TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 51

Thread: Sin. What is it?

  1. #26
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Mmm, I don't think so. Conscience is deeply linked to empathy, to the point where people deficient in the latter tend to lack the former. And empathy is innate, not taught. It's not a one-to-one correspondence, because "conscience" isn't actually all that well-defined and people will use the term for a variety of personal experiences.

  2. #27
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Total aside here, but doesn't it make a fuckton more sense to have the new year start when all the leaves and crap start blooming in spring? Why end it smack dab in the deadest ass part of winter? Usher in the new year when the weather starts getting warm again, I say!
    It did, apparently, until Romans screwed it all up and added two extra months.

  3. #28
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Mmm, I don't think so. Conscience is deeply linked to empathy, to the point where people deficient in the latter tend to lack the former. And empathy is innate, not taught. It's not a one-to-one correspondence, because "conscience" isn't actually all that well-defined and people will use the term for a variety of personal experiences.
    Having empathy isn't the complete equation though, is it? Empathy doesn't tell you whether your action or inaction is good or bad by itself, you have to learn how to use it in the context of, say, swiping another kid's toy. A conscience develops over time with interaction in your social environment - and societal expectation. Religion's a big example of how elastic moral inferencing in relationship to your conscience can be.

  4. #29
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Might be what we call conscience is just a product of human self-domestication.

  5. #30
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I can add another small part to my take. There's all this real emotional baggage that humans can't help but confront. In my understanding, the roots of sin aren't conscience but self-loathing confronting the limits of one's self control. Whenever one is struck with that emotion, I think there's great pressure to grasp on to something in nature that reassures you, it's ok, you're human, you're imperfect, you have weaknesses. You're not an evil person. Try to do better next time. If a person doesn't come to that realization, I think they could really consume themselves in unwarranted guilt and self-loathing.

    Now here's a punchline to that. I have an idea that many people come to that kind of realzation one way or another just to cope with their own weaknesses. And I think in many cases it might not actually matter what you name that realization. You could call it overcoming samsara through dharma or call it accepting the sacrifice of Christ that paid for your sins (I'd add other religions' equivalents if I knew them better), the job of either of which is to extinguished that guilt at its cosmological constitutional roots.

    Those narratives are vehicles to get you there. If one is an atheist tackling the same issue, it's doing the same thing with a different vehicle, the same work of Jesus or dharma in different words.

    Ok, some caveats. I wouldn't want to go too far down that line because there are also important differences between, e.g., following dharma to overcome samsara and following Jesus as Christ that that framework glosses over. But at the same time, I think there's a tendancy among some self-described non-believers or atheists to just say of those kinds of emotions, oh they're just hormonal or just in the head. They'll say there's nothing supernatural about it, but I get the feeling what they mean is there's nothing serious, or real, or more deeply meaningdful about them, which I think is a dismissive and regretable approach one may take towards the so-called spiritual emotions. Ok, so you don't like these classic vehicles to confronting them. I get that. But I think it's still worth confronting them on a spiritual level and to struggle to find vehicles for that confrontation that take them as real and deeply as they can go.

  6. #31
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2000
    You quite often see this picture in discussions online of how the western medieval Church viewed the issue of sexual sin:



    It's a funny picture, but the image is often (mis)used to make a point about how totalitarian and oppressive the Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages, or how bizarre people's beliefs were back then. What's often overlooked is that this is just a compilation of lots of different prohibitions on sexual behaviour that were enforced (successfully or not) at different times over a long period.

    In reality views about sex and sin were much more nuanced and could depend on context. For example, between about 1350-1550, in many parts of Europe towns ran brothels whose existence was seen as necessary by the Church to provide an outlet for unmarried men who might otherwise endanger honourable women. This was seen as a lesser evil than banning prostitution outright (St Augustine talks about this problem specifically in his treatise De Ordine, or 'On Order').

    (the flowchart is originally from James Brundage's book Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe, which is mostly about the medieval canon law and its impact on everyday life)

  7. #32

  8. #33
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ood-165443013/

    'Plenty of bleak observations complicate the discovery of children’s nobler impulses. Kids are intensely tribal: 3-month-olds like people of their own race more than others, experiments have shown, and 1-year-olds prefer native speakers to those of another tongue. Yes, a baby prefers the good guy—unless the bad one, like the baby, eats graham crackers. If the good guy is a green-bean eater, forget it.'

    Altruism != conscience, but you do you.

  9. #34
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    Biological instinct is fundamentally different from conscience, though it might seem like the same thing.
    How do you know this is true? How could you tell the difference? Do you consider morality and conscience to be the same thing or conscience to be a manifestation of morality, a signal?

    Morality is not a human artifice. It is not exclusive to humans. It only exists in social animals but it does exist in all social animals. So it is an instinct The fact that we codify it and give it names, like sin or law, is just our semantic circuit doing its instinctive thing.

    Sin is a label, not a thing.

  10. #35
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    How do you know this is true? How could you tell the difference? Do you consider morality and conscience to be the same thing or conscience to be a manifestation of morality, a signal?
    I'm not sure why one would consider morality and conscience to be the same thing - if they were, they'd have the same meaning. Morality is a more-or-less baseline set of universally agreed principles, while conscience is individual, personal and therefore not so easy to agree upon. It's well and good to argue moral consequences, but if an immoral act doesn't trigger anything in one person's conscience but does so in an other's, we've something that's obviously either got different baselines, is malleable, or forms through a different bunch of variables for each person.

    Morality is not a human artifice. It is not exclusive to humans. It only exists in social animals but it does exist in all social animals. So it is an instinct The fact that we codify it and give it names, like sin or law, is just our semantic circuit doing its instinctive thing.
    Agreed. I don't know about the bearing it has on anything we're talking about, but sure.

  11. #36
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Total aside here, but doesn't it make a fuckton more sense to have the new year start when all the leaves and crap start blooming in spring? Why end it smack dab in the deadest ass part of winter? Usher in the new year when the weather starts getting warm again, I say!
    The symbolism is of death and rebirth. The new year starts with the death of the old year. The seed in the cold earth, gestation. Spring is the birthing.

    Also I think that people needed some sort of optimistic symbolism for the middle of winter, some reassurance that there was hope, even if it was buried under the snow.

  12. #37
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    I'm not sure why one would consider morality and conscience to be the same thing...

    Agreed. I don't know about the bearing it has on anything we're talking about, but sure.
    Perhaps the conscience is the feedback signal, telling us that we have done something good or bad.

    I think instinctual nature of morality has a lot of bearing on the subject. It means that sin is the human artifice. It is an arbitrary set of values imposed on our instinctual morality. Sin agrees with many of those moral values then pastes a bunch of artificial morals on top of them. The same justifications that we use to augment natural morals with artificial ones (sins and virtues) also allows us to circumvent our morality. It is a virtue to torture and murder someone, to save their immortal soul from sin...

    I guess it depends on whether this discussion is about the realities of sin or the doctrines invented about it.

  13. #38
    SShock2.com
    Member

    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: The land of ever sideways rain
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    That actually helps. Thank you.

  14. #39
    El Shagmeister
    Registered: Jul 2000
    Location: Under your fingernails.
    I am sin.

    <3

  15. #40
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    While this is up, I saw an interesting article. The Pope said he was considering introducing a new category of sin to the catechism, ecological sin. How possible is it that there could have been this entire category of sin it took 2000 years to come around to discovering? Is sin the kind of thing that can evolve over time?

    Incidentally, maybe I've been influenced by Eastern religions, but I tend to think of religion as a practice or discipline, like the way in Japan calligraphy or martial arts or meditation are spiritual kinds of practices. You could opt out of doing them altogether. But if you're going to do them at all, you should do them according to the rules. That's kind of how I approach theological things. There's a set narrative and rules that gives everything meaning. If you're going to play the game, I think you ought to stick to that -- you bracket the world you're talking about with just the rules you have at hand -- or you should just say you're not participating.

    I'm not one to say everyone ought to think like that. But ... I guess to use the discipline analogy again, the human body is capable of really interesting things in, say, judo or aikido, and the point of those disciplines is to hone, and give structure to, and make precise the motions to really crystallize how they work as a practice (e.g., grapples and pivots and such). And it turns out humans also have this capacity to see spiritual meaning in things and experience that spiritual meaning in a really direct and visceral way, and Christianity and other mature religions also hone and give structure to them.

    A person could just completely ignore that side of themselves, just like a person could commit to never having sex or never eating food with flavor, so cooking would be a pointless art to them. But if someone wanted to engage with those experiences, then they could do it flopping at random (lol anything goes in the pot, one flavor is as good as another / lol spirituality is anything I think has an aura, so rubbing this rock is as meaningful as anything) or they could follow a discipline and really draw out deep aspects of those experiences. So that's what a religion can offer a person if they sign up for it, at least if they sign up for the discipline part of it, at least the way I see it. If somebody said those experiences are fake and pointless so what's the point, that's fine, but it also sounds to me like someone saying taste is fake and pointless so what's the point of cooking.

    One punchline is that religion should then have value just as far as it actually engages those experiences, and if it derails from them, as I think it does in a lot of ways, then it's like cooking that's derailed from being about taste anymore. So people that care about religious experiences would do well IMO to keep working and refining the discipline. They don't have to be content with the received version if it's not doing what it should be doing for them. Again, if they care about engaging it at all.

  16. #41
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Well remember, dema, Christians believe that until Moses descended the mountain with the 10 Commandments (V2.0), humans had apparently spent between 3,000 to 3,000,000 years as morality bereft creatures. Also, stewardship of the earth meant extracting maximum resources for the unfettered production of progeny and the glory of god. Since earth is just the waiting room for the afterlife, trashing it was no big deal. This is what I mean by religious concepts of sin and virtue corrupting and perverting natural decency.

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    sin just means you had a better time than others who are jealous..........

  18. #43
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2019
    Read the 'Philokalia'. It is available free on-line (I believe in every country) in pdf form. It explains what sin is and how to avoid it. They say even atheist gain knowledge from it. It's difficult to read and no one fully understands those writings of the desert fathers.

  19. #44
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    I'm waiting for Volume 5 to come out.

  20. #45
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2019
    Have you realized, Nick, that he ask the same question Neo did ? And perhaps, some would say, on the wrong forum, but i say it is the perfect forum, through a glass darkly, he stares....

    MrDuck is correct because we are our own judge...for Christ just shows everyone the truth about themselves and no one else. Pyrian is correct with his diagram because it encompasses both forms of mystic theology.
    Last edited by howeird; 23rd Nov 2019 at 18:48. Reason: Spelling & added some words

  21. #46
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    I think that Naartjie's diagram was more informative and accurate.

  22. #47
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2019
    I was thinking more of Aquinas style of teaching or in the diagram of 'what God is Not' vs, 'what He is'. He reminds me of a boring Geometry teacher using proofs. I hated proofs. What is not sin ? or What is sin ? and proof it.

    I heard a story of the Chinese government raiding a Buddhist Monastery uncovering a hidden library stuffed full of 15th century Christian spiritual literature. I guess the government is thinking that a bunch of secret Christian monks maybe trying to overthrow the communist government over a 500 year period is somehow possible and must not be allowed ? Those Taffers !

  23. #48
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    I'm not sure why one would consider morality and conscience to be the same thing - if they were, they'd have the same meaning. Morality is a more-or-less baseline set of universally agreed principles, while conscience is individual, personal and therefore not so easy to agree upon.
    Morality is what other people tell you to do (and not do).
    Conscience is what you tell yourself to do (and not do).

    I don't agree on "universally agreed principles". I think kids learn from others what is good and what is not. And what you learn just depends on the people that happen to be around you (your parents, your teachers, your friends and their parents, your religion's priests, media, the books you read, etc). Sin is a concept that is taught, not a concept that is already in babies.

  24. #49
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    'Universal' in this context is a catch-all for whichever segment of society you happen to be part of.

  25. #50
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2011
    I dont care for lying.
    It seems like all true evil in the world can be traced back to a lie.

    But there are many layers to a lie and lying.
    Some peopel that seems to be all they do and a thousand ways to do it.

    Example,
    exaggerating isn't always the same as a lie.
    Or metaphor.

    But lying to yourself,
    so that you can lie convincingly by believing your own lies,
    IS a lie.

    I mean a LIE OF INTENT.
    Dishonesty.

    It seems to me all true evil.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •