![SIN Sin [b]sin[/b] [i]sin[/i] sin...](/img/uisvg/forum-heading/spirituality.svg){kind=icon}
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagetoo bad the formating doesn't work in the titles 😴😞
Sin seems to play an important part in many people's lives. A discussion of sin taking in all available perspectives might be of some value. Is sin a universal human concept? What does sin mean to people today?
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSin to RBHILL and Blindfaith would be an act against God. Breaking one of His commandments. Sin to some others on these forums may be Self Imposed Nonsense. It all depends on who you're talking to.
Sin seems to play an important part in many people's lives. A discussion of sin taking in all available perspectives might be of some value. Is sin a universal human concept? What does sin mean to people today?
12 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lioyankHow about you?
Sin to RBHILL and Blindfaith would be an act against God. Breaking one of His commandments. Sin to some others on these forums may be Self Imposed Nonsense. It all depends on who you're talking to.
The Seven Deadly Sins were well known in mediaval times, even personified quite dramatically in literature and art. Has sin become more abstract?
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't believe it's necessarily a bad concept. At the very least, it keeps me in check. Personally, it's more of a checklist, an outline, or a guideline throughout life. I don't necessarily believe in all that churches teach about sin. But I do think it's important that we have SOMETHING to keep us in check. That doesn't mean that something HAS to be what we know as "sin". It can be morals that we have learned from our parents, it could be the values taught by the Tao, it could be traditions that have been past down throughout our family, etc etc. Otherwise we can become selfish, greedy, arrogant, angry, etc. etc.
How about you?
The Seven Deadly Sins were well known in mediaval times, even personified quite dramatically in literature and art. Has sin become more abstract?
Now, to me at least, it seems that the new problem is whether those types of qualitites themselves are considered "good" or "bad". As much as STANG is repititive and as much as I hate his spamming and wouldn't mind if he had a life-long ban, he occasionaly makes a good point. 100 years ago, bad was bad and good was good. At the risk of sounding simplistic, things seemed more basic back then (not that I was alive, but this is what I assume based on the history I have been taught). Now, not so much. This can do with lack of authority that churches do not have any more over many people's lives, and the fact that we have more freedoms now then we did back then. Whatever the case may be, people are reconsidering what exactly "bad" and "good" is. Everything is relative, etc. etc.
I think the next 50 years will be interesting. I truly wonder at how we will redefine the terms "good" and "bad". A specific example: 50 years ago priests had a very authoritative position. People wouldn't question, they would assume their priest knew best. Afterall, many did not have the opportunity to educate themselves past high school. Knowledge was limited. The "internet" wasn't even a concept. Books were everything, and news did not travel as quickly as technology allows it to travel today. Even if people studied something that disagreed with their preconceived beliefs, the overwhelming majority in their community who would immediately disagree would be a good reason not to open one's mouth about what they knew. As a result, even less people would share what they did know.
Today is very different. People are exposed to new ideas very easily because of faster technology. We truly live in a "brave, new world". Only time will tell how the notion of good/bad will change another 50 years from now.
Sorry if I got a bit off track.
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not sure. The seven deadlies are at the root of our consciousness. They existed as human conditions long before they were defined by St. Greg as no-nos requiring a little churchin'-up. I think as we have grown as a species and culture, we've come to understand that better, and no longer hold these behaviours in an irrational/superstitious light.
How about you?
The Seven Deadly Sins were well known in mediaval times, even personified quite dramatically in literature and art. Has sin become more abstract?
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThey are essentially self-destructive actions that can lead to unhappiness, although I can see why the early church gangstas called Pride the deadliest. Can't have the individual thinking they are the end of their being, or the indoctrination could not be completed successfully.
What do they look like in the sunshine of reason?
12 Nov 05
1 edit
No. Sin is not a universal human concept. It exists primarily where a monotheistic God has been invented, effectively alienating humanity from its inherent spirituality.
See Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy for a detailed discussion of the relationship between monotheism and alienation.
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSin is a word that refers to moral guilt. It comes to us through Germanic roots that mean "it is so", specifically in the context of a judgment, meaning that the charges are true.
Sin seems to play an important part in many people's lives. A discussion of sin taking in all available perspectives might be of some value. Is sin a universal human concept? What does sin mean to people today?
Therefore, the word "sin" is appropriately applied to any morally wrong act. To say that I have sinned is to say that I have acted morally wrong.
In that, it is a rather widespread concept. I know of no society entirely void of a moral code.
However, modern Christians use the word "sin" to exclusively refer to acts that are against God's plan (and/or will and/or word). Modern Hindus, however, use the word to indicate actions will attribute bad (or negative) karma.
Both usages seem fitting with the overall meaning and history of the word; however, they are merely subsets of what the word means.
Yes, sin is a universal concept among humans who are part of a society.
It is much simpler to understand and talk about morality, though. Not because the subject would be different, but because it seems genuinely easier to perceive that morality is not bound to a particular religion.
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by aspviper666At times, I've have imagined naming my (imaginary) next children
originally i was wanting to have 7 sons and name them after the seven deadly sins gluttony is always in the kitchen
sloth is aslleep and lust is always in the bathroom
Judas, Jezebel, Delilah, and Herod.
Ah look at little baby Judas, ain't he cute?
12 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by echeceroYou make a good point that notions of morality are universal, inherent in the nature of society. However, the English word sin is terribly inadequate to describe the universal sense of moral lapses. Sin denotes moral error--a violation of the social and spiritual order. However, it connotes a specific moral code--decreed by peoples' notion of God--that developed in the Western Christian tradition. These connotations are central to the standard definition found in an American dictionary:
Sin is a word that refers to moral guilt. It comes to us through Germanic roots that mean "it is so", specifically in the context of a judgment, meaning that the charges are true.
Therefore, the word "sin" is appropriately applied to any morally wrong act. To say that I have sinned is to say that I have acted morally wrong.
In that, it is a rather ...[text shortened]... cause it seems genuinely easier to perceive that morality is not bound to a particular religion.
a) an offense against God, religion, or good morals b) the condition of being guilty of continued offense against God, religion, or good morals
(Webster's New World Dictionary, 2001)
The term entered English from about 1125 as synne from Old English synn, a term meaning wrongdoing, offense, misdeed. This term is cognate with several Germainic words, including Old Frisian sende, Old Saxon sundia, Old High German sunta, suntea, and Old Icelandic synd, among others.
It is noteworthy, and I argue central to an understanding of the word, that this complex of words entered English and other Germanic languages during the expansion of Christianity into the regions where these languages were spoken. Accordingly, the word's fundamental connotations are rooted in the Christian moral code, and that code is far from universal.
Closely related to the concept expressed by the word sin is that expressed by the word impeccable--a word that exists in English only as a negative. Joseph Shipley's comments illuminate:
"Sinning is so general that the word sinful is most frequent; hence sin, very common Teut., from the present participle of the root es, to be: to exist is to be a sinner. ... But to be exempt from sin is so rare that we have kept the L. negative form, Eng. impesccable, from L. in, not, + peccare, to sin." (Dictionary of Word Origins 1967.)
Morality may be universal, but sin is not.