Sins that don't harm others

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I understand why 'thou shalt not kill' or steal etc as it directly harms another person/affects their free will.

Why do you atheistically assume this to be wrong?

Why however does God care about what we do when we don't harm others?

Because:
A) things can harm us physically, emotionally or spiritually regardless of their relation to other people's well-being
B) if we are constantly going against God's will then we are not actualizing our greatest potential because God has set up the moral and spiritual universe such that we receive our greatest actualization when we follow his will.

But what about gluttony? Yes you are harming the body God gave you, but so does almost anything you do. It would be like making skateboarding a sin because you might fall and harm yourself.

Skateboarding might harm your body. Persistent gluttony will harm your body. One is a probability, the other is a conscious, willful decision.

So when something is consentual, unharmful to others or even yourself and has no effect on your decision making or your ability to be a good person, does God condemn it?

No. But I think we may disagree on what is "harmful to yourself" and what has "no effect on your decision making" and what "limits your ability to be a good person".

I would say something like masturbation is wrong because it can become addictive and alter your thought processes which then has an affect on your decision making and may be harmful to yourself. Also, if you start spending hours per day watching porn you are effectively limiting how much good you could be doing with your time here on Earth.

Why do we not have the free will to have sex with someone we love unless we have signed a piece of legally binding paper? What difference does it make to God?

I'm not sure that the piece of paper is necessary. Commitment is necessary. Lifelong commitment. And doing it publicly makes you accountable to others.

I think if a couple gathered a bunch of their closest friends and family together and had a small service in which they publicly declared themselves to be lifelong partners til they die, through thick and thin, and resolved to respect and love each other; if both families gave their blessing and it was a joyous occasion, I can't see God having a problem with it. But if you're going to do all that, why not sign the paper too? Signing the paper solidifies the commitment.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]But I don't follow your logic, as STD's and unwanted pregnancies have nothing to do with marriage, it merely requires the use of contraceptives.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They have a great deal to do with marriage. If everyone married a single partner and remained faithful to that partner, there could be no spread of STDs. Likewise unplanned pregnancies are obviously much more likely when people are hooking up with a new partner every few days or hours, as opposed to being in faithful marriages.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I agree with what you are saying if you are referring to the promiscuous. But do you really think everyone who isn’t married goes around having sex with everyone they can? It is like saying everyone who isn’t on a diet gorges themselves every time they see food. The point I am trying to make is that you can be faithful and loving to one partner without the need to be married, I have been with my girlfriend for 6 years and lived together for most of that, I have never been unfaithful and I never will be. If I was married I wouldn’t love her any more, nor be any less likely to cheat on her. For example, you can be an honest and loyal friend without needing the equivalent to marriage, you can have a friend for life out of mutual respect and love.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sure it is. If a couple is married and faithful, there's no reason either husband or wife to be jealous of their partner's other partners, because those other partners simply don't exist. In novels by folks such as Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand, folks have as many partners as they please and the problem of jealousy simply does not arise. But real life is not a novel, and jealousy does arise. The only way to avoid it is to avoid having multiple partners.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are still making the assumption that an unmarried couple cannot be faithful, which I really don’t understand. Or assuming that all marriages work, when statistically the majority end in divorce and many women get abused at the hands of a jealous husband. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Every human is both an individual and a social creature. From the social side, if we have a culture that values marriage and encourages fidelity, this will encourage individuals to develop and exercise self-control and to feel guilt when they fail. On the other hand, if we normalize easy sex, hook-up culture, and adultery, we will push individuals in the opposite direction.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am trying to think of a way to make you understand. Let’s assume that you remained celibate until you become married, how did you remain celibate? You would have shown self-control to avoid sexual encounters the same way an unmarried couple have self-control not to sleep with multiple partners. Although, it doesn’t take self-control at all if you love your partner, I for one have never wanted to cheat on my girlfriend because I love her and her only. Someone who would cheat isn’t going to gain self-control by getting married.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So in the eyes of God I would be condemned to an eternity of torture, which seems insane.[/FONT]

 

[Curious Atheist]

Curious Atheist: Is driving on the left- hand side of the road sinful?

No, but you might not want to try it in the wrong country. What is your point?

 

[ebia]

No, but you might not want to try it in the wrong country. What is your point?

That you can't necessarily atomise something down to "is someone hurt by this individual action". Sometimes what is necessary is widespread or near universal compliance with a norm - which may even (like a fair proportion of the road rules) be quite arbitrary.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]I understand why 'thou shalt not kill' or steal etc as it directly harms another person/affects their free will.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why do you atheistically assume this to be wrong?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What do you mean? I said I understand, as in I agree with the said rules. I think much of the bible is great and Jesus was a man of exceedingly good morals. I just don’t see it as anything supernatural and I would like to know why some rules are there that don’t make sense, whilst ignoring some big ones like ‘don’t rape’.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
A) things can harm us physically, emotionally or spiritually regardless of their relation to other people's well-being[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But don’t we have the free will to make our own decisions in life, good or bad? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
B) if we are constantly going against God's will then we are not actualizing our greatest potential because God has set up the moral and spiritual universe such that we receive our greatest actualization when we follow his will.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am just asking why his will would be to control whom we have sex with or love, as well as other rules that don’t really make sense to me. Why would God rather us stay in an unhappy marriage for life, with no escape. Like a wife with an abusive husband, why is better she live a miserable existence to remain married? She is hardly living to her greatest potential.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Skateboarding might harm your body. Persistent gluttony will harm your body. One is a probability, the other is a conscious, willful decision.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So everyone who is obese will go to hell? What about the consumption of alcohol or smoking, does this buy you a one-way ticket to hell too? Why is it not wrong to drastically increase your chances of harm, like driving dangerously to try and ‘accidentally’ kill yourself to get to heaven quicker? You aren’t committing suicide, just increases the chances of death.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No. But I think we may disagree on what is "harmful to yourself" and what has "no effect on your decision making" and what "limits your ability to be a good person".[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes I would agree we do, that is why I am asking questions.

I would say something like masturbation is wrong because it can become addictive and alter your thought processes which then has an affect on your decision making and may be harmful to yourself. Also, if you start spending hours per day watching porn you are effectively limiting how much good you could be doing with your time here on Earth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why is there such a fear of addiction? A tiny minority of people become sex-addicts whether they are married or not. Food can be addictive, so can drinking or gambling but I don’t know what your thoughts are on this. Why do you have so little faith in humanities ability to control their own decisions?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I'm not sure that the piece of paper is necessary. Commitment is necessary. Lifelong commitment. And doing it publicly makes you accountable to others. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But it says you must not have pre-marital sex in the bible. Commitment is necessary to a faithful relationship I agree, but I disagree you should be forced to spend a lifetime with someone you no longer love or is abusive.

I think if a couple gathered a bunch of their closest friends and family together and had a small service in which they publicly declared themselves to be lifelong partners til they die, through thick and thin, and resolved to respect and love each other; if both families gave their blessing and it was a joyous occasion, I can't see God having a problem with it. But if you're going to do all that, why not sign the paper too? Signing the paper solidifies the commitment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why does it matter what your friends and family think? Shouldn’t you care about what God thinks most? If my friends were against my relationship I might need to find better friends. Likewise, can you not have a lifelong friend without publicly declaring it?[/FONT]

 

[Curious Atheist]

That you can't necessarily atomise something down to "is someone hurt by this individual action". Sometimes what is necessary is widespread or near universal compliance with a norm - which may even (like a fair proportion of the road rules) be quite arbitrary.

But why would God make a rule for the sake of a rule? That is what I am asking. If it said in the bible that driving on the left is a sin, would you not want to know why? Bearing in mind a sin is what leads to an eternity of torture, so to me that indicates it must be infinitely serious so should have good reason.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I do agree it is difficult to say what doesn't harm others in some way. However almost all of an individuals decisions will in some way impact another. Like the 'butterfly effect', it doesn't mean we can control other peoples decisions and take away their freedom.
That is why I have used specific examples that I don't see how they could harm others like not being married. Homosexuality isn't harmful either, you do not decide to find women attractive and they do not make a concious decision to like men. (or lesbians..). You may see a same-sex couple and be disgusted, but that is your problem not theirs so although you have been indirectly effected, you can carry on with your own life as it is non of your business.

 

[ebia]

But why would God make a rule for the sake of a rule? That is what I am asking. If it said in the bible that driving on the left is a sin, would you not want to know why? Bearing in mind a sin is what leads to an eternity of torture, so to me that indicates it must be infinitely serious so should have good reason.

Road rules are not rules just for the sake of it. You can't operate roads without such a set of rules, but most of the rules individually are arbitrary. What matters is that we all follow the same set, not exactly what that set looks like: that varies quite happily from county to country.

Similarly with vacinations: what matters most, what the community most benefits from, is almost everyone being vaccinated. Any given person can choose not to without perceptible harm to others, but a significant minority not changes the picture dramatically.

The world is a more complex place than being able to assign particular harm to individual instances of particular acts.

 

[Curious Atheist]

Road rules are not rules just for the sake of it. You can't operate roads without such a set of rules, but most of the rules individually are arbitrary. What matters is that we all follow the same set, not exactly what that set looks like: that varies quite happily from county to country.

Yes but there is no right and wrong when deciding if the rule will be to drive on the left or right. You are not threatened with torture if the rule is set one way or another. Neither is it suggested following one way or another makes you a better person or closer to God’s perfection which is what is implied with Biblical rules. So condemning homosexuality for example merely creates more hate in the world instead of acceptance of other people’s lives and points of view. The same goes for condemning loving couples who choose not to marry, it is an arbitrary rule like you suggest but there is no social benefit to everyone following the rule. It is not a disease that can be caught (to both homosexuality and unmarried monogamy).

Similarly with vacinations: what matters most, what the community most benefits from, is almost everyone being vaccinated. Any given person can choose not to without perceptible harm to others, but a significant minority not changes the picture dramatically.

Give an example of how unmarried love damages the community if you will.

The world is a more complex place than being able to assign particular harm to individual instances of particular acts[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I agree, but if God created everything then he surely would have reason to ban such a tiny number of things. On one hand he wants us to have free will but he takes it away with the other by telling us who to love and how.[/FONT]

 

[IndieVisible]

This is one of my quickest questions I think.

I understand why 'thou shalt not kill' or steal etc as it directly harms another person/affects their free will.

Why however does God care about what we do when we don't harm others? Apparently we can't discuss homosexuality which is a shame as it is a prime example.
But what about gluttony? Yes you are harming the body God gave you, but so does almost anything you do. It would be like making skateboarding a sin because you might fall and harm yourself.

So when something is consentual, unharmful to others or even yourself and has no effect on your decision making or your ability to be a good person, does God condemn it? Why do we not have the free will to have sex with someone we love unless we have signed a piece of legally binding paper? What difference does it make to God?

I suppose some might say 'God creates morals', but didn't he originally make it immoral to eat pork for example?

Thanks

You have to understand what sin is. It is any act that separates us from God. It is any act where we put ourselves before God. It is impossible to be in harmony/fellowship with God during the time a sin is taking place. It is the separation we must take from God during those times which is harmful.

So all sin is harmful in that respect. Now that is not to say all sin is equal, for obviously murder is not the same as stealing candy. Both are sins, both will result in separation from God during those acts, however murder presents more serious consequences then candy.

Once you understand what sin actually is, every thing falls in to place.

 

[ebia]

Yes but there is no right and wrong when deciding if the rule will be to drive on the left or right. You are not threatened with torture if the rule is set one way or another. Neither is it suggested following one way or another makes you a better person or closer to God’s perfection which is what is implied with Biblical rules.

I dont get to set the road rules - the country does. If I decline to follow them the consequences are quite significant.

Give an example of how unmarried love damages the community if you will.

that question ignores my whole point - that you cannot isolate individual rules and ask "where is there harm in this instance of this rulebreaking".

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]I dont get to set the road rules - the country does. If I decline to follow them the consequences are quite significant. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes but it is obvious why you shouldn’t drive on the wrong side of the road isn’t it. I am not saying we don’t need any rules which is what you seem to think I am implying, not murdering etc is a perfectly acceptable universal rule to follow for obvious reasons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Give an example of how unmarried love damages the community if you will.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]that question ignores my whole point - that you cannot isolate individual rules and ask "where is there harm in this instance of this rulebreaking".[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But your point is in no way relevant to my question. My question is directly referring to examples where there is no obvious reason, like being told who to love and how. My point is that God should have a good reason to limit our free will, as this life only has pain and suffering so we can express free will. If someone tells me they will torture me for eternity for not being married to someone I love, I would expect a very very very good reason why. You are just dismissing my question, which makes me think you don’t have an answer and therefore I don’t understand why you have replied…If there is no answer to be given then that is another very troubling factor of Christianity I would of thought you wouldn’t want to remain so.[/FONT]

 

[ebia]

I dont get to set the road rules - the country does. If I decline to follow them the consequences are quite significant.
Yes but it is obvious why you shouldn't drive on the wrong side of the road isn't it.

it's an illustration. It demonstrates a rule where it doesn't matter what the rule is so long as we all follow it. A rule you couldnt see the point of wouldn't illustrate much, would it?

Other road rules only have a point within a wider context of the other road rules.

Road rules in general and vaccinations illustrate situations where the complexity goes beyond the individual rule or the individual action. It's therefore entirely reasonable - indeed certainly true - that the complexity can go beyond being able to follow the connection between action and consequence yet the rule still matters.

We live in a much more connected world with a much more complex web of consequences to actions than the demand "this is okay if you cannot show me the direct harm" allows for.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]I dont get to set the road rules - the country does. If I decline to follow them the consequences are quite significant.
Yes but it is obvious why you shouldn't drive on the wrong side of the road isn't it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]it's an illustration. It demonstrates a rule where it doesn't matter what the rule is so long as we all follow it. A rule you couldnt see the point of wouldn't illustrate much, would it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes it would, that would back up your point entirely. However you need to consider it needs to be in proportion to the consequence ie if you sin you are tortured forever so therefore the reason should be equally significant. As opposed to not eating yellow M&M’s ‘just because’ which might be your own personal rule, with no consequence.

Other road rules only have a point within a wider context of the other road rules. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes, they all have a point and a purpose. If there was a rule ‘you cannot drive whilst wearing a blue t-shirt’ I think you would be perfectly entitled to ask why. Especially if you would be tortured for doing so, the only way to justify it would be if wearing a blue t-shirt had terrible consequences.

Road rules in general and vaccinations illustrate situations where the complexity goes beyond the individual rule or the individual action. It's therefore entirely reasonable - indeed certainly true - that the complexity can go beyond being able to follow the connection between action and consequence yet the rule still matters.

We live in a much more connected world with a much more complex web of consequences to actions than the demand "this is okay if you cannot show me the direct harm" allows for. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What about cause and effect though, that is my point. Can you please give an example with your driving example of a cause with no effect? So your example is actually relevant to sex before marriage or other sin with no effect.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cause: Driving on the wrong side of the road[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Effect: Head on collision, resulting in possible death of you and whoever you hit[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cause: Do not get vaccinated[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Effect: Could get a life threatening illness[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cause: Having sex before marriage[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Effect: [Blank][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please fill in the [Blank] for me, that is all that I am asking someone to do. Saying ‘it is a sin because it is a sin’ or ‘follow the rule because it is a rule’ is a circular argument that is going nowhere.[/FONT]

 

[IndieVisible]

[FONT=&quot]..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cause: Having sex before marriage[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Effect: [Blank][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please fill in the [Blank] for me, that is all that I am asking someone to do. Saying ‘it is a sin because it is a sin’ or ‘follow the rule because it is a rule’ is a circular argument that is going nowhere.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Cause: Having sex before marriage[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Effect: separation from God (sin)[/FONT]

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]Cause: Having sex before marriage[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Effect: separation from God (sin)[/FONT]

But WHY WHY WHY is it a seperation from God, why is it any different to brushing your teeth or wearing a blue t-shirt. What reason does God give to say it is wrong, when nothing I can think of (or apparently any Christian) suggests it is similar to other sins, which are just good moral rules.

Am I just flogging a dead horse here, is there no reason and it is just accepted? The ironic thing is I find that difficult to accept.

 

[AlexBP]

[FONT=&quot]I am trying to think of a way to make you understand. Let’s assume that you remained celibate until you become married, how did you remain celibate? You would have shown self-control to avoid sexual encounters the same way an unmarried couple have self-control not to sleep with multiple partners. Although, it doesn’t take self-control at all if you love your partner, I for one have never wanted to cheat on my girlfriend because I love her and her only. Someone who would cheat isn’t going to gain self-control by getting married.[/FONT]

They very well might do exactly that. You seem to think that everyone simply exists with a fixed amount of something called self-control, which is independent of the culture and the social norms of the world. That is not true. Individuals are also social and everything about us is partially shaped by the culture in which we live. That much can easily be demonstrated by the fact that a society's level of promiscuity and other bad behaviors often changes very quickly--clearly it's a social phenomenon, not an individual one. In the United States, social trends in the 50's were all positive: alcoholism and drug use were low, divorce and promiscuity and illegitimacy were low, education was increasing, and the economy was at its best ever. But in the 60's a bunch of liberal elitists began attacking the values that made this possible. They taught that marriage was for losers and anyone should have sex whenever they chose, that work was for losers and everyone should get welfare if they wanted, that education was for losers and that kids should drop out if they felt like it, that obeying the law was for losers and that drugs and crime were just fine. All of these trends went together as one emotion-driven rebellion against authority, and in the late 60's crime and poverty and drug use and illegitimacy skyrocketed, all at the same time. If you want to see the exact numbers, I'd suggest reading The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties Legacy to the Underclass, by Myron Magnet. When individuals make decisions such as the decision to have sex outside of marriage, the effects extend beyond direct physical effects on those individuals. They spread into the social network of ideas, and thereby influence other people and other things. By attacking marriage along with the values that have always accompanied marriage (stability, self-sufficiency, and responsibility), liberal leaders in the 60's harmed society badly.

[FONT=&quot]So in the eyes of God I would be condemned to an eternity of torture, [/FONT]

No you would not.

 

[Curious Atheist]

You paint quite a picture Alex. I can't comment much as I am not very familiar with modern American history, but I can't help thinking that linking everything you said to not being married is far-fetched to say the least.

I still don't think we understand each other on this subject (what a refreshing change eh). I agree with much of what you are saying about the cultural significance and the value of a stable family life. I just don't link this with being married. I am in no way supporting promiscuous behaviour that leads to the horrible statistics of teenage pregancies. However neither would I say the individual isn't important. What I mean is, I don't agree with promiscuous behaviour, however as long as they are practicing safe sex I think it is their right to do so and I would fight for them to have that right.

But personal opinion is one thing, why the creator of the universe has such a personal interest is another. If for the sake of argument we say what you describe is true, or even it gets worse. Why would God intervene against our free will in this specific instance? As surely it is restricting free will and the free will to make a mistake (as you see it). It just doesn't seem on-par with other sins, for example where does it say in the bible not to sell drugs? Of all the sins he could have listed like slavery, torture etc which are overlooked why does sex have such a specific mention? Although I know you will say you have the free will not to be married, in the eyes of God you shouldn't sin so if you believe in God then surely your free will is restricted.

 

[AlexBP]

You paint quite a picture Alex. I can't comment much as I am not very familiar with modern American history, but I can't help thinking that linking everything you said to not being married is far-fetched to say the least.

The fact that marriage and social attitudes in favor of marriage are correlated with positive outcomes in crime, education, employment, and other areas is an established fact. Sociologists, anthropologists, and other experts have verified it many times, not only in the United States but in many countries. If you find it far-fetched, perhaps that's because you're not familiar with the research on the topic.

I still don't think we understand each other on this subject (what a refreshing change eh). I agree with much of what you are saying about the cultural significance and the value of a stable family life. I just don't link this with being married. I am in no way supporting promiscuous behaviour that leads to the horrible statistics of teenage pregancies. However neither would I say the individual isn't important. What I mean is, I don't agree with promiscuous behaviour, however as long as they are practicing safe sex I think it is their right to do so and I would fight for them to have that right.

I agree that individuals should have the right to choose their partners; however, having the right to do something isn't the same as that thing being morally right.

But personal opinion is one thing, why the creator of the universe has such a personal interest is another. If for the sake of argument we say what you describe is true, or even it gets worse. Why would God intervene against our free will in this specific instance? As surely it is restricting free will and the free will to make a mistake (as you see it). It just doesn't seem on-par with other sins, for example where does it say in the bible not to sell drugs? Of all the sins he could have listed like slavery, torture etc which are overlooked why does sex have such a specific mention? Although I know you will say you have the free will not to be married, in the eyes of God you shouldn't sin so if you believe in God then surely your free will is restricted.

Free will is the topic of what humans beings can and cannot do, while morality is the topic of what humans should and should not do. God telling humans that we should not do something is not the same as saying that we cannot do that thing, and thus not a restriction on free will. In fact, God only tells us that we should not do things if we can do those things.

 

[GrayAngel]

Christian discernment is not just about good vs. evil, but it's also about good vs. better vs. best.

Just because you're not harming someone doesn't mean something isn't a sin. Sin is deviance from God's ideals. God's ideal for His people to have a joyful lifestyle. Gluttony is contrary to the joy-filled lifestyle that God wills for us, and that makes it sinful.