Sin/Right and Wrong

Since it's getting off topic in more than one thread, I'm going to bring the argument out here.Sin is a separate concept from "right and wrong".what is sin? breaking god's law. it is a religious concept.what is "right and wrong". depends. generally, wrong is stealing. right is holding the door open for someone right behind you."right and wrong" can also be related to secular law. in other words, the law that tells you, if you murder someone, and we can prove your guilt, you have to serve x.now then, removing sin from "right and wrong" does not lead to moral bankruptcy. it does not lead to gas chambers, hitler, rapists, murderers, or anyone else or thing missing the concept of morality or "right and wrong".Also, Rob, I will not allow anyone to state that I approve of Hitler's actions because I do not accept the concept of sin as being part of "right and wrong". it is a straw man, and an insult to who I am. Also, bringing up Hitler's "final solution" is a strawman.let the argument begin.(oh, and this is not meant for a Great Debate)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I’ll have a go at this. I’d define sin as anything that I do or don’t do that puts my self-interest ahead of the interests of others.I agree it's a religious concept and in Christian terms we are told to love God and to love our neighbour. I believe that we love God by embracing goodness and love and rejecting evil and hatred. Loving our neighbour just means to want the best for everyone. We are all called to put those principles into practise in our lives.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I would be a bit careful with this kind of statement for it is precarious position at best. For example you could extrapolate it to mean that people whom go out and watch movies are putting their self-interest, desire to be entertained, above the interests of others where the expenses incurred at a movie could be used to preserve life for people that eat irregularly. In a sense the underlying assumption is that there is a level playing field and that what a person works for they are entitled to spend in their own way. (If you are arguing from that priori assumption then your statement is quite fine.)But I will take a gander at sin. I see sin as any action that would fail under Sisela Bok's idea of a test of publicity. In that a sin is any action that you would object to being published in a global document such that every person on the planet can examine it. For example, a series of lies you tell. Some lies in that case may be rather inconsequential in that they are only meant to avoid hurtful conversation and one might feel comfortable with the world knowing about. Whereas other lies may be told out of desire to injure and at that point someone may feel uncomfortable with the world knowing of their maliciousness.So thats my two cents.

The reason that so many religious people have a problem with the concept "right and wrong" and would prefer sin instead is because what is right and wrong depends entirely on human intuition while each act of sin is written out in stone.I have noticed that many members of religious organizations, particularly christians (since I am exposed to them more) have a warped sense of human intuition to tell what is right and what is wrong. For example, Faith and Riverrat seems to have no problem with killing 2 year old boys and pregnant women if the 2 year old boy has any possibility of harming Israel in the future. This attitude is similar to that of sociopathic children and adults alike. There seems to be piece of human decency missing from their moral intuition. For them, the concept of sin, which is written out act by act, is simpler to digest.My only problem with "sin" is when it conflicts with my moral intuition. To me, what's right and what's wrong depends on the sitution. It is one of those "I know it when I see it" kinda thing as Judge Potter Stewart once put it when he commented on hard-core porn.

If I am in a line-up at a theatre with $10 to spend to get in. As I look down the street I see a severely handicapped person in obvious distress and in need of a meal. Is it a sin to go ahead into the theatre and ignore the person in distrss? We are entitled to what we earn and we are entitled to make our own decisions about what we do with our earnings, but we are responsible for our own decisions. Just a thought on this. Some people like being notorious.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.