Are we prisoners of sin

quote:

---

I have found that in many cases it is not intellectual hurdles that keep someone from believing in God rather it is more spiritual than that. People just don’t want to give up their sinful ways, because they love being in sin so much, they are enjoying themselves to the fullest and the thought of having to give up all of these pleasures just isn’t thinkable for them. My opening post deals with the problem of sin. Sin is enjoyable but it has a huge downside, and that is death, spiritual death that condemns the doer to hell.

---

Just because something brings one pleasure does not make it wrong. If a woman is constantly told she is ugly she will eventually believe it, the same goes for a person being constantly told they are sinful when the characterization is not based on the persons actual actions. It is a way to keep people feeling bad about themselves. To keep them down.Constant wrong behavior or wrong thinking can take its toll on a person's physical and mental health. Extreme wrong behavior can cause physical death.As far as hell goes, pretty much everyone goes to hell. Hell is nothing more than the grave.Maybe you could list some specific behaviors that are considered to be a sin.

Seething a kid in its mother's milk is certainly one of the REAL Ten Commandment sins. And if that really does extend to chicken-fried steaks, I want nothing to do with such a twisted moral system.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

And yet, none of my atheist friends are any more sinful than my christian friends.This personal observation is backed by this study which finds a POSITIVE correlation between belief in and worship of a creator and rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (i.e. Western Europe, the US, and Japan)So who's really "enjoying" all that sin? I think you'll find the real way to stop "sin" is with proper education and promoting social responsibility, not threatening people with damnation.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

That's a very interesting paper, Stags! thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid).

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

​

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Well, the entire idea of sin is purely religious and theological and, as such, really doesn't mean anything outside the context of religion. Therefore, it doesn't mean anything to atheists and many of the arbitrary rules are not only meaningless for us, but also appear completely arbitrary and serving no real purpose outside of controlling people -- hence some of the response you've gotten.An analogy -- which you perhaps will not understand -- happened at a recent ballroom dance party in which the West Coast Swing (WCS) lesson was given by an actual WCS teacher and not by a ballroom teacher. More than half-way through the lesson, one ballroom student asked whether to use a toe-lead or a heel-lead. The WCS teacher was stunned. In ballroom, whether it's a heel-lead or a toe-lead is an all-important question, whereas in the social dancing world of which WCS is a part that is a very trivial question. The teacher answered that since she uses a lot of Latin moves, then she was using toe leads (general rule is that Latin uses toe leads and smooth uses heel leads). Of course, in ballroom's corruption of WCS, they teach it to be heel leads, but WCS teachers just roll their eyes when they have to deal with ballroom types.Much as religion has corrupted ideas about morality and atheists can do nothing more than to roll their eyes when they have to deal with religious types.Of course morality does exist and is very real and very important. We also see that that religious idea of "sin" really serves very little purpose in furthering morality outside of bullying believers into doing right -- not that that is very successful. Religion has assimilated morality and set itself up as the sole determinor of morality and tied morality with its theological ideas of sin and has thus denigrated morality. More's the pity, especially when religion claims that most falsely that not believing in God releases one from morality.That false teaching has aided the spread of atheism, mostly among the believers. Here's a prime example from a creation-science activist in my area:

quote:

---

First off, let me share my history with you (don't worry, it will be brief).

​

I was raised in Buffalo, New York, and was fortunate to have great parents They took my sister and I to church every Sunday, we attended Sunday school and church camps in the summer. I believed in God, and never gave the issue much thought.

​

In sixth grade, I remember seeing a big colorful book produced by Time-Life. It caught my eye, and I opened it up and was pleased to see big colorful drawings. One set of drawings really caught my eye. There was a series of animated drawings that went across two pages. On the far left was a very ape-like character walking on all fours and covered with hair. The character to his right was a little more upright, he had shorter arms, was starting to walk on two legs and had less hair. This progression continued for a few more drawings until at the far right side of the page there was this handsome fellow, a human being! This is called the ascent of man chart that nearly everyone is familiar with.

​

In sixth grade, I looked at that chart for a while, smirked, thought it was ridiculous, and went outside and played softball.

​

Eventually I made it to ninth grade. While in a Biology class, the teacher was teaching us about evolution and placed the same chart up on the wall. I still remember it. I sat there and studied that chart for a long time. It was on that very day that I recognized a major conflict existed between what this teacher was saying and what the Bible taught. Should I believe my science teacher, who is teaching man has ascended from ape-like animals, or do I believe mommy, daddy, and that book (the Bible) that says God made man instantly from the dust of the ground?" I reasoned that this teacher is a scientist after all, so this must be valid information.

​

I had a choice to make that millions of people world wide are faced with. Do I believe the Bible or what is taught as science (please note I did not call it science).

​

In ninth grade I chose to go with the science teacher, and considered myself to be an atheist for about 14 years. I took many more science classes in high school and in college (I am a Mechanical Engineer), and none of these classes changed my beliefs, if anything they reinforced my atheist beliefs.

​

I assume the majority of you are in college now. Do you understand my story? I am pretty certain you have had several hours of your education dedicated to the teaching of the Theory of Evolution. I would love to hear how this affected you. Has it done anything to your faith? It obliterated mine!

​

Question! Why in 6th grade did I think the drawings were ridiculous, but in 9th grade I believed them?

​

Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word...hormones. In 6th grade I did not have much temptation in my life. Perhaps my biggest sins were a lie here and there, throwing snowballs at the school bus and riding my minibike where I shouldn't.

​

But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong, but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of man. I felt excited.....and decided the Theory of Evolution was for me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first page!! I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no problem, I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning a system of beliefs built on faith) that allowed me to sin without guilt.

​

It was not the data that made me an atheist, it was the conclusion, a belief that made me the judge of right and wrong. Those cartoon drawings of ape men did look sharp, but I wanted to believe them emotionally, more than I really believed them intellectually.

---

No, what had made him an "atheist" (because he was only a sham atheist, as he later indirectly admitted by stating that he had continued to pray to his god every night) was his desire to sin. Do you see what your idea of "sin" creates? A legalistic loophole. If a believer wants to sin, all he needs to do is pretend to be an atheist. Because he's been taught that if he's an atheist, then he can do whatever he wants to do, sin in any way he wishes to sin, and do so freely.Bullshit! Immoral behavior always has its consequences (as does moral behavior). I pointed out to that creationist that I, as an atheist since the age of 11 or 12 (because I had started to read the Bible and realized very quickly that I couldn't believe any of it) had turned down golden opportunities to "sin" (twice when I was in college married women whom I was very much attracted to had offerred themselves to me, but the morality of that decision led me to refuse them, such that I was a virgin when I married -- remember, I had been an atheist for several years when these offers had occurred; in one case, the woman's sister had tried her best to consumate the liaison while in the other case it was the woman herself, for whom I was extremely hot, who had offerred herself, but by placing myself in her husband's place I could not take her up on it -- does empathy mean anything in your own morality vocabulary?).OK? Hello? For me, the question of becoming a Christian is a moral question. I have been following the so-called "creation/evolution controvery" since 1981. The very first thing I learned was that the creationists are lying through their teeth. Hello? For me to become a Christian means that I would need to accepted proven lies. Hello???? Fuck that shit!!!!!!Becoming a Christian would be a moral issue. And the decision to become a Christian would be the immoral decision. That local creationist continued to engage in immoral behavior, only he did so because he "loves Jesuuuuus!" (that was the reason that he himself gave as his own reason of his immoral conduct).However, you can serve a very good service. I have heard Christians say some really outrageous things about atheists and what they believe. But once on an ex-Christian board I read some actual Bible verses that say the same things. Perhaps you can give us those Bible verses.

I don't think that you are justified in making this quote but you are entitled to it anyway, God gave us a freedom and no one but you can deny yourself that freedom, but about the words we utter, God does say in Mathew 12:36 And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.Any way the mere fact that you would try to tell between what is morally acceptable and what isn't would suggest that there is this native tendency possessed by every person that causes him/her to want to do right. We might argue that wanting to do right is an evolutionary milestone, but similarly we can argue that it exist because God has written his commandments on the hearts of everyone "Rom 2:14 Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law.Rom 2:15 This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned,"This explains why even atheist can be morally acceptable without acknowledging God the captain of morality. However the bible says in Eph 2:8 "for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;" Many try to work their way into heaven but God has no business with how good a person you are, his primary concern is with the individual's heart. God is looking for true followers not wolves in sheep's clothing. Jesus said to a gang of Pharisees once:

Mat 23:25 A curse is on you, scribes and Pharisees, false ones! for you make clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of violent behaviour and uncontrolled desire.
Mat 23:26 You blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the plate, so that the outside may become equally clean.

​

This is how a lot of Christians are, they are phoneys causing only greater confusion in the world and blocking off the doorway to those who might have been saved had they only been true representatives of God's kingdom. Jesus said in John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" Sadly the world cannot make distinction and the entire body of Christ has been judged based on this rotten apples.

​

Now about just being moral without giving glory to the one who has inspired morality within. God would loved to be acknowledged when one does a good deed, to be saved we have to acknowledge the savior, this is only reasonable. Romans 10:9 declares: "Because, if you say with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and have faith in your heart that God has made him come back from the dead, you will have salvation:" Therefore your next statement doesn't hold and it hasn't been borne witness

Religion has assimilated morality and set itself up as the sole determinor of morality and tied morality with its theological ideas of sin and has thus denigrated morality. More's the pity, especially when religion claims that most falsely that not believing in God releases one from morality.

​

"

you say:
That false teaching has aided the spread of atheism, mostly among the believers. Here's a prime example from a creation-science activist in my area:

​

This is another unjustified statement, because the truth of God should draw you to him, and what keeps you interlaced with God is your love for him God says in Romans 12:9 "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." It is because certain Christians don't abhor that which is evil that they return to that very thing.

2Pe 2:21 They would have been better off if they had never known about the right way. Even after they knew what was right, they turned their backs on the holy commandments that they were given.
2Pe 2:22 What happened to them is just like the true saying, "A dog will come back to lick up its own vomit. A pig that has been washed will roll in the mud."

God has commanded us to love him with all our heart soul and mind. Many who fall away for good have lacked this love instead they had a greater love for sin, their hearts where not with God from the beginning Luke 12:34
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

​

Many Christians fall away because they don't cut loose sufficiently from the world of sin, not that they can't do it but rather they just won't try hard enough, if they are willing to be transformed God will empower them to do be transformed.
But even as Christians we are tempted Jesus was tempted, sadly a lot of Christians just enjoy to sin, as shown here Job 20:12 Sinners love the taste of sin; they relish every bite
Job 20:13 and swallow it slowly.

​

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Dwise1 says: Well, the entire idea of sin is purely religious and theological and, as such, really doesn't mean anything outside the context of religion.Cedre replies: I don't think that you are justified in making this quote but you are entitled to it anyway, God gave us a freedom....Point, set, and match to dwise. Are you really that dense or that blind, Cedre? "It's not religious! God says....!!"Sheesh. Thanks, dwise, for another excellent post. But West Coast Swing? The ghost of Bob Wills may trip you someday.

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.

quote:

---

I don't think that you are justified in making this quote but you are entitled to it anyway, God gave us a freedom and no one but you can deny yourself that freedom, but about the words we utter, God does say in Mathew 12:36 And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

---

He is exactly right. The concept of sin is a religious one. I would add that even within religion it seems to have lost its meaning. Other than rituals, the religious make wrong decision just like the nonreligious.The Pharisees were the clergy of the time and Jesus considered their actions hypocritical just as many clergy are today and have been through history. Nothing new. But I prefer to read full paragraphs as opposed to one liners. The paragraph containing the verse you shared concerns discerning fruit. IOW, you shall know them by their fruit. Jesus is saying the same thing I've been saying, all mankind is not inherently bad. Just like animals there are humans who are more aggressive than others. Morals and codes of conduct are determined by civilizations and it changes through the ages. That is the same thing that Paul is saying in Romans 2. Even those who don't have the written Jewish law in front of them are capable of good behavior.

quote:

---

Mat 23:25 A curse is on you, scribes and Pharisees, false ones! for you make clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of violent behaviour and uncontrolled desire.
Mat 23:26 You blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the plate, so that the outside may become equally clean.

---

Make sure your Bible quoting is accurate. Jesus was just calling them hypocrites as some clergy tend to be. The verse accused them of greed and self indulgence, not violent behavior and uncontrolled desire. That's why I feel that Christians are confused about what actually constitutes sin and the concept of sin has lost its meaning even among the religious.One does not need religion to abhor "evil" and cleave to good.

Why not add that for an unbeliever, sin certainly does not exist as a believer understands it. (Unless you wish to advance the argument that God exists irregardless of what a person believes....) So could we agree that each one of us has a standard of behavior and action that we know we should live up to, but that all of us miss the mark on a regular basis?My point is that any human worth their salt should have a standard higher than what they actually accomplish on a daily basis. Given that we interpret Right to mean that type of altruistic behavior that benefits the common good and hurts no one and that Wrong is a selfish and greedy emotion that disregards the livelihood of others..... Can we agree that for the purposes of this discussion sin can be defined as disobedience to our own innate belief of right and wrong?Why must these sorts of questions always be answered with the Bible? Is there anyway that we can suspend our respective beliefs for a moment and discuss the concepts philosophically?As an example, assuming that God foreknows everything, did God foreknow that humans would disobey Him?And if God does not exist, are we still responsible for setting the mark higher than any human is capable of attaining on a daily basis or should we set the mark exactly as high as we typically go?

A couple of you are pushing for the attitude that we should just be good for goodness sake. But if you really look at this, it doesn't make much sense. Because I would ask you "why should I be good?" it's a fair question. If I'm not required to be good by authority (a human authority's no good), then I might as well be bad then there is no point in being good to be sure it's a whole lot easier to be a bad little rascal.So to all of you who are pushing for this attitude answer me, why should I be good? And also answer what being good is and what being bad is if we don't have a measuring rod so to speak with which to determine if a particular behavior is good or bad. If a practice is acceptable in my eyes then why shouldn't I pursue. If there is no absolute moral canvas against which to compare our daily behavior than morality becomes relative than I may well decide for myself what good is? Why don't we all decide for ourselves what good is.

What is bad? Easy, whatever I would not done to me, my family, my friends or my possessions, such things as murder, rape, robbery, arson etc.
As to why be good, practicality. If all followed treating all humans as humans then there would be no evil. The biggest problem is greed.Edited by bluescat48, : missing word

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This is not an answer at all to my question then I'll ask you why is whatever you would not do to yourself, your family, and friends bad, who said that it is bad if there isn't absolute good and wrong. So what you do to your family I guess would be good. But what if I always lie to my family steal from my family, rape my little sister almost everyday, destroy property because my parents disappoint me. So this is what is good for. Is this the logic behind your argument.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So to all of you who are pushing for this attitude answer me, why should I be good? And also answer what being good is and what being bad is if we don't have a measuring rod so to speak with which to determine if a particular behavior is good or bad. If a practice is acceptable in my eyes then why shouldn't I pursue. If there is no absolute moral canvas against which to compare our daily behavior than morality becomes relative than I may well decide for myself what good is? Why don't we all decide for ourselves what good is.

---

Animals have codes of behavior. Humans live in groups and interact on individual levels, community levels, and national levels. Humans make codes of behavior to facilitate harmonious relations. In the "Wild West" days of the United States, area out west were lawless. People did as they pleased. Some lived peacefully together and others were more agressive. At some point people created laws to keep themselves safe from the more agressive individuals/groups. These laws fit the needs of the time.When we join clubs there are rules that go with membership. So if you want to be part of the family, club, religion, community, state, or country; you make a choice of following the codes of behavior set down by the group. If you choose not to follow the rules you will suffer the consequences deemed necessary by the group. Some codes may overlap or conflict. The individual has to decide how to deal with the issue.The Bible contains the laws of an ancient theocratic civilization. Some of those laws are still applicable today and are part of our secular legal system. Most are not. Due to the change in civilization, the legal system has expanded greatly.So the answer to "why should I be good" depends on what you want out of life and whether the actions you take to get what you want is contrary to the laws of the land. Human authority is what determines a civiliation's code of behavior or the laws of the land.Mankind does decide what is good. The majority or those in power decide the laws of the land.