Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Sin sin sin

  1. Feb 5, 2005 #1
    hi there, just some questions to stimulate answers, looking for allll different types of responses, so- go ahead and answer!
    Does sin exist?
    What is your understanding of sin?
    Is sin the same as the concept of wrong?
    Where did your understanding of right and wrong come from?
    Are the seven deadly sins a good moral code...are they relevant today?
    If we don't have the concept of sin now, what is it replaced by?
    Who has the right to judge?
    Is the concept of fear and punishment a good idea?
    What about confessionals? Are they relevant?
    Ta
    Padford
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 5, 2005 #2

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh, opps! I thought this was a thread on trigonometry!


    Humm... sin is in the mind of the beholder. And Cosin is its compliment.
     
  4. Feb 5, 2005 #3

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Does sin exist?
    Only in the minds of men (ok women too whatever)

    What is your understanding of sin?
    Part of Religion being a survival strategy for a fragile humanity

    Is sin the same as the concept of wrong?
    "Wrong" as defined by clergy

    Where did your understanding of right and wrong come from?
    Darwinism.

    Are the seven deadly sins a good moral code...are they relevant today?
    I think yes: These sins identify deleterious behavior which affect survival and reproducibility in an unproductive way.

    If we don't have the concept of sin now, what is it replaced by?
    Wisdom.

    Who has the right to judge?
    The Wise.

    Is the concept of fear and punishment a good idea?
    Yes because we are still very much "animal" (no offense).

    What about confessionals? Are they relevant?
    If they contribute to the survival of the species they are.

    As you see, mine is all in terms of Biology. No offense.

    Salty
     
  5. Feb 6, 2005 #4
    That depends on what you mean. I don't believe in any sort spiritual sin or anything will "taint" a person or cause a person to be condemned to some bad fate.

    It's a term used by religious people to refer to what their religion believes is bad. Sometimes the word is reserved for the more egregious transgressions.

    I don't think so. "Sin" has religious connotations. It usually has to do with repentence and damnation.

    Analyzing the facts of the world and applying my logical abilities. I have come to the conclusion that suffering (negative feelings) and pleasure (positive feelings) are the only things which have any intrinsic moral value.

    I think that general adherence to some of them can yield positive results. As with most other things, I think that going to either extreme with any of the "sins" is usually harmful. However, they are just blanket rules from a socity more primitive than our own. There are many subtleties that they do not deal with.

    Being conceited often alienates you from others and distorts your perceptions of reality (although there can be benefits, as well), but merely being confident and having some pride yields happiness. Envy is often bad because it isn't generally a pleasant thing to feel and because it often leads to tensions among people, but it can also lead to bettering your situation by spurring you to act in order to obtain what the person whom one is envious of has.

    Lust is only bad when it leads to an overall negative effect on happiness. I see no problem with thoroughly enjoying what life has to offer, including sex.

    Concepts of ethics, values, and societal restrictions (such as the law).

    We should all actively use our judgment, rather than just accepting someone else's authority. However, in most cases, no one should take it upon him/herself to play the role of a judge in assignment of a punishment, retribution, or restriction to someone.

    It has both its uses and abuses.

    They can be relieving and allow a person to come to terms with his/her conscience.
     
  6. Feb 6, 2005 #5
    Does sin exist?

    In absolute terms, who knows? But certainly it exists so far as many humans beleive it exists.

    What is your understanding of sin?

    A wrong against God/creator/higher power/universe, by way of wrong against yourself or fellow man.

    Is sin the same as the concept of wrong?

    Yes, but in a larger context. The concept of wrong can exist without the concept of sin, but not the other way around.

    Where did your understanding of right and wrong come from?

    The totality of my life experience (it's a work in progress, like everything)

    Are the seven deadly sins a good moral code...are they relevant today?

    Sure, they are "good" in that they are better than many others I could think up, or better than having no moral code. They are most certainly relevant as most of them will also keep you out of jail, and in fair health.

    If we don't have the concept of sin now, what is it replaced by?

    A more limited sense of right and wrong. A less frightening version.

    Who has the right to judge?

    No rights are needed to judge...to pass sentence, yes, but not to judge. TO pass sentence, the right of power must exist, the ability to do it. That's all.

    Is the concept of fear and punishment a good idea?

    Fear and punishment are not concepts or ideas (or at least not solely), they are a physical reality. And they serve a purpose, survival.


    What about confessionals? Are they relevant?

    Relevant in the sense that honesty is relevant. Confessional is less about a physcial place than it is about admitting things, if even only to yourself. Serves a good purpose.
     
  7. Feb 6, 2005 #6
    The Confessional is one of the most sinful concepts in our history. The idea that another human stands between a person, and that person's conscience or worse, between that person and eternity; is the most horrific con, especially in the light of the sexual abuses of the clergy. Imagine all those sweaty confessionals where pedophiles query little ones regarding private bodily exploration, exhorting them to do penance for their sins. Imagine your daughters enduring virginity tests, and passing or face stoning. The voyeurism practiced by zealots that inquire into, and legislate into private lives is a morally bankrupt practice.

    Sin is described in many ways, as many ways as there are agendas to gain from the practice of religion.

    Sin, is like Sin, or Co Sin, it is a concept, that unfortunately gets out of people's heads, and onto the books.

    We need a definition of human rights, animal rights, and the rights of the Earth, and then the will to respect agreements made, world wide.
     
  8. Feb 6, 2005 #7
    sounds like you've been in different confessionals than me.
     
  9. Feb 7, 2005 #8
    Thanks for that...i'd be interested to hear any anecdotes on judgment, or how confessionals can be revealing to the conscience. It's all for a good cause! The more controversial the better, really!
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2005
  10. Feb 7, 2005 #9

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    A selective disadvantage of lust

    The polar bear grows hair to live in the artic; the Ungawa tribe in Africa concentrate melanin in their cells to "shroud" the nucleus from the sun. These are adaptive traits for their environment. Humans create an environment called "civilization" and adapt accordingly to survive. How then does lust affect their survival? Well surely it makes more babies but we take longer than any other species to grow to maturity. I argue a family life increases the survival success of offspring while, on average a disrupted one does not. Lust compromises family life and thus compromises the success of the offspring. Sure they're exceptions and yea I made up Ungawa above (it's just a joke Ok), but over the long term I consider lust a harmful trait to the continued success of a gene line. Thus, there is benefit to the gene pool for this "deadly sin".
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2005
  11. Feb 7, 2005 #10

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It seems to me that in a philosophical discussion one should speak with facts and logic and leave the sermons out of it. A constant appeal to emotion detracts from maintaining an objective dialogue.
     
  12. Feb 7, 2005 #11
    *not sure how to post quote in reply, but in response to Les Sleeth's previous comment* I'm intrigued for your take on the questions, it would be most interesting to get the opinion of the philisophy guru
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2005
  13. Feb 7, 2005 #12

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't think you can understand any of your questions about sin unless you first learn the history of the concept of sin. Sin made into Western culture by way of Christianity, and it made it into Christianity by way of Judaism. How it become part of Judaism is the key to understanding sin, because the concept of sin is based on an ontological belief.

    If you study Israelite history, you will see like most peoples they’ve had ups and downs. A couple of things that are different however is how strongly Israelites tried to maintain cultural integrity through it all, and how closely the ups and downs were kept track of. If the ancient Hebrew tribes were among those flooded out by the Black Sea some 7500 years ago (Here's a Scientific American article about that), then we can see they kept track of events for some time. Those events ranged from successes in war against the indigenous peoples of the Savant (now Palestine) and the glorious times of King David and Solomon . . . to Egyptian enslavement, Babylonian captivity, Roman rule, the destruction of Jerusalem in 69 AD and full diaspora about forty years later.

    Through it all the Israelites stuck together, and they also began thinking about why things went well sometimes and so poorly other times. Eventually the conclusion they came to became a major aspect of their religion; and more than a few religious scholars contend that this conclusion stemmed from the days before Moses when the tribes were pagan.

    What the Israelites decided was that things were good when their god was pleased, and things were bad when their god was displeased. But what pleased their god? If you read the OT, you will see the Israelites struggled with that one (e.g., Abraham considering sacrificing his son), but after Moses and the commandments, they got a better idea of it. Still, things continued to go wrong, so it must have meant that they needed to do more. Before the priests were through, they came up with 633 precepts for being a perfect Jew which included everything from morals to eating habits. They devised a contract, or testament with God which was an agreement they had to live up to in order to ensure God’s approval and the good fortune they believed went with that.

    So “sin” was what offended God, or what broke the contract; and you could tell if you’d “sinned” by how things were going. That’s why you hear those prophets come out of the desert preaching about the wrath of God. They would see people doing all this stuff that broke the contract, and concluded God was about to exact payment for that.

    The question is, if there is a God, does he/she/it punish sin? Does living a perfect life exempt us from suffering in life? Well, after a few centuries of trying out this theory, even the Jews wondered about it. In the story of Job one sees the angst they felt over believing someone had lived a perfect life yet still had everything go wrong.

    In Christianity, they modified the concept of sin so that it applied only to the individual, and to say that everyone sins (we’re created that way), that there is a way to escape punishment for sin, and that God forgives sin in the otherwise faithful (the “new” contract or testament). Yet today the original idea of sin persists thanks to religion.

    Just from a practical point of view, I think we all know that doing bad things can bring one negative consequences. But it seems to be how reality works rather than some punishment imposed by God. Also, bad fortune is caused by ignorance, like dietary habits so bad they give one a disease, or working on a fuse box standing in water; finally, there is the principle of “sh*t happens,” which is just the result of living in unpredictable elements of the universe.

    My opinion? Sin has proven to be a false concept if it means incurring punishment from God for unapproved behavior.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2005
  14. Feb 7, 2005 #13
    confessional

    Thanks Les that was really informative and insightful... I'd be really interested if anyone has any anecdotes or concepts of sin that may be off the road, or indeed different. What is sin?
    Ta
    Padford.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2005
  15. Feb 7, 2005 #14
    That is very interesting....it seems maybe sin has been transformed then over time, at least my familiarity with the concept came from Rom. Cath. Church, I can't recall too much the idea that God will punish/reward you now, in this life, based on your behavior. The concept was very much that your sins, or lack thereof, effected you in the afterlife only. Or I should say, not only, but only so far as God was concerned. If you did bad things and were miserable here, well, that's just the way it goes. But you are correct, the Bible talks about a much different understanding, of a much more active God.
     
  16. Feb 7, 2005 #15
    Sin is mentioned in the religions of the far east that predate, the concept of sin from the middle eastern regions.

    The far eastern version is
    lust greed pride anger attachment.
     
  17. Feb 7, 2005 #16

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Very true Pierre, I see you've been trained to be a good Christian (as I was). That afterlife idea of punishment is a Christian modification. There was never a clear idea of an "afterlife" in early Judaism. It was very much a "now" theology, and so quite pragmatic (and still is). Live, behave yourself, enjoy life, raise the family, help out your brethern . . . good stuff even if not very "spiritual" in the sense of experiencing something deeper.
     
  18. Feb 14, 2005 #17

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Les Sleeth:
    Have you read Paul Ricoeur's "Symbolism of evil"?
    Your ideas concerning the evolution of the concept of evil/sin rang a bell somewhere (it's about 10 years since I read any of this..)
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2005
  19. Mar 12, 2005 #18
    Hey, this thread seems to have gone to sleep, does anyone have any other anecdotes, or views on sin?
     
  20. Mar 12, 2005 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sin is what you do at age 19, what you don't dare do at age 30, and what you're too tired to do at age 60.
     
  21. Mar 12, 2005 #20

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    That's a very Christian, even Catholic, notion of sin; i.e that it's all about sex. The Church has a lot to answer for.

    Take it from an old guy; sin is very possible after 60 even if the kinds of things they shake fingers at teenagers for isn't.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Sin sin sin
  1. What is a sin (Replies: 41)

  2. Sin, again (Replies: 1)

  3. Sin Bin (Replies: 26)

  4. The 7 sins (Replies: 19)

Loading...