Pages:
Author

Topic: Health and Religion - page 30. (Read 210823 times)

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 21, 2018, 01:55:36 AM

Not to worry.  I give your myth another 100 years.  Then it will disappear.


Your grasp of both reality and demographics seem slightly tenuous.

China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/

Astonishing Church growth in Russia sees record number training for priesthood
https://www.christiantoday.com/amp/astonishing-church-growth-in-russia-sees-record-number-training-for-priesthood/110512.htm

Africa poised to be axis of Christianity
https://mg.co.za/article/2015-12-03-africa-poised-to-be-axis-of-christianity
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
May 20, 2018, 09:01:38 PM
It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Cool

That's not an explanation of what a sin is, did you even read my post?

That's only a suggestion that you have a very weak understanding.

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? - http://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
May 20, 2018, 08:59:49 PM

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Cool

That's not an explanation of what a sin is...

The Bible defines sin at least in part as a violation of one of its prohibitions. It ultimately makes the claim that these actions a deviations from fundamental truth aka universal law.

The question you seem to be asking, however, is a rational explanation for why certain actions are sin. Why certain actions are violations of universal law.

That is not always an easy question to answer. It requires a full analysis of the impact of a sin across time. We must determine what consequences were avoided by avoiding the sin in the past, the impact of the sin in the present and project its consequences into the future.


It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.

Many religions have so-called gods that do things without reason. The God of the universe has set down laws within the Bible that make total sense, and that are to be fully obeyed. The fact that God is patient with lawbreakers, shows His great love for people, since He is giving them a chance to change their wicked ways.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
May 20, 2018, 08:55:29 PM

It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.

Why do you think it should be an easy question to answer?

The Bible contains several hundred prohibitions on behavior. When examining any one of them and exploring the logic underlying it you need to make a total determination on the effect of the behavior on the entire arc of human development both in the past and into the unknown future.

Whatever the ultimate answer may be it is certainly not easy or simple.

The best we can really do is make an approximate determination that violating a prohibition causes harm on understood metrics. Even that is difficult.

The Bible recommends the death penalty for many high profile sins. This punishment must be viewed in context of the very limited options available to early man. Death, exile, lashes that about it. All crimes pretty much had to be punished with one of the three. It is only now with the wealth and knowledge those ancestors passed that other options become available such as prisons to separate violent criminals from society without killing them.

The more important question here is not whether Biblical punishments were severe or if modern technology and wealth will lead to superior and more effective ways to eliminate and punish crime. Clearly the answer to both those questions is yes.

The important question is to confirm that the sins listed are indeed harmful. That the sins lead to problems that should be taken seriously.


You got this wrong buddy.  Killing people for working on Saturday is wrong.  Slavery is wrong.  Killing someone because they are gay is wrong.

Anyone who advocates Bible's moral code is just a psychopath.

You need to look in the mirror.  You are rationalizing your psychopathic tendencies.

You are entirely mistaken. God set the whole universe and life up. He is the Owner. He is the only One Who knows how it works. When He commands, He is to be obeyed, simply because He is the Owner, but also because He is the righteous Owner.

Anyone who advocates not following Bible morals is a destroyer, because God laid down what works best in the Bible.

Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 20, 2018, 08:45:11 PM
...
Anyone who advocates Bible's moral code is just a psychopath.
...

A recent study estimated that there will be 2.6 billion Christians by 2020.

Which is more likely that there are 2.6 billion psychopaths in the world or that you lack the wisdom or intellect to understand the moral code the Bible makes possible?

Ultimately the readers of this thread will need to decide for themselves.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 20, 2018, 08:35:00 PM
You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

That's is a challenging question. Clearly homosexuality is a tragic condition the mismatch of desire with biological reality that is to some degree inherent.

Equally clear is that the response of society to this condition should be to try and help people who have it especially males as they appear to be by far the most damaged by it.

Why do you think it is not "bad"? It is definitely biologically harmful to the males who are unlucky enough to have it. Research on the condition indicates that it varies in severity. Some suffer from an extreme variant that makes functional reproductive activity inconceivable. Others have a milder variant where they have some greater or lesser degree of choice.

The condition can thus be looked at as a disability that is partially inherent and partially transmissible to susceptible individuals.

That ultimately is the argument of Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.37626428

I see no logical flaws in his reasoning.

The issue would be less problematic if those with this tragic condition made every effort not to spread it to others who are vulnerable but not destined to it. Sadly the opposite situation appears to be the case.

One in 10 male, same-sex Craigslist ads seek men who don't identify as gay
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-03/cums-oit032414.php
Quote from: Stephanie Burger
...
To examine the subgroup of men seeking non-gay-identified (NGI) men in the online sexual marketplace, the researchers reviewed 1,200 Internet personal ads posted on Craigslist
...
Among the ads studied, 11% were placed by men seeking NGI partners... only 24% of online advertisements seeking NGI men were posted by men who were themselves non-gay-identified. This suggests that many of the posts are placed by gay men seeking NGI men, perceived by some gay men to be more masculine, dominant, or "straight-acting."
...
Only a small number of ads by NGI-seeking men mentioned safe sex or condom use. The analysis revealed that men seeking NGI partners were significantly less likely to mention that they wanted to have safer sex/use condoms (15% vs. 33%) and were more likely (66% vs. 42%) to omit mention of condoms or safer sex in their advertisements.
...
The findings have unique implications for sexual health research targeting non-disclosing, NGI MSM and their same-sex partners.
...
the research has allowed us to document the existence of a subgroup of men who actively seek out sexual encounters with men who do not identify as gay

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 20, 2018, 07:47:33 PM

It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.

Why do you think it should be an easy question to answer?

The Bible contains several hundred prohibitions on behavior. When examining any one of them and exploring the logic underlying it you need to make a total determination on the effect of the behavior on the entire arc of human development both in the past and into the unknown future.

Whatever the ultimate answer may be it is certainly not easy or simple.

The best we can really do is make an approximate determination that violating a prohibition causes harm on understood metrics. Even that is difficult.

The Bible recommends the death penalty for many high profile sins. This punishment must be viewed in context of the very limited options available to early man. Death, exile, lashes that about it. All crimes pretty much had to be punished with one of the three. It is only now with the wealth and knowledge those ancestors passed to us that other options become available such as prisons to separate violent criminals from society without killing them.

The more important question here is not whether Biblical punishments were severe or if modern technology and wealth will lead to superior and more effective ways to eliminate and punish crime. Clearly the answer to both those questions is yes.

The important question is to confirm that the sins listed are indeed harmful. That the sins lead to problems that should be taken seriously.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
May 20, 2018, 04:13:13 PM

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Cool

That's not an explanation of what a sin is...

The Bible defines sin at least in part as a violation of one of its prohibitions. It ultimately makes the claim that these actions a deviations from fundamental truth aka universal law.

The question you seem to be asking, however, is a rational explanation for why certain actions are sin. Why certain actions are violations of universal law.

That is not always an easy question to answer. It requires a full analysis of the impact of a sin across time. We must determine what consequences were avoided by avoiding the sin in the past, the impact of the sin in the present and project its consequences into the future.


It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 20, 2018, 03:53:26 PM

Dennis Prager has an excellent video clip on the seventh commandment. It goes into some detail on the damage caused by the sin of adultery and why this action is forbidden.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B0-epfgG7lI


Quote from: Dennis Prager
THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE FAMILY

There is an old joke about the Seventh Commandment, “Do Not Commit Adultery.” Moses comes down from Mount Sinai, and announces: “I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I got Him down to ten. The bad news is that adultery stays.”

The joke is telling. The prohibition on a married person having sexual relations with anyone except his or her spouse may be, for many people, the most consistently difficult of the Ten Commandments to observe. The reasons shouldn’t be hard to guess. One is the enormous power of the sex drive. It can be very hard to keep in check for the entirety of one’s marriage—especially when an attractive outsider makes him or herself sexually or romantically available. Another reason is the human desire to love and be loved.

For normal people, there is no more powerful emotion than love. If one falls in love with someone while married, it takes great effort not to commit adultery with that person. And if we add in the unfortunate circumstance of a loveless marriage, adultery becomes even more difficult to resist. That’s why the joke with which I began is funny—because it reflects truth. Why is adultery prohibited in the Ten Commandments? Because, like the other nine, it is indispensable to forming and maintaining higher civilization.

Adultery threatens the very building block of the civilization that the Ten Commandments seek to create. That building block is the family—a married father and mother and their children. Anything that threatens the family unit is prohibited in the Bible. Adultery is one example. Not honoring one’s father and mother is another. And the prohibition on injecting any sexuality into the family unit—incest—is a third example.

Why is the family so important? Because without it, social stability is impossible. Because without it, the passing on of society’s values from generation to generation is impossible. Because commitment to a wife and children makes men more responsible and mature. Because, more than anything else, family meets most women’s deepest emotional and material needs. And nothing comes close to the family in giving children a secure and stable childhood.

And why does adultery threaten the family? The most obvious reason is that sex with someone other than one’s spouse can all too easily lead to either or both spouses leaving the marriage. Adultery should not automatically lead to divorce, but it often does. There is another reason adultery can destroy a family. It can lead to pregnancy and then to the birth of a child. That child will in almost all cases start out life with no family—meaning no father and mother married to each other—to call his or her own. And if adultery doesn’t destroy a family, it almost always does terrible harm to a marriage. Aside from the sense of betrayal and loss of trust that it causes, it means that the adulterous partner lives a fraudulent life.

When a husband or wife is having sex with someone other than their spouse, their thoughts are constantly about that other person and about how to deceive their spouse. The life of deception that an adulterous affair necessarily entails inevitably damages a marriage even if the betrayed spouse is unaware of the affair. Finally, the commandment prohibiting adultery doesn’t come with an asterisk saying that adultery is okay if both spouses agree to it. Spouses who have extramarital sex with the permission of their husband or wife may not hurt their spouse’s feelings, but they are still harming the institution of marriage. And protecting the family, not protecting protecting spouses from emotional pain, is the reason for the commandment.

Many marriages, sadly, are troubled. And it is not for any of us to stand in judgment of others’ behavior in this realm. No one knows what goes on in anyone else’s marriage. And if we did, we might often well understand why one or the other sought love outside the marriage. But no higher civilization can be made or can endure that condones adultery. That is why it is prohibited in the Ten Commandments.

Thus we see adultery as a harmful deed something that leads ultimately to undesirable outcomes. At a deeper level it disrupts life by undermining the family and thus the society itself. In simpler terms it can be viewed as an act of defection advancing ones personal interests at great cost to society and the social fabric as a whole.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 20, 2018, 03:52:52 PM

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Cool

That's not an explanation of what a sin is...

The Bible defines sin at least in part as a violation of one of its prohibitions. It ultimately makes the claim that these actions a deviations from fundamental truth aka universal law.

The question you seem to be asking, however, is a rational explanation for why certain actions are sin. Why certain actions are violations of universal law.

That is not always an easy question to answer. It requires a full analysis of the impact of a sin across time. We must determine what consequences were avoided by avoiding the sin in the past, the impact of the sin in the present and project its consequences into the future.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
May 20, 2018, 10:17:11 AM
It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Cool

That's not an explanation of what a sin is, did you even read my post?
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
May 20, 2018, 09:20:12 AM
It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
May 20, 2018, 06:16:38 AM
It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 19, 2018, 09:36:43 PM
It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
May 19, 2018, 07:22:39 PM
Thus we have a broad outline of what sin is.

Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God. Sin is a disruption of this connection and thus sin is death. Sin is also folly for it is ultimately irrational to consciously choose self harm and death over life and self preservation. Finally sin is an opportunity to recognize our failings and understand the negative consequences of harmful deeds. Thus sin is also an opportunity to redeem ourselves by refining our nature and rejecting the sin.

We will not get very far in understanding why certain actions might be a sin without agreement on what a sin is so I will stop here for today.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 19, 2018, 02:51:49 PM
Thus we have a broad outline of what sin is.

Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God. Sin is a disruption of this connection and thus sin is death. Sin is also folly for it is ultimately irrational to consciously choose self harm and death over life and self preservation. Finally sin is an opportunity to recognize our failings and understand the negative consequences of harmful deeds. Thus sin is also an opportunity to redeem ourselves by refining our nature and rejecting the sin.

We will not get very far in understanding why certain actions might be a sin without agreement on what a sin is so I will stop here for today.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 19, 2018, 02:20:56 PM

What Is Sin?

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2830/jewish/What-Is-Sin.htm

Quote from: Yanki Tauber
Like almost everything else, it depends on who you ask.

The Midrash(Yalkut Shimonion Psalms 25) describes a sort of "panel discussion" in which this question is posed to four different authorities — Wisdom, Prophecy, Torah and G‑d — each of whom gives a different definition of sin.

According to Wisdom sin is a harmful deed. According to Prophecy it is death. Torah sees it as folly. And G‑d sees it as an opportunity.

The philosophical view of sin is that it is a bad idea, like walking barefoot in the snow or eating too many fatty foods. If you do bad things, bad things will happen to you.

Does this mean that Someone sits up there, tabulating sins and dispensing punishments? Well, yes, though it is not as simplistic as a vengeful G‑d getting even with His little earth creatures for daring to defy His instructions. Is frostbite G‑d's punishment for that barefooted walk in the snow? Is heart disease G‑d's revenge for a high cholesterol diet? Ultimately it is, if you accept that everything that happens, happens because G‑d wants it to happen. But what it really means is that G‑d has established certain "laws of nature" that describe the patterns of His actions upon our existence. There are physical laws of nature — the ones that scientists measure and hypothesize. There are also spiritual laws of nature, which dictate that spiritually beneficial deeds bring spiritual benefit, and spiritually detrimental deeds cause spiritual harm. And since our physical existence derives from and mirrors the spiritual reality, a person's spiritual and moral behavior ultimately affects his physical life as well.

Thus King Solomon (who is the source of the "Wisdom" perspective in the above Midrash) states in the book of Proverbs: "Evil pursues iniquity."

"Prophecy" takes this a step further. Sin is not only a harmful deed — it is the ultimately harmful deed. Prophecy (which represents the apogee of man's endeavor to commune with G‑d) defines "life" as connection with G‑d. Sin—man's turning away from G‑d—is a disruption of this connection. Hence, sin is death.

Like almost everything else, it depends on who you ask.

The Midrash(Yalkut Shimonion Psalms 25) describes a sort of "panel discussion" in which this question is posed to four different authorities — Wisdom, Prophecy, Torah and G‑d — each of whom gives a different definition of sin.

According to Wisdom sin is a harmful deed. According to Prophecy it is death. Torah sees it as folly. And G‑d sees it as an opportunity.

The philosophical view of sin is that it is a bad idea, like walking barefoot in the snow or eating too many fatty foods. If you do bad things, bad things will happen to you.

Does this mean that Someone sits up there, tabulating sins and dispensing punishments? Well, yes, though it is not as simplistic as a vengeful G‑d getting even with His little earth creatures for daring to defy His instructions. Is frostbite G‑d's punishment for that barefooted walk in the snow? Is heart disease G‑d's revenge for a high cholesterol diet? Ultimately it is, if you accept that everything that happens, happens because G‑d wants it to happen. But what it really means is that G‑d has established certain "laws of nature" that describe the patterns of His actions upon our existence. There are physical laws of nature — the ones that scientists measure and hypothesize. There are also spiritual laws of nature, which dictate that spiritually beneficial deeds bring spiritual benefit, and spiritually detrimental deeds cause spiritual harm. And since our physical existence derives from and mirrors the spiritual reality, a person's spiritual and moral behavior ultimately affects his physical life as well.

Thus King Solomon (who is the source of the "Wisdom" perspective in the above Midrash) states in the book of Proverbs: "Evil pursues iniquity."

"Prophecy" takes this a step further. Sin is not only a harmful deed — it is the ultimately harmful deed. Prophecy (which represents the apogee of man's endeavor to commune with G‑d) defines "life" as connection with G‑d. Sin—man's turning away from G‑d—is a disruption of this connection. Hence, sin is death.

Torah agrees that sin is a harmful deed. It also agrees that it's a disruption of the flow of life from Creator to creation. Indeed, Torah is the source of both Wisdom's perspective and Prophesy's perspective on sin. But Torah also goes beyond them both in recognizing that the soul of man would never willingly and consciously do such a stupid thing.

Sin, says Torah, is an act of folly. The soul loses its head, and in a moment of irrationality and cognitive confusion does something that is contrary to its own true desire. So sin can be transcended, when the soul recognizes and acknowledges the folly of its transgressions and reasserts its true will. Then the true self of the soul comes to light, revealing that the sin was in fact committed only by the soul's most external, malleable self, while its inner self was never involved in the first place.

And what does G‑d say? G‑d, of course, invented the laws of nature (both physical and spiritual) and the Wisdom that recognizes how they operate. G‑d is the source of life, and it is He who decreed that it should flow to the human soul via a channel constructed (or disrupted) by the deeds of man. And G‑d gave us the Torah and its formulae for spiritual sanity, self-discovery and transcendence. So G‑d is the source of the first three perspectives on sin.

But there is a fourth perspective that is G‑d's alone: sin as the opportunity for "return" (teshuvah).

Teshuvah is a process that, in its ultimate form, empowers us to not only transcend our failings but to also redeem them: to literally travel back in time and redefine the essential nature of a past deed, transforming it from evil to good.

To achieve this, we first have to experience the act of transgression as a negative thing. We have to agonize over the utter devastation it has wrecked on our soul. We have to recognize, disavow and renounce its folly. Only then can we can go back and change what we did.

So is sin a bad, harmful deed? Is it the very face of death? Is it mere stupidity, to be shrugged off by an inherently wise and pristine soul? Is it a potent opportunity for conquest and growth? Turns out, it's all four. But it can only be the fourth if it's also the first three.

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 19, 2018, 02:19:05 PM

Well, let's see. Many times the bible commands people to kill other people but without ever explaining why it's wrong to be a homosexual, for example. Not even you can come up with a reason why it's a sin, your ''disability'' argument is garbage and a disability is not a sin anyways. If you can explain to me the depth there I will agree with you.

If you are looking for depth I am not sure you are picking the best place to start. Homosexuality is not highlighted as uniquely sinful in the Bible. It is simply listed alongside many other Biblical prohibitions as serious sin one of many serious sins.

Let's try to tackle a less difficult sin first and then return to your area of concern if we  make any progress.

Let's look at adultery. Why is adultery a sin?

This is not necessarily immediately apparent. After all the very definition of Darwinian success is genetically reproducing with the best partner available. In many ways it is advantageous for a woman to cuckold her husband with the highest status male available and for a man to impregnate his neighbors wife if he can get away with it. Indeed many men and women do.

So it's not immediately clear why adultery is a sin. To proceed further we must answer some very broad questions.

What makes something sinful? What is a sin? These are ancient questions that dive to the foundation of morality.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
May 19, 2018, 05:49:17 AM
No need to explain the Bible.  It is self explanatory.
...
You don't need to explain it.  You need to read it.
...

Hey for once we agree on something how about that.

Nevertheless for the uninitiated I think an broad view of the overarching logical framework such as that found in Dennis Prager's book The Rational Bible or Jordan Peterson's online Biblical Lectures Series is a nice place to start for the skeptic.

how do you argue that it was by men inspired by god and not just idiots?

This can be determined by an analysis of the content. There is a tremendous depth to the text.

You will of course disagree.

However, for those willing to actually look into the issue with a degree of objectivity and seriousness the weightiness of the text quickly manifests.

Well, let's see. Many times the bible commands people to kill other people but without ever explaining why it's wrong to be a homosexual, for example. Not even you can come up with a reason why it's a sin, your ''disability'' argument is garbage and a disability is not a sin anyways. If you can explain to me the depth there I will agree with you.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
May 19, 2018, 01:41:02 AM
New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/

Quote from: Glenn T. Stanton
...
Religious faith in America is going the way of the Yellow Pages and travel maps, we keep hearing. It’s just a matter of time until Christianity’s total and happy extinction, chortle our cultural elites. Is this true? Is churchgoing and religious adherence really in “widespread decline” so much so that conservative believers should suffer “growing anxiety”?

Two words: Absolutely not.

New research published late last year by scholars at Harvard University and Indiana University Bloomington is just the latest to reveal the myth. This research questioned the “secularization thesis,” which holds that the United States is following most advanced industrial nations in the death of their once vibrant faith culture. Churches becoming mere landmarks, dance halls, boutique hotels, museums, and all that.

Not only did their examination find no support for this secularization in terms of actual practice and belief, the researchers proclaim that religion continues to enjoy “persistent and exceptional intensity” in America. These researchers hold our nation “remains an exceptional outlier and potential counter example to the secularization thesis.”

What Accounts for the Difference in Perceptions?
How can their findings appear so contrary to what we have been hearing from so many seemingly informed voices? It comes down primarily to what kind of faith one is talking about. Not the belief system itself, per se, but the intensity and seriousness with which people hold and practice that faith.

Mainline churches are tanking as if they have super-sized millstones around their necks. Yes, these churches are hemorrhaging members in startling numbers, but many of those folks are not leaving Christianity. They are simply going elsewhere. Because of this shifting, other very different kinds of churches are holding strong in crowds and have been for as long as such data has been collected. In some ways, they are even growing. This is what this new research has found.

The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as “patently persistent.”

The percentage of such people is also not small. One in three Americans prays multiple times a day, while one in 15 do so in other countries on average. Attending services more than once a week continues to be twice as high among Americans compared to the next highest-attending industrial country, and three times higher than the average comparable nation.

One-third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual word of God. Fewer than 10 percent believe so in similar countries. The United States “clearly stands out as exceptional,” and this exceptionalism has not been decreasing over time. In fact, these scholars determine that the percentages of Americans who are the most vibrant and serious in their faith is actually increasing a bit, “which is making the United States even more exceptional over time.”

This also means, of course, that those who take their faith seriously are becoming a markedly larger proportion of all religious people. In 1989, 39 percent of those who belonged to a religion held strong beliefs and practices. Today, these are 47 percent of all the religiously affiliated. This all has important implications for politics, indicating that the voting bloc of religious conservatives is not shrinking, but actually growing among the faithful. The declining influence of liberal believers at the polls has been demonstrated in many important elections recently.

These Are Not Isolated Findings
The findings of these scholars are not outliers. There has been a growing gulf between the faithful and the dabblers for quite some time, with the first group growing more numerous. Think about the church you attend, relative to its belief system. It is extremely likely that if your church teaches the Bible with seriousness, calls its people to real discipleship, and encourages daily intimacy with God, it has multiple services to handle the coming crowds.

Most decent-size American cities have a treasure trove of such churches for believers to choose from. This shows no sign of changing. If, however, your church is theologically liberal or merely lukewarm, it’s likely laying off staff and wondering how to pay this month’s light bill. People are navigating toward substantive Christianity.

The folks at Pew have been reporting for years that while the mainline churches are in drastic free fall, the group that “shows the most significant growth is the nondenominational family.” Of course, these nondenominational churches are 99.9 percent thorough-blooded evangelical. Pew also notes that “evangelical Protestantism and the historically black Protestant tradition have been more stable” over the years, with even a slight uptick in the last decade because many congregants leaving the mainline churches are migrating to evangelical churches that hold fast to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

When the so-called “progressive” churches question the historicity of Jesus, deny the reality of sin, support abortion, ordain clergy in same-sex relationships and perform their marriages, people desiring real Christianity head elsewhere. Fact: evangelical churches gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches.

The Other Key Factor: Faithful People Grow More Children
There is another factor at work here beyond orthodox belief. The University of London’s Eric Kaufmann explains in his important book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” (he says yes) that the sustaining vitality, and even significant per capita growth, of serious Christian belief is as firmly rooted in fertility as it is in faithful teaching and evangelism. Globally, he says that the more robust baby-making practices of orthodox Jews and Christians, as opposed to the baby-limiting practices of liberals, create many more seriously religious people than a secular agenda can keep up with.

Fertility determines who influences the future in many important ways. He puts it bluntly, “The secular West and East Asia are aging and their share of the world population declining. This means the world is getting more religious even as people in the rich world shed their faith.”

Fertility is as important as fidelity for Christianity and Judaism’s triumph from generation to generation. Kaufmann contends, “Put high fertility and [faith] retention rates together with general population decline and you have a potent formula for change.”

It comes down to this: God laughs at the social Darwinists. Their theory is absolutely true, but just not in the way they think. Those who have the babies and raise and educate them well tend to direct the future of humanity. Serious Christians are doing this. Those redefining the faith and reality itself are not.

This why Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart proclaimed in First Things, long before the proposal of the Benedict Option, that the most “subversive and effective strategy we might undertake [to counter the culture] would be one of militant fecundity: abundant, relentless, exuberant, and defiant childbearing.” The future rests in the hands of the fertile.

What About All the Millennial Ex-Christians?
But what about our young people? We are constantly hearing that young people are “leaving the church in droves,” followed by wildly disturbing statistics. This also requires a closer look at who is actually leaving and from where. Pew reports that of young adults who left their faith, only 11 percent said they had a strong faith in childhood while 89 percent said they came from a home that had a very weak faith in belief and practice.

It’s not a news flash that kids don’t tend to hang onto what they never had in the first place. Leading sociologist of religion Christopher Smith has found through his work that most emerging adults “report little change in how religious they have been in the previous five years.” He surprisingly also found that those who do report a change say they have been morereligious, not less. This certainly does not mean there is a major revival going on among young adults, but nor does it mean the sky is falling.

Add to this Rodney Stark’s warning that we should not confuse leaving the faith with attending less often. He and other scholars report that young adults begin to attend church less often in their “independent years” and have alwaysdone so for as long back as such data has been collected. It’s part of the nature of emerging adulthood. Just as sure as these young people do other things on Sunday morning, the leading sociologists of religion find they return to church when they get married, have children, and start to live a real adult life. It’s like clockwork and always has been. However, the increasing delay among young adults in entering marriage and family is likely lengthening this gap today.

More Americans Attend Church Now Than At the Founding
What is really counter-intuitive is what Stark and his colleagues at the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion found when looking at U.S. church attendance numbers going back to the days of our nation’s founding. They found that the percentage of church-attending Americans relative to overall population is more than four times greater today than it was in 1776. The number of attendees has continued to rise each and every decade over our nation’s history right up until the present day.


People are making theological statements with their feet, shuffling to certain churches because they offer what people come seeking: clear, faithful, practical teaching of the scriptures, help in living intimately with and obediently to God, and making friends with people who will challenge and encourage them in their faith. To paraphrase the great Southern novelist Flannery O’Connor, if your church isn’t going to believe and practice actual Christianity, then “to hell with it.” This is what people are saying with their choices.

Or as Eric Kaufmann asserts, “Once secularism rears its head and fundamentalism responds with a clear alternative, moderate religion strikes many as redundant. Either you believe the stuff or you don’t. If you do, it makes sense to go for the real thing, which takes a firm stand against godlessness.”

If your Christianity is reconstituted to the day’s fashion, don’t be surprised if people lose interest in it. Few are seeking 2 Percent Christianity. They want the genuine deal, and the demographics on religion of the last few decades unmistakably support the fact.

Pages:
Jump to: