Why are they sins?

[Darth Rotor]

In reality, religious ecstacy is produced by the release of a subverted sex drive. So don't have sex or do a drug to feel good, have your orgasms at church.

Been a few priests in hot water for that bit, of late.

DR

 

[pgwenthold]

Don't kid yourself, all sin has consequences.

Can I use this as a guide? If there aren't any consequences, then it must not be a sin, right?

So, what are the consequences of occasional masturbation?

And don't give me the "overdoing anything is unhealthy" nonsense. That's why I say it is "occasional"

 

[Rathmann]

ooh that Paul ...

Christianity is by and large against the pleasures of the flesh because Paul had a stick up his ass about the Greek dichotomy between flesh and spirit.

Sex has always been controlled by the priests of the world because a) women used to be considered the property of men, and property rights had to be protected in a society, b) a good way to spread your religion is to proselytize the children of the believers, who stand less of a chance of overcoming lifelong indoctrination, and c) the best way to induce the amount of cognitive dissonance necessary for mysticism is to convince someone that their natural desires for pleasure are a heinous insult to God.

Right on brother. Look at the commandments -- or the two commandments Jesus said were the most imporant (not included in the original complement). So many evangelicals however make Paul almost like a second Christ, when, although incredibly eloquent, Paul is obviously more than slightly tweaked in the head.

Properly understood, sin is an estrangement from God. When sense pleasures are valued above God or obscure or prevent our spiritual development, they become sins.

 

[ChristineR]

Religion is a way of making sense of the world. Sin is simply action that acts against God's plan.

Sex and wine clearly have their good sides, but are also the cause of much destruction and violence. (In Jesus' time wine was healthier than plain water.) If we do in fact live in a ordered world created by a beneficent God, then it makes sense that there should be rules for the use of these dangerous and powerful forces. It also follows that these rules themselves should be part of a consistent and grand plan.

[tongue in cheek]For instance, the rules about sex should be consistent with God's plan that men tell women what to do.

[/tongue in cheek]

Seriously though, it amazes me that some people take this "sex is great and we shouldn't deny it too ourselves!" attitude. Sex and booze cause an awful lot of pain. Controlling these sorts of potentially dangerous forces is exactly what religion is for.

 

[Ladewig]

Don't kid yourself, all sin has consequences.

I suppose one could put forth the axiom that all actions have consequences. I assume you are trying to say that all sin has negative consequences. That's probably true for believers, but I am having a hard time seeing the negative consequences for someone like me working on the sabbath or taking the Lord's name in vain.

Can you point out any negative consequences that I am overlooking? And by the way, made-up stories about the afterlife really don't count - are there any negative consequences in this world?

 

[Huntster]

Something that always bothers me in this Christian/Judao/Islamic idea of certain sins, namely Drink, Sex and physical pleasures......

Alcohol, sex, and even tobacco aren't sins if enjoyed in moderation and within the bounds of marraige.

Even the use of a staple like food can become a sin if abused.

Physical violence is commonly seen as a sin, but it can become even a responsibility to one who uses it to prevent a greater evil.

All things in balance................

 

[slingblade]

Don't kid yourself, all sin has consequences.

No. All choices have consequences; some good and some bad.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by kurious_kathy
Don't kid yourself, all sin has consequences.

No. All choices have consequences; some good and some bad.

And most sins are a choice, all choices have consequences, and the consequence of sin is always bad.

 

[Ladewig]

And most sins are a choice, all choices have consequences, and the consequence of sin is always bad.

Really? I must be missing some part of the equation. How is a person who hears the Gospel and rejects it before committing lust, gluttony, and avarice, worse off than a person who hears the Gospel and rejects it before becoming chaste, temperate, and generous. Don't they both end up being turned away from the gates of heaven?

Or on a different note, what precisely are the bad consequences of my working on the sabbath?

ETA: which sins are not a choice?

 

[TheAntiLuddite]

Or on a different note, what precisely are the bad consequences of my working on the sabbath?

Here's another example in the same vein:

A woman is in an abusive marriage with a man who wasn't violent when they first married but became so and now beats her often.

According to this:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11. To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

...if she wishes to avoid SIN she must remain married to the abuser and live out the rest of her days in abject misery until she dies or the man kills her, or join a nunnery. I used to work with a co-worker who stopped speaking to his own sister because she divorced her husband and later remarried. The co-worker was a member of a primitive Pentecostal congregation and the above verse was used as holy justification for shunning a woman who had attended the church for years, was an upstanding member of that community and who had commited no other transgression.

One more story. On the radio one morning, during a call-in program, a woman admitted that she prayed daily to her deity that it would kill her husband so she could be rid of him as some aspect of his personality was highly annoying to her. When asked why she didn't just divorce him, her voice assumed a character dripping with piety and she replied that she was a deeply religious woman and such an act would be an egregious SIN.

Again, this is a woman who daily prayed for her husband's death.

ETA: which sins are not a choice?

I'd love to hear this explained. Yes, indeedy.

 

[kellyb]

Within Christianity, it's really just the Baptists who are totally opposed to alcohol consumption. My wild guess would be that the doctrine came about around the time of Prohibition and just stuck.
Their modern logic is just that the Bible warns against drunkenness, ergo, God hates alcohol. Press them on the lack of Biblical justification for this extremist view and they'll admit that it's just what they (Baptists) believe, and they feel that if it wasn't right, God would have informed the bigwigs in the denomination a long time ago.

That's where the fuzzy-headed faith-thinking kicks in, and there's really nowhere to go with them beyond that without it threatening the whole religious way of submitting to "authority", so it's generally a dead end.

 

[ChristineR]

Alcoholism was a much bigger problem a few hundred years ago. People drank alcoholic beverages because they were safer than water. Religions have prohibited drinking at least since Mohamed.

I'm not sure which Christian sect first advocated complete abstention, but it was long before prohibition. I'd guess the Methodists were the first major sect, but I'm just guessing.

 

[Ladewig]

Alcoholism was a much bigger problem a few hundred years ago. People drank alcoholic beverages because they were safer than water. Religions have prohibited drinking at least since Mohamed.

I'm not yet ready to buy the claim that it was a much bigger problem hundreds of years ago. What reasoning lead you to that specific conclusion?

 

[ChristineR]

I'm not yet ready to buy the claim that it was a much bigger problem hundreds of years ago. What reasoning lead you to that specific conclusion?

History class. I couldn't find any historical stats on alcohol use, except that right now we are in a period of decline, but reading historical texts certainly gives the impression that most people (including children) had alcohol at every meal.

I did find one lone link:

* Spring JA,
* Buss DH.

Alcoholic drinks were consumed in larger quantities in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries than in the twentieth century, although there has been a recent increase from the historical low of 1930-60. Beer, spirits and wines once provided at least 2 MJ (nearly 500 kcal) per person per day compared with 0.67 MJ (160 kcal) in 1975, towards an average energy requirement of the total population little different from that needed now. Beer has always contributed most to the alcohol, energy and nutrient content of the diet, although its importance relative to spirits and wine has declined.

PMID: 339108 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[ChristineR]

Here's another one:

* Rorabaugh WJ.

From 1790 to 1830 American consumption of alcoholic beverages generally rose, with an increased use of spirits, a high but declining consumption of hard cider, and a negligible intake of wine and beer. Intake of absolute alcohol peaked in 1830, at a rate twice that estimated for 1970. From 1830 to 1860 consumption fell sharply, but since 1860 consumption has fluctuated much less.

PMID: 4670 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Kochanski]

History class. I couldn't find any historical stats on alcohol use, except that right now we are in a period of decline, but reading historical texts certainly gives the impression that most people (including children) had alcohol at every meal.

I did find one lone link:

Having alcohol at every meal does not mean alcoholism was rampant. Nor does it mean people were always drunk. A single glass of wine or beer (or two) with a meal is hardly problem drinking.

 

[Tricky]

ETA: which sins are not a choice?

Depending on who you ask, homosexuality.

 

[Tricky]

Alcohol, sex, and even tobacco aren't sins if enjoyed in moderation and within the bounds of marraige.

Alcohol and tobacco should only be used within the bounds of marriage??!!

Even the use of a staple like food can become a sin if abused.

Are you referring to cucumbers? Watermelons?

Physical violence is commonly seen as a sin, but it can become even a responsibility to one who uses it to prevent a greater evil.

So, as I said elsewhere, the line between good and bad is not hard and fast. You can do something absolutely horrible, having nothing but the most noble of intentions. Road to hell and all that stuff.

All things in balance...

Humans have overpopulated the world and are draining it of its resources. Let's balance things and kill a bunch of them.

Balance is a worthy thing to recognize, but it is not always the best thing depending on your value system. The example above is one case. I can give you others.

 

[ChristineR]

Having alcohol at every meal does not mean alcoholism was rampant. Nor does it mean people were always drunk. A single glass of wine or beer (or two) with a meal is hardly problem drinking.

This sounds like an extraordinary claim to me. Assuming it is true that people in 1860 drank about twice as much as we do, you are claiming that higher overall alcohol consumption is associated with more responsible drinking, that people actually drank much more but knew when to stop and spread the drinking out over the day so that there was less drunkenness.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And most sins are a choice, all choices have consequences, and the consequence of sin is always bad.

Really? I must be missing some part of the equation. How is a person who hears the Gospel and rejects it before committing lust, gluttony, and avarice, worse off than a person who hears the Gospel and rejects it before becoming chaste, temperate, and generous. Don't they both end up being turned away from the gates of heaven?

The one who rejects the Gospel is the one who chooses to reject the Gospel. The other commits sins that have nothing to do with accepting or rejecting God.

Or on a different note, what precisely are the bad consequences of my working on the sabbath?

Probably nothing if you "keep holy the Lord's Day."

ETA: which sins are not a choice?

Certainly that called original sin:

The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God's will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the "new Adam," came to redeem us