Marijuana.com

Viper420

No, I'm trying to generate a dictatorship where we will all be forced to smoke marijuana 3 times a day.

 

cepheus

I stopped believing in sin a few years ago. That word is meaningless to me. It's just a term people use to try to make themselves feel like they're a better person than someone else. Make them feel like God approves of their behavior.

No one on this earth is completely conscious. Every single one of us is doing what seems right to us given our individual life's circumstances.

A terrorist who kills 50 people is no more a sinner than an enlightened holy man (and the holy man would probably agree). He's causing lots of turmoil and heartache for the families of the victims, and he's making life harder for many people, but he is not committing an action that an all-powerful God will hold against him. There is no such thing as sin. Once we're all dead, nothing that we did on earth will mean anything.

FunkySkunky

I'm of the opinion that God wants us to lead lives that are fulfilling to us as individuals. That means we are free to do whatever we please (as we have been given free will) and none of the actions that are within our power to undertake are unforgivable. The word "sin" is just too much for me. I don't believe there is such a thing and God (my God at least) does not look down upon anyone or any action with contempt for committing so-called "sins". The real question is about morality. Are these actions morally unjust? If so, then we should be remorseful for them if they have caused great pain to others and God will make his judgement according to our intention and level of remorse.

__________________

Trocisp

Depending how you use the term "sin," I would wholeheartedly disagree. And I think so would just about everyone else.

Someone who kills, in the name of their God, beliefs or values is doing an inherently wrong act. Wrong acts are sins.

Hashishi

Obviously I agree as far as the morality aspect goes, but 'sin' is synonymous with recompense- more the point, recompense from a supernatural perspective. I think Cepheus was trying to get across that ultimately there is no recompense but that which is applied in the material plane, and we all know that this is fallible as it isn`t always carried through. 'Sin' implies this recompense to be infallible- at least because it is supernatural, so to the atheist and the naturalist there can indeed be no such thing as 'sin' in the most literal definition of the term.

__________________

 

Trocisp

From dictionary.com


I've bolded the definitions which are applicable, no divine part is required.

Hashishi

Neatly ignoring the first two definitions as a 'transgression of divine law' and the 'original sin of Adam'. No, sorry bro- you be a nitpicking. While its modern usage may be ambiguous, it is irrevocably rooted in religious terminology and I`m more or less certain that this is the context Cepheus was referring to. Even if in the sole context of morality one would be pressed to find a more succinct term than 'sin'.

Trocisp

Hah, Hashishi, those definitions aren't meant to be applied to every use of the word.


Anyway, I do admit that Sin has a context of religion, however not all definitions of sinful behavior have to be related to religion. That's why I included in the post, "Depending on how you use the term "sin.""

Hashishi

Yeah, understood.. I simply didn`t want Cepheus` point to be obscured as IMO it was a pretty astute one and worthy of reflection. It`s been well worth the postage though, whatever the case!

cepheus

Yes, I did mean "sin" in the sense that it is something a supernatural power would hold against the "sinner."

Given that this statement was issued by the Vatican, I don't see why we would look past the definitions of a religious context. The definitions you highlighted are rarely used anyway, and usually arrive in a casual, joking manner.

Wrong to you, but in that person's mind he is doing exactly what his god wants him to do. Something is only "inherently wrong" if there is a solid, irrefutable standard to apply to such matters (mathematics comes to mind, but it has gray areas too). Since, as humans, we have yet to find such a moral standard that we can agree on, wrong exists only in one's interpretation of an event, however popular that interpretation may be.

In addition to not believing in "sin," I've also stopped looking to majorities for answers. I've learned that majorities on any topic can often have their heads up their asses and not know what they're talking about. So I've stopped using the majority test to validate the ideas I believe at any given time.