Sin and Salvation

Godmachine said:
Are you saying murder and theft are ALWAYS morally wrong? If that is the case, what makes ownership of land morally right?
Click to expand...
Morals pertain to a society. another society may have different definition of morality. There is no absolute morality.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Here I would call for a definition of the words 'murder' and 'theft', we aren't trying to trap him in his own words are we?
Click to expand...

OK fair enough. When white settlers came to America from Europe, they seized control of a land that did not belong to them. They stole it from those who were already here. They enacted genocidal policies and imposed their religious beliefs upon the natives. Now, I am an American and I love this country (although I am ashamed of the government that runs it). I am not trying to imply that American landowners are all thieves and murderers. However they cannot be unaware of how the land that they own came to be owned by them in the first place, ultimately through acts of theft and murder. Is it morally wrong to own land? Not necessarily. But there seems to be a kind moral blindness to how that land came to be owned in the first place.
 
The morals of such a society would be considered reprehensible today. There have been many such societies in history.
 
Countries that are doing today what America did 200 years ago we call evil and immoral. We do conveniently forget the sins of our forefathers. Is this not hypocrisy plain and simple?
 
Going back to the very beginning with GM's post of which came first, sin or salvation. My answer would be it doesn't matter.

Because accepting Jesus as your savior is the ticket into heaven. If one had lived a life without sin (purely for argument's sake) but did not accept JC as your savior; as I understand the way this goes, you would not get into heaven.

But then doesn't it depend on how we define sin? Not accepting JC as your savior; is this not indeed a sin?
 
Gordian Knot said:
If one had lived a life without sin (purely for argument's sake) but did not accept JC as your savior; as I understand the way this goes, you would not get into heaven.
Click to expand...

Depends on the religion, you need to be more specific if you want to get anywhere.
 
Just responding to GM's original question. The religion is in his words, not mine:

GM wrote: It seems to me that most necessary thing a person must do in order to get into Heaven is not to pray or accept Jesus into your heart; the first and most necessary thing a person must do is to sin. Sin is the first step on the road to salvation.

So I will repeat my basic question from above:
But then doesn't it depend on how we define sin? Not accepting JC as your savior; is this not indeed a sin?
 
Gordian Knot said:
Just responding to GM's original question. The religion is in his words, not mine:

GM wrote: It seems to me that most necessary thing a person must do in order to get into Heaven is not to pray or accept Jesus into your heart; the first and most necessary thing a person must do is to sin. Sin is the first step on the road to salvation.

So I will repeat my basic question from above:
But then doesn't it depend on how we define sin? Not accepting JC as your savior; is this not indeed a sin?
Click to expand...

My original question (which came first.....?) was rhetorical. I was not looking for or expecting an answer. The question was intended to emphasize my point that religion would not exist without the concept of 'sin'. A good analogy here would be the medical profession which would not exist or need to exist without sickness and disease. From the standpoint of the medical profession, sickness is not necessarily a bad thing because it is what keeps hospitals and drug companies in business; it is what makes them money. By the same token, sin is what keeps churches/temples/synagogues in business.

Defining 'sin'.....there's the tricky part. 'Sin' means different things to different people. I rather liked Thomas's definition:

Thomas said:
Sin is the deliberate transgression of a moral norm.
(It's the pursuit of a lesser good and one's own satisfaction in the face of, and at the cost of, a greater good that benefits the self, ones neighbours and the community at large.)
Click to expand...

There is nothing in this definition that implies not accepting Christ as one's savior is a sin. To some it is, to some it ain't. 'Sin', it would seem, is more often than not in the eye of the beholder.
 
I as well like Thomas's definition....it fits the archers definition...missing the mark...but adds intent...I think that worthy...

No use putting oneself in a self imposed hell by accident.
 
GM, your point that religion could not exist without the concept of sin depends on the religion. According to most Western religions your statement would be true. But what about all the other religions of the world outside that region?

And whether a sin is a sin depending on the eye of the beholder; well that is problematic, isn't it.
 
wil and GK. That is why one should "pop-up" a level and look for ethical norms (rules of behavior that are discoverable regardless of culture). Some would be "do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself" and "do not have sex with a near relative".

Moral norms are cultural, and as such are an oxymoron.
 
radarmark said:
wil and GK. That is why one should "pop-up" a level and look for ethical norms (rules of behavior that are discoverable regardless of culture). Some would be "do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself" and "do not have sex with a near relative".

Moral norms are cultural, and as such are an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

So then, in your view, there is an absolute morality in existence that should remain consistent across culture, context and time. Am I understanding this correctly?
 
Ya know I've always had an issue with the whole "do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself".

What if you are a masochist and enjoyed getting beaten and smacked around. According to the axiom, one could do that to others in good conscience as it is something one would want done to themselves. No?
 
Paladin... no, there are ethical norms that can be discovered. Morality has very little to do with it (since that is a cultural phenomena).

GK... nice one. Let me think about that out load. "if one is not a masochist do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself". A little clunky, nu?

"if one is not a real sick puppy do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself". Even worse.

"if one is not under treatment for a DSM-IV illness do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself". A little less objectionable, but a little too scientific.

"if one is within cultural norms (regardless of culture) do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself". Very close to what I meant.
 
Okay. Allow me another example that makes your amended quote, in my opinion, just as problematic.

It is the practice of Muslim female castration. Mothers have had it done to them and believe, in all honesty as far as I can tell, that it should be done to their daughters. This is a cultural norm for many (though not all) Muslim peoples.

That this is the cultural norm does not make it any less horrific. When the cultural norm is wrong, doing unto others is also wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top