[PUG] Picking and choosing sins.

[This]

Warning: This thread my not be for everyone. If you are easily offended you may want to turn away.

I should preface by saying that I am an agnostic with buddhist leanings.
Alright, so I just got finished reading the Christian Bible. I grew up in a christian house with a christian family and we all went to church every sunday and all that. My question is why do christians, or more specifically "the church" condemn certain sins more than others? Now as far as my personal opinion goes, I don't really believe in sins other than as sort of principles perhaps. It seems to me though that the church I went to focused an inordinate amount on sex and virginity (they also focused a lot on tithing but I do understand their motivation for that .) There's really not much of that in the new testament of the bible, in fact most of the new testament and of Jesus teachings has a lot to do with love, acceptance and withholding judgement. Very little has to do with say having sex outside wedlock for example, but for some reason sexual sins seem to be the be all and end all for many christians (or at least the churches they go to.) I just have to wonder where these perceptions came from. Looking at christian rhetoric you would think that sexual sins are the only sins. What about the other sins, such as sloth? I don't see many christians raising issue with this one and it's one of the apparent seven deadly sins. So basically my question is, why the inconsistency? why are some things weighted more heavily in christian societies even when the Christian Bible doesn't necessarily indicate that they should be?

 

[barbad0s]

Cuz sloths are adorable

 

[Gaze]

Interesting point.

I think greed is probably one of the most common and dangerous sins but it's so often accepted as normal and common, which it rarely gets as much attention as sexual sin. Although I do understand why sexual sin gets more attention, because it's forbidden.

 

[the]

What I find interesting about religion and culture, is the The East interprets sins through a lens of health, The West interprets sins through a lens of law.

 

[the]

Interesting point.

I think greed is probably one of the most common and dangerous sins but it's so often accepted as normal and common, which it rarely gets as much attention as sexual sin. Although I do understand why sexual sin gets more attention, because it's forbidden.

Why do you think sexual sin is forbidden but greed is not forbidden?

 

[Peppermint]

Well, there are few possible reasons.


Since sex makes babies, it could be that it's forbidden to "taint" the tool of the ever so valued reproduction for less virtuous means, such as pursuit of physical pleasure.
It could be that lust, as opposed to sloth, is seen as a gateway to many more negative things: jealously, greed, shame, excess, selfishness, exploitation, diseases, self-centeredness and other such things considered bad, unvirtuous traits.

 

[JGirl]

i don't believe in sin.
people do crappy things, people make mistakes, people get tempted here and there. it's all a learning thing. the concept of sin is a religious one, and i think it actually hinders people from learning from the so called sins they commit. there is only bad when you cannot make something good from an experience...any experience.
they're led to believe that if they just confess to some person of power with a direct line to god (because they of course have no right to have their own direct line to god) that they are cleansed of it and can move on. no reflection. no lesson. they were just sinners doing what sinners do.

 

[the]

i don't believe in sin.
people do crappy things, people make mistakes, people get tempted here and there. it's all a learning thing. the concept of sin is a religious one, and i think it actually hinders people from learning from the so called sins they commit. there is only bad when you cannot make something good from an experience...any experience.
they're led to believe that if they just confess to some person of power with a direct line to god (because they of course have no right to have their own direct line to god) that they are cleansed of it and can move on. no reflection. no lesson. they were just sinners doing what sinners do.

This got me to thinking ... sin is supposed to mean "missing the mark" so instead of saying I didnt act the way I should we are saying I committed crime X (a sin). Also I think the word is too general. I think instead of even using the word sin we should instead describe ourselves in more constructive ways that actually describe our actions. { I dont think I explained my thought well but thats all youre gonna get}

Example: I cheated on my wife, not oopsy I sinned.

I just think we should take ownership of our actions and not using double speak generalized words.

 

[hk427f3]

1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

And you know, the body is a temple, blah blah blah...

 

[Nixie]

Because organized religions are social constructs that are influenced by economic and political forces more than they are guided by spiritual principles.

Edit:
My question is why do christians, or more specifically "the church" condemn certain sins more than others?

Within social constructs there is a historical basis for most processes/reasons. I believe that many of the "sins" have historical economic and political reasons reasons behind them. Considering the dogmatic nature of organized religions (which makes them more static and inflexible) most people don't remember or grasp what those reasons were. Those sins and/or tenents of the religion become rote and adhered to as a matter of habit rather than an expression of faith or piety.

 

[JGirl]

Example: I cheated on my wife, not oopsy I sinned.

I just think we should take ownership of our actions and not using double speak generalized words.

exactly.

 

[endersgone]

they're led to believe that if they just confess to some person of power with a direct line to god (because they of course have no right to have their own direct line to god) that they are cleansed of it and can move on. no reflection. no lesson. they were just sinners doing what sinners do.

For some religions certainly, but repentance (true repentance - working to undo, and being able to stop yourself from committing a similar act in the same situation) is necessary for many others.

 

[JGirl]

For some religions certainly, but repentence (true repentence - working to undo, and being able to stop yourself from commiting a similar act in the same situation) is necessary for many others.

i guess i don't get the whole repentance thing. you cannot unring a bell. you cannot undo a wrong.
why not just learn from your mistake and correct your behavior?

if i mess up i don't let god down, i let myself down. why do i need to feel guilty about that? this is what the idea of sin makes me think of. guilt.

 

[the]

i guess i don't get the whole repentance thing. you cannot unring a bell. you cannot undo a wrong.
why not just learn from your mistake and correct your behavior?

That is repentance.

 

[JGirl]

That is repentance.

i've always thought of it as making amends to something or someone outside oneself.

 

[endersgone]

i guess i don't get the whole repentance thing. you cannot unring a bell. you cannot undo a wrong.
why not just learn from your mistake and correct your behavior?
if i mess up i don't let god down, i let myself down. why do i need to feel guilty about that? this is what the idea of sin makes me think of. guilt.

Your actions can extend beyond the range of simply letting yourself down (depending on the circumstances); sin includes inflicting harm onto others. Should you not feel guilty if you killed an entire family? Is it acceptable to just say, I've let myself down... what a shame - I should probably learn something from that? I don't think all sins are equal, but if we can't hold ourselves to higher principles than normal societal standards, we can begin a moral slide so to speak.

Acts that were once considered terrible can become more acceptable, if you're not holding yourself to a higher standard (and taking responsibility) - what can possibly stop this from happening(laws aren't always enough)? Or do you happen to believe that most people are inherently good? Not all are willing to take ownership for their actions, religion can act as an enforcer for higher standards (I personally think that many would be lost if they didn't have the "reward" of heaven). That’s not to say that all need religion of course, but I personally believe that many do... I kind of switched topics, but what I was basically trying to say is that without religion (the sin/guilt, punishment, and rewards it brings) many would be lost (In my opinion).


"there is only bad when you cannot make something good from an experience...any experience."

I'll try to give a more clear example:

Good people may not need religion (or sin/guilt), but unless you believe all are inherently good -> sin does exist/ and you should feel guilty. It can't just be defined as a learning experience, sin includes murder. If I aquired money because I killed someone and stole their wallet does that make it good? - Good did come from it after all -> Not all would see this as a bad action which they needed to take responsibility for; but when these folks are faced with the possibility of burning for an eternity - or being granted an eternal existence in heaven - many will choose the latter (and not participate in such actions). Religion and sin aren't always the main deterrent, but it's something that can certainly have an effect on an individuals actions throughout life. This was an extreme example to illustrate a point, for the most part sin involves issues that are less damaging to others/society - but these can also be important religious/societal rules to keep/maintain (as ignoring some of these issues can lead to a downward shift in morality over time).

 

[Lerxst]

Because there was nearly 2,000 years of human intervention that occurred after Jesus' death.

 

[the]

I've never heard of it like that. I stand behind my definition.

 

[Matariki]

Self righteousness, regardless of any belief is an act of discrimination and denial. Picking and choosing is clear evidence of this. Bible literalism I've found has the problem of stating 'A is wrong because B said so' usually without any consideration of thought of why the bible stated it to be wrong in the first place.

Why does the bible recommend marriage? Because it lawfully and publicly states the commitment between two individuals. Which is important when children are thrown into the equation. Mind you a spiritual, loyal and loving commitment is a different story, marriage doesn't guarantee that. In reality, having sex before marriage doesn't send you to hell anymore than being a virgin before marriage sends you to heaven. In Christianity, the message of not having sex before marriage is one thats forwarded towards Christians in which Christians are to respect and honor out of choice, its not something that necessarily applies to those outside of Christianity. Thats the problem, people assume because something is the right or wrong thing to do because the bible said so, it therefore gives them the authority to hold expectations against everyone else, not only that, some people become so fixated on it that they miss what the center of the Christian gospel is in the first place. Christ never said 'condemn your neighbor' he said 'love your neighbor' (though I must stress that loving your neighbor doesn't mean neglecting or ignoring them), the second most important commandment in scripture after God. God in the most part has become an accessory for self righteousness in allot of proclaiming Christians, completely forgetting the fact that the bible speaks very strongly against it.

 

[aeon]

Confessiones as written by Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine) was influential on Christian theology in general, but specifically, very influential on the consideration of sexuality within, and outside of, a moral life.


cheers,
Ian