Are we prisoners of sin

I think that the notion of sin is just a scam invented to keep people under the boots of priests. In human affairs, the concept of crime is surely sufficient.I suspect that the idea of sin was invented to make sure that people live in a permanant state of anguished guilt and dependant on religion for relief.I have recently spent some time listening to christian radio stations while I commute, from curiosity. My impression is that anyone who took that stuff seriously would be at great risk of serious mental illness.It amazes me that anyone would fall for such an obvious scam.

Do you not see how vicious this is? Do you not see that you are the victim of a system that uses your own humanity against you? People like the things that they like for what are (or at least once were) good reasons. What people do is for them to decide in their societies. The idea of sin merely hands power to those who contrive to tell others what things are sinful.If you could present real evidence that your god even exists and that hell or, for that matter, anything spiritual (whatever that means), exists, one could take your ideas seriously. Otherwise, why should one?

You need to learn that bible verses are not legitimate in public discourse.To everyone but the followers of a few religions, the bible is just an old book written thousands of years ago by ignorant savages. Only the followers of those religions have any obligation to accord it any authority at all.

Looking back into time, if people had not kept the peace, there would likely not be people here now. As it is, people have a tendency to keep the peace etc; it comes with being human.Remember the idea of crime. Crime is breaking of laws or customary rules. Societies punish crimes so that people can live peacefully. As far as the individual goes, avoiding crime is at least partly a matter of practicality.If the only reason you would behave decently is from fear of a (possibly only hypothetical) god, it seems that religion has degraded your innate moral sense.

(please excuse off-topic item)"emancipatory marxist" That really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?What is it? I tried searching for it but got a bunch of postmodernist screeds written in a style that makes my brain ache. Is there a description around that is written by someone who actually wants to be understood?

No apology is needed at all! It is a neat phrase and expresses your idea very well. It's too bad that the writing one finds searching online for it is so incredibly dreadful.You must have a "great mind", since there are clearly others thinking "alike" with you.

As I understand these ideas, crimes are defined by societies. Breaking a law is a crime. Sins are supposed to be defined by supernatural authority. Breaking a religious commandment is a sin. So, if one were alone on an island (ie not in a society), for example, one could sin, but could not commit a crime. A given action might be a sin, or a crime, or both, or neither.If it is not established that there is/are god/gods, the idea of sin is null. That is why religious taboos are not transferrable to unbelievers.Edited by Woodsy, : Simultaneous post with purpledawn's.

Sure I can. I can also refuse to do business with you (for example) if I find that you lie, since societies would be impossible without trust. These things are regarded as moral in some places. They are even promoted by certain kinds of religion! Check the recent news from Afghanistan! I have been told that this is exactly the case in the middle east, in some contexts. That is why people there make extravagant threats that they have no possibility of carrying out. Those things would be the minimum required for people to live together at all, surely?What you are doing is applying the standards of your own culture to everyone. Those who live in other cultures would no doubt like to apply very different standards to you.An interesting phenomenon is the constant change in what I have seen called the moral zeitgeist. That is, the majority moral consensus. For example, slavery used to be generally accepted (see the bible for examples). These days, slavery is mostly disapproved of.Personally, I hope that with worldwide travel and communication a common moral zeitgeist will become much more generally accepted.

Unless you can demonstrate the existance of your god, and that it has the properties you ascribe to it, no-one is obliged to pay your religious notions any attention. We can simply dismiss your god-based terrors as a sort of intellectual malaise.Faith is not legal tender in the marketplace of ideas.

I am curious. Do you and the others here who talk about what Adam and Eve did and said really believe that these are things that actually happened in the real world?In the face of what we now know about the real world, do you really believe that these things happened?

What are you trying to do? Recruit people to your religion by inflicting some kind of mental illness on them?Anyone who is at all aware of other people knows that your statements are utterly false.

I am amazed at the speciousness of this style of thinking. It seems that, if you can rummage around in your old book and find bits and pieces of text that support your ideas, you think that validates those ideas. You also seem to think that these quilted constructs are preferable to simple clear thinking.I have encountered just this style of thinking among muslims. They too seemed incapable of thinking for themselves and could only rummage around in their old book.These so-called holy texts seem to me to be a great danger for humanity.

The chief peril is that using old books gives people a false sense of certainty and an appalling arrogance. They are empowered to justify any bigotry at all, provided they can find some musty bit of text to support it.If you don't think text-based religion leads to bloodbaths, you must not be following the news these days.I am not impressed by your your bits of text about love. One can easily find vile bits of text in the same book.

As a follower of no religion, why should I take your word for it that Christianity is any more valid than Islam etc? They look like pretty similar enterprises to me.Please provide evidence and reasoned argument. Please note: you may not assume the existence of any deity nor its properties. Those, too need to be substantiated. Please note also: biblical texts do not count as evidence unless evidence can be given that supports biblical authority.As for an example, the current campaign of the catholic church to promote overpopulation and the spread of AIDS looks pretty bloody to me.

What do you mean by spiritual here?What evidence do you have that there is any such thing as a "spiritual" being?What evidence do you have that so-called spiritual experiences are not by-products of physical events?If you cannot produce such evidence, an outside observer can conclude only that you suffer from some malady of the intellect.