Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin

[billvon]

To sin, is to transgress laws.

Nope. Sinning is transgressing RELIGIOUS laws and/or principles. No one is ever sentenced to jail in the US for sinning. They are sentenced for breaking the law.

In that sense it is a sin to exceed to speed limit, where it has been enforced by law.

If you can produce a single traffic ticket issues in the past 10 years that states a driver sinned by breaking the speed limit, then you would have a point. I bet you can't.

There are sins, or transgressions, as you know, that people don’t abide by, or respect, because they don’t accept, responsibility etc the law.

No. First off, no one "abides by" sin. Some people may COMMIT sins based on your interpretation of your religion. They may not agree. That's fine.

Secondly, as mentioned above, crimes are different from sins.

Some people aren’t aware of the laws they transgress, or they don’t respect the authority who lays down these laws.

Or they just don't heed them. A vegan might consider you both a sinner and a murderer because you eat meat. I suspect, though, that you would not respect their authority.

 

[Michael 345]

Sin


Google

Sin away friends, but don't exceed the speed limit

 

[Jeeves]

My parents raised me like that.
I became religious in my adult life.
IOW, in the broader picture, 10 year leap plans by social engineering tends to be just another facet (in this case) of atheist wet dreams in action.

Except that most atheist wet dreams don't become babies. We don't believe

 

[Musika]

Except that most atheist wet dreams don't become babies. We don't believe

Weird.

 

[iceaura]

Why do you regard it as a concept?

Because I know what the word "concept" means, and it fits the definition.

You can only commit a sin if you have a god who forbade that act.

And often not even then - affronting a god, pissing a god off, is not necessarily "sinning".

 

[Jeeves]

[You can only commit a sin if you have a god who forbade that act]
And often not even then - affronting a god, pissing a god off, is not necessarily "sinning".

Yes. I should have phrased it : You can commit a sin only if you have a god who forbade that act.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nope. Sinning is transgressing RELIGIOUS laws and/or principles. No one is ever sentenced to jail in the US for sinning. They are sentenced for breaking the law.

Sinning is the process that makes the individual commit the act of transgression.
IOW ones actions occurr after a decision has been made. If no decision has been made, then the act is out of ignorance, and is now just a mechanical reaction.

When one transgresses the law of the land, the mechanism is the same as all other transgressions.

Jan

 

[billvon]

Sinning is the process that makes the individual commit the act of transgression.

Nope. Sin is the act of transgressing a religious law. No one claims that being hungry, wanting to eat and looking at food is a sin, even if it is the bulk of the process that makes you steal food.

IOW ones actions occurr after a decision has been made. If no decision has been made, then the act is out of ignorance, and is now just a mechanical reaction. When one transgresses the law of the land, the mechanism is the same as all other transgressions.

It is not possible to have a logical discussion with someone who redefines words whenever he finds himself losing an argument.

 

[Jeeves]

The mechanism and the motivation come from different parts of the brain.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nope. Sin is the act of transgressing a religious law. No one claims that being hungry, wanting to eat and looking at food is a sin, even if it is the bulk of the process that makes you steal food.

Right. The temptation may be there, because you are hungry, and have no other means of obtaining that bread, so you decide to steal it. The more you listen to your conscience, the harder it is to steal it. If you steal it then you have given in to the temptation knowing that you have transgressed the law.

If you resist temptation, it would be because you did not yield to that desire, at that time. But if you do not learn from that, then you are still a sinner, because at some point, you will yield to temptation of something.

It is not possible to have a logical discussion with someone who redefines words whenever he finds himself losing an argument.

There’s something not quite right about you, bilvon. What’s wrong?

I haven’t redefined the word, I’ve merely stated that committing a sin starts before the act. The act being the result. I would have thought that would be obvious to you.

What’s the matter with you?

In the A+E thread you act as though you’re having a nervous breakdown.

You’re not being logical, nor are you responding to logic. It is as if you would prefer the bible, or the term ‘sin’, to have little, or no meanining.

In the case of the bible, the idea of it making sense, being non contradictory to science, and in line with all other religious text, is repugnant to you, it would seem.

Why?

Jan.

 

[James R]

If you resist temptation, it would be because you did not yield to that desire, at that time. But if you do not learn from that, then you are still a sinner, because at some point, you will yield to temptation of something.

Are you saying that sin is a thought crime?

It sounds like you're saying that merely thinking about or being tempted to transgress against Divine Law is the sin, whether or not the thought leads to action.

I haven’t redefined the word, I’ve merely stated that committing a sin starts before the act. The act being the result. I would have thought that would be obvious to you.

So let's consider the process of stealing a loaf of bread, for instance. A person sees the loaf of bread, wants it (perhaps because they are hungry and have no money to buy it), then considers taking it without paying, then finally takes it.

You're saying the sin happens when in this chain of events? Is it when the temptation arises (i.e. wanting to possess the bread)? Is it when one thinking about stealing it? Or is it when one actually steals it?

Suppose that the person considers taking it without paying, but in the end decides not to. Did they still commit a sin in that case? Is the thought itself the sin, or does it become sin only when an act occurs?

Is sin equivalent to thought crime?

 

[billvon]

Right. The temptation may be there, because you are hungry, and have no other means of obtaining that bread

Part of the process of stealing. Not a sin.

so you decide to steal it. The more you listen to your conscience, the harder it is to steal it.

And if you listen to your conscience and decide at the last moment not to steal it - not a sin.

What makes it a sin? The theft.

If you steal it then you have given in to the temptation knowing that you have transgressed the law.

Yes. You have broken one of the Ten Commandments. Depending on how you do it, you may also have broken a civil law. In which case you'd be a criminal.

If you resist temptation, it would be because you did not yield to that desire, at that time. But if you do not learn from that, then you are still a sinner, because at some point, you will yield to temptation of something.

No. You are not, because you did not commit the sin. Pretty simple.

Everyone wants to sin at some point. Most people's conscience stops them. Which makes them not commit the sin.

In the A+E thread you act as though you’re having a nervous breakdown.

I note you follow the usual pattern for you - you continue an argument until you have been argued into a corner, then give up and claim someone else is crazy.

You’re not being logical, nor are you responding to logic. It is as if you would prefer the bible, or the term ‘sin’, to have little, or no meanining.

It has a simple meaning which everyone here but you understands.

In the case of the bible, the idea of it making sense, being non contradictory to science, and in line with all other religious text, is repugnant to you, it would seem.

Not repugnant at all. Just nonsensical. In many cases the Bible does agree with science. That is not by design; it is because people see what happens in the real world, and that sometimes makes it into the Bible.

 

[iceaura]

I haven’t redefined the word, I’ve merely stated that committing a sin starts before the act.

As does not committing a sin, refusing to commit a sin, etc.
It's an interesting concept, sin.

 

[iceaura]

It sounds like you're saying that merely thinking about or being tempted to transgress against Divine Law is the sin, whether or not the thought leads to action.

Is a sin, often.
That is a common (near ubiquitous) feature of the concept, as inculcated in the Abrahamic tradition - note Jesus's mockery of what was clearly (to his audience) a familiar line of clerical rhetoric, and its continuation in the main lines of Abrahamic belief today ("sinful thoughts", the "impure thoughts" of stereotypical Catholic confession, the idea of "knowing more" than a Christian should).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Part of the process of stealing. Not a sin.

So if you buy goods you know have been stolen, like mobile phones, credit cards, etc, you are not liable because you didn’t actually steal them? Do you agree?

And if you listen to your conscience and decide at the last moment not to steal it - not a sin.

What makes it a sin? The theft.

If you purposely beat another person within an inch of their life, then you are not guilty of the sin of murder.

Someone who is free from sin does not entertain those thoughts. They do not have that dilemma. Just as someone who has zero interest in smoking, does not have to try to not be tempted. It simply does not occur to them.

Yes. You have broken one of the Ten Commandments. Depending on how you do it, you may also have broken a civil law. In which case you'd be a criminal.

That’s because it is a divine law.
You’re spiritually fallen if you steal, whether you’re aware of it or not. Or whether it is a man made law.

No. You are not, because you did not commit the sin. Pretty simple.

The only way you are not a sinner you m this scenario, is when such a thought does not even occur to you. While you

Everyone wants to sin at some point. Most people's conscience stops them. Which makes them not commit the sin.

Do you think that someone who wrestles everyday, with sexually abusing children, somehow manages to not yield to the temptation, would be a popular choice for childcare services, if the parents were aware of his state of mind?

Would you hire someone like that to look after your children

I note you follow the usual pattern for you - you continue an argument until you have been argued into a corner, then give up and claim someone else is crazy.

Nice try.

Why do you ignore what bible says, in favour of some

It has a simple meaning which everyone here but you understands.

You know what I’m stating is true according to what the bible itself states. I have put forward the reasons why I am correct. But you still carry on with this belief. Why do you do that?

Do you want the bible to make no sense?

Not repugnant at all. Just nonsensical.

But you’re not helping by blatantly misrepresenting what it says.
Would you like to make sense of the bible?

In many cases the Bible does agree with science. That is not by design; it is because people see what happens in the real world, and that sometimes makes it into the Bible.

Aside from Darwinian ideas. Nobody sees, thinks, or believes the human race came from one naturalistic source, either by common ancestor, or two original humans. That seems to stem from religious thinking.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

So if you buy goods you know have been stolen, like mobile phones, credit cards, etc, you are not liable because you didn’t actually steal them? Do you agree?

Nope. If you knowingly buy stolen goods that is a crime. If your religion says that goes against divine law, then it is also a sin.

If you purposely beat another person within an inch of their life, then you are not guilty of the sin of murder.

Right. But you are guilty of the sin of violence.

Someone who is free from sin does not entertain those thoughts.

Someone who never entertains such thoughts is not human. They might well be free of sin as well.

The only way you are not a sinner you m this scenario, is when such a thought does not even occur to you. While you
Why do you ignore what bible says, in favour of some

What is with the half sentences? Are you drunk or something?

You know what I’m stating is true according to what the bible itself states.

Every time you post that lie I will reply with that the bible actually says. Perhaps after 100 repetitions it will get through to you?
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Do you want the bible to make no sense?

?? I don't really care. It doesn't make scientific sense. Neither does Beowulf, or Star Wars. I don't "want them to make sense" and I "don't want them to make no sense." Their value is not in their scientific accuracy.

But you’re not helping by blatantly misrepresenting what it says.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Would you like to make sense of the bible?

?? No. Would you like to make sense of Beowulf?

Aside from Darwinian ideas. Nobody sees, thinks, or believes the human race came from one naturalistic source, either by common ancestor, or two original humans. That seems to stem from religious thinking.

Most scientists understand that mankind came from a "naturalistic" common ancestor - an ancestor we share with other primates, and (if you go back far enough) all life on Earth.
Most scientists agree that mankind did not come from two people.

 

[Jeeves]

message to be edited - psb

 

[Jeeves]

Someone who is free from sin does not entertain those thoughts. They do not have that dilemma. Just as someone who has zero interest in smoking, does not have to try to not be tempted. It simply does not occur to them.

Hunger and the desire to smoke are not really in the same ballpark.
Do we assume that a non-sinner would rather starve to death than entertain the *shudder!* idea of stealing a loaf of bread? A non-sinner, obviously, would sit and watch her child starve to death, because, after all, a rich man's right to the stuff he owns is way holier than a poor child's life. And who wants to go on living with a sinful mother?
I, too, have committed the sin of lust in my heart - and some other organs. I didn't deliberately contemplate contemplating the possibility of committing sexual congress with a person to whom I was attracted but not married; it came on all unbidden. I've since then plucked out the offending eye and cut off the offending appendage. But I'm still a sinner, because I couldn't excise the offense from my brain.

 

[Write4U]

As does not committing a sin, refusing to commit a sin, etc.
It's an interesting concept, sin.

I doubt if atheists can commit sin. In order to commit sin you must first believe in god and his divine commandments.
If you don't believe in god you can still commit crime. It just won't be called sin, that word is reserved for Theists.

In a court of law a person is not accused of committing a sin against god, but of a crime against society.

 

[Write4U]

Not all sins are crimes. Blasphemy is a sin, but not a crime.
Not all crimes are sins. Holy war is not a sin, but is a crime.