Sin is not evil?

S

SolusCado

Registered Senior Member
I have a problem with the various powers that have represented Christianity over the last couple thousand years and the way they inject their own personal beliefs into the scriptures that are treated as canon. The Catholic church is of course the most notable offender, but there are countless Protestant denominations that have done the same. This has led me to pretty much question everything, and the most recent subject to fall under my scrutiny is the meaning of "sin". If we reread the Bible (even in the modern English translations), and simply remove our understanding of the meaning of the word sin, and instead attempt to glean its meaning based on its context, it doesn't necessarily mean "evil" in the degree or context we have assigned it.

Upon doing some additional research, I have found that the Hebrew word that is usually translated to "sin" is the word "chet", which is also used in countless other areas where we would never think to assign a sense of "evil". In fact, it would seem to simply mean "mistake" - not necessarily indicating any particular malfeasance at all, but rather something less than perfect. Well, I know of no one would suggest humans ARE perfect - so this would make perfect sense to me. Any other thoughts or contributions to the subject out there?
 
Essentially it boils down to right and wrong. You have to remember the the term "evil" has a supernatural connotation and it is true that people in the past considered "evil" respond to medication. That said, non-religious dont or perhaps should not even use the term.
 
John99 said:
Essentially it boils down to right and wrong. You have to remember the the term "evil" has a supernatural connotation and it is true that people in the past considered "evil" respond to medication. That said, non-religious dont or perhaps should not even use the term.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but even within the context of religion (and religious people), it would seem to me that the word "sin" gets the meaning of "evil" unfairly applied to it.
 
John99 said:
Essentially it boils down to right and wrong. You have to remember the the term "evil" has a supernatural connotation and it is true that people in the past considered "evil" respond to medication. That said, non-religious dont or perhaps should not even use the term.
Click to expand...

I can almost agree with that, John, but I believe it has other applications as well. For example, those who abuse children and animals - who enjoy causing others (perfectly innocent ones!) to suffer - certainly should be labeled as "evil" in my book!
 
Read-Only said:
I can almost agree with that, John, but I believe it has other applications as well. For example, those who abuse children and animals - who enjoy causing others (perfectly innocent ones!) to suffer - certainly should be labeled as "evil" in my book!
Click to expand...

Then what does the term "evil" mean to you?
 
I think this is an interesting idea to bring up, haha, wow two in one day?! Crazy...

I was JUST rereading Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche and he begins the first few chapters on this idea of a misinterpretation of the Bible by its contemporary followers, and how good and bad...and good and evil, as two separate dichotomies are relative to the slave and master moralities from which they stem.

What is interesting about your question in particular is how it relates to the pious' understanding of their moralistic viewpoints themselves. They think certain types of things are evil...power,greed, and pride really coming from the slave morality, and the idea of sickness and impoverished conditions, and despair being BAD (not evil) relative to the masters.

Evil, is thus, created by the victims to explain their despair, impoverished conditions and sickness...

And sin, avoided by the Jews through refinement of life's practices and a reverence for the holiness and purity in their culture and God wishes, sin then becomes the center for savior...

God is good, and sin transgresses against God, causing despair and impoverished conditions for those sinning, thus sin is evil...and those sinning are generally kings and emperors, those needing to be saved are the lowly peasants...and the king of the peasants becomes Jesus...who saves all of the righteous man (not just the Jews and peasants) in Christianity.

Evil is truly the scapegoat, creation myth, it doesn't exist as anything "tangible". It's the demon behind the actions of "bad" people...people who have the authoritative or independent impetus to waver from the Word.

The sin itself is a mistake...the mistake itself is caused by evil...
 
Last edited:
Read-Only said:
I can almost agree with that, John, but I believe it has other applications as well. For example, those who abuse children and animals - who enjoy causing others (perfectly innocent ones!) to suffer - certainly should be labeled as "evil" in my book!
Click to expand...

Thats true. I kind of consider some people to be evil too but i am beginning to change my mind more and more. In some ways it is due to specific cases i look at and some show remorse. Some get worse, as far as mental illness, like Charles Manson. Its funny how if he was executed peole wouldnt see what became of him. That case is interesting because it just missed the death penalty, though it started out as a death penalty case.

Watching some interviews and even when the perpetrator does not show remorse i see what i think are signs of mental illness so if they are mentally ill then that is really a physical problem. Not that I am against the death penalty or long term imprisonment. In fact the shows are watched had most or all of the inmates on medication and the inmates themselves said they couldnt function without the medication. It is a prison because the people inside were extremely violent and committed murder but it was like a hospital\prison though more of a prison....luckily.:D

Hope i am not off topic.
 
John99 said:
Thats true. I kind of consider some people to be evil too but i am beginning to change my mind more and more. In some ways it is due to specific cases i look at and some show remorse. Some get worse, as far as mental illness, like Charles Manson. Its funny how if he was executed peole wouldnt see what became of him. That case is interesting because it just missed the death penalty, though it started out as a death penalty case.

Watching some interviews and even when the perpetrator does not show remorse i see what i think are signs of mental illness so if they are mentally ill then that is really a physical problem. Not that I am against the death penalty or long term imprisonment. In fact the shows are watched had most or all of the inmates on medication and the inmates themselves said they couldnt function without the medication. It is a prison because the people inside were extremely violent and committed murder but it was like a hospital\prison though more of a prison....luckily.:D

Hope i am not off topic.
Click to expand...

:) For once, I don't care about the thread falling off topic... I think everything you just said raises additional points of interest. What is "mentally ill" in the grand scheme of things? At the moment, it represents a difference in "mainstream". Is mainstream "good"? If the death of millions saves the lives of billions, is that "good"? What about the death of billions for lasting peace among thousands?
 
The death of billions for lasting peace among thousands....

That would be evil...because its about a majority vote in the end, and the majority lost, right?

But good and evil can't be defined directly unless one uses the bible or something similar where it says, "this is the word of God, all else is incorrect!" you know then and there it's true, haha. Unless you have a book that is universally accepted as THE WORD. As the final say-all, tell-all guide to human interaction, a book that goes over every nuance of humanity, you can never ever define evil and good, because it doesn't exist outside of human beings, and there are 8 billion particles of humanity for that book to cover successfully and unerringly...

It's all based on moral relativism, though, in one culture it is NECESSARY to eat your parents remains, its absolutely and utterly inconceivable to them to have them burned or cremated into dust particles and put in a vase on the Mantle...inconceivable, and yet ask any Western culture what they think about eating your parents remains...

Look around the universe, not the world..."good and evil" is an idea whose wave function falls off quickly and in an infinitesimally small section of space-time...from the perspective of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, the galaxy cluster, and the supercluster...it is nothing of even marginal consequence.

Mentally ill is the chemical imbalance that is found, the atypical interactions undergone by the ill...just as any other "illness" is a deviation from general health.
 
CHRISCUNNINGHAM said:
The death of billions for lasting peace among thousands....

That would be evil...because its about a majority vote in the end, and the majority lost, right?

But good and evil can't be defined directly unless one uses the bible or something similar where it says, "this is the word of God, all else is incorrect!" you know then and there it's true, haha. Unless you have a book that is universally accepted as THE WORD. As the final say-all, tell-all guide to human interaction, a book that goes over every nuance of humanity, you can never ever define evil and good, because it doesn't exist outside of human beings, and there are 8 billion particles of humanity for that book to cover successfully and unerringly...

It's all based on moral relativism, though, in one culture it is NECESSARY to eat your parents remains, its absolutely and utterly inconceivable to them to have them burned or cremated into dust particles and put in a vase on the Mantle...inconceivable, and yet ask any Western culture what they think about eating your parents remains...

Look around the universe, not the world..."good and evil" is an idea whose wave function falls off quickly and in an infinitesimally small section of space-time...from the perspective of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, the galaxy cluster, and the supercluster...it is nothing of even marginal consequence.

Mentally ill is the chemical imbalance that is found, the atypical interactions undergone by the ill...just as any other "illness" is a deviation from general health.
Click to expand...

While I'll certainly give you the credit you deserve for some excellent, flowery philosophy, most of that actually has no relevance to us.

What DOES matter to us is simply the interaction of human beings - not with or of the cosmos. ;)
 
the definition of Evil is relative..there is no single definition..it is the same as asking who/what is God..there is no single answer..

the definition of sin is like you said..the best answer is 'mistake'(i actually posted that in another thread way back when..) it got argued with..

i think the attitude with god doesn't like sin, has to be rooted in the human condition..IE we tend to try to be perfect..and being human, we fail at that..
so we point at ppl and say they fail..it makes us feel better that we can see others sin (mistakes) i think it has to do with 'i'm glad i'm not like that'..irony is if we were not like that, we would not be able to see it so easily..
 

To me sin is not equivalent to evil.
But try to define good and evil without the human involved.
I would define evil: the sensation of pleasure from the suffering of others.

 
If evil does exist is not my determination. I always though evil was due to an external forces.
 
Last edited:

A bizarre question.
You help someone suffering because you know that so to do,
but at the same time you feel pleasure from his suffering.
Are you good or evel?
 
Emil said:

A bizarre question.
You help someone suffering because you know that so to do,
but at the same time you feel pleasure from his suffering.
Are you good or evel?
Click to expand...

is that pleasure because you do not share in his suffering?
 
Read-Only said:
While I'll certainly give you the credit you deserve for some excellent, flowery philosophy, most of that actually has no relevance to us.

What DOES matter to us is simply the interaction of human beings - not with or of the cosmos. ;)
Click to expand...

Well in all actuality we are a product of the cosmos, thus it has EVERYTHING to do with us, every neuron, ever molecule, every thought, every action is indeed a PRODUCT of the universe...you and your interactions cannot exist without it.

The relevance, my friend, is in the long term success of "humanity" and its interactions with itself and nature. If its current state of existence is bound by the myopic, skewed, primitive ideas of "good and evil" and it never transcends these things man never transcends the evolution of a "higher functioning" ape. He is a beast, at war with neighboring tribes. The strongest get the most bananas, yes. But, I like the other fruits of existence too.

Nationalism, religion, racism, discrimination, all these things are a PRODUCT of that primitive tribal mentality...and because of it, man will do little in the scheme of the universe. Man will be forever trying to conquer the surrounding tribes versus his inner demons, and the cosmos' mysterious harmony. If you're okay with that, then so be it.

But being conscious of the idea, that man is afflicted, should give you an IMPETUS to eradicate that affliction, and guess what, it starts with the ideas of "good and evil" being the way they are in contemporary human culture...it has room to grow and improve, and eventually...perhaps a millennia of millennia from now it will improve, and I assure you it will have far more to do with the cosmos and will be far more conducive to the betterment of the human plight, than ANYTHING you would call "moralistic" hitherto...

That is of course if the tribe of humanity itself, as a species can last that long...things aren't looking too promising...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top