SIN Sin [b]sin[/b] [i]sin[/i] sin...

Originally posted by telerion
At times, I've have imagined naming my (imaginary) next children

Judas, Jezebel, Delilah, and Herod.


Ah look at little baby Judas, ain't he cute?

I've imagined naming my imaginary children Alexia, Agnosia, Apraxia and Amnesia. But if they turn out to be boys, I'll consider Judas and Herod.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sin seems to play an important part in many people's lives. A discussion of sin taking in all available perspectives might be of some value. Is sin a universal human concept? What does sin mean to people today?

Err good things really. Many things I was told in my youth were sinful have turned out to be OK or morally neutral: sex outside marriage, no probs, I'm now in a stable (ish) marriage with two children who we do our best for; homosexuality, my gay sister is a fine person and I would defend her without hesitation; drink, I've had two beers today and have no intention whatsoever of doing anything depraved.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sin seems to play an important part in many people's lives. A discussion of sin taking in all available perspectives might be of some value. Is sin a universal human concept? What does sin mean to people today?

We should first answer the question whether "moral good" and "moral evil" exist as universal phenomena. After that you can establish whether acting according what is "good" and acting according what is "evil" (=sinning) are universal notions.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
You make a good point that notions of morality are universal, inherent in the nature of society. However, the English word sin is terribly inadequate to describe the universal sense of moral lapses. Sin denotes moral error--a violation of the social and spiritual order. However, it connotes a specific moral code--decreed by peoples' notion of ...[text shortened]... n[/i]." (Dictionary of Word Origins 1967.)

Morality may be universal, but sin is not.

Wulebgr: "You make a good point that notions of morality are universal, inherent in the nature of society.

I agree, but I would like to change the "place" where notions of morality can be found.

"Notions of morality are universal, they can be found in every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to do evil (= to sin)."

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Morality may be universal, but sin is not.

I think it all comes down to the definition of "sin". If you take the Webster's definition, I'd say it's universal. I believe that it's universal to have some sort of moral value system, and if that exists, an offense against good morals is also possible, and according to the definition, God and religion don't have to come into it. But I agree with you that it's not universal if used with all the Christian connotations it usually comes with.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sin seems to play an important part in many people's lives. A discussion of sin taking in all available perspectives might be of some value. Is sin a universal human concept? What does sin mean to people today?

I heard someone say something like>Anything that leads u away from God.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I think it all comes down to the definition of "sin". If you take the Webster's definition, I'd say it's universal. I believe that it's universal to have some sort of moral value system, and if that exists, an offense against good morals is also possible, and according to the definition, God and religion don't have to come into it. But I agree with you that it's not universal if used with all the Christian connotations it usually comes with.

If you take Webster's definition, it is clearly Christian, therefore Western, therefore far from universal. Please read previous posts.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
We should first answer the question whether "moral good" and "moral evil" exist as universal phenomena.

Well--do they?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
If you take Webster's definition, it is clearly Christian, therefore Western, therefore far from universal. Please read previous posts.

I have read previous posts, and as I said I agree that sin is not universal if the word is used with the Christian connotations, which is the most common usage today. But the Webster definition, while clearly having the main emphasis on the Christian meaning, does not exclude the older meaning echecero mentioned: "Therefore, the word "sin" is appropriately applied to any morally wrong act. To say that I have sinned is to say that I have acted morally wrong." Here's the Webster definition again:

"a) an offense against God, religion, or good morals b) the condition of being guilty of continued offense against God, religion, or good morals"

Note the "or". "An offense against God" most likely refers to the Christian god, possibly also the god of Judaism, Islam and Baha'i. "An offense against religion" could refer to other religions as well. "An offense against good morals" doesn't refer to religion at all. What "good morals" are supposed to be, obviously depends on the moral code which is used, but the definition doesn't say it has to be the Christian one.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well--do they?

Yes.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Morality may be universal, but sin is not.

The seven sins defined by St. Gregory (derived from the eight evil thoughts) as 'opposed to god's morality' are universal conditions/behaviours of human nature, and likely existed prior to xtianity. As I mentioned, they are generally self-destructive in nature. IMO, it's another example of christian dogma built to fit the facts, whatever the etymology of the word.

A concept is inseparable from the words used to describe it. Digging into the etymology, we find echecero's claim:

Originally posted by echecero
It comes to us through Germanic roots that mean "it is so", specifically in the context of a judgment, meaning that the charges are true.

This claim differs from Shipley's:

Originally posted by Wulebgr
very common Teut., from the present participle of the root es, to be: to exist is to be a sinner.

We agree that the root of the word stems from ancient Germanic languages. echecero's claim grounds the word in a judgement concerning specific misdeeds, while Shipley suggests that it is an assertion concerning the nature of the person whose misdeeds are under judgement.

We could use more etymological information to sort out these differences.

Nevertheless, etymology does not tell us all we need to know regarding the meaning the word carries today. The word's emergence into the Germanic languages, of which English is one, coincided with the Christianization of the peoples who spoke these languages. The term was part of the introduction of a new moral code among these peoples. Of course, prior to Christianization, they had ethics and a sense of the tabu--behaviors that were not permitted. However, did they believe that they were born into sin? I submit that they did not.

The word sin is mired in Christian dogma, which is not universal. It came into existence to promote the notion that humans are sinful by nature, and thus in need of a savior. Make no mistake, the stakes are high in this discussion. If you grant sin as a universal human concept, you concede important ground to the authors of sin: Christian missionaries.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
If you grant sin as a universal human concept, you concede important ground to the authors of sin: Christian missionaries.

Absolutely not. The idea of 'sin', as defined by christian dogma, is a relatively recent invention. The behaviours described are as old as our consciousness. For instance, 'Gluttony'. While it does not carry any sort of ill-conceived notion like 'damnation of the eternal soul' attached to it, it is still an undesirable behaviour that can lead to health consequences.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Yes.

Can you describe these universal phenomena?

Originally posted by David C
The seven sins defined by St. Gregory (derived from the eight evil thoughts) as 'opposed to god's morality' are universal conditions/behaviours of human nature, and likely existed prior to xtianity. As I mentioned, they are generally self-destructive in nature. IMO, it's another example of christian dogma built to fit the facts, whatever the etymology of the word.

This is an uninteresting observation. Since Christianity (and most religions) are saying that Man was created by God, it follows that behavior that would be detrimental to an individual man or Man in general would be disfavored by God. Surely a religion that ignored all facts about how men act wouldn't be worth anything at all. It would be more accurate to say certain Christian dogma is consistent with the observed nature of Man (not the "total depravity" or "Man is by nature evil" stance of the fundies, Calvinists and others though).