Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin

[Jan Ardena]

They're personal acts.

That doesn’t follow.
Your personal opinion could be bs, but those acts are real. Completely different category.

Really? How many child-molesters do you know well enough to discuss their innermost feelings about it?

What makes you think they have “innermost feelings”” about their actions?
Maybe they just like doing wha

I think we're capable of making of far more rational, consistent, enforceable laws through legislation than by trying to adopt the mores of ancient xenophobic slave-owning genocidal tribes.

I thought we were talking about sin.
How is s this nonsensical outburst relevant to that?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave
Superstition is subjective.
Sin - transgression of the law, is actual.
It doesn’t matter if you accept God, or not.
Not accepting, or believing in God, only changes the value of sin, in your mind.

Sin is not transgression human law.
Sin is transgression of divine law.

Divine law is presumed - by those who practice it - to be immune to human oversight. Which makes it bad law.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

“Sin” isn’t Christian, Islamic, Hindi, Buddhist etc.

Child molesters don’t have a problem with molesting children. They may even think it is a good strategy when they get the chance. Does that make it okay?

Jan

had to look back to see who played the child predator card in a religious morals debate to try and derail the debate about religious morals.
i was surprised to see it appearing as if it was jeeves... but after checking...

typical !

play the "oh the poor little baby jesus" card to change the subject and attempt to get other people to join your unstated moral opinion which has been changed from the original topic to child predators.
then avoid talking about it and make a dog-whistle comment assertion instead of answering a subjective question.

have you ever stopped to think how messed up that looks when you dont include all the conservative religious support for child marriages ?

morally, it takes all your opinions and throws them in the rubbish bin and assigns you to the cult category.

effectively the fact is you mentioned it and consequently you are exploiting the victims to service your own ego for a point about something you have chosen to swing the topic away from, then back towards then away from again without talking about the actual topic.
like using war dead as your own self validation of honorable status.

for someone who claims to know the bibble you sound like one of those bible belt cult churches that marry off all the little girls to their own members like a sex slave farm.
while screaming "oh the poor little baby jesus"

That’s the kind of limited comprehension I’m talking about.

oh really ?
so your advocating a stance against the right wing conservatives support for child marriage ?

“Sin” isn’t Christian, Islamic, Hindi, Buddhist etc.

classic lead in reverse psychology attempt.

re-dress the debate perimeters then advocate you own the rights of the victims to a crime
then assign it as a non religious crime...
then ask people to state their moral opinions...

Does that make it okay?

Sin - transgression of the law, is actual.

Dave

Superstition is subjective.
Sin - transgression of the law, is actual.
It doesn’t matter if you accept God, or not.
Not accepting, or believing in God, only changes the value of sin, in your mind.

Jan.

desperation to save your own religious ego
...
trying to say the article about the woman raised as a christian talking about christian sin asking a moral question about religious sin ..
is not actually talking about Christianity anymore ?

what other victims do you want to try and use to save your own religious ego ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sin is not transgression human law.
Sin is transgression of divine law.

Divine law is presumed - by those who practice it - to be immune to human oversight. Which makes it bad law.

Divine law, or is the law.
For human society to prosper in a way that is beneficial, it has to accept divine law.
When man decides to break from from that high principle, societies become corrupt and degraded.

Who practises divine law, or any law for that matter (unless you’re a lawyer)?
I don’t abide by the road speed limit because I practise law. I abide by it because there are penalties if I don’t. I also understand, and agree, that the law is there to protect us.

Divine law is not presumed. You think you don’t accept it, most probably because you don’t accept God, or the version that of God you deem unacceptable. But it is the basis of human law. Otherwise there would only be chaos..
Don’t your think?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

For human society to prosper in a way that is beneficial, it has to accept divine law.

False.

Divine law ... is the basis of human law. Otherwise there would only be chaos..

Baseless assumption.

You believe these things to be so because you are predisposed to, based on your belief in God. It's not your fault.

 

[iceaura]

For human society to prosper in a way that is beneficial, it has to accept divine law.

Says who?

But it is the basis of human law. Otherwise there would only be chaos..
Don’t your think?

Nope. No evidence of that.

 

[iceaura]

“Sin” isn’t Christian, Islamic, Hindi, Buddhist etc.

Yes, it is.

Child molesters don’t have a problem with molesting children. They may even think it is a good strategy when they get the chance. Does that make it okay?

One society's sin - or shame - is another society's divine law - or accepted custom.
That doesn't make it "ok" - just makes it not a sin, or shame, among some people.

 

[Jeeves]

That doesn’t follow.
Your personal opinion could be bs, but those acts are real. Completely different category.

I have an opinion. You have an opinion. Either one or both may, indeed, be bs. According to whom? On what standard?
What we do is real. What we do is a result of what we feel and think.
When we have taken an action, we think and feel some way about that. It's a continuity, not categories.

What makes you think they [child molester] have “innermost feelings”” about their actions?
Maybe they just like doing wha

So, you don't know.
Everybody has feelings and thoughts.
Doing wha is a result of feeling and thinking. Doing wha also results in further thoughts an feelings.
But you don't know what they are; you just make shit up.

I thought we were talking about sin.
How is s this nonsensical outburst relevant to that?

What outburst do you mean?
Is it that you dislike my characterization of the originators of the Bible?
It's accurate.
Really. Don't take my word for it - read the book.

 

[kx000]

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.

Hate is suffering it needs to be kept out of Heaven.

 

[Jan Ardena]

False

Why?

Baseless assumption.

You believe these things to be so because you are predisposed to, based on your belief in God. It's not your fault.

At least you realise it is not a fault to belief in God. Seems like you could be evolving.

It doesn’t matter whether or not we believe their is divine law, it operates anyway.
You just don’t want to give it the title of “divine” because you relate the word to God.

Jan.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Hate is suffering it needs to be kept out of Heaven.

society changes & evolves

 

[James R]

Divine law is not presumed. You think you don’t accept it, most probably because you don’t accept God, or the version that of God you deem unacceptable. But it is the basis of human law. Otherwise there would only be chaos..
Don’t your think?

I think that religions tend to ascribe certain human ideas to their gods. Fear of God's wrath is thought to make people more likely to take the human-made law seriously. It's also a (poorly-justified) reason for obeying human laws - that they ultimately trace to a "higher power".

There are also other notions that are useful for controlling people, such as the idea that even though justice might not be served in this life, it surely will be in some afterlife, or perhaps in the "next" life.

Scriptural morality tends, on the whole, to be somewhat patchy and haphazard. Sins are often "ranked" in strange ways. Some serious moral wrongs go unmentioned, while some trivial wrongs (or things that really aren't immoral at all) are elevated to the status of special affront to God. The best religious efforts have mostly included some form of the so-called Golden Rule, at least, but that's not particularly surprising since having that as a societal Rule is likely to be an evolutionarily beneficial to the group (and thus to individuals in the group).

The Ten Commandments of the old testament are quite a bizarre collection, when you think about it. If these are supposed to be God's most important rules, then why is so much left out, and why is there so much attention paid to the worship of one particular God and the conventions by which that worship is to be carried out?

 

[sculptor]

 

[DaveC426913]

For human society to prosper in a way that is beneficial, it has to accept divine law.
When man decides to break from from that high principle, societies become corrupt and degraded.

I fascinates me every time I see a theist openly admit - without a hint of sheepishness - that they will descend into chaos and corruption if not kept in line by their self-imposed divine authority.

Those of us who do not subscribe to any higher authority recognize that it is our own responsibility to build order and law

It's like growing up, Jan. Children need parents to teach them right from wrong and keep them out of trouble. But children will eventually grow up, and their parents will not be around all the time. Children become adults and learn to know right from wrong themselves.


You don't murder people because God tells you not to. Without that authority, you would "break from that high principle", and would - by your own admission - descend into corruption and chaos.

I don't murder people because I don't wish to make people feel sad. That would make me sad, because I believe humans are good things. I don't ask some higher power what's right and wrong.

Fascinating.

 

[DaveC426913]

the title of “divine” because you relate the word to God.

As does anyone who uses the word correctly.

Divine literally means of or like God.

So yes, they're correlated, without a doubt.

 

[iceaura]

It doesn’t matter whether or not we believe their is divine law, it operates anyway.

Or it doesn't. Depending.
Either way, you don't know what it is - and neither does anyone else.

 

[Jeeves]

For human society to prosper in a way that is beneficial, it has to accept divine law.
When man decides to break from from that high principle, societies become corrupt and degraded.

Which would explain why no religious institution, no theocracy, no monarchy by divine right and no country with an officially enforced state religion ever had a corrupt or degenerate ruling class. And that, in turn, makes me wonder what became of all those shining beacons of moral rectitude; how they could have given way to the present disorderly situation. Is it that divinely-regulated kingdoms are too good for this world?

 

[Goldtop]

For human society to prosper in a way that is beneficial, it has to accept divine law.

Any proof for that? I mean, even Adam and Eve didn't accept it.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Which would explain why no religious institution, no theocracy, no monarchy by divine right and no country with an officially enforced state religion ever had a corrupt or degenerate ruling class. And that, in turn, makes me wonder what became of all those shining beacons of moral rectitude; how they could have given way to the present disorderly situation. Is it that divinely-regulated kingdoms are too good for this world?

entropy ?
probably entropys fault
i hear entropy is copping a lot of flack these days.

Religious Pi Entropy of human social conditioning thou shall not want for Pi when there is none allowed for you dirty poor people

 

[Jan Ardena]

Scriptural morality tends, on the whole, to be somewhat patchy and haphazard. Sins are often "ranked" in strange ways.

Examples?

Some serious moral wrongs go unmentioned, while some trivialwrongs (or things that really aren't immoral at all) are elevated to the status of special affront to God.

Like?

The Ten Commandments of the old testament are quite a bizarre collection, when you think about it. If these are supposed to be God's most important rules, then why is so much left out, and why isthere so much attention paid to the worship of one particular God and the conventions by which that worship is to be carried out?

That’s between God, and whoever God was communicating to.
But why do believe they were a bizarre collection of commandments?

Jan.