quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: When you get right down to it, thinking bad thoughts is the same as doing the deed, according to Jesus - so I don't see that Christians have a leg to stand on in that regard.
Isn't the whole Christian idea that everyone is a sinner, and Jesus loves you anyway?
Wrap up prejudice in any color box you want, it's still prejudice.
I disagree.
I have a friend trying to quit smoking (because he believes its a sin), but he can't stop thinking about it. I wouldn't tell him to just stop trying because he's screwed anyway. I think he's better off (physically and spiritually) avoiding the action despite the desire. Not engaging in the action is a first step to eventually overcoming the desire.
I believe there is value in the struggle to overcome natural desires that are sinful. I imagine many people see this as psychologically unhealthy. I disagree. I think overcoming (or at least trying to overcome) natural impulses is an integral part of growing up, spiritually.
And prejudice, IMO, would be believing that Christ loved this individual less because of his/her particular sin. I don't believe that. I don't believe Christ's love is conditional. Nor do I see myself as "better" in any sense than someone whose sins are different than my own. I do, however, believe that God's laws are real, and that simply saying "who are we to judge" does not absolve us of the need to live, and preach, God's laws. There is a principle, as trite as it sounds, of hating the sin but loving the sinner. It becomes difficult when people center their identity so completely on an activity that I deem sinful, but I still try to abide by it.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe there is value in the struggle to overcome natural desires that are sinful. I imagine many people see this as psychologically unhealthy. I disagree. I think overcoming (or at least trying to overcome) natural impulses is an integral part of growing up, spiritually.
I'm sure Ted Haggarty and Larry Craig felt the same way.
Thing is, when it comes to matters of the heart, "the struggle" ends up getting you a wife and kids. A family to be destroyed when your heart wins.
Just think of the life these poor people could have had if not for having homophobia beaten into their heads from the moment they were born. Both of these men's wifes could have found themselves a heterosexual man to raise a family with. And the men themselves wouldn't have had to resort to gay hookers and anonymous bathroom sex. Maybe they could have found nice, christian gay guys and maybe even had an adopted family.
Next up: Someone likening homosexual love to Alcoholism.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Just think of the life these poor people could have had if not for having homophobia beaten into their heads from the moment they were born. Both of these men's wifes could have found themselves a heterosexual man to raise a family with. And the men themselves wouldn't have had to resort to gay hookers and anonymous bathroom sex. Maybe they could have found nice, christian gay guys and maybe even had an adopted family.
I feel bad for both Haggerty's and Craig's families, in the same way I feel bad for any family torn apart by infidelity. Like Eliot Spitzer's to take a rather topical example.
I think your argument could be extended easily to all sorts of things (besides alcoholism). The woman whose husband refuses to give up a passion for watching sports in order to help her with cleaning the kitchen, to give a trivial example. While I recognize that not all natural desires are equal, and sexuality seems to be deeply rooted in someone's sense of self, simply saying that everyone would be better off if they just accepted who they are and lived that way is (IMO) hogwash. What makes us a society is not loving our diversity - its struggling to come to a common code of conduct despite our diversity.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are different ways to not do something, like for example have gay sex. People often mistake repression as means merely not doing something that a person wants to, but that's not it at all.
It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Haggerty and Craig and all the many other anti-gay advocates who were having illicit gay sex don't do this. Instead of acknowledging that they are gay and working with that, they deny that they feel these urges and externalize it as something to be attacked. It is particularly their unhealthy way of dealing with this (or rather avoiding dealing with this) that makes them so vulnerable to the urges. Because they pretended to be something other than they were, they were at a severe disadvantage in making healthy decisions on how to behave.
The tragedy they played out goes back at least to Freud. It's so basic.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Thankfully, many people don't feel a need to conform to the social mores of another group. Especially when a large portion of science(the thing that also said "hey the earth isn't flat", and "we're not the center of the universe") says, "hey, we're shaped by our environment, and we're actually very complex sexually."
(CAUTION: Oversimplification ahead)
B:But G-d said! A:Where? B:A dubiously translated 2000+ year old book, from an earlier time in which many gods existed. Stories which helped equip people for living life! If it was weird, we feared it, and thus it was bad. A:Oh. How do you know it's true? B:Well Mommy and Daddy said so since I was five. I wanted to make them happy so I did my best.
Meanwhile, a fair percentage of teens commit suicide each year because they're different.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Thankfully, many people don't feel a need to conform to the social mores of another group. Especially when a large portion of science(the thing that also said "hey the earth isn't flat", and "we're not the center of the universe") says, "hey, we're shaped by our environment, and we're actually very complex sexually."
(CAUTION: Oversimplification ahead)
B:But G-d said! A:Where? B:A dubiously translated 2000+ year old book, from an earlier time in which many gods existed. Stories which helped equip people for living life! If it was weird, we feared it, and thus it was bad. A:Oh. How do you know it's true? B:Well Mommy and Daddy said so since I was five. I wanted to make them happy so I did my best.
Meanwhile, a fair percentage of teens commit suicide each year because they're different.
Laying aside the fact that choosing to accept science is in essence not rejecting certain social mores, what was the point of your oversimplification of Biblical belief? How are you advancing the discussion? It seems to me that being aware of the overly simple nature of your dialog makes you doubly guilty of wasting people's time.
I can appreciate that you have found much to admire in the progressive ideas of modern social science, I hope you will continue to find truth in that channel. I also hope that you will one day realize that there is also truth of great valuable within religion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've asked this before and gotten mixed results.
This is to those who are against the sin, not the sinner. This is to those who say giving into the act is the sin, the attraction is not.
Imagine two Christian men who are attracted to each other. It goes beyond sexual, to a deep emotional attraction.
They do not consummate the attraction. That would be a sin. They do move in together, with separate bed rooms. They hold hands in public. The whisper in each others ears, and look longingly in each others eyes. When alone, or during a deeply emotional moment, they kiss.
Would this behavior be tolerated by you?
Would this be seen as a sin.
Would this be tolerated, un-consummated attraction between two members of the same sex, holding hands and deeply in love?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Thankfully, many people don't feel a need to conform to the social mores of another group. Especially when a large portion of science(the thing that also said "hey the earth isn't flat", and "we're not the center of the universe") says, "hey, we're shaped by our environment, and we're actually very complex sexually."
(CAUTION: Oversimplification ahead)
B:But G-d said! A:Where? B:A dubiously translated 2000+ year old book, from an earlier time in which many gods existed. Stories which helped equip people for living life! If it was weird, we feared it, and thus it was bad. A:Oh. How do you know it's true? B:Well Mommy and Daddy said so since I was five. I wanted to make them happy so I did my best.
Meanwhile, a fair percentage of teens commit suicide each year because they're different.
Laying aside the fact that choosing to accept science is in essence not rejecting certain social mores, what was the point of your oversimplification of Biblical belief? How are you advancing the discussion? It seems to me that being aware of the overly simple nature of your dialog makes you doubly guilty of wasting people's time.
I can appreciate that you have found much to admire in the progressive ideas of modern social science, I hope you will continue to find truth in that channel. I also hope that you will one day realize that there is also truth of great valuable within religion.
BlackBlade, you're right, that didn't really advance the discussion.
I remember posting a very voracious thread regarding missionaries et al, but your landmark on your missionary work helped me understand the view from the other side, and what it's like trying to share your religion with others.
I'm not very good at constructing arguments, but hopefully joining threads like these will help. You're right, how does that advance the discussion?
I do realize there are good principles and truths in religion. Religion runs throughout the entire human race. Many truths have been found throughout The Great Conversation.
I guess I'm trying to express what I see to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.
quote: This is to those who say giving into the act is the sin, the attraction is not.
I'm not quite your target audience since I believe both would be sins, the former being the easier to resist.
I grew up in an off-shoot of the Methodist theology. It's not about sin. Focusing on sin, in our opinion, completely misses the point of the thing.
Sure, sin is bad. Sure, you should try to avoid it. But it's paid for. It doesn't have power over you anymore unless you give it that power. Worrying about which sin is worse for you and trying to get by committing an acceptable level of sin just doesn't make sense to me. Who cares?
My belief is that we've been given the ability to have a direct relationship with God. That's the point. Whatever anyone does with their relationship (including ignoring it, rejecting it, or not believing in it altogether) is pretty much none of my business. If God doesn't lay it on their hearts to stop it, I'm not going to get involved.
If they came to me and directly asked me what I thought, I guess I'd say that they should pray about it. It's not really what they're supposed to be doing, but I know from personal experience that He's sometimes willing to let that slide. I think He's especially more likely to when you're acting from love. (He pesters me about the uncharitable, unkind parts of my personality, not the fact that I'm shacked up with my boyfriend.)
So the short answer would be yes, I think it would be a sin but no, I wouldn't feel the need to give them a hard time about it. Unless they started trying to tell other people it isn't a sin. Let's call a spade a spade now. We all sin. I just ask that we own up to it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It it always curious to me how homosexuality, which compared to other things gets barely mentioned in Scripture - not even once by Jesus - gets so much attention when things that are clearly a much bigger deal in the Scriptures are pretty much ignored by most of us.
I have not, for example, observed people getting all het up about people in the military taking the Lord's name in vain. Nor have I gotten concerned e-mails about people who fail to honor their parents teaching in our schools.
Why is that?
And of course, so many of the things Jesus actually did care enough to mention falling on the stony ground.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Thankfully, many people don't feel a need to conform to the social mores of another group. Especially when a large portion of science(the thing that also said "hey the earth isn't flat", and "we're not the center of the universe") says, "hey, we're shaped by our environment, and we're actually very complex sexually."
(CAUTION: Oversimplification ahead)
B:But G-d said! A:Where? B:A dubiously translated 2000+ year old book, from an earlier time in which many gods existed. Stories which helped equip people for living life! If it was weird, we feared it, and thus it was bad. A:Oh. How do you know it's true? B:Well Mommy and Daddy said so since I was five. I wanted to make them happy so I did my best.
Meanwhile, a fair percentage of teens commit suicide each year because they're different.
Laying aside the fact that choosing to accept science is in essence not rejecting certain social mores, what was the point of your oversimplification of Biblical belief? How are you advancing the discussion? It seems to me that being aware of the overly simple nature of your dialog makes you doubly guilty of wasting people's time.
I can appreciate that you have found much to admire in the progressive ideas of modern social science, I hope you will continue to find truth in that channel. I also hope that you will one day realize that there is also truth of great valuable within religion.
BlackBlade, you're right, that didn't really advance the discussion.
I remember posting a very voracious thread regarding missionaries et al, but your landmark on your missionary work helped me understand the view from the other side, and what it's like trying to share your religion with others.
I'm not very good at constructing arguments, but hopefully joining threads like these will help. You're right, how does that advance the discussion?
I do realize there are good principles and truths in religion. Religion runs throughout the entire human race. Many truths have been found throughout The Great Conversation.
I guess I'm trying to express what I see to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.
No hard feelings.
I can recognize that many opponents of homosexual acceptance simply hide behind the bible and refuse to poke their heads out. It's hard for many to realize that what was once accepted as eccentric at best and disgusting at worst is suddenly not so clear cut. Personally I am glad the conversation on gender and gender roles has become so complex, even if it does not ultimately change one's conclusion, it's always better to understand just what you believe in. Even my church while not changing it's stance on homosexuality has changed several important things regarding it's approach to that dilemma. I'd go into those things in detail except that I am literally going to be late for church even if I walk out the door right now.
It's an interesting dilemma whether to miss some of church in order to discuss theology and philosophy with a good person, or actually attend church for your own spiritual needs. I'm concluding that in this instance I need to attend church. I'll be back later. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What about it (in the case described) would be sinful?
You know how maried people can get themselves in trouble by spending too much time with a friend of the opposite sex because it crosses the line to an emotional affair? It's like that. They're entertaining the idea of a relationship and telling themselves that they won't go through with it.
If they can live that way without lustful thoughts ever coming up, I suppose it wouldn't be a sin. But then, why would they be holding hands and kissing?
I'm not a theologian or anything, but I'm pretty sure that deliberately putting yourself in a situation that makes you more likely to sin counts as a sin, too.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: No hard feelings.
I can recognize that many opponents of homosexual acceptance simply hide behind the bible and refuse to poke their heads out. It's hard for many to realize that what was once accepted as eccentric at best and disgusting at worst is suddenly not so clear cut. Personally I am glad the conversation on gender and gender roles has become so complex, even if it does not ultimately change one's conclusion, it's always better to understand just what you believe in. Even my church while not changing it's stance on homosexuality has changed several important things regarding it's approach to that dilemma. I'd go into those things in detail except that I am literally going to be late for church even if I walk out the door right now.
It's an interesting dilemma whether to miss some of church in order to discuss theology and philosophy with a good person, or actually attend church for your own spiritual needs. I'm concluding that in this instance I need to attend church. I'll be back later.
quote:I'm not a theologian or anything, but I'm pretty sure that deliberately putting yourself in a situation that makes you more likely to sin counts as a sin, too.
That's like saying that eating cheesecake is a sin, since it's likely to make you want to eat too much cheesecake.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does anyone care what I think is a sin or what is not? My friends who live together before marriage (if they ever thought about it) would know that I considered their lifestyles a sin, but somehow it is never an issue. But my gay friends seem obsessed with proving to me why they aren't sinning. I have friends who think I live a sinful life and am going to hell, but it doesn't bother me. As a Christian, I think that the only person who is not a sinner is Jesus so it isn't like being a sinner sets you apart from the rest of the human population. I do think that there is a line of course. For example, I don't actually tell my friends- you doing X is evil (unless they ask).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So would it be evil -- in your eyes, or in the eyes of God -- for two men who (romantically) loved each other deeply to live together and care for each other without consummating a sexual relationship?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's like saying that eating cheesecake is a sin, since it's likely to make you want to eat too much cheesecake.
If eating cheesecake keeps you from doing God's work, then yes. I think Paul had it right when he talked about eating the sacrificial meat. Some level of sin is subjective. If you believe it's wrong, then you ought not to be doing it. Other bits got spelled out.
But again, my personal view is that focusing on sin misses the entire point. What is God telling you that He wants from your life? What purpose is He giving you to fill? That's the point. Everything else is just the stuff that gets in the way of that, IMO.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if Joe finds himself attracted to Jack you suggest he prays for guidance.
If that prayer does not "straighten" out Joe's feelings of attractions what should Joe do?
The problem is that Joe all to often finds himself feeling love for Jack, but all he gets from his church and from others at his church is the same advice--Quit Feeling That Way. or Pray until the feeling goes away.
Sometimes Joe blames himself. Guilt and pressure build up until dangerous and destructive results occur.
Sometimes Joe blames the church. God is love, but to be forced to deny love to find God just doesn't seem right. Hence the Church, or perhaps God is to blame.
That person leaves the Church, and sometimes they leave God. Of course to them, the Church, or God, left them already.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank goodness we don't live in a theocracy, so regardless of whether any particular religion finds something sinful, it doesn't mean the rest of us can't do it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: So if Joe finds himself attracted to Jack you suggest he prays for guidance.
If that prayer does not "straighten" out Joe's feelings of attractions what should Joe do?
The problem is that Joe all to often finds himself feeling love for Jack, but all he gets from his church and from others at his church is the same advice--Quit Feeling That Way. or Pray until the feeling goes away.
Sometimes Joe blames himself. Guilt and pressure build up until dangerous and destructive results occur.
Sometimes Joe blames the church. God is love, but to be forced to deny love to find God just doesn't seem right. Hence the Church, or perhaps God is to blame.
That person leaves the Church, and sometimes they leave God. Of course to them, the Church, or God, left them already.
This is the phenomenon I'm most against--the sanctioned repression of drives and desires that weren't meant to be that completely repressed, desires that 90% of the population are told is completely normal. I didn't even grow up in a religious household, but I'm still dealing with the mental crap from all the people around me told me that what I am is wrong, sinful, and should be repressed.
I tried to be "good", I tried not to like guys. But it doesn't work, that's the thing. If Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are testaments to anything, it's that those sexual and emotional drives find ways to leak out no matter what you do. Repress a core part of yourself long enough, and not only does what you want suppressed come out anyway, but it comes out in a twisted, negative form. So why encourage people to suppress it? Why not encourage healthy love in all its forms? It's got to be easier.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please see Mr Squicky's post above. Just because that's the way it often is doesn't mean that's the way it has to be.
Yes, the best response involves some growth on the religious side. I'm ok with that. I'd rather see the discussion turn to how we can all do better to be supportive of others without it necessarily turning into why Christians are all evil bigots out to get anyone who isn't exactly like them. Sure, there're Christians like that, but there're all kinds of people like that. Including gay rights activists. (I've got some unpleasant memories of how these threads tend to go. That's why I stayed out of it until now.)
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if the expectation that if one prays enough they will simply stop being gay is a harmful one. This is instead a sacrifice and one of the hardest ones someone will have to make. I know a straight man who believes based on his circumstances that any sex would be a sin. He still feels desires and acknowledges that, but he also feels that by making this sacrifice, he will be closer to God and it will be worth the difficulties. He is also thinking that since he is celibate anyway, perhaps the priesthood is a good option for him, which would help support his committment to God.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholarette: How many men who are repressing their sexual desires need to go into the priesthood and put in a position to turn their repression into something unhealthy, rather than just live their life in a normal, healthy way?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is going into the priesthood turning rpression into something unhealthy? Abusing people would be unhealthy, but devoting your life to God is an admirable thing.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm far from convinced that repression as it's used here is guaranteed or even likely to turn into something unhealthy.
After all, we're from the start setting lots of conditions on this stuff. The idea being that repression of a good* thing is bad, while presumably repression of a bad** thing isn't. But that's pretty darn subjective, ain't it?
For example, a subjectively good thing: healthy sexual appetite. A common idea is that repressing this is going to be bad and lead to something unhealthy. I think that's too deeply personal and variable an issue to possibly be able to generalize accurately.
For another example, a subjectively bad thing: addiction to drugs of some sort. Some people have a real appetite for booze. Appetites which go far beyond simply enjoying the taste of a good scotch and getting mildly buzzed on the weekend, but for whom alcohol-a normally commonplace and to an extent even healthy (according to some stuff I've read) thing-is simply dangerous.
Repression of that urge is commonly thought of as good.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sure you do. Everyone has a concept of sin, granting that a religious motive is not necessary to think something is a sin. Unless you actually do believe that anyone can do whatever the heck they want anytime.
Or am I mistaken? Do you not think that violating someone's personal rights and freedoms is morally wrong?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because y'all tend to legislate against 'sin.'
Yeah, well, so does everybody. With differing definitions of course.
I don't. It's not even a concept I use.
Sin isn't a concept I use in making political decisions either. I look at what is sin in deciding my actions and how I raise my child. Other then that, definitions of sin don't play much of a role (of course, how I live my life is a pretty big role).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like a switched-around version of Pascal's Wager applies here.
If God exists and really disapproves of same-sex couples, then repressing ones sexuality may be a good thing, although Jesus said that having the urges are the same as doing the deed, so maybe not.
If God doesn't exist, or if he doesn't really care so much about your sexual preferences, then repressing ones sexuality only causes one to live a self-imposed life of torment and frustration, and miss out on innumerable joyful and happy experiences of having a family and a normal life.
Well, seems pretty clear we should err on the side of telling other people to not ask, not tell, and repress their desires for happiness, a family, and so forth, and that we should legislate that to make sure our interpretation of the Bible is followed by everybody else Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, apparently some people believe that those who believe in sins will also try to use the power of government to legislate against all of those sins.
Which is pretty stupid, actually.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between believing something is morally wrong, and believing something is a sin. If you look up the word sin in any dictionary, you will see that there is a religious component to the term. While the terms "morally wrong", "evil", "wrong", a bad act", etc do not necessarily have any religious meaning to them. I attach no meaning to the concept of sin, because I don't believe in the existence of any God that could make some acts sinful.
That's why we have different words, Rakeesh - they all mean different things!
And scholarette, just because you don't legislate on the basis of sin, doesn't mean that most people don't. We've had discussions here on hatrack where many people have said they use their religiously-informed definitions of right and wrong (aka what's sinful and what isn't) when voting. And there's plenty of Congressmen who throw around the word sin, too.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a difference between believing something is morally wrong, and believing something is a sin. If you look up the word sin in any dictionary, you will see that there is a religious component to the term. While the terms "morally wrong", "evil", "wrong", a bad act", etc do not necessarily have any religious meaning to them. I attach no meaning to the concept of sin, because I don't believe in the existence of any God that could make some acts sinful.
Actually if you look up the word in the dictionary, you'll see that very close to the top (second in fact) of the list of definitions includes strictly a moral wrong, not a religious wrong.
So no, there is not necessarily a religious component to the word 'sin'-this is precisely why I said Juxtapose was silly for suggesting (according to the definition used) that the concept of sin is not used.
Words do indeed mean different things! Even words we think we know already! That might be why I was careful to qualify my remark.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I didn't think I'd have to bother explaining this. Yes, if you look in any dictionary, if you go down far enough, you'll end up getting a water-down definition of a word. Just because a word can be used loosely, as you're doing, doesn't mean that the main definition changes. As the OED says, sin means
quote:An act which is regarded as a transgression of the divine law and an offence against God; a violation (esp. wilful or deliberate) of some religious or moral principle.
And if you go down far enough on the page, you can get a definition like
quote:A pity; a shame.
Does that mean that the word sin is a perfect synonym for shame? No, because the word sin will always have religious connotations deriving from its main religiously-valued use.
And, surprisingly, you're still wrong on your main point that everyone uses the word sin. I don't. I don't believe in the existence of the concept. I understand how others use it, but I think they're actually talking about imaginary things, just like when they talk about their God.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that they're tied closely together - sinning seems to bring about feelings of shame more than just, say, making a mistake. But just because there's connections between the two in our mental states doesn't mean that we should use the words synonymously.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow, I didn't think I'd have to bother explaining this. Yes, if you look in any dictionary, if you go down far enough, you'll end up getting a water-down definition of a word. Just because a word can be used loosely, as you're doing, doesn't mean that the main definition changes. As the OED says, sin means
You know what, you're right. I had to dig real deep to find a definition that didn't require a religious component. It was that rarely-reached number that we don't commonly see outside of math problems, two.
quote:And, surprisingly, you're still wrong on your main point that everyone uses the word sin. I don't. I don't believe in the existence of the concept. I understand how others use it, but I think they're actually talking about imaginary things, just like when they talk about their God.
OK, how about I grant this: given that my original post was totally correct (in that sin does not necessarily involve religion, and that everyone wants to legislate to some extent against what they view as morally wrong), but that you don't actually use the word 'sin' yourself, I'll revise it: everyone uses the concept of 'sin', or else a concept that matches the synonym of the word.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't use the concept of sin (Edit: or a word that is synonymous with it), Rakeesh. Don't know a simpler way to put it.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my personal definitions, I view sin and morality as separate. For example, I would view not attending church as a sinful act. However, I don't think that if you don't attend church, you are not moral. I am inclined to think of homosexual the same way (sin, but not immoral). Morals are right and wrong regardless of God, sins are things that go against God's law (which can immoral too- like beating up a gay guy because he is gay would be both immoral and a sin). I think moral reasoning in legislation is acceptable, but sin isn't (otherwise we would all be attending church every Sunday believe it or not).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because y'all tend to legislate against 'sin.'
Yeah, well, so does everybody. With differing definitions of course.
Uh huh. and that's why they care; in the process of some people's zeal to translate religious mores into cultural mandates, you end up with discrimination and intolerance coming from the bible's pulpit interpretation du jour and going straight into our lawbooks. This nation already went through it for things like miscegenation, and today, it's gay rights.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that gay people today can't help but care what Christians interpret as a sinful lifestyle since it has such a profound impact on their rights and freedoms.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't use the concept of sin (Edit: or a word that is synonymous with it), Rakeesh. Don't know a simpler way to put it.
You don't use the concept of moral precepts, or of certain actions being a transgression of those? Again, please bear in mind that I went out of my way to say that I wasn't necessarily talking about your definition of the word 'sin' which is not, no matter how much you insist otherwise, the only one.
Everyone tries to legislate against actions they view as trangressions against moral precepts. Not necessarily all actions, but that's not what I said.
------
Samprimary,
quote:Uh huh. and that's why they care; in the process of some people's zeal to translate religious mores into cultural mandates, you end up with discrimination and intolerance coming from the bible's pulpit interpretation du jour and going straight into our lawbooks. This nation already went through it for things like miscegenation, and today, it's gay rights.
Well, that's right. But you weren't talking about 'some people' or everyone, you were specifically criticizing a certain group of people. It's not that they want to legislate against sin that you find problematic*, it's that they want to legislate against sin that you don't think is sinful.
quote:In fact, I would go so far as to say that gay people today can't help but care what Christians interpret as a sinful lifestyle since it has such a profound impact on their rights and freedoms.
I didn't say they shouldn't care, I simply said that not all of 'them' like to do what you claim they do.
*Because as I just discussed with Jhai (which he disagrees with, to be fair), you too like certain laws against things which you think are sinful.
That's why most people think certain things should be legal. It's not because they're judicial scholars or lawyers or civil rights activists, it's because they think, "Hey, this thing is totally wrong! It should be illegal!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: religion and SSM, I can see Jews being against gay marriage. But Christians? One of Jesus' main points was that his death freed us from the need to slavishly follow the strict rules of Jewish law. IIRC, he thought it was a good idea to go ahead and get the ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath. It's an issue of following common sense, or at least attempting to, over the law, when the two seem to conflict. He didn't make any special comments regarding "Those gay fellows", either. I'm not saying let's celebrate being gay, but I hardly see how letting Lisa marry her SO is going to cause anyone any great harm. Also, I think the issue of "Is it a harmful thing or not" is suggested far more by the New Testament than the OT. The OT says "follow the law, or else", whereas the NT has a much more measured, reasoned approach to Jewish law. Given that...just because many of you are uncomfortable with gayness doesn't mean you have any standing, religious or otherwise, to be anti-SSM. In my view, quite the contrary.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe in legislating morality, and I find it tedious when people insist to me that I do.
I believe in legislating in order to maximize the rights that all people have, because that's the safest way to preserve my own rights. Thus I would legislate against things that infringe upon the rights of others, not because I give a damn about the rights of others, but because doing so protects my own.
That is fundamentally different from legislating against things that don't affect you and don't infringe on anybody's rights, because your religious code tells you that they are wrong.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: scholarette: How many men who are repressing their sexual desires need to go into the priesthood and put in a position to turn their repression into something unhealthy, rather than just live their life in a normal, healthy way?
Indeed. This is acknowledged to be a contributing factor in the clerical sexual abuse crisis. Young men believing that they can repress or hide from what might be healthy normal sexual urges never learn to distinguish between the healthy and the perverse. As far as they are concerned, all sexual urges are sinful and wrong. Having their psychosexual development arrested fairly young, they seek out adolescents when their now muddled urges refuse to be repressed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe in legislating morality, and I find it tedious when people insist to me that I do.
Would you still find it tedious if I pointed out that I'm not suggesting you, or Jhai, or Samprimary, or anyone else are about legislating all of their morality, but merely some of the most important parts of it-and not exclusively because it is their morality, either?
I mean, I've read many posts of your politics over the years and it would be a big surprise to hear that the only reason you believe in maximizing the rights of all people is simply because that's the most expedient way to protect your own rights.
Laws against theft and murder are great because they protect me from theft and murder, but I thought it was safe to say that that's not the only reason there are laws against them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
