Morality and/vs sin

[DogmaHunter]

Hi there all,

(note: when I use the word "sin" in this post, I'm talking about it in the religious sense)

In your religious opinion, is there a connection between morality and sin?
If the bible says that X is a sin, is there then a moral implication in said action?
Could it be, for example, that something is immoral but not a sin? If yes, do you have any examples of that?

Are things that are classified as sin always immoral? Or can it also be a seemingly trivial/arbitrary thing with no actual moral implications?


Having asked those questions, I'ld like to present a more practical example as well.

In the eyes of God, as you understand it, which is worse:
1. dieing as an atheist / non-christian, with no particular crimes on your hands
2. murdering 100 people in cold blood, repenting and becoming christian and then dieing.

In case you answered with option 1, would you say that that is worse in "moral terms"?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

AFAIK in Islam salih is righteousness, and fasad is its opposite. The first relates to good and wholesome, and the later relates to corruption and decay. So Islamic ethics are *similar to secular ethics*, in promoting well being. Taqwa or piety is to focus on the good deeds, and to avoid the corruptions and harms. In addition we have our sacred / supernatural ethics too.

 

[Occams Barber]

AFAIK in Islam salih is righteousness, and fasad is its opposite. The first relates to good and wholesome, and the later relates to corruption and decay. So Islamic ethics are *similar to secular ethics*, in promoting well being. Taqwa or piety is to focus on the good deeds, and to avoid the corruptions and harms. In addition we have our sacred / supernatural ethics too.

One of the things I like to think I specialise in is parsing language to extract meaning.

My assessment of your statement above is that it consists of a series of unrelated statements which fail to connect to each other or to the OP.

This has nothing to do with Muslim or Christian. Using either context what you have written makes no sense.

Since you pose as a humanist I find this disappointing.
OB

 

[Ken-1122]

Hi there all,

(note: when I use the word "sin" in this post, I'm talking about it in the religious sense)

In your religious opinion, is there a connection between morality and sin?

Yes

If the bible says that X is a sin, is there then a moral implication in said action?

Yes

Could it be, for example, that something is immoral but not a sin?

Moral/immoral is subjective; sin is objective.

If yes, do you have any examples of that?

I consider human sacrifice for religious purposes to be immoral, but it probably isn't a sin

Are things that are classified as sin always immoral?

The person who decided an act is a sin would probably consider said act immoral as well; though others probably wouldn't consider the act immoral

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sin requires knowing that an action or inaction is wrong. The law reveals what sin is, as Paul said, "I would not have known sin but for the Law". In the larger sense doing what you know is wrong is sin and thus immoral, as well as not doing something that you know you should do. However not all sin is 'immoral' unless it's deliberate.

For example, not putting your shopping cart away neatly is a sin, but not immoral. However if you deliberately put it away in a fashion that you know will cause the employee extra work it is immoral.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hi there all,

(note: when I use the word "sin" in this post, I'm talking about it in the religious sense)

In your religious opinion, is there a connection between morality and sin?
If the bible says that X is a sin, is there then a moral implication in said action?
Could it be, for example, that something is immoral but not a sin? If yes, do you have any examples of that?

Are things that are classified as sin always immoral? Or can it also be a seemingly trivial/arbitrary thing with no actual moral implications?


Having asked those questions, I'ld like to present a more practical example as well.

In the eyes of God, as you understand it, which is worse:
1. dieing as an atheist / non-christian, with no particular crimes on your hands
2. murdering 100 people in cold blood, repenting and becoming christian and then dieing.

In case you answered with option 1, would you say that that is worse in "moral terms"?

Number 1 is worse, on it's face.

 

[ubicaritas]

Hi there all,

(note: when I use the word "sin" in this post, I'm talking about it in the religious sense)

In your religious opinion, is there a connection between morality and sin?
If the bible says that X is a sin, is there then a moral implication in said action?
Could it be, for example, that something is immoral but not a sin? If yes, do you have any examples of that?

Are things that are classified as sin always immoral? Or can it also be a seemingly trivial/arbitrary thing with no actual moral implications?


Having asked those questions, I'ld like to present a more practical example as well.

In the eyes of God, as you understand it, which is worse:
1. dieing as an atheist / non-christian, with no particular crimes on your hands
2. murdering 100 people in cold blood, repenting and becoming christian and then dieing.

In case you answered with option 1, would you say that that is worse in "moral terms"?

The traditional Protestant perspective is that both do not deserve eternal life. Repentance and "accepting Jesus" are not meritorious deeds, they are not in the realm of morality. God has merely promised salvation to those that believe, but that doesn't make salvation a reward for good behavior, necessarily.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The traditional Protestant perspective is that both do not deserve eternal life. Repentance and "accepting Jesus" are not meritorious deeds, they are not in the realm of morality. God has merely promised salvation to those that believe, but that doesn't make salvation a reward for good behavior, necessarily.

We are saved by grace, rewarded for deeds.

 

[ubicaritas]

We are saved by grace, rewarded for deeds.

That is unhelpful and just confuses the issue theologically in this context.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is unhelpful and just confuses the issue theologically in this context.

You are confusing saved and rewarded.

 

[JackRT]

In any discussion of moral standards I think that it might be helpful to discuss the difference between sin and evil. But before attempting that, let us examine a similar situation in the secular realm. Governments at every level pass legislation that prohibits certain actions. We use the word 'crime' to refer to the deliberate breaking of such a law. However, is the commission of a crime the same thing as committing an evil act? Here we come up against just how we might define evil. For the purposes of this discussion let me give a very simple definition:

Evil --- any deliberate action or inaction which compromises the physical or psychological integrity of a human being.

This, of course, is a narrow definition and we could likely spend a very long time extending it and refining it. Let us leave that at least for the moment. The point that I am sneaking up on here is that 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime' and conversely 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. To me this is obvious but let me just attempt an illustration of each statement.

First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime'. By my definition above, the killing of another human being is to be regarded as an evil act. However, the law does not regard this as a crime if it is done in self defence or in war.

Second, 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. In Singapore, for example, it is a crime to chew gum. I think most would not quibble about this not being evil according to the above definition.

Can we make similar distinctions in the spiritual realm concerning sin and evil? I believe that we can. First, we need a working definition of sin. Let me suggest a very simple definition:

Sin --- doing that which is forbidden by a spiritual authority.

Once again, we could debate this definition. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this definition might involve whether or not a spiritual authority, such as a church or a scripture, can actually express the will of a Deity. Setting that aside, we once again are faced with two problems. The point being that 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin' and conversely 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'.

First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin'. I think that most would agree that to torture someone is an evil. However, if we just look at Christian scripture, I do not see any specific prohibition that would make torture a sin. A similar argument could be applied to female genital mutilation (circumcision).

Second, 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'. Here, we can get into a very much more controversial debates. It is certainly true that Christian scripture regards homosexual actions as sinful. However, within society at large and within a number of Christian churches in particular, homosexual behaviour is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself. It is also certainly true that Jewish scripture regards the breaking of the dietary laws as sinful and even an abomination. However, within society at large and within a number of Jewish traditions in particular, the breaking of the dietary laws is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself.

The distinctions made here between crime and evil and also between sin and evil lead us in a real quandry for society at large. The western world has become, and is increasingly becoming, extremely diverse in language, culture and religion. There is also no real way of reversing this. Since different religions cannot agree on what is sin, I do not think that we can rely on religion entirely to inform our moral and ethical behaviour. Since what is regarded as sin has so often in the past led us into framing our laws to determine what is criminal, I think we need a new approach to the problem. We need an approach that avoids the imposition of one set of religious beliefs on society at large --- an approach broadly constructed on a concensus of what is evil and therefore what is criminal. Leave what is regarded as sin to the consciences of those in particular religious traditions.

 

[Sanoy]

1. dieing as an atheist / non-christian, with no particular crimes on your hands
2. murdering 100 people in cold blood, repenting and becoming christian and then dieing.

I'd have to think long and hard about the first section. However to your final question, in the eyes of God, as best I can infer, number 1 is worse. He died for all of us while we were yet sinners. He doesn't want anyone to perish.

As far as which is more moral I think it's the wrong question, one is moral forgiveness, and one is moral Justice. This conflict was the reason for sacrifice. Sin puts us in ownership of the adversary. That title of ownership, sin, is transferred in the sacrifice and delivered via the goat for azazel.

 

[Ken-1122]

As far as which is more moral I think it's the wrong question, one is moral forgiveness, and one is moral Justice.

So which is right? Justice or forgiveness? Because you can't have both.
Also when you guys speak of "sin" are you referring to the Christian concept of sin only? Or all concepts of sin

 

[Sanoy]

So which is right? Justice or forgiveness? Because you can't have both.
Also when you guys speak of "sin" are you referring to the Christian concept of sin only? Or all concepts of sin

Justice and forgiveness are both moral paradigms. There are three types of sin in the Bible, so you would have to ask the OP which he is referring too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For example, not putting your shopping cart away neatly is a sin, but not immoral.

Is that a "sin" in the religious sense, like I clarified in the OP?
So where in the bible does it identify not putting shopping carts away as a "sin"?
Or which sin that is mentioned in the bible do you use to consider "not putting cart away neatly" to be an instance of?

However if you deliberately put it away in a fashion that you know will cause the employee extra work it is immoral.

Isn't that always the case?
Not putting it away, gives the employee extra work by default - because it needs to be put away.

Then again, isn't the employee paid to do exactly that (or at least as part of his/her job)? To clean up after customers?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Number 1 is worse, on it's face.

Why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The traditional Protestant perspective is that both do not deserve eternal life. Repentance and "accepting Jesus" are not meritorious deeds, they are not in the realm of morality. God has merely promised salvation to those that believe, but that doesn't make salvation a reward for good behavior, necessarily.

If that is what God promised, then why wouldn't the dude in example 2 deserve eternal life?
After all, he seems to meet the required criteria according to God's promise?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is that a "sin" in the religious sense, like I clarified in the OP?
So where in the bible does it identify not putting shopping carts away as a "sin"?
Or which sin that is mentioned in the bible do you use to consider "not putting cart away neatly" to be an instance of?

Define "religious sense".

Isn't that always the case?
Not putting it away, gives the employee extra work by default - because it needs to be put away.

Then again, isn't the employee paid to do exactly that (or at least as part of his/her job)? To clean up after customers?

Why make him face a jumbled mess of shopping carts twenty times a day?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why?

It's better to die as a Christian. You get to come up sooner.

 

[ubicaritas]

If that is what God promised, then why wouldn't the dude in example 2 deserve eternal life?
After all, he seems to meet the required criteria according to God's promise?

Because he's a sinner.

We think of salvation as a gift, not something one earns.