unrepentant sinner is the problem for most.

But we could just as easily have used the murder sins as examples. There are places in the bible that says it is bad to kill and yet people still kill in those situations.

And people do all sorts of other things which are bad for ourselves and our society. The fault lies in that behavior, not the law.

There are also places in the bible that say it is ok to murder and yet I do not see these deaths being enacted by the faithful.

Been to any hardcore Islamic region, recently?

My original thought still stands, why are people against certain sins and not others, why are they more against the pleasure sins than the "criminal sins"?

The people who are more against venial sins than the mortal ones -- their priorities are seriously screwed up. They probably suffer from an excess of Pride, and a soupçon of Wrath. ;-)

And, part of the point behind living a life as free of sin as possible (restraining oneself, if you will) is to strive to make oneself more like the God in whose image we were created, and less like the base animals over whom we were supposed to have dominion.

To step away from the religious perspective for a moment -- aren't we supposed to be evolving? Why allow our baser responses to rule us? Like fresh-brewed coffee, deferred gratification is often much more deeply pleasing than the instant variety (especially pleasing, the intellectual and emotional gratification of kicking a bad habit).

 

[Morrigan]

The point behind having a sabbath is to reflect, to pray if one will, to look beyond the mundane, dreary, everyday crap you experience, and to find a reason to do more than simply exist. A full day may not be required for everybody, but certainly it can not hurt to plan for a regular day each week to catch up with your own emotional needs.

Blah blah blah, you missed the point. Even if we acknowledge that a day of rest is necessary and it's sinful to not take it (which is already a stretch), why does it have to be on THAT specific day? If I work on Saturday-Sunday but I don't work on Monday-Tuesday, I am technically "sinning".
There isn't a logical reason for that, it's only an arbitrary rule. Period.

 

[chris epic]

why are people against certain sins and not others, why are they more against the pleasure sins than the "criminal sins"?

Its a very old device reinforced from generation to generation: guilt and shame. A child is told that masterbation is dirty. When he is older, he does it and feels pleasure and therefor feels shameful for enjoying something so "dirty"

Thats just an example. "Lusts of the flesh" thats what it all comes down too. If someone pursues a lust of the flesh, they are taught that engaging in such seperates them from God because to pursue the lusts of the flesh is to avoid the fruits of the spirit.

But I think the mentality as been distorted. Why else would people feel shameful wth self-indulgence. Its how they were raised. They were told it was wrong and dirty so they feel guilty or shameful, or sometimes, even more excited because they enjoy it and its "wrong."

Guilt and shame are very powerful things

 

[chris epic]

The question was not "why were they considered sins back then?" It is why are they sins NOW?

They are sins now because they were sins then and tradition is preserved in religion.

 

[pgwenthold]

They are sins now because they were sins then and tradition is preserved in religion.

Which explains why christians don't eat pork.

 

[chris epic]

why does it have to be on THAT specific day?

Why does the celebration of your birth have to be on the day you were born? Why cant you celebrate your birth or your life on any other day? Why is friday night PIZZA night? Why is Sunday afternoon movie time? Why is payday on fridays? Why is rent due on the first, even though I moved in in the middle of the month? Why is Sunday the weekend when its the first calendar day of the month? Why do I work every week, monday through friday, 8am to 5pm with a lunch break at noon? The fabric of the universe isn't going to tair if I have pizza with my family on thursday night or watch a movie with them on monday afternoon. But its tradition and culture, values, things that bring unity to society or families- these are the things preserved through tradition- and religion is a very large device that accomplishes this goal. However, if I were to ask Papa why pizza night is on friday nights, he would say "Thats just how its always been done" and if I ask him to go deeper with his answer, he might just respond "Because I said so, now eat your pizza before it gets cold."

Some people are afraid to break away from tradition, especially if they dont know for certain if God will punish them for it or not.

The Sabbath is literally the seventh day, the last day of the week- and its important to Christians and Jews because its the day the God rested after creating the world, so whats wrong with observing that traditionally- just like celebrating your birthday on the day you were born. There is nothing wrong with celebrating your life on any other day but it just seems more special to remember it on the day it happened every year.

Keep Friday night pizza night- its a family traditionit brings us together, its special- our special night of the week.

 

[chris epic]

Which explains why christians don't eat pork.

are you trying to annoy me?

The pork law isn't a Christian law, its Jewish. Christians dont follow it because they believe Jesus was the fulfillment of the law. Of coarse, that doesn't keep CHristians from cherry picking the old testament for self-serving purposes.

 

[leucanthemum]

Blah blah blah, you missed the point. Even if we acknowledge that a day of rest is necessary and it's sinful to not take it (which is already a stretch), why does it have to be on THAT specific day? If I work on Saturday-Sunday but I don't work on Monday-Tuesday, I am technically "sinning".
There isn't a logical reason for that, it's only an arbitrary rule. Period.

Actually, it's not simply an arbitrary rule. It's also about community. About the civilizing influence a shared experience of rest and reflection can have upon a person or a group.

Aren't there now public service announcements pushing the importance of family time -- telling us for the good of the children we must plan supper together, plan game nights, etc.? Now, extend that to mean express scheduled time with those outside the home whose company and opinions you value.

Set a specific day each week when everybody can get together and celebrate the gift of life, to share in sorrows, and... jeez... network, if you must. But allow everybody to support each other, and to uplift each other when possible.


Again, the sin is in allowing yourself to be consumed by the drive (work, sex, drink, eat) to the exclusion of yourself and your civilized society.

 

[pgwenthold]

Actually, it's not simply an arbitrary rule. It's also about community. About the civilizing influence a shared experience of rest and reflection can have upon a person or a group.

Aren't there now public service announcements pushing the importance of family time -- telling us for the good of the children we must plan supper together, plan game nights, etc.? Now, extend that to mean express scheduled time with those outside the home whose company and opinions you value.

Set a specific day each week when everybody can get together and celebrate the gift of life, to share in sorrows, and... jeez... network, if you must. But allow everybody to support each other, and to uplift each other when possible.


Again, the sin is in allowing yourself to be consumed by the drive (work, sex, drink, eat) to the exclusion of yourself and your civilized society.

Of course, this is a false dichotomy. As has been pointed out before. Moreover, that is NOT what the commandment says. It doesn't say "Set aside one day a week." It says to follow the Sabbath.

How is me chosing to work one Sunday (or Saturday, whatever you want to call your Sabbath) when my wife and the kids are off visiting her parents without me for a week an example of being "consumed by the drive ... to the exclusion of [my]self and civilized society"? Yet, if working on the sabbath is a sin, then that would be a sin, despite not having any of the problems that you are concerned about.

 

[leucanthemum]

Of course, this is a false dichotomy. As has been pointed out before. Moreover, that is NOT what the commandment says. It doesn't say "Set aside one day a week." It says to follow the Sabbath.

How is me chosing to work one Sunday (or Saturday, whatever you want to call your Sabbath) when my wife and the kids are off visiting her parents without me for a week an example of being "consumed by the drive ... to the exclusion of [my]self and civilized society"? Yet, if working on the sabbath is a sin, then that would be a sin, despite not having any of the problems that you are concerned about.

And so you don't think that the chosen Sabbath (Saturday, Sunday, whatever) is the day specified by one's society as the day best to commune with one another, to support one another -- without the interference of work?

And, the sin of missing the occasional sabbath while the wife and kids are with grandma is a mortal sin in whose books?

So, you missed observing a day of rest and reflection with the gang. Are you sorry you did? Yes? you're forgiven. You'll all get over it, and they'll be glad to have you back again next sabbath. Not sorry? Are your head, back and/or feet aching by hump day? gee whiz. The lack of repentance for your sin is paid back in wages of pain. And they don't want to hear your whining. You made your cake, you can lie in it. ;-)

 

[Myriad]

Hi clarsct,

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry for the delay in replying further.

Actually, Biblical condemnation of masturbation is rather sparse, to say the least. The most often referenced passages concern one Onan, who is commanded (directly and personally) by God to impregnate a certain woman, and instead "spills his seed on the ground" to avoid obeying the command. It's pretty clear that Onan's sin (for which God kills him) isn't masturbation per se, but violation of, as it were, a direct order. Also, in context (Exodus 38:9), Onan's seed-spilling isn't even masturbation at all; it's coitus interruptus.

Yes, but the meaning has changed.

On any given point, we could be talking about at least three, possibly more, different "meanings." so the probability that you (or I) will disagree with at least one of them is very high. There's the most straightforward interpretation of the Bible verses; there's what Christian tradition (or many competing Christian traditions) read/s into it; and there are some of my own interpretations that I've presented here. The chance of all those agreeing with each other, let alone agreeing with your own opinions on the same subject, are rather small. So let's not fool ourselves with phrases like "the meaning" when there's clearly not just one.

The Bible verses about "onanism" are very clear. What Pope Whoever IX might have decided it "really" means is of little concern to me personally, except as historical insight and to make my point. Which is that Christianity is not, and has never been, based entirely on the Bible. This is what has made it possible, and inevitable, for "what is sinful" to change with the times.

The "sinfulness" of "self abuse" falls more into the category of dogma or church doctrine, something originally decided on by Popes on vague general moral and theological principles rather than any specific Biblical text, and later retained by some Protestant sects. (In the same category is the desirability of priestly celibacy, which was considered a terrible heresy by the earliest Christian historians. The Protestants were a bit more eager to get rid of that one... can't imagine why .)

They wanted to get laid?

Absolutely.

Seriously, though.

I was quite serious, and I thought the point was obvious. Of course they wanted to get laid.

These people were drawing from the scriptures. Priests were celibate because they were the bride of Jesus. You wouldn't cheat on God, now, would you?

Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 3: 8-13:​

In Matthew 9, Jesus likens His disciples to the guests of a bridegroom, not to the bride! I'm not aware of any direct Biblical justification of the idea that priests in particular are "brides of Jesus" or of the church in any way that other Christians are not, Ephesians 5: 22-32 notwithstanding. So again, priestly celibacy is more dogma with minimal Scriptural basis, which (besides wanting some, or we could be charitable and say they wanted children and family life) is why Protestant theologians rejected it centuries ago.

Masturbation was/is spilling seed on the ground. Look up Onanism in the dictionary and see if it mentions coitus interruptus.

As a matter of fact, it does, in every dictionary I've consulted so far. For instance: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/onanism Also, few dictionary defintions of "masturbation" appear to be male-specific. Is it still "onanism" if it involves a clitoris and no seed? Did Onan have a clitoris? Can we safely conclude from all this that dictionary definitions based on old dogmatic traditions don't provide much insight (except for some historical perspective) in a theological/sociological discussion of sin?

Many people were persecuted for these types of things, and who was harmed by doing them?

Those who were persecuted for doing them.

Yes, I know that's circularly illogical, but there's a valid point behind it. Most people don't live alone in the wilderness. Their actions affect a community in various ways, and in ways that were different in ancient times than they were today. Many of the "these types of things" that you're referring to were a potential hazard in violent tribal cultures with a high mortality rate, where maximizing the birth rate of a tribe was imperative for the survival of the tribe and every individual in it (as a tribe that dwindled would likely be slaughtered or enslaved by its neighbors). Masturbation per se would probably not slow down the birth rate noticeably, but sexual freedom in general, of which masturbation is a facet, could. Similarly, what made sodomy a sin then but not today is the opportunity cost of homosexual relationships. (Consider, for instance, how the Spartans' elevation of relationships between males over marriage and familial bonds, though it appears to have made them more effective comrades in arms, might also have contributed to their eventual decline.)

Yeah, we have a habit of holding on to expired dogma, and failing to promptly implement needed new dogma, and people have suffered and died because of it.

As for the Commandment regarding working on the Sabbath, I find that an interesting and revealing example about the nature of Scripture as I see it. From a humanistic point of view, the Eighth Commandment is one of the single most effective Bible passages at improving the quality of human life over the past twenty centuries... the absolute requirement not to work on the Sabbath often gave them their only regular respite in a life of grueling toil... Would this have happened if observing the Sabbath were instead written as the "Eighth Just-A-Suggestion"?

What if the Commandments aren't really about how-not-to-sin after all (though they had to be stated that way, to have been effective), but about how to build a moral civilization starting from the stone age? What if we look at other Biblical ideas, from the Old and New Testaments alike, in a similar light?

So, irrelevant in modern times? Agreed.

Have we completed the process of building a moral civilzation, then? If so, I missed the memo, and I have a few complaints about how it turned out. If not, then perhaps not all of the Bible is irrelevant in modern times.

Interpreted as a guide for what is fundamentally morally right, Paul's repeated advice to slaves to serve their masters well is clearly a non-starter. But what should that advice have been? Suppose those passages instead had read, "Slavery is an abomination. Those who hold slaves must set them free; slaves that are not set free should rise up and escape or overthrow their masters, even as Moses brought the Isrealites out of bondage in Egypt." What would the effect have been, in, say, AD 300? Would it have done the slaves any good, to rise up and be slaughtered even more often than they'd already been rising up and being slaughtered since time immemorial? Would it have done Christianity any good, for every slave-holding state, city, and household to have a really good reason to eliminate, at all costs, any slave, or any person coming into contact with slaves, suspected of holding Christian views?

Change had to start somewhere, and in fact, most of the 'rights' given to serfs in the Middle Ages were the doing of the Church.

My point exactly.

What you're really saying is that Paul didn't have faith that he could change these things through God's ministry, or, worse yet, Paul condoned these acts and right and good. Remember, Paul wasn't just a man, he was an Apostle. He heard the Word of the Lord directly from the Mouth of Jesus Christ. He was especially blessed, and the Rock on which the Christian Faith was founded.

I just went and made myself lunch, and ate it. I certainly didn't have faith that if I didn't, God would fill my stomach or convert the ADT in my cells into ATP for me. Paul had a church to build, and built it, using all of the means by which churches are built in this world (and a few new ones he invented). Most likely, he didn't have faith that if he didn't, it would happen by a miracle instead. Should he have? Why would the process involve Paul at all, if he was counting on a miracle?

Did Paul expect to change human nature or human society overnight through God's ministry? Apparently not. Even Jesus predicted: "The poor will be with you always."

Even assuming the Bible is the Word of God, does God owe humanity the truth, let alone the whole truth? Where, in the Bible, does God promise to tell humanity the whole truth? Could humanity comprehend the whole truth? Could we put into effect the same knowledge of the truth in any given century? Do we tell our own young children the whole truth about everything? Now, suppose the Bible is not the direct Word of God, but the understanding of men uncommonly wise for their time, with a perception (divinely aided or otherwise) of creation that revealed to them some of the path to building more just worlds. How much of it could they, in their own world that knew only kings and subjects, masters and slaves, understand? How much of it could they put into words? Surely less than the whole truth. In that case the Bible would be a map, but the map is not the territory, and the territory ahead is always unexplored.

Ah, but God has the capabilities to make the map perfectly, does He not?

I doubt it, any more than God can (without remaking the universe from scratch) make a four-sided triangle. But you tell me. We've had millennia of progress in cartography, we have satellite imaging, GPS, etc. Do you think the best cartographers in the world could make me a perfect map, one that shows whatever features anyone needs to know about in whatever detail they need to know, anywhere they go in the world, at any time in the future? That scribes with pens and parchment can make adequate copies of?

Except for the part about making copies, wouldn't such a map be indistinguishable from the territory? Which God did create.

The exact same impossibility applies to making a perfect "moral map" that can guide every person in every situation at every time indefinitely into the future. Such a map would be indistinguishable from, and therefore could only be, God Himself. A few million words in a book is not God.

Can God not make people understand? Is it beyond His power? If not, then you must face the fact that God has lied to us by omission. A partial truth is a whole lie. So, is god Incompentent, or a Liar, or some mix of both. Maybe He's simply malicious.

Understanding, for whatever reason, is our job. That's the allegory that I, personally, read into the story of Eden: that Creation (that is to say, evolution) only goes so far as far as humans are concerned. The rest is up to us to learn.

Lied to us by omission? Heck, He's lied to us (or at least, His stenographers have) explicitly! There's no hard transparent dome over the earth with a throne sitting on top (wherever the top might be, on a bleeding sphere), is there?

Such truth as we can understand and accept, we can also discover. And we've been doing a pretty good job of that, especially recently.

Is a secretive or deceptive God a problem? Whether or not you believe in a deceptive or malicious God, you definitely observe around you a deceptive and malicious natural world, filled with creatures and phenomena that persistently attempt to dissipate your energy. What's the difference, except that unrelieved naturalism guarantees that the whole exercise is to no purpose?

Or maybe the whole thing was made up by fallible men who could not forsee all the consequences of their actions. I find this to be more reasonable, don't you?

Whether God spoke to them or not, I have little doubt that those fallible men believed in their hearts that God was speaking to them. For that or some other reason, it appears they were inspired to greater, farther-seeing insight well beyond the norm for their respective times.

Did Adam and Eve really gain all knowledge of good and evil at the moment they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? Does this make sense, either literally or allegorically? Or allegorically, did that choice, that knowledge was what they wanted, represent the beginning of the journey that we're still on today? (God: "Okay, you want knowledge. Happy to oblige. Step 1: get out of Eden.")

Step 1: POOF! You have Knowledge, Wisdom and Sense.
Well, THAT didn't happen.
Wait, I know:
Step 1: Poof! How dare you quest for knowledge on your own!! Even though I created you with curiousity, and I knew that you would use it, how DARE you use it!! I curse you and all your children to a life of misery and suffering!! Oh, and I LOVE you.

Yep, it's pretty silly if you take it all literally. Especially since it appears to have been the opithsokont protista a billion years ago, rather than the amphisbaena (perhaps) and female Homo Sapiens, who brought sex and death into the world.

Well. I'm not sure Jesus' teaching were very humanistic. I think the humanistic patina was placed upon them during the Age of Reason. Jesus said some thing that were highly questionable.

No doubt. But in the context of the time, many of Jesus's teachings, even some of simplest, tritest-sounding (today) revelations, were revolutionary.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.

Mark 12: 43-44​

For how many millennia had priests all over the world taught that the gods' greatest approval and favor was bestowed on those providing the biggest bribes? That the gods' disfavor was an integral part of the vicious cycle of poverty? That whatever form of reward their religion offered was the privilege of those who could build new temples? Loving families might appreciate the thought behind a gift but certainly not mighty gods who, like mighty kings, would be expected to regard people according to their station. The idea that God could weigh a poor widow's copper coins as equal to a rich man's gold was preposterous, suggesting as it did the even more preposterous and ultimately humanistic notion that a God could value and love each individual equally. To my knowledge, nothing close to Jesus's assessment of the Widow's contribution had been recorded before.

Further evidence for how challenging this idea was is the many centuries it took for this lesson to be appreciated, and the many lapses along the way, such as the medieval Church's selling of indulgences. But it's clearly a significant and necessary step on the road to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Perhaps instead of asking "is this or that, or should this or that be, a sin," one might focus on, "what should I be doing better to make the world a better place?" You know the answer. At least one, probably several, things came into your mind when you read that question.

My answer to your question is 'promote atheism'. Is faith a sin?

Of course faith can be a sin, depending on what one is putting one's faith in. For instance, faith in supremacist ideologies, some of the "false idols" of the modern era, is sinful.

And I have no objection to your promoting atheism. As I've said on other threads, if honest caring people are finding atheism the most promising means of making the world a better place, then the current low state of Christianity, with Christians joining in or staying silent while other Christians promote hatred, fear, and ignorance, is to blame. I'd caution you, though, that a predominantly atheistic society absent some toxic totalitarian ideology has never been attempted; there might be reasons as yet undiscovered, embedded in the legacy of human social evolution, why it's unworkable. I will, therefore, continue to seek, and promote, a renewal of faith in humanist Christian ideals.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[aries]

When I was an exchange student many years ago in the US, I stayed a short while at Catholic family --- and they sad they enjoyed drinking wine...like all good Catcholics do .

The point being: It is NOT that sex, wine and enjoyment of physical pleasures
are bad for you. In fact, they are encouraged --- to be enjoyed.

And enjoyment does not mean bin drinking, nor does it mean having sex with as many people you are able to f..... in a lifetime... It means that sex, wine and other fine things (such as food ) should be enjoyed.

The ancient Greeks had a proverb or saying which were called:
Nothing in excess.

I, for one, support this view.

 

[Ladewig]

What if the Commandments aren't really about how-not-to-sin after all (though they had to be stated that way, to have been effective), but about how to build a moral civilization starting from the stone age? What if we look at other Biblical ideas, from the Old and New Testaments alike, in a similar light?

Interpreted as a guide for what is fundamentally morally right, Paul's repeated advice to slaves to serve their masters well is clearly a non-starter. But what should that advice have been? Suppose those passages instead had read, "Slavery is an abomination. Those who hold slaves must set them free; slaves that are not set free should rise up and escape or overthrow their masters, even as Moses brought the Isrealites out of bondage in Egypt." What would the effect have been, in, say, AD 300? Would it have done the slaves any good, to rise up and be slaughtered even more often than they'd already been rising up and being slaughtered since time immemorial? Would it have done Christianity any good, for every slave-holding state, city, and household to have a really good reason to eliminate, at all costs, any slave, or any person coming into contact with slaves, suspected of holding Christian views?

Are you serious? You're arguing that God should not have included a commandment against slavery because that would mean more slaves would have been killed and the other costs would have been too great.

WTF?

Christians often state that the whole shebang is about moral absolutes. In this case they are right: slavery is wrong (period). It is not a matter of slavery is wrong unless it is really expensive to eliminate it. It is not a matter of slavery is wrong unless a country, city, or household is really dependent on it. Slavery is always wrong. If anyone believes that Christianity would not have flourished if it condemned all forms of slavery, then my response is that such a form of Christianity does not deserve to flourish.

Jesus's teaching to love your neighbor is an order of magnitude harder to implement than "don't own slaves," yet Jesus didn't temper that message. As late as the 19th century on of the most enlightened countries in the world was still using the Bible to justify slavery. Millions of people suffered abuse between Paul's letters and slavery finally being outlawed. That neither the New nor Old Testament unabashedly condemned this activity is unconscionable.

 

[warren sinden]

Some people are afraid to break away from tradition, especially if they dont know for certain if God will punish them for it or not.

What do you think will happen if all the law enforcement officers.doctors,nurses,hospital staff & defense force decided to take off on a sabbath?

Why do all theological priests work on a Sunday?

 

[themyst]

And people do all sorts of other things which are bad for ourselves and our society. The fault lies in that behavior, not the law. Been to any hardcore Islamic region, recently?

The thing is, if one is a good follower of a religion, one should follow all its rules and some of them deal with stoning, I should not need to go to the far east to enjoy the painful cries of the unholy.

What I am trying to say is, either follow all the rules or none of them. This picking of the laws one likes is just not cool, in fact it is warm and we all know what happens to those that are warm, those that are3 neither hot nor cold.

 

[brodski]

Okay- does masterbating once hurt anybody? It doesn't. if you're asking why its a sin, its because sperm is considered just as precious as human life. Its considered a waste of seed.

Given the amount of "seed" which is generally "wasted" through processes other than masturbation, I think that if this is how god wishes us to see sperm, he's got a lot of answering to do for his shoddy design work.

 

[stamenflicker]

And if I don't keep the sabbath holy? What are the negative consequences of committing the sin of not keeping the Lord's Day holy?

Personally, I think you'd be more likely to make yourself the center of the universe. If you deconstruct the theocentric world view, it becomes all to easy to replace it with an egocentric one.

I may not be around to respond for a few days because of work and I'm potentially travelling, but I'm sure many folks disagree. That's cool.

Some might argue that theocentric world views are often used to egocentric ends. I would agree that this happens sometimes, maybe even a lot of the time. Others might argue that there is nothing particularly wrong with an egocentric world view, but I'd have to disagree and sort of see egocentrism as a global ill that is so comprehensive in scope it plays out in our day to day lives, and relationships.

The original post asks "Why are they sins?" Then he or she lists out some things that clearly are not sins in every religious tradition, and one would be hard pressed to make the case that they are sins in the Christian tradition.

Personally I think all sin begins in a deep down place that chooses self over other. Virtue on the other hand, choses other over self. One of the initial cornerstones of a building such as this is choosing self over deity.

 

[chris epic]

Given the amount of "seed" which is generally "wasted" through processes other than masturbation, I think that if this is how god wishes us to see sperm, he's got a lot of answering to do for his shoddy design work.

Agreed, but I can see why sperm would be considered that way theistically.

 

[Myriad]

Are you serious? You're arguing that God should not have included a commandment against slavery because that would mean more slaves would have been killed and the other costs would have been too great.

I said nothing about costs. That's a strawman. What I said was that slave revolt circa AD100 could not be successful and could not benefit either the slaves who revolted or any other slaves alive during that era.

Christians often state that the whole shebang is about moral absolutes. In this case they are right: slavery is wrong (period). It is not a matter of slavery is wrong unless it is really expensive to eliminate it. It is not a matter of slavery is wrong unless a country, city, or household is really dependent on it.

Again, you misstate my argument. I said nothing of expense or dependence. I was talking of the continued existence of whole nations of people -- not the people who might have depended on slaves (like you say, who cares about them?) but the slaves themselves.

Conquered people were killed or enslaved. Forbidding enslaving in war would mean they would have to be killed. Forbidding killing in war as well would make it impossible to prosecute war. Which would result in those following those laws quickly being killed or enslaved by someone else.

Slavery is always wrong.

Slavery often offered survival in a time when for the vast majority survival was all they could hope for. In such cases I don't think I can say for certain that it was wrong. Some might choose death rather than life as a slave. But would you make that choice for someone else? For everyone else? How many slaves would you be willing to see die, for every one set free?

If anyone believes that Christianity would not have flourished if it condemned all forms of slavery, then my response is that such a form of Christianity does not deserve to flourish.

I guess you're referring to Lochumism. It condemned all forms of slavery. It deserved to flourish.

It did not flourish. In fact, it utterly disappeared and no one (including me) has heard of it at all since its last howdusu was dispersed and its tweeshumm burned 1,700 years ago.

So what's your point, again?

Jesus's teaching to love your neighbor is an order of magnitude harder to implement than "don't own slaves," yet Jesus didn't temper that message.

An interesting point. I think the difference is that loving your neighbor doesn't result in the death of your neighbor nor, usually, your own death, if the neighbor's neighbor doesn't like the idea.

As late as the 19th century on of the most enlightened countries in the world was still using the Bible to justify slavery. Millions of people suffered abuse between Paul's letters and slavery finally being outlawed. That neither the New nor Old Testament unabashedly condemned this activity is unconscionable.

So write a new Scripture (Christian, Atheist, Neo-Lochumist, or otherwise) that corrects those moral failings, and convince hundreds of millions of people worldwide to believe in it. What's stopping you?

I mean that question seriously.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[clarsct]

Hi clarsct,

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry for the delay in replying further.

Hello. Same, actually, I've been absent a few days. Thanks for the response. I'm midway through the first season of the TV show House right now, so please do forgive if I am more sarcastic than usual....the man rubs off on me, as it were.

On any given point, we could be talking about at least three, possibly more, different "meanings." so the probability that you (or I) will disagree with at least one of them is very high. There's the most straightforward interpretation of the Bible verses; there's what Christian tradition (or many competing Christian traditions) read/s into it; and there are some of my own interpretations that I've presented here. The chance of all those agreeing with each other, let alone agreeing with your own opinions on the same subject, are rather small. So let's not fool ourselves with phrases like "the meaning" when there's clearly not just one.

The Bible verses about "onanism" are very clear. What Pope Whoever IX might have decided it "really" means is of little concern to me personally, except as historical insight and to make my point. Which is that Christianity is not, and has never been, based entirely on the Bible. This is what has made it possible, and inevitable, for "what is sinful" to change with the times.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Well, this leads us to a quandry, doesn't it? If what is sinful, or the meaning of the Bible can change, then is it or is it not the Word of God?

How would any reasonably expect to believe anything that's in the Bible?
Isn't the Pope the Hand of the Lord on Earth?

I must admit some confusion.

Absolutely.



I was quite serious, and I thought the point was obvious. Of course they wanted to get laid.

Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.​

In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.​

A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.​

1 Timothy 3: 8-13:​

In Matthew 9, Jesus likens His disciples to the guests of a bridegroom, not to the bride! I'm not aware of any direct Biblical justification of the idea that priests in particular are "brides of Jesus" or of the church in any way that other Christians are not, Ephesians 5: 22-32 notwithstanding. So again, priestly celibacy is more dogma with minimal Scriptural basis, which (besides wanting some, or we could be charitable and say they wanted children and family life) is why Protestant theologians rejected it centuries ago.

Google is your friend:
http://www.biblebell.org/church2.html
http://www.religion-cults.com/Christianity/christi.htm


I thought we agreed they rejected such a notion because they wanted to get laid?

As a matter of fact, it does, in every dictionary I've consulted so far. For instance: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/onanism Also, few dictionary defintions of "masturbation" appear to be male-specific. Is it still "onanism" if it involves a clitoris and no seed? Did Onan have a clitoris? Can we safely conclude from all this that dictionary definitions based on old dogmatic traditions don't provide much insight (except for some historical perspective) in a theological/sociological discussion of sin?

I think we can.

Those who were persecuted for doing them.

Yes, I know that's circularly illogical, but there's a valid point behind it. Most people don't live alone in the wilderness. Their actions affect a community in various ways, and in ways that were different in ancient times than they were today. Many of the "these types of things" that you're referring to were a potential hazard in violent tribal cultures with a high mortality rate, where maximizing the birth rate of a tribe was imperative for the survival of the tribe and every individual in it (as a tribe that dwindled would likely be slaughtered or enslaved by its neighbors). Masturbation per se would probably not slow down the birth rate noticeably, but sexual freedom in general, of which masturbation is a facet, could. Similarly, what made sodomy a sin then but not today is the opportunity cost of homosexual relationships. (Consider, for instance, how the Spartans' elevation of relationships between males over marriage and familial bonds, though it appears to have made them more effective comrades in arms, might also have contributed to their eventual decline.)

As you say, circular.
And homosexuality is considered a sin today, judged by outmoded standards due to the dogmatic nature of religion. Masturbation is much the same. If they are not sins today..well...that opens a whole other can of worms, which I will get into a touch later on.

Yeah, we have a habit of holding on to expired dogma, and failing to promptly implement needed new dogma, and people have suffered and died because of it.

Which is a failure of...whom?

Have we completed the process of building a moral civilzation, then? If so, I missed the memo, and I have a few complaints about how it turned out. If not, then perhaps not all of the Bible is irrelevant in modern times.

And perhaps it is. Religion does not equal morality. I would classify the KJV of the Holy Bible one of the most immoral books I have ever encountered. Aside from which, which is relevant, and which isn't? How does one judge? Well, not from the Bible, certainly, so by what yardstick do we judge?

My point exactly.

Ah, but you missed mine, particulary the sarcasm quotes around the words 'rights'. Most of the rights we currently enjoy in the US were born from a document(Series of documents) called the Magna Carta. It was a document that was forced upon the King John Lackland of England by his nobles, and sanctioned by the Church(Pope Innocent III). The fact that some of these rights trickled down to the Merchant Class and the Serfs had absolutely NO bearing on the Church's decision. It had much more to do with the bishops having a say in who was to be archbishop.
I'll try to make my sarcasm clearer from now on

I just went and made myself lunch, and ate it. I certainly didn't have faith that if I didn't, God would fill my stomach or convert the ADT in my cells into ATP for me. Paul had a church to build, and built it, using all of the means by which churches are built in this world (and a few new ones he invented). Most likely, he didn't have faith that if he didn't, it would happen by a miracle instead. Should he have? Why would the process involve Paul at all, if he was counting on a miracle?

Did Paul expect to change human nature or human society overnight through God's ministry? Apparently not. Even Jesus predicted: "The poor will be with you always."

/sarcasm/With God, all things are possible./sarcasm/
Of course we will always have poor people, but SLAVES? 'Love thy neighbor, but enslave their sons and daughters?'
Since when is spreading the message more important than the message itself?

I doubt it, any more than God can (without remaking the universe from scratch) make a four-sided triangle. But you tell me. We've had millennia of progress in cartography, we have satellite imaging, GPS, etc. Do you think the best cartographers in the world could make me a perfect map, one that shows whatever features anyone needs to know about in whatever detail they need to know, anywhere they go in the world, at any time in the future? That scribes with pens and parchment can make adequate copies of?

Ah, but we are not God, are we? We are but fallible mortals. We should not be expected of such perfection. God, however, IS perfect. I would expect more from Him. Shouldn't I?

Except for the part about making copies, wouldn't such a map be indistinguishable from the territory? Which God did create.

If I took directions from a Map to get to Washington, DC, I would NOT expect to wind up in Argentina!!
A) Yes, the I would expect the map to be perfect.
b) The map isn't even f'kin close. Not even CLOSE!

And for that last part, prove it.

The exact same impossibility applies to making a perfect "moral map" that can guide every person in every situation at every time indefinitely into the future. Such a map would be indistinguishable from, and therefore could only be, God Himself. A few million words in a book is not God.

So, we cannot learn morality from the Bible. Glad we cleared that one up!
God, through his chosen few, has set down these words to His flock. Yes?
Psalm 137: "Blessed be they who dash the little one's heads against the rocks."

If you are saying that we cannot know God through the Bible, then great! Let's throw the thing away. Um. What do we use now?

If the Bible is only partially true, then we have been lied to about the single most important thing in our entire existence, in the entire Universe!
God must:
A)Know about this lie
B)Have the power to change this lie
So why doesn't He? Why does he not bring a new Revelation to clarify all this, if he truly loves us? What am I to conclude about a God who stacks the deck against you, then punishes you when you fail?

Understanding, for whatever reason, is our job. That's the allegory that I, personally, read into the story of Eden: that Creation (that is to say, evolution) only goes so far as far as humans are concerned. The rest is up to us to learn.

Well, then. What of God? He conspires to keep us in ignorance, then punishes us for not meeting up to his standards? Worship that? Never!

Lied to us by omission? Heck, He's lied to us (or at least, His stenographers have) explicitly! There's no hard transparent dome over the earth with a throne sitting on top (wherever the top might be, on a bleeding sphere), is there?

Indeed.

Such truth as we can understand and accept, we can also discover. And we've been doing a pretty good job of that, especially recently.

With no help from HIM

Is a secretive or deceptive God a problem? Whether or not you believe in a deceptive or malicious God, you definitely observe around you a deceptive and malicious natural world, filled with creatures and phenomena that persistently attempt to dissipate your energy. What's the difference, except that unrelieved naturalism guarantees that the whole exercise is to no purpose?

Yes, the world, especially the baser animals, are deceptive. But we should rise above all that so we can be more like ...erm ..God...who is just as deceptive and malicious?
Am I missing something? God is perfect, God is love? Erm. Or not? Which parts of God are false? How do we know? If we cannot know, then we do not know, and all religion, the Bible and everything gets thrown out the window. The only way it works is if we CAN know. If God is Malicious, then why in the world would we use his holy book as a guide to morality? If not, then why all the lies?

Whether God spoke to them or not, I have little doubt that those fallible men believed in their hearts that God was speaking to them. For that or some other reason, it appears they were inspired to greater, farther-seeing insight well beyond the norm for their respective times.

I respectfully disagree. They reflected the prejudices and hatreds of their time. Their insight was well limited to what was good for them, I think that is plainly obvious.

Yep, it's pretty silly if you take it all literally. Especially since it appears to have been the opithsokont protista a billion years ago, rather than the amphisbaena (perhaps) and female Homo Sapiens, who brought sex and death into the world.

Well, my point exactly. If you do not take it literally, then what is real and what isn't? What sounds good at the moment?
Or do you base your decisions on Empathy? Do you base your beliefs not on what is good at the moment, but what is going to be good and work for the greater segment on society as a whole for the long term. You see, this belief is what we call Secular Humanism. If that is the nature of your belief, we can discuss it without all the inconsistencies found in the Bible.

No doubt. But in the context of the time, many of Jesus's teachings, even some of simplest, tritest-sounding (today) revelations, were revolutionary.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.​

Mark 12: 43-44​

For how many millennia had priests all over the world taught that the gods' greatest approval and favor was bestowed on those providing the biggest bribes? That the gods' disfavor was an integral part of the vicious cycle of poverty? That whatever form of reward their religion offered was the privilege of those who could build new temples? Loving families might appreciate the thought behind a gift but certainly not mighty gods who, like mighty kings, would be expected to regard people according to their station. The idea that God could weigh a poor widow's copper coins as equal to a rich man's gold was preposterous, suggesting as it did the even more preposterous and ultimately humanistic notion that a God could value and love each individual equally. To my knowledge, nothing close to Jesus's assessment of the Widow's contribution had been recorded before.

Further evidence for how challenging this idea was is the many centuries it took for this lesson to be appreciated, and the many lapses along the way, such as the medieval Church's selling of indulgences. But it's clearly a significant and necessary step on the road to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

I think you need to read some history. As I alluded to before, the collection of works known as the Magna Carta, which was based on an earlier document called the Charter of Liberties, which led to the idea that 'all men were created equal'. Little to do with Jesus or the Church, who was, at the time, still espousing the Divine Right to Rule. It was a secular government that allowed such idea to flourish, not a theocracy.
These ideas came not from the Bible, but from a group of men who had read and studied the works of others. A group of men that included not only the religious, but Deists, and those who had differing beliefs. A group of men who had read Thomas Paine, an atheist, and agreed with his ideals.
No, our Constitution had little to do with the Bible, and the Declaration of Independence had much more of a pedigree from the Magna Carta than from the Bible.

Of course faith can be a sin, depending on what one is putting one's faith in. For instance, faith in supremacist ideologies, some of the "false idols" of the modern era, is sinful.

Why?

And I have no objection to your promoting atheism. As I've said on other threads, if honest caring people are finding atheism the most promising means of making the world a better place, then the current low state of Christianity, with Christians joining in or staying silent while other Christians promote hatred, fear, and ignorance, is to blame. I'd caution you, though, that a predominantly atheistic society absent some toxic totalitarian ideology has never been attempted; there might be reasons as yet undiscovered, embedded in the legacy of human social evolution, why it's unworkable. I will, therefore, continue to seek, and promote, a renewal of faith in humanist Christian ideals.

Ah, but you do NOT! You, from all I have read, promote the ideals of Secular Humanism that is couched in Biblical language to make it more palatable.
You claim there has been no predomitably atheist society, or not society based on atheistic principals. Well, perhaps not, but there HAS been one based on Secular Humanism. It is called the United States of America. That's right, we're a secular nation. Always have been, despite what the religious right would like to believe. We're given to fits of religion, like a healthy person contracts a fever, but we do right ourselves. I do, honestly, love this country, even if I disagree with our leaders and their actions. Greatest Country in the World.

But, it is NOT based on Christian principals, it is based on Secular ones.

Respectfully,
Myriad

As Always,
ClarSct