Identification of sin is a common employment of morality in cultures that have sin. Alignment with the God's prescribed morality and well-being of the sinner are held to be identical - and fooling oneself by shallow-minded utilitarian calculations a grave mistake.
I don't consider that moral. How can it result in well-being if well-being isn't a concern, but only an assumption? A mistaken assumption, I assert, in that the Bible doesn't prohibit rape, genocide, or slavery?
I saw that movie! Sodom and Gamera, Friend of All Children. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The idea of sin is based on the concept of God's dictatorship. If you "sin", then you're deemed to have acted immorally. However, that is secondary to the real offence, which is that you've acted in transgression of God's will. Sin is bad not because it is immoral, but because it estranges a person from God. In other words, sin is an authority-based substitute for a real moral framework.
That is certainly one way of looking at it. What constitutes a "real moral framework" is one of those stubborn mysteries.
I think in essence morals are someone else's idea of how you should live your private life over and above secular law Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Secular law is still a morality subjective social compliance dynamics differ from culture to culture I.E if you are a woman and you argue with your neighbor in Pakistan they will give you the death penalty. see on TV the thousands of blood thirsty men in lynch mobs marching down streets demanding the woman be killed. would you want such men walking around in the same town as your teenager daughters ? i dont think so. they would be a threat to the life of any modern girl or women who they came in contact with.
Secular laws may* be based on morality. It cannot be said that secular law necessarily is a morality**. There's plenty of law that is just safety, not a moral issue. * whatever that means **or might. Take your pick.
Secular law, like any legal code, is based in some concept of morality - right and wrong behaviour, what a citizen ought to and ought not to do - else it could not decide what to consider a crime. Every nation's constitution states what the basic precepts are, their legislature passes laws and their judiciary enforces those laws. Beyond the moral principles, it also includes defense of the realm and its administration, rules for the orderly conduct of governance and regulation of commerce. Safety would come at the lower end of this scale, right after taking care of the old and nurturing the young: too many disabled and injured citizens are bad for morale and the economy. So are ruptures due to intolerance of minorities and conflict between factions, but it's hard to find the legal balance to prevent these conflicts; it's a constant push-and-pull of interest groups.
Don't eat human brains. Because you will catch diseases. Don't jaywalk. Because you will die. Not all laws are about criminal acts.
Yes, laws are about crime: if you're caught breaking one, you are subject to prosecution: fine, forced labour (community service), imprisonment or death. Rules and regulations are more specialized and might result in loss of benefit, license, access or privilege.
excellent question. however, maybe too big for many to conceptualize inside the same mental perimeters of this thread. my leaning is that hatred is a natural reaction on a biological level. learning to not hate is equal to learning to talk.
I find that meaning personalised and cynical. Moral codes are based off laws, or what could be called “divine/positive law”. They are not to punish anyone. They are there to protect all life. Can you elaborate? Jan.
Speaking neutrally, if God exists, obviously He would be divine, but “divine” doesn’t mean “God”. It means, like God, or godly. If God exists, God is the highest principle. Stands to reason. Right? A “divine law”, also known as “natural, or “positive law”, is there to help one attain that divine principle. So it is all relative. It exists if you believe it exists. It doesn’t really matter whether or not it actually does. It only matters to those that follow it. Superstition is based on belief. Sin is based on action. They are distinct categories. One does not transgress any laws by being superstitious, unless one commits sinful/ transgressory actions. Sin is being measured as long as you, me, or any human being commit any action which violate laws that are for the protection of all life. The protection of all life is a lot bigger than we can comprehend, hence we have laws, that if lived by, will be successful in achieving a divine principle. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan.
On a personal note: My mom had been a depression era kid, and she said that waste = sin. Wastefulness was sinful. as/re my mom If you would be without sin; reduce repair rebuild re-use recycle
The metaphor-inculcated illusion that human laws simply exist, without human agency or accountability, does not protect all life. In the shame cultures, waste is often presented as a species of theft (from the commonwealth). "People wearing ornaments and fancy clothes carrying weapons eating a lot and drinking a lot having a lot of things, a lot of money: shameless thieves. " (Tao Te Ching 53)
Sin is often used as a metaphor for wrongdoing, giving secular values the weight of a divine pronouncement. But you shouldn't have to do that.
