Speaking Out Against Sin

[devolved]

This is an inquiry into how effective your strategy is to accomplish... well, I'm not so clear on that.

You are overthinking the idea that Christians are somehow unique, and that such signalling is ineffective. As humans we always collectively signal expected behavior. For example, there's a reason why people don't loudly fart in public. You don't go and say "Prove to me that farting is wrong, before I shouldn't do it in public" if someone points out that it's unacceptable. Social disaproval is fairly effective way for behavioral modification in that respect.

Of course, it's always contextual. People do all sorts of things when no one is looking, but for certain behavior it's internalized enough that they don't. We don't urinate on every corner just because someone isn't looking. In fact some people would hold and wet their pants looking for toilet. Why? Because of the cultural conditioning, and cultural conditioning is all about repeated signalling that doesn't even have to be verbal. A look of disapproval, or non-association also signals certain expectations.

So, why do you think this is a uniquely Christian thing?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you want to see someone really speak out against sin, you need to take a look at a radical leftist Augustinian go after basically everything that breathes, Christian and non-Christian alike: Why Sin is Good – By Ed Simon

The rest of the Christian world doesn't like us very much, lol.

I like the paragraph in your Ed Simon article that begins with "To be heavy-handed may not be a sin,..." Yep!

 

[Silmarien]

I like the paragraph in your Ed Simon article that begins with "To be heavy-handed may not be a sin,..." Yep!

Haha, that was one of my favorites too. The bit about privilege also:

Much has been made of late about the language of engaged cultural studies, with its vocabulary of “privilege,” “entitlement,” and “intersectionality,” a language which found itself migrating from the academy into regular political discourse and may have played a role in the defeat of liberalism in public opinion and at the polls. We’re told that nobody appreciates being told that he has privilege, and that’s true.

Most people don’t appreciate being told that they are sinners either, though it comes down to pretty much the same thing. To benefit from things not of your own accord that were bought with the labor and pain of others is by definition a sin. But simply because people don’t like to hear certain truths doesn’t invalidate those truths.

 

[Moral Orel]

Whenever you fraternally correct someone there must be a possibility of amendment--that they will hear and change. I do not correct atheists who take the name of the Lord in vain, and it is possible that there is no culpability on their part.

Right, so this "sin" is only grounded in reason if you believe in the Bible, like I said.

But more importantly it seems you don't feel compelled to speak out against all sins whomever is doing the sinning. Is that correct?

 

[Moral Orel]

Can we honestly say that a world in which all women dress like the gal in that other thread would be a "better" world, especially if they do it for the neural network of reasons related to ... what I briefly encapsulate below? Somehow, I don't think so!

I'm not seeing any reasons here that such a thing would be worse.

It's a metaphor for much of what passes today as "Modern, Liberal, Pluralistic and/or Materialist" thought, a kind of thinking that has been around well before modern times. The difference between how it has manifested in the past versus how it does so now is that what there is of it today is bigger, more substantive, and pervades the masses rather than being more or less something relegated to the privilege of the elites, and this matrix of thought has, today, essentially made inroads into every nation.

I'm not seeing any reasons here either. So what if "modern, liberal, pluralistic, and/or materialist" thought is abundant and everywhere? How does that make some clothing options "wrong" and some clothing options "right"?

 

[Moral Orel]

So, why do you think this is a uniquely Christian thing?

Because Christians think they're unique. Maybe you're right and they, just like everyone else, simply wants to shame other folk into acting a different way because that's what will make the Christian happy, but I think they'd like to at least defend their stance and explain it in some other more appealing light.

 

[devolved]

Because Christians think they're unique. Maybe you're right and they, just like everyone else, simply wants to shame other folk into acting a different way because that's what will make the Christian happy, but I think they'd like to at least defend their stance and explain it in some other more appealing light.

Sure, I think such is more of the case with more sophisticated settings, like Christian educational institutions, etc. Or people who actually care to engage high-level discussion about justification for what they believe.

For most Christians out there, Christianity is a framework. To paint a software development analogy, when you develop using a framework like .net ... you seldom care about the "internals" that get you functional execution. You know what functions do, and that generally enough for you to program. You pass something into a function, and it abstracts the complexity without any need for you to understand how it works.

Human frameworks are similar. When we invoke "theft" as a concept, it's an abstraction that packages a whole bunch of functional understanding that we then utilize to build functional human societies, and we have a wide range of frameworks that we adopt, "fork" and enhance, and seldom justify.

We seldom engage in discussions about justifying any-given framework. It's usually a matter of communally-adoptive consensus, much like in development world. There are sponsored "developers" who work on internals, and these are then handed over to people to copy and use.

 

[zippy2006]

But more importantly it seems you don't feel compelled to speak out against all sins whomever is doing the sinning. Is that correct?

Right, we don't put toddlers in jail for stealing. The person who knows they are doing something wrong is in a different situation than someone who does not. Further, you don't teach calculus before algebra.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not seeing any reasons here that such a thing would be worse.

Ok, but do you see any reasons that would make it a part of an ideal "Good," other than an easy visual capture for otherwise testosterone riddled eyes and brains?

I'm not seeing any reasons here either. So what if "modern, liberal, pluralistic, and/or materialist" thought is abundant and everywhere? How does that make some clothing options "wrong" and some clothing options "right"?

...this goes right to the heart of the matter, with the issue being, as you've already alluded, that a portion of this depends upon whether the biblical God exists and Jesus Christ is truly Lord and Savior of humanity, doesn't it?

But what surprises me is that you're surprised that Christians on what is overall a "Christian" forum seem to dare to believe and prophetically spout forth their "Ideal." Does that seem kind of strange to you?

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok, but do you see any reasons that would make it a part of an ideal "Good," other than an easy visual capture for otherwise testosterone riddled eyes and brains?

I see dressing as you please an amoral proposition. It doesn't have to be morally "good", just like choosing what color socks you wear.

...this goes right to the heart of the matter, with the issue being, as you've already alluded, that a portion of this depends upon whether the biblical God exists and Jesus Christ is truly Lord and Savior of humanity, doesn't it?

But what surprises me is that you're surprised that Christians on what is overall a "Christian" forum seem to dare to believe and prophetically spout forth their "Ideal." Does that seem kind of strange to you?

Ugh... Buncha bologna. Remember that this is what you were responding to:

Not about the morality of it. The surrounding issues, some of them, sure. But not whether it's right or wrong to do a thing that you believe to be wrong based on faith. Prove me wrong. Go back to that thread and post a reason I should care that she's dressed the way she is.

So you were supposed to be showing me how we can have a chat about the morality of her attire since you know I don't ascribe to the dress code you feel is implied in the Bible. So here's your answer:

Can we honestly say that a world in which all women dress like the gal in that other thread would be a "better" world, especially if they do it for the neural network of reasons related to ... what I briefly encapsulate below? Somehow, I don't think so!

It's a metaphor for much of what passes today as "Modern, Liberal, Pluralistic and/or Materialist" thought, a kind of thinking that has been around well before modern times. The difference between how it has manifested in the past versus how it does so now is that what there is of it today is bigger, more substantive, and pervades the masses rather than being more or less something relegated to the privilege of the elites, and this matrix of thought has, today, essentially made inroads into every nation.

And when I point out that there's nothing in any of this to show that she did anything wrong, you go to the old "Why can't Christians speak freely around you?!". Say whatever you want. But if you're trying to prove that you don't need to invoke the Bible to have a conversation, you can't invoke the Bible in that proof. Gee whiz! Stop accusing me of persecuting you just because you lost track of the conversation.

 

[Moral Orel]

Right, we don't put toddlers in jail for stealing. The person who knows they are doing something wrong is in a different situation than someone who does not. Further, you don't teach calculus before algebra.

I agree. You also said this:

If someone isn't a Christian and doesn't really understand what sin means I would tell them they are doing something wrong, or that they are acting immorally.

So it seems you wouldn't tell a non Christian they're "sinning" you'd appeal to their idea of right or wrong, which I also agree with.

I think maybe you misunderstood this thread. You seem to be in complete agreement with the OP. On issues of morality that non-Christians can ascribe to, you'll talk morals with them. But you would first convince a non-Christian that Christianity is the Truth before you talked to them about sin. Is that about right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see dressing as you please an amoral proposition. It doesn't have to be morally "good", just like choosing what color socks you wear.

Ugh... Buncha bologna. Remember that this is what you were responding to:

So you were supposed to be showing me how we can have a chat about the morality of her attire since you know I don't ascribe to the dress code you feel is implied in the Bible. So here's your answer:


And when I point out that there's nothing in any of this to show that she did anything wrong, you go to the old "Why can't Christians speak freely around you?!". Say whatever you want. But if you're trying to prove that you don't need to invoke the Bible to have a conversation, you can't invoke the Bible in that proof. Gee whiz! Stop accusing me of persecuting you just because you lost track of the conversation.

I didn't say you're persecuting me. At least, I don't 'feel' persecuted by you, Nick.

No, I'm simply pointing something out that is also a fixture of nuance within the overall interaction taking place here between you and me. The point is, as a Christian, I don't have to 'wait' for people to agree with me about some moral matter BEFORE I decide---again, as a Christian---to say something on behalf of the Christian faith. And that's that.

If you think that the gal in the OP is 'a-okay' in wearing what she does, then we simply are identifying that you think it's 'a-okay,' but we're not identifying that either you or I are "morally correct." In fact, if our views of the world are different, then what is going on is a form of culture clash, and I don't expect to convince anyone straight off the bat of my view.

Also, keep in mind that as a Christian, I go into conversations in the public arena with a firm realization that many, if not most, non-Christian people will disagree with me. Again, my statements aren't being made to "change the world," but rather to give people "notice."

Think about it this way, if it turns out that the Bible is correct---a possibility that I know you find hard to believe will really bear itself out---then I'm actually doing people a philosophical and spiritual favor by increasing their opportunities to encounter statements that inform them that there is a "Christian Way about the World" to consider.

But am I being persecuted by you? No, not in the least! Not unless you've got some legal, penal clout behind that verbal disagreement you feel you may be having with me.

 

[zippy2006]

So it seems you wouldn't tell a non Christian they're "sinning" you'd appeal to their idea of right or wrong, which I also agree with.

Right, but that's basically what sin is.

I think maybe you misunderstood this thread. You seem to be in complete agreement with the OP. On issues of morality that non-Christians can ascribe to, you'll talk morals with them. But you would first convince a non-Christian that Christianity is the Truth before you talked to them about sin. Is that about right?

The main problem I have with the OP is its misunderstanding of what sin is. It seems to think that sin is a kind of private Christian rule book that has no legitimate application to non-Christians. So I quoted Aquinas and pointed out that sin is very tightly connected to irrationality. To sin is to be irrational, to live a less full life, and to be miserable. That applies to everyone, not just Christians. The fact that I may choose a different word than 'sin' for non-Christians is really just semantics.

Yet if you read that last quote I gave from Aquinas you will see him distinguish between two slightly different definitions of sin. If we take Augustine's definition that sin is an act contrary to the eternal law, then the fact that human reason does not completely encapsulate sin becomes more obvious. But I think you're overstating this point. Probably at least 95% of all sins are explicable in terms of natural reason. There are a few sins that presuppose faith, but not many. Thus your point in the OP applies to something like 5% of the things that Christians understand as sin, and it would literally be a sin for a Christian to hold a faithless person to a standard that requires faith.

My understanding here is traditional and Catholic. Certain Protestants might differ on some points.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you think that the gal in the OP is 'a-okay' in wearing what she does, then we simply are identifying that you think it's 'a-okay,' but we're not identifying that either you or I are "morally correct."

And that's the only thing that can be said between us on the matter of the morality of her attire. See how short that chat was? You expressed your opinion, I expressed mine, and now it's done. Not much of a "discussion" if you ask me.

Think about it this way, if it turns out that the Bible is correct---a possibility that I know you find hard to believe will really bear itself out---then I'm actually doing people a philosophical and spiritual favor by increasing their opportunities to encounter statements that inform them that there is a "Christian Way about the World" to consider.

If it ever does bear itself out to be true, until that point, who cares if there's a "Christian Way about the World"? If it hasn't beared out, why does it matter?

 

[devolved]

But if you're trying to prove that you don't need to invoke the Bible to have a conversation, you can't invoke the Bible in that proof.

A first question is ... why can't you?

And a suggestion is that ... yes you can!

If you understood the dirty little secret about how and what we know - it's all built around axiomatic frameworks that demand your compliance and understanding of the framework to begin explaining you how things work using language of the framework.

For example, here's Richard Feynman explaining how magnets work:

He can't explain it apart from scientific axioms, which are rather nominal in that case. He just names that repelling force to be a magnetic force, and off it goes... and of course he gives a lengthy background as to why all of the explanations rest on the continuum of dependent explanations.

Yet, in the end, what it boils down to....we can measure ratios, and we can use these ratios in some functional setting to build tools. Most of the stories we tell about all of the "wonders of the universe" are just that... stories to give some narrative to numbers. But, those stories formulate the conceptual frameworks that are used to communicate certain models of reality. And the point that Feynman is making is that you can only explain certain aspect of the framework using the other aspects. You can never explain these in isolation, or using linguistic concepts that wouldn't apply.

Thus, your expectations in that regard are just as irrational as expecting a physicist to explain physics without making appeals to axioms of science. It's an absurd expectation. Christian framework formulates different first assumptions, and these assumptions are pre-requisite for you understanding the claims of the framework. You are free to make different assumptions and tell a different story, but you would still invoking self-referential concepts to validate various premises that you hold.

So, if you demand falsifiability, we have to first break down who made that rule, and why you have to invoke that as a rule to follow. Because, eventually it all boils down to "I have no proof, but things seem more coherent to me this way", and essentially that's what it's all about. It's not about a proof, but about presenting a coherent framework that can serve as some web of reference for human experience.

So, perhaps a question for you would be about what you expect as a behavior for a Christian in that context, and why would you think it would be correct? But, here's a request, since you are on Christian forum, please don't invoke secular axioms, until you provide a definitive proof that your axiomatic assumptions are valid.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And that's the only thing that can be said between us on the matter of the morality of her attire. See how short that chat was? You expressed your opinion, I expressed mine, and now it's done. Not much of a "discussion" if you ask me.

...it's not AS IF our respective opinions exist in a non-contextual void, Nick! Somewhere in the midst of it all, there's a piper to pay of one sort or another. So behind the smoke that each of us puts up as a screen, and behind the fact that neither of us really "knows" the absolute truth about reality, we both still DO know that here upon this terrestrial social milieu in which we both live there are other connected social issues which bear upon our lives or which could bear upon our final states of existence, depending on which of our respective Metaphysical schemas happen to reflect Reality.

If it ever does bear itself out to be true, until that point, who cares if there's a "Christian Way about the World"? If it hasn't beared out, why does it matter?

OR it could be said that it's not bearing out FOR YOU in particular, and in being that it's not bearing out for you, this cognitive arrangement in turn feeds into how you perceive the nature of my proactive Christian stance. You then wonder "why" I don't comport myself with today's slim niche on social and legal thinking. On my part, I expect you to react in this way and I'm not surprised by your own defensive posture as you stand in opposition to mine.

But then again, Nick, when I see atheists and skeptics voluntarily come to CF and begin complaining about this or that issue regarding "how" various Christians comport themselves, I often feel as if some stranger who doesn't even live in my own neighborhood has taken it upon himself to knock on my front door and tell me, "You're not welcome here in this neighborhood!" And I'm think'n, "...but you don't even live in this neighborhood!"

 

[Moral Orel]

A first question is ... why can't you?

That whole post is nonsense to what you quoted. He isn't simply trying to prove that it's immoral, he's trying to prove that he can make a case for it being immoral without using the Bible. If he was simply claiming that he could prove it was immoral, he can use whatever axioms and assumptions he pleases. That isn't what he claimed.

 

[Moral Orel]

...it's not AS IF our respective opinions exist in a non-contextual void, Nick! Somewhere in the midst of it all, there's a piper to pay of one sort or another. So behind the smoke that each of us puts up as a screen, and behind the fact that neither of us really "knows" the absolute truth about reality, we both still DO know that here upon this terrestrial social milieu in which we both live there are other connected social issues which bear upon our lives or which could bear upon our final states of existence, depending on which of our respective Metaphysical schemas happen to reflect Reality.

Like I said, we could discuss the surrounding issues, but we can't discuss the morality of it because we're speaking different languages in that regard. You used a lot more words to say what I've already said a few times now.

OR it could be said that it's not bearing out FOR YOU in particular, and in being that it's not bearing out for you, this cognitive arrangement in turn feeds into how you perceive the nature of my proactive Christian stance. You then wonder "why" I don't comport myself with today's slim niche on social and legal thinking. On my part, I expect you to react in this way and I'm not surprised by your own defensive posture as you stand in opposition to mine.

Not bearing out for me? Can you point me to another atheist that Christianity bears out to be the Truth? Really?

I'm not wondering why you don't comport yourself with that sort of thinking. I'm wondering why you don't comport yourself in a way that is persuasive.

But then again, Nick, when I see atheists and skeptics voluntarily come to CF and begin complaining about this or that issue regarding "how" various Christians comport themselves, I often feel as if some stranger who doesn't even live in my own neighborhood has taken it upon themselves to knock on my front door and tell me, "You're not welcome here in this neighborhood!" And I'm think'n, "...but you don't even live in this neighborhood!"

So you're calling me a liar, eh? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I've said the opposite of that over and over and over... How you feel about what I've said isn't what I've said. Stop taking everything so personally. I'm not out to get you just because I'm challenging your strategy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like I said, we could discuss the surrounding issues, but we can't discuss the morality of it because we're speaking different languages in that regard. You used a lot more words to say what I've already said a few times now.

....I don't know that we're in all cases "speaking different languages." There could be some overlap; it could even turn out that the axiological structures of our respective thoughts are somewhat analogous to a situation in which you're speaking modern French and I'm speaking ancient Latin. I doubt that we have ZERO commonality in our overall thinking. But who knows?

Not bearing out for me? Can you point me to another atheist that Christianity bears out to be the Truth? Really?

Of course I can't. Why? Should I be able to?

I'm not wondering why you don't comport yourself with that sort of thinking. I'm wondering why you don't comport yourself in a way that is persuasive.

I don't comport myself in a way that is persuasive for the same reasons that Jesus and His Apostles weren't comporting themselves in ways that were persuasive with most of the public masses. The biblical epistemological indices basically tell us that achieving such efficacy will be near to impossible to do, even if we try to adopt non-prophetic, non-Jewish forms of rhetoric.

So you're calling me a liar, eh? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I've said the opposite of that over and over and over... How you feel about what I've said isn't what I've said. Stop taking everything so personally. I'm not out to get you just because I'm challenging your strategy.

I'm not calling you a liar, although I may be insinuating something else, and I think part of your resistance in our conversations might not be all your fault. In fact, some of the way in which you perceive my position may be out of your power to understand at present. But even so, and maybe because of that, I dare to open my mouth in contra-distinction to your own moral position on the issues we discuss.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That whole post is nonsense to what you quoted. He isn't simply trying to prove that it's immoral, he's trying to prove that he can make a case for it being immoral without using the Bible. If he was simply claiming that he could prove it was immoral, he can use whatever axioms and assumptions he pleases. That isn't what he claimed.

You might also consider that your own denial of my position isn't in and of itself a "defense" that your view of morality actually obtains as a form of moral reality...............................................but yet, here you are, feeling bent out of shape because I challenge your moral notions, notions which, as far as I can tell, you've basically never presented as being legitimized by any one particular ethical framework. So, when I see this kind of thing going on, I'm prone to press that person to come forth and make an admission as to what his/her ethical framework is by which he/she criticizes my more Christian point of view.

So, to simply for you to say that the scantilly clad gal in that other thread isn't immoral for wearing what she was wearing can't be also by necessity to affirm any ethical framework by which I must then kow-tow in either deference or respect. So, I don't kow-tow.

Also, keep in mind, Nick, that as a philosopher and aside from my Christian faith, I may respect people and their livelihood and "well-being," but that doesn't mean in any shape or form that I must absolutely 'respect' their ideas or their actions. Of course, if I happen to be a Christian on top of being a philosopher, then so much the worse for other people's ideas, especially if I think they're morally wrong.