LogFAQs > #937750937

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The concept of "sin" is regressive.
Unbridled9 04/20/20 12:13:07 PM #36:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Is it morality to agree to peace terms? They're not avoiding killing eachother because they don't think it's right, they're avoiding it because they don't want to break peace terms that protect them from being killed. It's the difference between working for charity and working for a wage. I'd imagine that culture would be more than happy to rob and kill an outsider as they're not protected by the treaty. Sin is convenient, you get to use circular logic and when questioned you can tell them to take it up with an invisible force. Well, if man is a divinely created being created in the image of the divine yet imperfect due to their fallen nature, would it not make sense that they would attempt to re-create some sense of morality (among other things) yet fail to do so perfectly and, thusly, create an imperfect reflection of both morality and sin? An objective right and wrong may very well exist and a religion (I won't say which) received a divine revelation from their deities while people of other faiths and cultures attempted to re-create the structure that they know exists yet, without the aid of the divine, could not proceed to re-create perfectly resulting in moral differences? Murder is a particularly easy thing since almost no one wishes to be murdered and it wouldn't be very hard to get such a thing considered a sin regardless of your religion. Let's take something a bit more... difficult. Adultery. Both in what it is and it's moral status. After all, it makes sense biologically to have a multitude of mates and to seek out the most fertile/capable-of-providing mates but, at the same time, to keep said mates exclusively for yourself. In the west in modern times we see a husband having another woman on the side as morally wrong and a sin; yet history provides ample examples of men having multiple spouses, concubines, and the like. Despite this a lot of these cultures still contain taboo's against cheating; just are very different as to what they define such a thing is. Would it not stand to reason then that these cultures are aware that adultery is a sin but, due to them having evolved independent of the moral foundation provided by the divine, got it wrong as to what adultery actually is and, instead, substituted their own, culturally relevant, answer? Who is to say that it's Christianity that got it right either and that it's not Shinto or Zoroastrianism that is the true religion in regards to morality? That our belief as to what constitutes adultery is an imperfect recreation of the actual morality that leaves us coming up sinful in this regard? --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your *! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:937750937] in The concep... [t:78603252]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted... </cite> <quote>Is it morality to agree to peace terms? They're not avoiding killing eachother because they don't think it's right, they're avoiding it because they don't want to break peace terms that protect them from being killed. It's the difference between working for charity and working for a wage. I'd imagine that culture would be more than happy to rob and kill an outsider as they're not protected by the treaty. Sin is convenient, you get to use circular logic and when questioned you can tell them to take it up with an invisible force.</quote> Well, if man is a divinely created being created in the image of the divine yet imperfect due to their fallen nature, would it not make sense that they would attempt to re-create some sense of morality (among other things) yet fail to do so perfectly and, thusly, create an imperfect reflection of both morality and sin? An objective right and wrong may very well exist and a religion (I won't say which) received a divine revelation from their deities while people of other faiths and cultures attempted to re-create the structure that they know exists yet, without the aid of the divine, could not proceed to re-create perfectly resulting in moral differences? Murder is a particularly easy thing since almost no one wishes to be murdered and it wouldn't be very hard to get such a thing considered a sin regardless of your religion. Let's take something a bit more... difficult. Adultery. Both in what it is and it's moral status. After all, it makes sense biologically to have a multitude of mates and to seek out the most fertile/capable-of-providing mates but, at the same time, to keep said mates exclusively for yourself. In the west in modern times we see a husband having another woman on the side as morally wrong and a sin; yet history provides ample examples of men having multiple spouses, concubines, and the like. Despite this a lot of these cultures still contain taboo's against cheating; just are very different as to what they define such a thing is. Would it not stand to reason then that these cultures are aware that adultery is a sin but, due to them having evolved independent of the moral foundation provided by the divine, got it wrong as to what adultery actually is and, instead, substituted their own, culturally relevant, answer? Who is to say that it's Christianity that got it right either and that it's not Shinto or Zoroastrianism that is the true religion in regards to morality? That our belief as to what constitutes adultery is an imperfect recreation of the actual morality that leaves us coming up sinful in this regard? --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your *! - White Mage</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1