Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Leontiskos]

No, and for several reasons. Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist. If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.

That's clearly correct, by definition. However, it begs the question of whether "divine law" can exist without a Divinity. Suppose God is invented by men. Suppose the laws He dictates are also invented. Suppose the term "sin" is used to describe the breaking of these "divine laws".

"Sinh" remains a meaningful and valuable term when used this way.

Er, of course divine law cannot exist without a divinity. Surely you are not proposing that sin is a meaningful and valuable term in an atheistic context?

If sin is the breaking of divine law, and divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.

In a strictly atheistic worldview, there is no divine law or deity to establish a moral code. Therefore, the traditional definition of sin as a violation of divine law would not apply. However, that does not mean that the concept of sin loses all meaning in an atheistic context.

Many atheists still hold to a moral code based on principles such as empathy, compassion, and the well-being of others. In this sense, sin could be understood as actions or behaviors that harm others, violate basic human rights, or are in conflict with this moral code. This view is consistent with secular ethics and humanism, which reject the notion of divine law but still recognize the importance of ethical principles in guiding human behaviour.

You can have morality without a divine law but you cannot have sin without a divine law. Sin and moral failure are two different things which should not be conflated. There are atheists who will affirm the existence of moral failure, but there are not atheists who will affirm the existence of sin.

However, that does not mean that the concept of sin loses all meaning in an atheistic context.

Ah, but it does. And it is precisely the concept which loses its meaning, not necessarily the syntactic referent. We could redefine the word 's-i-n' and attach it to an entirely different concept (like a man-made agreement), but this is equivocation between two different concepts.

Similarly, we might say, "Horses are just six-legged insects! Do you agree?" Well no, of course horses are not six-legged insects. Unless of course we redefine the syntactical string 'h-o-r-s-e' to be "a six-legged insect." In that case, sure, horses are six-legged insects. Yet I think we could agree that this is sophistry and equivocation of terms.

[JackDaydream]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

The concept of 'sin' is questionable, because it comes with loaded meanings, but may be about difficulties living up to ideals. It includes values and ideals, ranging from philosophy perspectives of perfectionism and wholeness. In Christianity, there was an emphasis on perfection, and even though it is less so in a moral or spiritual sense, there is still an emphasis on perfectionism on a more pragmatic or practical basis.

The problem of human weakness and self mastery are predominant themes. However, aside from perspectives which infer blame and 'guilt' in relation to the concept of sin , especially the idea of original sin and 'the fall', the weaknesses of the flesh and human beings remain.it may come down to the essentials of human nature and self knowledge. Perhaps, the more aware of our own natures and weaknesses a person may come to, may result in a more positive integration of negative aspects of oneself.

[Sushan]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

The concept of 'sin' is questionable, because it comes with loaded meanings, but may be about difficulties living up to ideals. It includes values and ideals, ranging from philosophy perspectives of perfectionism and wholeness. In Christianity, there was an emphasis on perfection, and even though it is less so in a moral or spiritual sense, there is still an emphasis on perfectionism on a more pragmatic or practical basis.

The problem of human weakness and self mastery are predominant themes. However, aside from perspectives which infer blame and 'guilt' in relation to the concept of sin , especially the idea of original sin and 'the fall', the weaknesses of the flesh and human beings remain.it may come down to the essentials of human nature and self knowledge. Perhaps, the more aware of our own natures and weaknesses a person may come to, may result in a more positive integration of negative aspects of oneself.

You raise an interesting perspective on the concept of 'sin' and its relation to human nature, self-knowledge, and personal growth. It's true that the idea of sin often comes with various interpretations and cultural baggage, which might not resonate with everyone.

The notion of sin, as you mentioned, can be seen as a reflection of human weaknesses and the struggle to live up to certain ideals or values. In this sense, one could argue that sins might not necessarily be divine laws, but rather an expression of societal expectations and moral standards that vary across different cultures and time periods.

Understanding our own nature and weaknesses is a crucial step in personal development and self-improvement. By recognizing our flaws and working towards integrating the negative aspects of ourselves, we can strive for a more balanced and harmonious existence. This process of self-awareness and self-mastery can help us navigate the complexities of societal expectations and moral standards, allowing us to make more informed choices about our actions and their consequences.

[Sushan]

That's clearly correct, by definition. However, it begs the question of whether "divine law" can exist without a Divinity. Suppose God is invented by men. Suppose the laws He dictates are also invented. Suppose the term "sin" is used to describe the breaking of these "divine laws".

"Sinh" remains a meaningful and valuable term when used this way.

Er, of course divine law cannot exist without a divinity. Surely you are not proposing that sin is a meaningful and valuable term in an atheistic context?

If sin is the breaking of divine law, and divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.

In a strictly atheistic worldview, there is no divine law or deity to establish a moral code. Therefore, the traditional definition of sin as a violation of divine law would not apply. However, that does not mean that the concept of sin loses all meaning in an atheistic context.

Many atheists still hold to a moral code based on principles such as empathy, compassion, and the well-being of others. In this sense, sin could be understood as actions or behaviors that harm others, violate basic human rights, or are in conflict with this moral code. This view is consistent with secular ethics and humanism, which reject the notion of divine law but still recognize the importance of ethical principles in guiding human behaviour.

You can have morality without a divine law but you cannot have sin without a divine law. Sin and moral failure are two different things which should not be conflated. There are atheists who will affirm the existence of moral failure, but there are not atheists who will affirm the existence of sin.

However, that does not mean that the concept of sin loses all meaning in an atheistic context.

Ah, but it does. And it is precisely the concept which loses its meaning, not necessarily the syntactic referent. We could redefine the word 's-i-n' and attach it to an entirely different concept (like a man-made agreement), but this is equivocation between two different concepts.

Similarly, we might say, "Horses are just six-legged insects! Do you agree?" Well no, of course horses are not six-legged insects. Unless of course we redefine the syntactical string 'h-o-r-s-e' to be "a six-legged insect." In that case, sure, horses are six-legged insects. Yet I think we could agree that this is sophistry and equivocation of terms.

You are correct in pointing out that redefining the term 'sin' to fit an entirely different concept can lead to equivocation and confusion. However, it is important to recognize that our understanding of words and concepts can evolve over time, especially in the context of diverse worldviews and philosophical perspectives.

In the case of 'sin,' it is true that the traditional definition is tied to the idea of divine law, and in a strictly atheistic context, this may not be applicable. However, what we are discussing here is not necessarily a redefinition of the term, but rather an examination of how the concept of sin or moral transgression might be understood in different contexts.

In a secular context, the concept of sin could be replaced with the idea of moral failure, as one of the previous comments mentioned. While the term 'sin' may not be used, the underlying idea of actions that harm others, violate basic human rights, or conflict with moral principles remains relevant.

[Agent Smyth]

Sins are immoral deeds. As per legend, they're surefire way to book a seat on the plane to hell. No denied boardings ever in the history of Air Satan. Enjoy the flight.

[lec_nemanja]

Sins are not just mere man-made laws, but rather man-made laws based on exceptional and centuries-old experience and the widest possible consensus.

[Leontiskos]

In a secular context, the concept of sin could be replaced with the idea of moral failure...

Yes, we can replace one concept with another, and one might replace sin with moral failure. This would be a good way to get around the strange rhetoric and fallacies of equivocation that so mar your OP.

If the author thinks that sin is a law, or that sin is the breaking of a man-made law, then he is just redefining words willy-nilly in an entirely unphilosophical and unhelpful way. Neither St. Matthew, Mephistopheles, nor Bill Maher would be tempted to affirm that sin is a law or that sin is the breaking of a man-made law.

[Good_Egg]

In common usage, breaking a man-made law is a crime (notwithstanding the technical difference between criminal and civil offences). And breaking the moral law is a sin. So one way of expressing the idea of sin is to call it a "crime against morality"

I'm told the original meaning of "sin" related to an arrow falling short of the target. By extension, it refers to moral shortcomings.

Atheists who have a moral code can still sin, by acts which fall short of their own ethical standards.

It is those who deny that the concept of "moral" is meaningful who find the word "sin" meaningless.

[Stoppelmann]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

This depends on what sins we are talking about, because wiki says, “In a religious context, sin is a transgression against divine law. Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. While sins are generally considered actions, any word, or act considered immoral, selfish, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful".” I think that we often forget that spiritual traditions collect wisdom from a long period of time, which are originally observations which then become laws. So, is it a mere agreement, or the way it is?

In Hinduism, Dharma is often considered to be a divine concept like the Torah in Judaism, as it is believed to be established by the gods themselves for the benefit of humanity. Dharma is seen as the fundamental order of the universe, and it is believed to provide a framework for individuals to live a meaningful and purposeful life. In Hindu mythology, it is said that even the gods themselves follow the path of Dharma, and that those who live according to Dharma will be blessed by the gods and attain spiritual liberation. Additionally, many Hindu texts, such as the Bhagavad Gita, emphasize the importance of following one's Dharma as a means of achieving spiritual growth and fulfilling one's duty in life. Therefore, the concept of sin is here not based on a list of specific actions that are deemed inherently wrong, but rather on the idea of karma, which is the law of cause and effect. According to this law, every action has consequences, and individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Therefore, whether opposition to Dharma is considered a sin or not would depend on the specific actions taken and their consequences.

In Buddhism, Dharma refers to the teachings of the Buddha, which are seen as a path to liberation from suffering. The Dharma is considered to be the observable ultimate truth about the nature of reality and the way things are. The Buddha's teachings emphasize the Four Noble Truths, which outline the nature of suffering and the path to liberation, as well as the Noble Eightfold Path, which provides a framework for living in accordance with the Dharma. So, not following Dharma in this sense, would be seen as the voluntary entanglement in the wheel of suffering. Buddhists also share the concept of karma.

So, although divine law or dharma may have a special place for believers, in practise it is seen as a practical and ethical framework for living, based on the special circumstances of the group and the fundamental principle of the universe, and living in accordance within that guidance is believed to lead to spiritual growth and fulfilment. Sin is then a “missing the mark” as the Greek word suggests, or a failing to fulfil the potential laid out in the law or dharma at hand.

Among the desert fathers, what came to be known as the seven deadly sins were originally known as problematic thoughts or desires which arise when people meditate or spend long periods of time in solitude. In that community, it was accepted that they arise and it was spoken about. It is when, instead of speaking of these difficulties as a means of therapy, people are bludgeoned into obedience and condemned if they fall into such habits, that sin becomes what it has been said to be today.

[Leontiskos]

In Hinduism, Dharma is often considered to be a divine concept like the Torah in Judaism, as it is believed to be established by the gods themselves for the benefit of humanity.

I don't know that I would take the similarities between Judaism and Hinduism to be so strong. In Judaism we see a tradition of directly given divine precepts, the transgression of which could be punishable by death--either immediately from God's hand or mediately through the community. As I understand it, this is quite different from the Hindu understanding or the common anthropological understanding, perhaps exemplified by Confucianism.

I think that we often forget that spiritual traditions collect wisdom from a long period of time, which are originally observations which then become laws.

I would want to use the word "customs" rather than "observations," but the custom-law continuum really seems to be discontinuous with the idea of sin and the sacred. This can be glimpsed by noting how transgressions against the sacral (sin) are never justified by recourse to human custom or human law. Indeed, such justification would be inadequate to account for the putative severity of the offense. The sacred and the profane sphere are always distinguished, as are offenses against them.

Of course an atheist will find the notion of sin to be unjustifiable, and will attempt to explain it away in various ways. For the atheist sin must be a transgression against a man-made custom or law, because there is no other kind of law which could ever be transgressed. But this is a dubious enterprise. It would be more honest for the atheist to simply claim that sin doesn't exist rather than claiming that sin means something which it manifestly does not mean.

[Stoppelmann]

I don't know that I would take the similarities between Judaism and Hinduism to be so strong. In Judaism we see a tradition of directly given divine precepts, the transgression of which could be punishable by death--either immediately from God's hand or mediately through the community. As I understand it, this is quite different from the Hindu understanding or the common anthropological understanding, perhaps exemplified by Confucianism.

In detail you are, of course, right. I intentionally expanded the subject by bringing in other religions. I also see the transgression punishable by death as a antiquated measure, which was revised by Christ, stating that there is a transgression that is unforgiveable, “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,” although he gives one exception: “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29). Blasphemy understood as “defiant irreverence” such as cursing God or wilfully degrading things relating to God, or even attributing some evil to God, is really about extreme stupidity. It is better to be silent than commit this irreverence, although criticism of the church and its members is not what is meant – but often implied.

I think that we often forget that spiritual traditions collect wisdom from a long period of time, which are originally observations which then become laws.

I would want to use the word "customs" rather than "observations," but the custom-law continuum really seems to be discontinuous with the idea of sin and the sacred. This can be glimpsed by noting how transgressions against the sacral (sin) are never justified by recourse to human custom or human law. Indeed, such justification would be inadequate to account for the putative severity of the offense. The sacred and the profane sphere are always distinguished, as are offenses against them.

I prefer observations because I interpret Paul’s statement here, “For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship …” (Romans 1:19-20) as meaning that mankind has been able to create the Torah based on the recognition of how things are. It then became custom.

Studying and comparing the various traditions, I come to the conclusion that this can be said of all traditions that have this long phase of development, that rather than the tradition “falling from heaven,” the wisdom was imparted through experience with the “workmanship” of the ground of being, which we call God, and the development of a relationship that ultimately utters “abba,” Papa. It is this intimacy that is special in Christianity.

Of course an atheist will find the notion of sin to be unjustifiable, and will attempt to explain it away in various ways. For the atheist sin must be a transgression against a man-made custom or law, because there is no other kind of law which could ever be transgressed. But this is a dubious enterprise. It would be more honest for the atheist to simply claim that sin doesn't exist rather than claiming that sin means something which it manifestly does not mean.

Yes, that may be the basis for the assumption that sins are just man-made agreements. However, good customs arise, also according to Paul, through seeing and understanding.

[Leontiskos]

I don't know that I would take the similarities between Judaism and Hinduism to be so strong. In Judaism we see a tradition of directly given divine precepts, the transgression of which could be punishable by death--either immediately from God's hand or mediately through the community. As I understand it, this is quite different from the Hindu understanding or the common anthropological understanding, perhaps exemplified by Confucianism.

In detail you are, of course, right. I intentionally expanded the subject by bringing in other religions. I also see the transgression punishable by death as a antiquated measure, which was revised by Christ, stating that there is a transgression that is unforgiveable, “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,” although he gives one exception: “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29).

Let me leave this to the side since it is tangential and I won't have time to get into it. My point was that severe punishments need to be justified by severe offenses, and on the atheistic worldview severe offenses are harder to find. In most cultures and religions the most severe punishments tend to be clustered around offenses against sacred realities. Further, religions with more direct sacred claims, such as direct written revelation, will have a much greater potential for emphasizing transgressions against the sacred. This is why I believe the concept of sin is found much more prevalently in the West than in the East. I rather doubt many Buddhists or Hindus would use that English word to translate their ideas.

(If you want to discuss this question about Christianity and the death penalty you could raise it in a separate thread and I should be able to get to it in the next two or three weeks. I think it is mistaken, and that passages like Acts 5 are incredibly difficult for such a view.)

Blasphemy understood as “defiant irreverence” such as cursing God or wilfully degrading things relating to God, or even attributing some evil to God, is really about extreme stupidity.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. No culture would put someone to death for an act of "extreme stupidity" which harms no human being whatsoever. Blasphemy is opaque to the secular world, but redefining it as "extreme stupidity" is not a fruitful alternative. It just shifts the opacity from the act to the punishments and the cultural understanding.

I think that we often forget that spiritual traditions collect wisdom from a long period of time, which are originally observations which then become laws.

I would want to use the word "customs" rather than "observations," but the custom-law continuum really seems to be discontinuous with the idea of sin and the sacred. This can be glimpsed by noting how transgressions against the sacral (sin) are never justified by recourse to human custom or human law. Indeed, such justification would be inadequate to account for the putative severity of the offense. The sacred and the profane sphere are always distinguished, as are offenses against them.

I prefer observations because I interpret Paul’s statement here, “For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship …” (Romans 1:19-20) as meaning that mankind has been able to create the Torah based on the recognition of how things are. It then became custom.

Studying and comparing the various traditions, I come to the conclusion that this can be said of all traditions that have this long phase of development, that rather than the tradition “falling from heaven,” the wisdom was imparted through experience with the “workmanship” of the ground of being, which we call God, and the development of a relationship that ultimately utters “abba,” Papa. It is this intimacy that is special in Christianity.

Okay, interesting. My points aren't premised on the idea that the prequel to human law is custom rather than observation. If you prefer you can replace 'custom' with 'observation' in those arguments. They will still hold good.

Similarly, it doesn't matter to me whether a putative divine commandment descended from heaven, fully-formed, or was the result of a process. That conversation would take us far afield. The point is that the sacred sphere is separate from the profane sphere, the punishments for offenses against either sphere reflect this, and the putative severity of offenses against the sacred sphere could never be (and never are or were) justified by appeals to the profane sphere (such as appeals to merely human observations, customs, or laws).

[Stoppelmann]

My point was that severe punishments need to be justified by severe offenses, and on the atheistic worldview severe offenses are harder to find. In most cultures and religions the most severe punishments tend to be clustered around offenses against sacred realities. Further, religions with more direct sacred claims, such as direct written revelation, will have a much greater potential for emphasizing transgressions against the sacred. This is why I believe the concept of sin is found much more prevalently in the West than in the East. I rather doubt many Buddhists or Hindus would use that English word to translate their ideas.

I take your point, also taking from Lewis as we discussed elsewhere, and I see how a bundle of reasons made up the severity of offenses against sacred realities. However, I tend to take Christ at his word, and let compassion judge, and there is the statement, Romans 12:19: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord." (Deuteronomy 32:35).”

Blasphemy understood as “defiant irreverence” such as cursing God or wilfully degrading things relating to God, or even attributing some evil to God, is really about extreme stupidity.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. No culture would put someone to death for an act of "extreme stupidity" which harms no human being whatsoever. Blasphemy is opaque to the secular world, but redefining it as "extreme stupidity" is not a fruitful alternative. It just shifts the opacity from the act to the punishments and the cultural understanding.

Aha, but I wouldn’t, and I see a progression from putting to death for sin, and leaving room for God’s wrath. That is why punishing someone as they deserve is no longer the cause of loss of life, but allowing the clash with God at the reunion with him, in which God is the one who repays, as the only one who sees the human heart for what it is.

Okay, interesting. My points aren't premised on the idea that the prequel to human law is custom rather than observation. If you prefer you can replace 'custom' with 'observation' in those arguments. They will still hold good.

Similarly, it doesn't matter to me whether a putative divine commandment descended from heaven, fully-formed, or was the result of a process. That conversation would take us far afield. The point is that the sacred sphere is separate from the profane sphere, the punishments for offenses against either sphere reflect this, and the putative severity of offenses against the sacred sphere could never be (and never are or were) justified by appeals to the profane sphere (such as appeals to merely human observations, customs, or laws).

And still, the quote I give above further explicates the intention I see in the Gospel message,
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”
(Luke 4:18-19)

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:22)

[Leontiskos]

My point was that severe punishments need to be justified by severe offenses, and on the atheistic worldview severe offenses are harder to find. In most cultures and religions the most severe punishments tend to be clustered around offenses against sacred realities. Further, religions with more direct sacred claims, such as direct written revelation, will have a much greater potential for emphasizing transgressions against the sacred. This is why I believe the concept of sin is found much more prevalently in the West than in the East. I rather doubt many Buddhists or Hindus would use that English word to translate their ideas.

I take your point, also taking from Lewis as we discussed elsewhere, and I see how a bundle of reasons made up the severity of offenses against sacred realities. However, I tend to take Christ at his word, and let compassion judge, and there is the statement, Romans 12:19: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord." (Deuteronomy 32:35).”

But the key word in that verse is "yourselves." If it were merely a matter of compassion then vengeance would be impermissible, it would not be the Lord's, and there would be no room for God's wrath.

Blasphemy understood as “defiant irreverence” such as cursing God or wilfully degrading things relating to God, or even attributing some evil to God, is really about extreme stupidity.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. No culture would put someone to death for an act of "extreme stupidity" which harms no human being whatsoever. Blasphemy is opaque to the secular world, but redefining it as "extreme stupidity" is not a fruitful alternative. It just shifts the opacity from the act to the punishments and the cultural understanding.

Aha, but I wouldn’t, and I see a progression from putting to death for sin, and leaving room for God’s wrath. That is why punishing someone as they deserve is no longer the cause of loss of life, but allowing the clash with God at the reunion with him, in which God is the one who repays, as the only one who sees the human heart for what it is.

For the sake of argument I will grant that Christianity not only abolished the death penalty, but that Christianity abolished every possible punishment whatsoever. This doesn't show that the "blasphemy" of the Old Testament was nothing more than "extreme stupidity." It doesn't show that sins are transgressions against man-made laws. Indeed, this is the same redefinition from a religious angle, and it is not at all uncommon. A religion without punishments is a religion without transgression, and a religion without transgression is a religion without sin. Such a form of Christianity has abandoned the notion of sin, and this is not at all uncommon in modern liberal Christianity. But even if Christianity abandoned the notion of sin this would not change the meaning of sin, or the events of the past, or the other religions which do not abandon the notion of sin.

Of course you might say, "No, the new Christians still see murder as a transgression, we just don't punish murderers." But if actions speak louder than words then all this shows is that the new Christians don't see murder as a transgression.

(The deeper point is that Judeo-Christian punishments have never been premised on a judgment of the heart, and that judgment of the heart is not required for the execution of imperfect temporal punishments.)

Okay, interesting. My points aren't premised on the idea that the prequel to human law is custom rather than observation. If you prefer you can replace 'custom' with 'observation' in those arguments. They will still hold good.

Similarly, it doesn't matter to me whether a putative divine commandment descended from heaven, fully-formed, or was the result of a process. That conversation would take us far afield. The point is that the sacred sphere is separate from the profane sphere, the punishments for offenses against either sphere reflect this, and the putative severity of offenses against the sacred sphere could never be (and never are or were) justified by appeals to the profane sphere (such as appeals to merely human observations, customs, or laws).

And still, the quote I give above further explicates the intention I see in the Gospel message,
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”
(Luke 4:18-19)

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:22)

That would be a reasonable interpretation if we omitted other verses from the New Testament. Limiting ourselves to only the Gospel of Matthew, we have: Matthew 21:12-13, Matthew 21:19, Matthew 23:38, Matthew 7:23, Matthew 10:14-15, Matthew 11:22-24, Matthew 18:34-35, Matthew 21:41, Matthew 22:7, Matthew 22:13, Matthew 24:50-51, Matthew 25:30, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 12:34, Matthew 23:13-36.

But this is not a thread about Christianity and it is not a thread that hinges on Christianity, so I am not going to maintain this tangent.

[AgentSmith]

I met an alien once, no, not that kinda alien, an alien as in ET. I didn't know what to do, I froze!! I hadn't been to Belize back then. Yes, I'm under medication.

Sins can't be understood unless we can explain why we eat so many bananas (2 million short tons, +/- a few hundred thousand in the eat-a-banana-year AD).