Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin

[iceaura]

Identification of what is a sin doesn't analyze the action with respect to well-being, only with respect to arbitrary rules.

Identification of sin is a common employment of morality in cultures that have sin.

What else is there apart from maximizing well-being but the approval of a god, who dictates rules based on his own unknown criteria?

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.

Morality includes the criteria of evaluation of "well-being" - the choices follow, rather than constitute.

 

[spidergoat]

Identification of sin is a common employment of morality in cultures that have sin.

I don't consider that moral.

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.

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?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Identification of sin is a common employment of morality in cultures that have sin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Sodom and Gomorrah (/ˈsɒdəm ... ɡəˈmɒrə/)[1] were cities mentioned in the Book of Genesis[2] and throughout the Hebrew Bible,[3] the New Testament, and in the deuterocanonical books, as well as in the Quran and the hadith.[4]

According to the Torah, the kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah were allied with the cities of Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. These five cities, also known as the "cities of the plain" (from Genesis in the Authorized Version), were situated on the Jordan River plain in the southern region of the land of Canaan. The plain was compared to the garden of Eden[Gen.13:10] as being well-watered and green, suitable for grazing livestock. Divine judgment by God was passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah and two neighboring cities, which were completely consumed by fire and brimstone. Neighboring Zoar (Bela) was the only city to be spared.

In Abrahamic religions, Sodom and Gomorrah have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of divine retribution.[5][6][Jude 1:7] Sodom and Gomorrah have been used historically and today as metaphors for vice and homosexuality, although a close reading of the text and other Ancient Near Eastern sources suggest that this association may be incorrect.[7]

The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages. These include the English word sodomy, which is used in sodomy laws to describe sexual "crimes against nature", namely anal or oral sex (particularly homosexual), or bestiality.[8][9][10] Some Islamic societies incorporate punishments associated with Sodom and Gomorrah into sharia.[11]

The Judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah
See also: Hospitality § Judaism
The story of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah is told in Genesis 18–19. Three men, thought by most commentators to have been angels appearing as men,[citation needed] came to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. After the angels received the hospitality of Abraham and Sarah, "the Lord" revealed to Abraham that he would confirm what he had heard against Sodom and Gomorrah, "and because their sin is very grievous."

In response, Abraham inquired of the Lord if he would spare the city if 50 righteous people were found in it, to which the Lord agreed he would not destroy it for the sake of the righteous yet dwelling therein. Abraham then inquired of God for mercy at lower numbers (first 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and finally at 10), with the Lord agreeing each time.[36] Two angels were sent to Sodom to investigate and were met by Abraham's nephew Lot, who convinced the angels to lodge with him, and they ate with Lot.

Genesis 19:4–5 described what followed, which confirmed its end:

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'

(NRSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them).


Sodom and Gomorrah from the Nuremberg Chronicle by Hartmann Schedel, 1493. Lot's wife, already transformed into a salt pillar, is in the center.
Lot refused to give his guests to the inhabitants of Sodom and, instead, offered them his two virgin daughters "which have not known man" and to "do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes". However, they refused this offer, complained about this alien, namely Lot, giving orders, and then came near to break down the door. Lot's angelic guests rescued him and struck the men with blindness and they informed Lot of their mission to destroy the city. Then (not having found even 10 righteous people in the city), they commanded Lot to gather his family and leave. As they made their escape, one angel commanded Lot to "look not behind thee" (singular "thee"). However, as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with brimstone and fire from the Lord, Lot's wife looked back at the city, and she became a pillar of salt.

 

[DaveC426913]

I saw that movie!

Sodom and Gamera, Friend of All Children.

 

[James R]

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.

 

[Tiassa]

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.

 

[Michael 345]

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

 

[kx000]

Does that include hatred.

 

[DaveC426913]

Does that include hatred.

Does what include hatred?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I think in essence morals are someone else's idea of how you should live your private life over and above secular law

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

Secular law is still a morality

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.

 

[Jeeves]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

Don't eat human brains. Because you will catch diseases.
Don't jaywalk. Because you will die.

Not all laws are about criminal acts.

 

[Jeeves]

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.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Does that include hatred.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

a "law" is a moral code in practice.
usually defined by a mechanism of force.
the vast majority of people define laws are not laws unles they have a force to punish those whom break them.
this is a definition of express morality as it fashions morality in action.

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.

...the obvious confusion about this fact is common among many religious people whom have been brainwashed to believe that there is no ability to have free will.

Can you elaborate?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, divine ~ God, and law ~ decree, so that would be God's decree.

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.

Sin exists inasmuch as people believe it exists, and therefore take tangible action based on that belief. Whether there's teeth behind it is actually immaterial; it's humans who follow it.

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.

It's much like asking if superstition exists. Of course it does. Lots of people knock on wood or throw salt over their shoulder. Whether there's teeth behind it is actually immaterial; it's humanswho 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.



Jan.

 

[sculptor]

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

 

[iceaura]

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.

The metaphor-inculcated illusion that human laws simply exist, without human agency or accountability, does not protect all life.

My mom had been a depression era kid, and she said that waste = sin.
Wastefulness was sinful.

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)

 

[spidergoat]

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

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.