Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What is your definiton of the notion of "sin"? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Feel free to talk about religious-, philosophical- or social-based approaches to sins and their significance. Also analyse the influences the notion of sin has had in societies and the individual. Lastly give your opinion on the importance of the prevalence of such a notion in the contemporary world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't use the word "sin" - I use the words "moral" and "immoral" to describe actions, weighed up and based on their consequences. For me, neither "sin" nor "morality" has anything to do with anything else. Good is good and bad is bad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sin = good/bad deed.

    I tend to use moral and immoral as mentioned by the above poster.


    Everything said in this post is based on personal preferance
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sin is a thing religion uses to make you feel guilty.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Feel free to talk about religious-, philosophical- or social-based approaches to sins and their significance. Also analyse the influences the notion of sin has had in societies and the individual. Lastly give your opinion on the importance of the prevalence of such a notion in the contemporary world.
    It would be a sin not to tell me who the person second from the left in your signature is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    When an individual causes harm, whether intentional or not, physically or emotionally, to another individual or group of individuals. Having said that, i don't believe 'committing' a sin is the end of the world; making mistakes and wrong-doings are useful lessons the individual can learn from.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    something you wouldnt do in front of your mother
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    A deed that makes ME feel bad about myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennh)
    I don't use the word "sin" - I use the words "moral" and "immoral" to describe actions, weighed up and based on their consequences. For me, neither "sin" nor "morality" has anything to do with anything else. Good is good and bad is bad.

    yeah but who defines what is good and what is bad?

    The government? your parents? GOD???:eek3:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Morality is flexible, it is not rigid, and therefore, a rigid definition of a 'sin' would not be applicable to all but one particular culture, or even, on particular mind.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    the ratio of the opposite side of a right angled triangle, to the right angle, over the hypotenuse
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sin is the broken-ness of the world, a state of being turned away from God. I believe it is useful to not view it as actions that we commit (although some actions are indeed sinful) but rather see it as a state, a web of corruption which humankind is trapped in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Sin is not, for me - and indeed, I believe for most theologians - an 'act' is such. It is instead the absence of something. In a religious case, the absence of Godliness, in a secular situation it is simply the absence of doing anything moral or good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy_ryan)
    yeah but who defines what is good and what is bad?

    The government? your parents? GOD???:eek3:
    One does not need to define it; we know what's "naughty" or "bad" or "harmful" - even if some of us choose to do it or not. Religious "morals" may be subject to change on a whim, but basic moral principles are not simply matters of personal preference. There are some things that we can generally accept as wrong - we do not have to weigh up the pros and cons every time we are faced with a murder. Morality for most people is to consider the particular situation and the effects of choices on the happiness or suffering of the people/animals/community around them.

    I, for one, don't have to look towards an outside source of knowledge (government, parents, the writers of a "holy" book or "God" or whatever) to know whether or not to do something. I don't need the threat of divine intervention or the wrath foretold in a book to convince me that basic morality is a good idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennh)
    One does not need to define it; we know what's "naughty" or "bad" or "harmful" - even if some of us choose to do it or not. Religious "morals" may be subject to change on a whim, but basic moral principles are not simply matters of personal preference. There are some things that we can generally accept as wrong - we do not have to weigh up the pros and cons every time we are faced with a murder. Morality for most people is to consider the particular situation and the effects of choices on the happiness or suffering of the people/animals/community around them.

    I, for one, don't have to look towards an outside source of knowledge (government, parents, the writers of a "holy" book or "God" or whatever) to know whether or not to do something. I don't need the threat of divine intervention or the wrath foretold in a book to convince me that basic morality is a good idea.
    i am not trying to insult you here so i apologise if it comes out this way but you are seriously over simplifying things.

    What about things like capital punishment, sex before marriage, legal age of sex. all these things are things that people hold many different opinions on.

    also you then have the problem of what if someone has different morals or ideas of sin to you, do you pushish them based on what you believe or alow them to pass based on what they believe.

    Morals and sin (trying to stay on topic) are not 100% physcological, or 100% individual because there is so much society does to effect a persons morals, to say you are completely free of society when it comes to choosing your morals (if they are indeed choosen - another argument alotogether) is an utterly rediculous statement
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy_ryan)
    i am not trying to insult you here so i apologise if it comes out this way but you are seriously over simplifying things.

    What about things like capital punishment, sex before marriage, legal age of sex. all these things are things that people hold many different opinions on.

    also you then have the problem of what if someone has different morals or ideas of sin to you, do you pushish them based on what you believe or alow them to pass based on what they believe.

    Morals and sin (trying to stay on topic) are not 100% physcological, or 100% individual because there is so much society does to effect a persons morals, to say you are completely free of society when it comes to choosing your morals (if they are indeed choosen - another argument alotogether) is an utterly rediculous statement
    Yes I am intentionally simplifying things, because the thread is about a definition for the notion of sin - I expanded into morals because the pious often cite one as interchangeable with the other. Here's the less simple, expanded version then.

    Things like capital punishment have nothing to do with morality. They are the punishment that many people use because of what they think is deserved by what someone did. Perhaps you wish to hear of an example where it might be the more moral decision to subject someone to capital punishment, but I can't think of one where something less extreme and quite disgusting as killing another human being, regardless of the situation, might be "the better choice". Maybe there is one but I sincerely doubt it.

    Yes indeed, many people do hold opinions on sex before marriage, but as I have explained about my particular opinion which is shared by many many people, particularly the non-religious, is that the notion of having sex before marrying someone is not immoral, because no one or no thing is harmed. Same thing with same-sex relationships, is anyone or anything harmed by two people loving each other? No. That's why it's irrational to take their right to love each other and have a relationship (or marriage for that matter) away from them. Many of the religious amongst us might try to argue that these things do harm people or something - or that their holy book says it's immoral. But that doesn't mean that it's rational to think that way.

    I get your point about people having different ideas about what is moral and immoral, but working this way - which you will find that most people do intuitively anyway (by thinking about the consequences of each action, what's the best thing to do, what Jesus and others might have said about doing the most loving thing etc.) - is common ground for everyone. Some might wish to add their own "moral rules" on top, like it somehow being immoral to be atheist or gay or of a different faith or what have you, but this is what we can all tap into. I don't think you can really argue against the simple fact that, in a certain situation, doing the thing that harms the least people/society/animals/past/present/future is the more moral thing to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sins = what religions think are bad things people do.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 1, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.