Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Discuss the April 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
Post Reply
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Leontiskos »

Sushan wrote: February 25th, 2023, 12:25 am
Leontiskos wrote: February 11th, 2022, 10:07 pm
Ecurb wrote: February 11th, 2022, 1:24 pm
Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 7:23 pmNo, and for several reasons. Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist. If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.
That's clearly correct, by definition. However, it begs the question of whether "divine law" can exist without a Divinity. Suppose God is invented by men. Suppose the laws He dictates are also invented. Suppose the term "sin" is used to describe the breaking of these "divine laws".

"Sinh" remains a meaningful and valuable term when used this way.
Er, of course divine law cannot exist without a divinity. Surely you are not proposing that sin is a meaningful and valuable term in an atheistic context?

If sin is the breaking of divine law, and divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.
In a strictly atheistic worldview, there is no divine law or deity to establish a moral code. Therefore, the traditional definition of sin as a violation of divine law would not apply. However, that does not mean that the concept of sin loses all meaning in an atheistic context.

Many atheists still hold to a moral code based on principles such as empathy, compassion, and the well-being of others. In this sense, sin could be understood as actions or behaviors that harm others, violate basic human rights, or are in conflict with this moral code. This view is consistent with secular ethics and humanism, which reject the notion of divine law but still recognize the importance of ethical principles in guiding human behaviour.
You can have morality without a divine law but you cannot have sin without a divine law. Sin and moral failure are two different things which should not be conflated. There are atheists who will affirm the existence of moral failure, but there are not atheists who will affirm the existence of sin.
Sushan wrote: February 25th, 2023, 12:25 amHowever, that does not mean that the concept of sin loses all meaning in an atheistic context.
Ah, but it does. And it is precisely the concept which loses its meaning, not necessarily the syntactic referent. We could redefine the word 's-i-n' and attach it to an entirely different concept (like a man-made agreement), but this is equivocation between two different concepts.

Similarly, we might say, "Horses are just six-legged insects! Do you agree?" Well no, of course horses are not six-legged insects. Unless of course we redefine the syntactical string 'h-o-r-s-e' to be "a six-legged insect." In that case, sure, horses are six-legged insects. Yet I think we could agree that this is sophistry and equivocation of terms.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3221
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by JackDaydream »

Sushan wrote: April 3rd, 2021, 3:08 pm The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?
The concept of 'sin' is questionable, because it comes with loaded meanings, but may be about difficulties living up to ideals. It includes values and ideals, ranging from philosophy perspectives of perfectionism and wholeness. In Christianity, there was an emphasis on perfection, and even though it is less so in a moral or spiritual sense, there is still an emphasis on perfectionism on a more pragmatic or practical basis.

The problem of human weakness and self mastery are predominant themes. However, aside from perspectives which infer blame and 'guilt' in relation to the concept of sin , especially the idea of original sin and 'the fall', the weaknesses of the flesh and human beings remain.it may come down to the essentials of human nature and self knowledge. Perhaps, the more aware of our own natures and weaknesses a person may come to, may result in a more positive integration of negative aspects of oneself.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2221
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Sushan »

JackDaydream wrote: March 23rd, 2023, 2:17 pm
Sushan wrote: April 3rd, 2021, 3:08 pm The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?
The concept of 'sin' is questionable, because it comes with loaded meanings, but may be about difficulties living up to ideals. It includes values and ideals, ranging from philosophy perspectives of perfectionism and wholeness. In Christianity, there was an emphasis on perfection, and even though it is less so in a moral or spiritual sense, there is still an emphasis on perfectionism on a more pragmatic or practical basis.

The problem of human weakness and self mastery are predominant themes. However, aside from perspectives which infer blame and 'guilt' in relation to the concept of sin , especially the idea of original sin and 'the fall', the weaknesses of the flesh and human beings remain.it may come down to the essentials of human nature and self knowledge. Perhaps, the more aware of our own natures and weaknesses a person may come to, may result in a more positive integration of negative aspects of oneself.
You raise an interesting perspective on the concept of 'sin' and its relation to human nature, self-knowledge, and personal growth. It's true that the idea of sin often comes with various interpretations and cultural baggage, which might not resonate with everyone.

The notion of sin, as you mentioned, can be seen as a reflection of human weaknesses and the struggle to live up to certain ideals or values. In this sense, one could argue that sins might not necessarily be divine laws, but rather an expression of societal expectations and moral standards that vary across different cultures and time periods.

Understanding our own nature and weaknesses is a crucial step in personal development and self-improvement. By recognizing our flaws and working towards integrating the negative aspects of ourselves, we can strive for a more balanced and harmonious existence. This process of self-awareness and self-mastery can help us navigate the complexities of societal expectations and moral standards, allowing us to make more informed choices about our actions and their consequences.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2221
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Sushan »

Leontiskos wrote: February 25th, 2023, 12:46 am
Sushan wrote: February 25th, 2023, 12:25 am
Leontiskos wrote: February 11th, 2022, 10:07 pm
Ecurb wrote: February 11th, 2022, 1:24 pm
That's clearly correct, by definition. However, it begs the question of whether "divine law" can exist without a Divinity. Suppose God is invented by men. Suppose the laws He dictates are also invented. Suppose the term "sin" is used to describe the breaking of these "divine laws".

"Sinh" remains a meaningful and valuable term when used this way.
Er, of course divine law cannot exist without a divinity. Surely you are not proposing that sin is a meaningful and valuable term in an atheistic context?

If sin is the breaking of divine law, and divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.
In a strictly atheistic worldview, there is no divine law or deity to establish a moral code. Therefore, the traditional definition of sin as a violation of divine law would not apply. However, that does not mean that the concept of sin loses all meaning in an atheistic context.

Many atheists still hold to a moral code based on principles such as empathy, compassion, and the well-being of others. In this sense, sin could be understood as actions or behaviors that harm others, violate basic human rights, or are in conflict with this moral code. This view is consistent with secular ethics and humanism, which reject the notion of divine law but still recognize the importance of ethical principles in guiding human behaviour.
You can have morality without a divine law but you cannot have sin without a divine law. Sin and moral failure are two different things which should not be conflated. There are atheists who will affirm the existence of moral failure, but there are not atheists who will affirm the existence of sin.
Sushan wrote: February 25th, 2023, 12:25 amHowever, that does not mean that the concept of sin loses all meaning in an atheistic context.
Ah, but it does. And it is precisely the concept which loses its meaning, not necessarily the syntactic referent. We could redefine the word 's-i-n' and attach it to an entirely different concept (like a man-made agreement), but this is equivocation between two different concepts.

Similarly, we might say, "Horses are just six-legged insects! Do you agree?" Well no, of course horses are not six-legged insects. Unless of course we redefine the syntactical string 'h-o-r-s-e' to be "a six-legged insect." In that case, sure, horses are six-legged insects. Yet I think we could agree that this is sophistry and equivocation of terms.
You are correct in pointing out that redefining the term 'sin' to fit an entirely different concept can lead to equivocation and confusion. However, it is important to recognize that our understanding of words and concepts can evolve over time, especially in the context of diverse worldviews and philosophical perspectives.

In the case of 'sin,' it is true that the traditional definition is tied to the idea of divine law, and in a strictly atheistic context, this may not be applicable. However, what we are discussing here is not necessarily a redefinition of the term, but rather an examination of how the concept of sin or moral transgression might be understood in different contexts.

In a secular context, the concept of sin could be replaced with the idea of moral failure, as one of the previous comments mentioned. While the term 'sin' may not be used, the underlying idea of actions that harm others, violate basic human rights, or conflict with moral principles remains relevant.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Agent Smyth
Posts: 71
Joined: March 21st, 2023, 6:43 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Agent Smyth »

Sins are immoral deeds. As per legend, they're surefire way to book a seat on the plane to hell. No denied boardings ever in the history of Air Satan. Enjoy the flight.
Never send a man to do a machine's job. 8)
User avatar
lec_nemanja
Premium Member
Posts: 13
Joined: March 10th, 2023, 5:50 pm

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by lec_nemanja »

Sins are not just mere man-made laws, but rather man-made laws based on exceptional and centuries-old experience and the widest possible consensus.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Leontiskos »

Sushan wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:05 amIn a secular context, the concept of sin could be replaced with the idea of moral failure...
Yes, we can replace one concept with another, and one might replace sin with moral failure. This would be a good way to get around the strange rhetoric and fallacies of equivocation that so mar your OP.
Leontiskos wrote: January 31st, 2022, 7:23 pmIf the author thinks that sin is a law, or that sin is the breaking of a man-made law, then he is just redefining words willy-nilly in an entirely unphilosophical and unhelpful way. Neither St. Matthew, Mephistopheles, nor Bill Maher would be tempted to affirm that sin is a law or that sin is the breaking of a man-made law.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Good_Egg »

In common usage, breaking a man-made law is a crime (notwithstanding the technical difference between criminal and civil offences). And breaking the moral law is a sin. So one way of expressing the idea of sin is to call it a "crime against morality"

I'm told the original meaning of "sin" related to an arrow falling short of the target. By extension, it refers to moral shortcomings.

Atheists who have a moral code can still sin, by acts which fall short of their own ethical standards.

It is those who deny that the concept of "moral" is meaningful who find the word "sin" meaningless.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Stoppelmann »

Sushan wrote: April 3rd, 2021, 3:08 pm The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?
This depends on what sins we are talking about, because wiki says, “In a religious context, sin is a transgression against divine law. Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. While sins are generally considered actions, any word, or act considered immoral, selfish, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful".” I think that we often forget that spiritual traditions collect wisdom from a long period of time, which are originally observations which then become laws. So, is it a mere agreement, or the way it is?

In Hinduism, Dharma is often considered to be a divine concept like the Torah in Judaism, as it is believed to be established by the gods themselves for the benefit of humanity. Dharma is seen as the fundamental order of the universe, and it is believed to provide a framework for individuals to live a meaningful and purposeful life. In Hindu mythology, it is said that even the gods themselves follow the path of Dharma, and that those who live according to Dharma will be blessed by the gods and attain spiritual liberation. Additionally, many Hindu texts, such as the Bhagavad Gita, emphasize the importance of following one's Dharma as a means of achieving spiritual growth and fulfilling one's duty in life. Therefore, the concept of sin is here not based on a list of specific actions that are deemed inherently wrong, but rather on the idea of karma, which is the law of cause and effect. According to this law, every action has consequences, and individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Therefore, whether opposition to Dharma is considered a sin or not would depend on the specific actions taken and their consequences.

In Buddhism, Dharma refers to the teachings of the Buddha, which are seen as a path to liberation from suffering. The Dharma is considered to be the observable ultimate truth about the nature of reality and the way things are. The Buddha's teachings emphasize the Four Noble Truths, which outline the nature of suffering and the path to liberation, as well as the Noble Eightfold Path, which provides a framework for living in accordance with the Dharma. So, not following Dharma in this sense, would be seen as the voluntary entanglement in the wheel of suffering. Buddhists also share the concept of karma.

So, although divine law or dharma may have a special place for believers, in practise it is seen as a practical and ethical framework for living, based on the special circumstances of the group and the fundamental principle of the universe, and living in accordance within that guidance is believed to lead to spiritual growth and fulfilment. Sin is then a “missing the mark” as the Greek word suggests, or a failing to fulfil the potential laid out in the law or dharma at hand.

Among the desert fathers, what came to be known as the seven deadly sins were originally known as problematic thoughts or desires which arise when people meditate or spend long periods of time in solitude. In that community, it was accepted that they arise and it was spoken about. It is when, instead of speaking of these difficulties as a means of therapy, people are bludgeoned into obedience and condemned if they fall into such habits, that sin becomes what it has been said to be today.
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Leontiskos »

Stoppelmann wrote: March 27th, 2023, 5:40 amIn Hinduism, Dharma is often considered to be a divine concept like the Torah in Judaism, as it is believed to be established by the gods themselves for the benefit of humanity.
I don't know that I would take the similarities between Judaism and Hinduism to be so strong. In Judaism we see a tradition of directly given divine precepts, the transgression of which could be punishable by death--either immediately from God's hand or mediately through the community. As I understand it, this is quite different from the Hindu understanding or the common anthropological understanding, perhaps exemplified by Confucianism.
Stoppelmann wrote: March 27th, 2023, 5:40 amI think that we often forget that spiritual traditions collect wisdom from a long period of time, which are originally observations which then become laws.
I would want to use the word "customs" rather than "observations," but the custom-law continuum really seems to be discontinuous with the idea of sin and the sacred. This can be glimpsed by noting how transgressions against the sacral (sin) are never justified by recourse to human custom or human law. Indeed, such justification would be inadequate to account for the putative severity of the offense. The sacred and the profane sphere are always distinguished, as are offenses against them.

Of course an atheist will find the notion of sin to be unjustifiable, and will attempt to explain it away in various ways. For the atheist sin must be a transgression against a man-made custom or law, because there is no other kind of law which could ever be transgressed. But this is a dubious enterprise. It would be more honest for the atheist to simply claim that sin doesn't exist rather than claiming that sin means something which it manifestly does not mean.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Stoppelmann »

Leontiskos wrote: March 27th, 2023, 1:42 pm I don't know that I would take the similarities between Judaism and Hinduism to be so strong. In Judaism we see a tradition of directly given divine precepts, the transgression of which could be punishable by death--either immediately from God's hand or mediately through the community. As I understand it, this is quite different from the Hindu understanding or the common anthropological understanding, perhaps exemplified by Confucianism.
In detail you are, of course, right. I intentionally expanded the subject by bringing in other religions. I also see the transgression punishable by death as a antiquated measure, which was revised by Christ, stating that there is a transgression that is unforgiveable, “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,” although he gives one exception: “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29). Blasphemy understood as “defiant irreverence” such as cursing God or wilfully degrading things relating to God, or even attributing some evil to God, is really about extreme stupidity. It is better to be silent than commit this irreverence, although criticism of the church and its members is not what is meant – but often implied.
Leontiskos wrote: March 27th, 2023, 1:42 pm
Stoppelmann wrote: March 27th, 2023, 5:40 amI think that we often forget that spiritual traditions collect wisdom from a long period of time, which are originally observations which then become laws.
I would want to use the word "customs" rather than "observations," but the custom-law continuum really seems to be discontinuous with the idea of sin and the sacred. This can be glimpsed by noting how transgressions against the sacral (sin) are never justified by recourse to human custom or human law. Indeed, such justification would be inadequate to account for the putative severity of the offense. The sacred and the profane sphere are always distinguished, as are offenses against them.
I prefer observations because I interpret Paul’s statement here, “For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship …” (Romans 1:19-20) as meaning that mankind has been able to create the Torah based on the recognition of how things are. It then became custom.

Studying and comparing the various traditions, I come to the conclusion that this can be said of all traditions that have this long phase of development, that rather than the tradition “falling from heaven,” the wisdom was imparted through experience with the “workmanship” of the ground of being, which we call God, and the development of a relationship that ultimately utters “abba,” Papa. It is this intimacy that is special in Christianity.
Leontiskos wrote: March 27th, 2023, 1:42 pm Of course an atheist will find the notion of sin to be unjustifiable, and will attempt to explain it away in various ways. For the atheist sin must be a transgression against a man-made custom or law, because there is no other kind of law which could ever be transgressed. But this is a dubious enterprise. It would be more honest for the atheist to simply claim that sin doesn't exist rather than claiming that sin means something which it manifestly does not mean.
Yes, that may be the basis for the assumption that sins are just man-made agreements. However, good customs arise, also according to Paul, through seeing and understanding.
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Leontiskos »

Stoppelmann wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:07 am
Leontiskos wrote: March 27th, 2023, 1:42 pm I don't know that I would take the similarities between Judaism and Hinduism to be so strong. In Judaism we see a tradition of directly given divine precepts, the transgression of which could be punishable by death--either immediately from God's hand or mediately through the community. As I understand it, this is quite different from the Hindu understanding or the common anthropological understanding, perhaps exemplified by Confucianism.
In detail you are, of course, right. I intentionally expanded the subject by bringing in other religions. I also see the transgression punishable by death as a antiquated measure, which was revised by Christ, stating that there is a transgression that is unforgiveable, “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,” although he gives one exception: “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29).
Let me leave this to the side since it is tangential and I won't have time to get into it. My point was that severe punishments need to be justified by severe offenses, and on the atheistic worldview severe offenses are harder to find. In most cultures and religions the most severe punishments tend to be clustered around offenses against sacred realities. Further, religions with more direct sacred claims, such as direct written revelation, will have a much greater potential for emphasizing transgressions against the sacred. This is why I believe the concept of sin is found much more prevalently in the West than in the East. I rather doubt many Buddhists or Hindus would use that English word to translate their ideas.

(If you want to discuss this question about Christianity and the death penalty you could raise it in a separate thread and I should be able to get to it in the next two or three weeks. I think it is mistaken, and that passages like Acts 5 are incredibly difficult for such a view.)
Stoppelmann wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:07 amBlasphemy understood as “defiant irreverence” such as cursing God or wilfully degrading things relating to God, or even attributing some evil to God, is really about extreme stupidity.
Oh, I don't think that's true at all. No culture would put someone to death for an act of "extreme stupidity" which harms no human being whatsoever. Blasphemy is opaque to the secular world, but redefining it as "extreme stupidity" is not a fruitful alternative. It just shifts the opacity from the act to the punishments and the cultural understanding.
Stoppelmann wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:07 am
Leontiskos wrote: March 27th, 2023, 1:42 pm
Stoppelmann wrote: March 27th, 2023, 5:40 amI think that we often forget that spiritual traditions collect wisdom from a long period of time, which are originally observations which then become laws.
I would want to use the word "customs" rather than "observations," but the custom-law continuum really seems to be discontinuous with the idea of sin and the sacred. This can be glimpsed by noting how transgressions against the sacral (sin) are never justified by recourse to human custom or human law. Indeed, such justification would be inadequate to account for the putative severity of the offense. The sacred and the profane sphere are always distinguished, as are offenses against them.
I prefer observations because I interpret Paul’s statement here, “For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship …” (Romans 1:19-20) as meaning that mankind has been able to create the Torah based on the recognition of how things are. It then became custom.

Studying and comparing the various traditions, I come to the conclusion that this can be said of all traditions that have this long phase of development, that rather than the tradition “falling from heaven,” the wisdom was imparted through experience with the “workmanship” of the ground of being, which we call God, and the development of a relationship that ultimately utters “abba,” Papa. It is this intimacy that is special in Christianity.
Okay, interesting. My points aren't premised on the idea that the prequel to human law is custom rather than observation. If you prefer you can replace 'custom' with 'observation' in those arguments. They will still hold good.

Similarly, it doesn't matter to me whether a putative divine commandment descended from heaven, fully-formed, or was the result of a process. That conversation would take us far afield. The point is that the sacred sphere is separate from the profane sphere, the punishments for offenses against either sphere reflect this, and the putative severity of offenses against the sacred sphere could never be (and never are or were) justified by appeals to the profane sphere (such as appeals to merely human observations, customs, or laws).
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Stoppelmann »

Leontiskos wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:37 am My point was that severe punishments need to be justified by severe offenses, and on the atheistic worldview severe offenses are harder to find. In most cultures and religions the most severe punishments tend to be clustered around offenses against sacred realities. Further, religions with more direct sacred claims, such as direct written revelation, will have a much greater potential for emphasizing transgressions against the sacred. This is why I believe the concept of sin is found much more prevalently in the West than in the East. I rather doubt many Buddhists or Hindus would use that English word to translate their ideas.
I take your point, also taking from Lewis as we discussed elsewhere, and I see how a bundle of reasons made up the severity of offenses against sacred realities. However, I tend to take Christ at his word, and let compassion judge, and there is the statement, Romans 12:19: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord." (Deuteronomy 32:35).”
Leontiskos wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:37 am
Stoppelmann wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:07 amBlasphemy understood as “defiant irreverence” such as cursing God or wilfully degrading things relating to God, or even attributing some evil to God, is really about extreme stupidity.
Oh, I don't think that's true at all. No culture would put someone to death for an act of "extreme stupidity" which harms no human being whatsoever. Blasphemy is opaque to the secular world, but redefining it as "extreme stupidity" is not a fruitful alternative. It just shifts the opacity from the act to the punishments and the cultural understanding.
Aha, but I wouldn’t, and I see a progression from putting to death for sin, and leaving room for God’s wrath. That is why punishing someone as they deserve is no longer the cause of loss of life, but allowing the clash with God at the reunion with him, in which God is the one who repays, as the only one who sees the human heart for what it is.
Leontiskos wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:37 am Okay, interesting. My points aren't premised on the idea that the prequel to human law is custom rather than observation. If you prefer you can replace 'custom' with 'observation' in those arguments. They will still hold good.

Similarly, it doesn't matter to me whether a putative divine commandment descended from heaven, fully-formed, or was the result of a process. That conversation would take us far afield. The point is that the sacred sphere is separate from the profane sphere, the punishments for offenses against either sphere reflect this, and the putative severity of offenses against the sacred sphere could never be (and never are or were) justified by appeals to the profane sphere (such as appeals to merely human observations, customs, or laws).
And still, the quote I give above further explicates the intention I see in the Gospel message,
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”
(Luke 4:18-19)

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:22)
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by Leontiskos »

Stoppelmann wrote: March 28th, 2023, 9:41 am
Leontiskos wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:37 am My point was that severe punishments need to be justified by severe offenses, and on the atheistic worldview severe offenses are harder to find. In most cultures and religions the most severe punishments tend to be clustered around offenses against sacred realities. Further, religions with more direct sacred claims, such as direct written revelation, will have a much greater potential for emphasizing transgressions against the sacred. This is why I believe the concept of sin is found much more prevalently in the West than in the East. I rather doubt many Buddhists or Hindus would use that English word to translate their ideas.
I take your point, also taking from Lewis as we discussed elsewhere, and I see how a bundle of reasons made up the severity of offenses against sacred realities. However, I tend to take Christ at his word, and let compassion judge, and there is the statement, Romans 12:19: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord." (Deuteronomy 32:35).”
But the key word in that verse is "yourselves." If it were merely a matter of compassion then vengeance would be impermissible, it would not be the Lord's, and there would be no room for God's wrath.
Stoppelmann wrote: March 28th, 2023, 9:41 am
Leontiskos wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:37 am
Stoppelmann wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:07 amBlasphemy understood as “defiant irreverence” such as cursing God or wilfully degrading things relating to God, or even attributing some evil to God, is really about extreme stupidity.
Oh, I don't think that's true at all. No culture would put someone to death for an act of "extreme stupidity" which harms no human being whatsoever. Blasphemy is opaque to the secular world, but redefining it as "extreme stupidity" is not a fruitful alternative. It just shifts the opacity from the act to the punishments and the cultural understanding.
Aha, but I wouldn’t, and I see a progression from putting to death for sin, and leaving room for God’s wrath. That is why punishing someone as they deserve is no longer the cause of loss of life, but allowing the clash with God at the reunion with him, in which God is the one who repays, as the only one who sees the human heart for what it is.
For the sake of argument I will grant that Christianity not only abolished the death penalty, but that Christianity abolished every possible punishment whatsoever. This doesn't show that the "blasphemy" of the Old Testament was nothing more than "extreme stupidity." It doesn't show that sins are transgressions against man-made laws. Indeed, this is the same redefinition from a religious angle, and it is not at all uncommon. A religion without punishments is a religion without transgression, and a religion without transgression is a religion without sin. Such a form of Christianity has abandoned the notion of sin, and this is not at all uncommon in modern liberal Christianity. But even if Christianity abandoned the notion of sin this would not change the meaning of sin, or the events of the past, or the other religions which do not abandon the notion of sin.

Of course you might say, "No, the new Christians still see murder as a transgression, we just don't punish murderers." But if actions speak louder than words then all this shows is that the new Christians don't see murder as a transgression.

(The deeper point is that Judeo-Christian punishments have never been premised on a judgment of the heart, and that judgment of the heart is not required for the execution of imperfect temporal punishments.)
Stoppelmann wrote: March 28th, 2023, 9:41 am
Leontiskos wrote: March 28th, 2023, 1:37 am Okay, interesting. My points aren't premised on the idea that the prequel to human law is custom rather than observation. If you prefer you can replace 'custom' with 'observation' in those arguments. They will still hold good.

Similarly, it doesn't matter to me whether a putative divine commandment descended from heaven, fully-formed, or was the result of a process. That conversation would take us far afield. The point is that the sacred sphere is separate from the profane sphere, the punishments for offenses against either sphere reflect this, and the putative severity of offenses against the sacred sphere could never be (and never are or were) justified by appeals to the profane sphere (such as appeals to merely human observations, customs, or laws).
And still, the quote I give above further explicates the intention I see in the Gospel message,
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”
(Luke 4:18-19)

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:22)
That would be a reasonable interpretation if we omitted other verses from the New Testament. Limiting ourselves to only the Gospel of Matthew, we have: Matthew 21:12-13, Matthew 21:19, Matthew 23:38, Matthew 7:23, Matthew 10:14-15, Matthew 11:22-24, Matthew 18:34-35, Matthew 21:41, Matthew 22:7, Matthew 22:13, Matthew 24:50-51, Matthew 25:30, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 12:34, Matthew 23:13-36.

But this is not a thread about Christianity and it is not a thread that hinges on Christianity, so I am not going to maintain this tangent.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
AgentSmith
Posts: 108
Joined: January 29th, 2022, 1:55 am

Re: Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?

Post by AgentSmith »

I met an alien once, no, not that kinda alien, an alien as in ET. I didn't know what to do, I froze!! I hadn't been to Belize back then. Yes, I'm under medication. :mrgreen:

Sins can't be understood unless we can explain why we eat so many bananas (2 million short tons, +/- a few hundred thousand in the eat-a-banana-year AD).
Post Reply

Return to “Wilderness Cry by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021