Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wouldn't your definition mean in a society that had enough no sin would exist? It seems more complicated and intrinsic than that to me.
My point is that if we continue to live in the natural condition we are born in then it is sin according to religious teachings. At some point, we need to reject the inclinations of our infant state.
Where would you define when that state becomes sinful if it isn't sinful to begin with?
Wrong definition: "sin" would be the conscious choice to gratify a selfish desire at the expense of another person or the society.
Only partially true. And perhaps it also depends on society to society and person to person.
Let’s say, in Philippines the consent age is 13 years.
A 55 year old man indulges into a sexual act with a 13 year old boy. The boy has given consent, society is all OK with it, and the local law allows it.
Is it a sin? Perhaps not for Atheists and agnostics, but probably it is, for those who believe in religious guidelines and boundaries set forth by the God of their faith.
Reciprocity (The Golden rule). Can't disagree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Only partially true. And perhaps it also depends on society to society and person to person.
Let’s say, in Philippines the consent age is 13 years.
A 55 year old man indulges into a sexual act with a 13 year old boy. The boy has given consent, society is all OK with it, and the local law allows it.
Is it a sin? Perhaps not for Atheists and agnostics, but probably it is, for those who believe in religious guidelines and boundaries set forth by the God of their faith.
Is it? Where does it say so? And I'll tell you something, if that was the situation, I don't see where the sin is or even what's wrong. The wrong is because society pretty much sets the bar at 16 -18 in order to protect the vulnerable. And that makes sense. But to assume it's Sin just because society has set the bar (by no means universally) is the old business of Man makes the morality, God is given the credit.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-10-2018 at 12:15 AM..
Reciprocity (The Golden rule). Can't disagree with that.
Is it? Where does it say so? And I'll tell you something, if that was the situation, I don't see where the sin is or even what's wrong. The wrong is because society pretty much sets the bar at 16 -18 in order to protect the vulnerable. And that makes sense. But to assume it's Sin just because society has set the bar (by no means universally) is the old business of Man makes the morality, God is given the credit.
Didn’t you just agree with my assumption that for Atheists and Agnostics it’s not a sin? But then again, it’s obvious that NOTHING is a sin for an Atheist because God does not exist, and man made laws have no concept or classification of any act to be called a “sin”.
The way man made laws generally work is, “Do it or else, or don’t do it or else!!” - there is no concept of reward for willfully and volunteering doing anything good - but there are punishments for some acts you do, and punishment for other stuff if you don’t do.
If the society you live in, gets together and a majority agrees, supports and votes to pass a law to reduce the consent age to 10 years or makes homosexuality mandatory upon every man, then by your logic, you shouldn’t have a problem with pedophiles or a young stud who is into older men takes you as his gay wife? (to describe it mildly)
I know it sounds crude so no offense intended but I think that’s what your philosophy leads to - and if you think realistically, there is no stopping to it.
100 years ago, our own laws prohibited homosexuality and that’s what the society wanted - they considered it an unpleasant and in some cases, a sinful act.
So society “progressed” and now we happily allow it.
Just like 100 years ago homosexuality was unlawful - today we consider polygamy, and pedophilia to be unlawful and a punishable act by law cause that’s what our current society wants - well, if the society keeps progressing then who knows, 100 years from now, the society is changed and they happily allow polygamy and pedophilia?
Now, you may think that, “How in the world can pedophlia be allowed by law? It’s impossible !!”
But didn’t the people of 100 years ago thought the same about homosexuality? But here we are.
IMO, Boundaries and limits set forth by God’s guidance, hardly change - but when a society puts God’s guidance aside, and solely decides what’s right and what’s wrong based on majority voting then it’s bound to go astray over the course of time.
Didn’t you just agree with my assumption that for Atheists and Agnostics it’s not a sin? But then again, it’s obvious that NOTHING is a sin for an Atheist because God does not exist, and man made laws have no concept or classification of any act to be called a “sin”.
The way man made laws generally work is, “Do it or else, or don’t do it or else!!” - there is no concept of reward for willfully and volunteering doing anything good - but there are punishments for some acts you do, and punishment for other stuff if you don’t do.
If the society you live in, gets together and a majority agrees, supports and votes to pass a law to reduce the consent age to 10 years or makes homosexuality mandatory upon every man, then by your logic, you shouldn’t have a problem with pedophiles or a young stud who is into older men takes you as his gay wife? (to describe it mildly)
I know it sounds crude so no offense intended but I think that’s what your philosophy leads to - and if you think realistically, there is no stopping to it.
100 years ago, our own laws prohibited homosexuality and that’s what the society wanted - they considered it an unpleasant and in some cases, a sinful act.
So society “progressed” and now we happily allow it.
Just like 100 years ago homosexuality was unlawful - today we consider polygamy, and pedophilia to be unlawful and a punishable act by law cause that’s what our current society wants - well, if the society keeps progressing then who knows, 100 years from now, the society is changed and they happily allow polygamy and pedophilia?
Now, you may think that, “How in the world can pedophlia be allowed by law? It’s impossible !!”
But didn’t the people of 100 years ago thought the same about homosexuality? But here we are.
IMO, Boundaries and limits set forth by God’s guidance, hardly change - but when a society puts God’s guidance aside, and solely decides what’s right and what’s wrong based on majority voting then it’s bound to go astray over the course of time.
Quite ironic when we consider paedophilia that, until quite recently and then only following public outrage, the Vatican city raised the age of consent from 12 to 18.
There is a regular user called in this forum. He was humiliated by his own family for being different. Now, who is the sinner?? He or his family?? There are 2 sins - being gay and disowning your son.
Which gets you more points on judgement day? Adamantly following the scriptures and feeling good or supporting your children by going against them?
I dont blame them. Seriously on the few good people in the middle like them and you are stuck in the middle between scriptures and society. See Catholic church, do they care??
There is a regular user called in this forum. He was humiliated by his own family for being different. Now, who is the sinner?? He or his family?? There are 2 sins - being gay and disowning your son.
Which gets you more points on judgement day? Adamantly following the scriptures and feeling good or supporting your children by going against them?
I dont blame them. Seriously on the few good people in the middle like them and you are stuck in the middle between scriptures and society. See Catholic church, do they care??
Being gay is not harmful to anyone. Attitudes ABOUT being gay are.
Human psychological development proceeds in stages. The earliest stage when we are young and learning to be adult, reward and punishment are the tools used to direct our behavior and attitudes. As we mature and enter society in adolescence, we adopt role models and mirror the behavior of those we admire or wish to be like. This is the stage that endures throughout the majority of our adult life with changes in which role models we choose to emulate. As we develop an inner sense of values that we resonate with, our inner character becomes more and more our reference and we can ignore and reject any outside influence that violates our inner sense of values and rightness. That is our goal and Jesus achieved the epitome of it and was able to withstand the most extreme external consequences while retaining His inner value of agape love for ALL. "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do." We may not be able to achieve that level of maturity, but we don't need to thanks to Jesus.
I disagree with your assessment of development.
And it is burdensome to continuously find that you have ignored the values of dialog.
Yes this is an open discussion platform where everyone is freely given a place to voice their opinions. And I respect this gift very much. But when it comes to the subject of teaching. There are strict guidelines to follow so that there is no confusion in a dialog about spiritual topics.
The current field of psychology is an embarrassment to society at large and has little to nothing relatable to the topic of the O.P.
Sin is rebellion against what is right and good.
And if a person doesnt understand that every good gift comes from above.
Then Yeshua is not the head of their family values.
Jesus did what no one could do. And has not asked anyone to achieve anything.
Every individual person has a direct relationship with the Lord because of Him. And As a community all individuals are uniquely a part of the whole of the body with Him as the head.
When asked if you remembered what I shared concerning the 10 men you chose not to value the dialog.
At the very least a person who respects and loves others would normally respond to the content they other person has shared. And the conversation would continue where each person has common ground of understanding.
For example;
I point at a color and ask is that blue?
Then the other person answers yes or no.
If the answer is yes the conversation would continue in the spirit of understanging as the two persons have a common ground of Truth.
Where's the agape love in ignoring the basic fundamenty quality of dialog?
Test the spirits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
