Philosophy Discussion Forums

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 3:41 am

FranciscoJoaquim wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 1:22 am I really don't know what to say about this, but one thing I do know is that even if it were an agreement, it already helps some people to be in line and think that if they do something wrong they will be punished.

So, we live by the dumbest common denominator? Not saying your wrong---- lol!!

I appreciate your humorous take on the idea that society's moral standards might be guided by the 'dumbest common denominator.' While it's a light-hearted way to put it, there's some truth to the notion that the simplest, fear-based moral guidelines can have a significant impact on shaping people's behavior.

The idea that fear of punishment, or the concept of sin, keeps people in line is quite prevalent. It's true that for many, the fear of repercussions - whether divine or legal - acts as a deterrent against wrongful actions. However, it's worth considering the depth and effectiveness of such morality. Does this approach promote genuine ethical behavior or just compliance out of fear?

Complexity of moral behavior goes beyond just fear of punishment. Ethical actions are often driven by deeper understanding, empathy, and a genuine sense of right and wrong. A society's moral fabric should ideally be woven from these nuanced threads rather than just the simplistic fear of retribution.

Is a fear-based approach sufficient for maintaining order and morality in society, or should we aim for a more developed and empathetic understanding of right and wrong?

The word 'sin' is defined by its use.For instance ,there are vanishingly few sins from my point of view whereas for a autocrat or a dogmatist there is long list of sins each of them named in a big book.

Sushan wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 4:18 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 3:41 am

FranciscoJoaquim wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 1:22 am I really don't know what to say about this, but one thing I do know is that even if it were an agreement, it already helps some people to be in line and think that if they do something wrong they will be punished.

So, we live by the dumbest common denominator? Not saying your wrong---- lol!!

I appreciate your humorous take on the idea that society's moral standards might be guided by the 'dumbest common denominator.' While it's a light-hearted way to put it, there's some truth to the notion that the simplest, fear-based moral guidelines can have a significant impact on shaping people's behavior.

The idea that fear of punishment, or the concept of sin, keeps people in line is quite prevalent. It's true that for many, the fear of repercussions - whether divine or legal - acts as a deterrent against wrongful actions. However, it's worth considering the depth and effectiveness of such morality. Does this approach promote genuine ethical behavior or just compliance out of fear?

Complexity of moral behavior goes beyond just fear of punishment. Ethical actions are often driven by deeper understanding, empathy, and a genuine sense of right and wrong. A society's moral fabric should ideally be woven from these nuanced threads rather than just the simplistic fear of retribution.

Is a fear-based approach sufficient for maintaining order and morality in society, or should we aim for a more developed and empathetic understanding of right and wrong?

I am repeating myself but, there is an innate quality to humans, perhaps to organisms in general. The seed of compassion is identifying one's self with the self in others, an expanding concept of the self. Compassion in its turn is the seed of morality, but in a rational world morality would not be based on some supernatural entity, but be based on its proper subject, the conscious self. It was Schopenhauer who asked what goes on when one individual violates the first principle of life, self-survival, in a spontaneous attempt to save another individual. His conclusion was, the impetus just grabs one, in a metaphysical realization that you and the other are one. My former mention of the expanded concept of the self fits perfectly here.

I would further state that this applies to other creatures as well, for there are differences in forms among the world's creatures, but not of essence. This makes nature's harsh reality seem all the harsher, for life lives by consuming itself, symbolically the coiled snake consuming its own tail. I believe the symbol is called the Uroboros. All organisms are born into the world without an identity, and obtain their identity as they move through the context, they finds themselves in. As reactionary creatures the world and the greater cosmos plays the organism like an instrument, the idea of free will is perhaps the most absurd and damaging concept ever conceived. It does serve our limited intellect, and enables the concept of sin and that of full responsibility and guilt in the legal system of those who violate the standards of society. We could do without the belief in free will and take a more humane approach to dealing with criminal offenders, still needing to protect the offenders peers and society at large. It is my belief this would be an evolutionary advancement of the psyche of humanity at large.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 10:54 am

Sushan wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 4:18 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 3:41 am

FranciscoJoaquim wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 1:22 am I really don't know what to say about this, but one thing I do know is that even if it were an agreement, it already helps some people to be in line and think that if they do something wrong they will be punished.

So, we live by the dumbest common denominator? Not saying your wrong---- lol!!

I appreciate your humorous take on the idea that society's moral standards might be guided by the 'dumbest common denominator.' While it's a light-hearted way to put it, there's some truth to the notion that the simplest, fear-based moral guidelines can have a significant impact on shaping people's behavior.

The idea that fear of punishment, or the concept of sin, keeps people in line is quite prevalent. It's true that for many, the fear of repercussions - whether divine or legal - acts as a deterrent against wrongful actions. However, it's worth considering the depth and effectiveness of such morality. Does this approach promote genuine ethical behavior or just compliance out of fear?

Complexity of moral behavior goes beyond just fear of punishment. Ethical actions are often driven by deeper understanding, empathy, and a genuine sense of right and wrong. A society's moral fabric should ideally be woven from these nuanced threads rather than just the simplistic fear of retribution.

Is a fear-based approach sufficient for maintaining order and morality in society, or should we aim for a more developed and empathetic understanding of right and wrong?

I am repeating myself but, there is an innate quality to humans, perhaps to organisms in general. The seed of compassion is identifying one's self with the self in others, an expanding concept of the self. Compassion in its turn is the seed of morality, but in a rational world morality would not be based on some supernatural entity, but be based on its proper subject, the conscious self. It was Schopenhauer who asked what goes on when one individual violates the first principle of life, self-survival, in a spontaneous attempt to save another individual. His conclusion was, the impetus just grabs one, in a metaphysical realization that you and the other are one. My former mention of the expanded concept of the self fits perfectly here.

I would further state that this applies to other creatures as well, for there are differences in forms among the world's creatures, but not of essence. This makes nature's harsh reality seem all the harsher, for life lives by consuming itself, symbolically the coiled snake consuming its own tail. I believe the symbol is called the Uroboros. All organisms are born into the world without an identity, and obtain their identity as they move through the context, they finds themselves in. As reactionary creatures the world and the greater cosmos plays the organism like an instrument, the idea of free will is perhaps the most absurd and damaging concept ever conceived. It does serve our limited intellect, and enables the concept of sin and that of full responsibility and guilt in the legal system of those who violate the standards of society. We could do without the belief in free will and take a more humane approach to dealing with criminal offenders, still needing to protect the offenders peers and society at large. It is my belief this would be an evolutionary advancement of the psyche of humanity at large.

I appreciate your insights into the nature of human compassion, the philosophical underpinnings of self-sacrifice, and the challenging concept of free will. While these ideas offer profound understanding, I'd like to add some nuanced perspectives based on real-life experiences and observations.

Your view on innate human compassion raises intriguing considerations. However, real-world observations suggest that compassion is not only an inherent trait but also significantly shaped by cultural and personal experiences. For instance, actions deemed compassionate in one culture might be viewed differently in another. This cultural diversity in moral perceptions indicates that while biological factors might contribute to compassion, societal norms play a crucial role in its expression and interpretation.

Referencing Schopenhauer's idea of self-sacrifice as a metaphysical realization of unity with others is thought-provoking. Yet, altruistic acts can be motivated by various factors, such as duty, professional ethics, and societal expectations. Consider a firefighter who risks their life in a rescue mission. This act might stem from a blend of personal values, professional duty, and societal roles, rather than solely from a deep metaphysical connection with others. It highlights that self-sacrifice and altruism are complex behaviors influenced by a multitude of factors.

Your discussion on free will is particularly compelling. While it's true that our actions are influenced by our biological and environmental contexts, completely dismissing free will could potentially diminish the importance of personal responsibility and moral agency. Life often presents examples where individuals make conscious, ethical choices despite challenging circumstances or societal pressures. These instances underscore that while we are influenced by various factors, there remains a space for personal decision-making and moral accountability.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 8:49 am The word 'sin' is defined by its use.For instance ,there are vanishingly few sins from my point of view whereas for a autocrat or a dogmatist there is long list of sins each of them named in a big book.

Your point about the varied perception of 'sin' among different authorities, such as autocrats or dogmatists, compared to individuals, is particularly thought-provoking. It indeed brings to light the multifaceted role of moral authority in our societies.

For instance, consider historical examples like the use of 'sin' in theocratic governments to control behavior. In such settings, 'sins' were often codified into law, reflecting not just spiritual beliefs but also serving political or societal control mechanisms. Another example can be seen in contemporary societies where certain behaviors, once widely regarded as 'sinful', have been reassessed and are now accepted, like various LGBTQ+ rights. This shift reflects evolving societal values and a move towards a more inclusive and diverse understanding of morality.

As global interconnectedness grows, these changes become more pronounced. With the exchange of ideas across cultures, the once rigid definitions of 'sin' are being questioned and reevaluated. This process can lead to a more empathetic and understanding society, where moral standards are not just dictated by a single authority but are a product of collective, global discourse.

However, this raises another question: In a world where moral authority is decentralized and varied, how do we navigate the complexities of a global moral framework? Can we find common ground in our definitions of right and wrong, or will the concept of 'sin' continue to diversify and evolve with cultural and societal changes?

Harty Muli wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 9:27 am I think what defines us as opposed to other animals is our unmatched intellect and our capacity to feel guilt. I would like to aver based on that that sin is more than just a human construct.

Your perspective on human intellect and the capacity to feel guilt as distinguishing factors in defining sin is intriguing. However, considering a broader view, we find that these traits might not be as uniquely human as traditionally thought.

Human intelligence is undoubtedly advanced, but it's not unrivaled in the animal kingdom. Research has consistently shown significant intelligence in dolphins, elephants, and primates. These species exhibit problem-solving skills and social behaviors indicative of high cognitive abilities. This observation challenges the notion that our intellectual capacity is a defining feature separating humans from other animals, especially regarding moral and ethical reasoning.

The ability to feel guilt, often associated with the concept of sin, isn't exclusively human. Ethological studies suggest animals also display behaviors indicative of empathy, fairness, and even rudimentary forms of guilt. Such observations imply that these emotions are part of a broader spectrum of social behavior in the animal kingdom, developed for group cohesion and survival, rather than traits unique to humans.

When we consider morality and ethics, we find that these concepts extend beyond the religious framework of sin. Philosophical and ethical discussions often address moral questions without invoking religious connotations. This suggests that our understanding of right and wrong, or what might be labeled as 'sinful', is heavily influenced by cultural and societal norms, and not necessarily an intrinsic part of human nature.

Addressing your point about sin being more than a human construct, it's important to recognize that the idea of sin often transcends individual belief systems and permeates cultural narratives. Sin, in many societies, serves as a guide for ethical behavior, shaping social norms and legal systems. This suggests that while the concept of sin may have originated from religious teachings, its implications and applications have evolved to be part of a larger societal framework.

Given this evolution, how do you perceive the role of sin in modern society, especially in a context where diverse beliefs and values coexist? Do you think the concept of sin still holds relevance in guiding ethical behavior, or has it become more of a symbolic reference in our contemporary world?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 3:26 pm

Harty Muli wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 9:27 am I think what defines us as opposed to other animals is our unmatched intellect and our capacity to feel guilt. I would like to aver based on that that sin is more than just a human construct.

Sin is thought relative to a supernatural being, a god in our language. If there is no supernatural deity there is no sin. One must believe in the supernatural inorder to believe in sin. There is no meaning but what is generated by biological consciousness, so the little system of guilt by sin is a biological expression, a biological creation.

Certainly. The idea that guilt associated with sin is a biological creation can be supported by several practical and logical examples:

Research in neuroscience reveals that guilt activates specific brain regions like the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in moral reasoning. This suggests a biological basis for guilt, often linked with sin, indicating it's a response to social norms and internal moral codes shaped by evolutionary and societal factors.

Guilt likely evolved as a mechanism to reinforce social cohesion and cooperative behavior. In early human societies, actions harming the group could threaten individual survival. Therefore, individuals who felt guilt and avoided harmful actions were more likely to prosper and pass on their genes.

Children learn societal norms, including concepts of right and wrong, through socialization. This process is biologically driven, as human brains are designed to absorb social cues.

Thus, guilt related to sin emerges from this socialization process, rooted in our biological nature as social beings.

This perspective raises intriguing questions: If guilt is a biological creation, how does this affect our understanding of personal responsibility and moral decision-making? Does recognizing the biological basis of guilt change how we address feelings of guilt in our personal lives?

Sushan wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 11:46 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 3:26 pm

Harty Muli wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 9:27 am
j
I think what defines us as opposed to other animals is our unmatched intellect and our capacity to feel guilt. I would like to aver based on that that sin is more than just a human construct.

Sin is thought relative to a supernatural being, a god in our language. If there is no supernatural deity there is no sin. One must believe in the supernatural inorder to believe in sin. There is no meaning but what is generated by biological consciousness, so the little system of guilt by sin is a biological expression, a biological creation.

Certainly. The idea that guilt associated with sin is a biological creation can be supported by several practical and logical examples:
Research in neuroscience reveals that guilt activates specific brain regions like the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in moral reasoning. This suggests a biological basis for guilt, often linked with sin, indicating it's a response to social norms and internal moral codes shaped by evolutionary and societal factors. Guilt likely evolved as a mechanism to reinforce social cohesion and cooperative behavior. In early human societies, actions harming the group could threaten individual survival. Therefore, individuals who felt guilt and avoided harmful actions were more likely to prosper and pass on their genes.

Yes of course, morality to an organism in isolation is nonsense. Mother nature is not moral or immoral, she just is, even to attribute indifference to her would be anthropomorphic and folly. However, biology/organisms are the measures and the meanings of all things. The societal norms, institutions and laws that govern human behaviors' have been established by our predecessors in both their wisdom and ignorance. We need to question those structures in moving ahead. The mechanisms of cognitive functions is not helpful in a discussion between laypeople. We know from philosophical discussions that the proper subject of all morality is the conscious subject, despite our ancient traditions and their claims, here again, we must question these structures to adapt to an unfolding future. Just as one understands that all organisms are governed by the physical world to which they must adapt or perish, so to the synthetic world of society adapting itself to the physical world is what we must subject ourselves to for its protections and security. Sin is a highly effective control mechanism, and it is dependent totally upon the belief in the concept of free will, one not challenged properly in the past, it is also vital to the concept of punishment in the legal system and/or court system.


Children learn societal norms, including concepts of right and wrong, through socialization. This process is biologically driven, as human brains are designed to absorb social cues. Thus, guilt related to sin emerges from this socialization process, rooted in our biological nature as social beings. This perspective raises intriguing questions: If guilt is a biological creation, how does this affect our understanding of personal responsibility and moral decision-making? Does recognizing the biological basis of guilt change how we address feelings of guilt in our personal lives?
[/quote]

Adapting to society is little different from adapting to our natural environmental context, and as with nature, context defines. It is however, the conscious subject/s that have created the social context in which we live. The only power involved is that of nature. The collective, the society at present is heavily influenced by religious dogmatism, one can feel guilty without the concept of sin, sin again involves a supernatural being and not relating to anything in our reality but a creation of the human abstract imagination. Just think of it this way, we adapt to our context whatever that might be, with society as our context guilt is involved with being a part of the larger context/society and its expectations. As far as other creatures go, there is a difference in forms, not in essence, they too have their societies.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2024, 11:44 am

Sushan wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 11:46 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 3:26 pm

Harty Muli wrote: ↑January 18th, 2024, 9:27 am
j
I think what defines us as opposed to other animals is our unmatched intellect and our capacity to feel guilt. I would like to aver based on that that sin is more than just a human construct.

Sin is thought relative to a supernatural being, a god in our language. If there is no supernatural deity there is no sin. One must believe in the supernatural inorder to believe in sin. There is no meaning but what is generated by biological consciousness, so the little system of guilt by sin is a biological expression, a biological creation.

Certainly. The idea that guilt associated with sin is a biological creation can be supported by several practical and logical examples:
Research in neuroscience reveals that guilt activates specific brain regions like the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in moral reasoning. This suggests a biological basis for guilt, often linked with sin, indicating it's a response to social norms and internal moral codes shaped by evolutionary and societal factors. Guilt likely evolved as a mechanism to reinforce social cohesion and cooperative behavior. In early human societies, actions harming the group could threaten individual survival. Therefore, individuals who felt guilt and avoided harmful actions were more likely to prosper and pass on their genes.

Yes of course, morality to an organism in isolation is nonsense. Mother nature is not moral or immoral, she just is, even to attribute indifference to her would be anthropomorphic and folly. However, biology/organisms are the measures and the meanings of all things. The societal norms, institutions and laws that govern human behaviors' have been established by our predecessors in both their wisdom and ignorance. We need to question those structures in moving ahead. The mechanisms of cognitive functions is not helpful in a discussion between laypeople. We know from philosophical discussions that the proper subject of all morality is the conscious subject, despite our ancient traditions and their claims, here again, we must question these structures to adapt to an unfolding future. Just as one understands that all organisms are governed by the physical world to which they must adapt or perish, so to the synthetic world of society adapting itself to the physical world is what we must subject ourselves to for its protections and security. Sin is a highly effective control mechanism, and it is dependent totally upon the belief in the concept of free will, one not challenged properly in the past, it is also vital to the concept of punishment in the legal system and/or court system.


Children learn societal norms, including concepts of right and wrong, through socialization. This process is biologically driven, as human brains are designed to absorb social cues. Thus, guilt related to sin emerges from this socialization process, rooted in our biological nature as social beings. This perspective raises intriguing questions: If guilt is a biological creation, how does this affect our understanding of personal responsibility and moral decision-making? Does recognizing the biological basis of guilt change how we address feelings of guilt in our personal lives?

Adapting to society is little different from adapting to our natural environmental context, and as with nature, context defines. It is however, the conscious subject/s that have created the social context in which we live. The only power involved is that of nature. The collective, the society at present is heavily influenced by religious dogmatism, one can feel guilty without the concept of sin, sin again involves a supernatural being and not relating to anything in our reality but a creation of the human abstract imagination. Just think of it this way, we adapt to our context whatever that might be, with society as our context guilt is involved with being a part of the larger context/society and its expectations. As far as other creatures go, there is a difference in forms, not in essence, they too have their societies.

I concur that nature operates with a kind of neutrality, neither moral nor immoral, and that human societies have sculpted their own norms and laws, often under the banner of 'sin' or moral codes.

Addressing the concept of free will, it's a complex issue with implications in both philosophy and neuroscience. While the notion of free will is foundational for many religious and moral systems, real-life experiences often challenge this idea. For instance, in cases where individuals commit crimes under severe mental stress or coercion, the legal system sometimes recognizes these factors as mitigating circumstances. This suggests a nuanced understanding of human behavior that transcends the black-and-white notion of free will.

Delving deeper into cognition and brain function, recent advances in neuroscience have begun to unravel how our brains process moral decisions. Studies involving brain imaging have shown that certain areas of the brain are more active when individuals engage in moral reasoning. This raises intriguing questions about the biological basis of morality. For example, if specific patterns of brain activity correlate with moral judgments, to what extent are our ethical decisions shaped by biology rather than free choice?

How do you think our growing knowledge of the brain's role in moral reasoning might influence our societal norms and legal systems? And could this lead to a shift in how we define and understand 'sin' and moral responsibility?

Sushan wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 10:56 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 8:49 am The word 'sin' is defined by its use.For instance ,there are vanishingly few sins from my point of view whereas for a autocrat or a dogmatist there is long list of sins each of them named in a big book.

Your point about the varied perception of 'sin' among different authorities, such as autocrats or dogmatists, compared to individuals, is particularly thought-provoking. It indeed brings to light the multifaceted role of moral authority in our societies.

For instance, consider historical examples like the use of 'sin' in theocratic governments to control behavior. In such settings, 'sins' were often codified into law, reflecting not just spiritual beliefs but also serving political or societal control mechanisms. Another example can be seen in contemporary societies where certain behaviors, once widely regarded as 'sinful', have been reassessed and are now accepted, like various LGBTQ+ rights. This shift reflects evolving societal values and a move towards a more inclusive and diverse understanding of morality.

As global interconnectedness grows, these changes become more pronounced. With the exchange of ideas across cultures, the once rigid definitions of 'sin' are being questioned and reevaluated. This process can lead to a more empathetic and understanding society, where moral standards are not just dictated by a single authority but are a product of collective, global discourse.

However, this raises another question: In a world where moral authority is decentralized and varied, how do we navigate the complexities of a global moral framework? Can we find common ground in our definitions of right and wrong, or will the concept of 'sin' continue to diversify and evolve with cultural and societal changes?

Laws reflect the religious or otherwise evaluative system that guides a people's conduct. The context of the word 'sin' is normally a religious context so the trajectory of the word itself is in decline to correlate with the decline of religions in general. With improving education for the masses religions will continue to be less relevant and politicians will gradually cease to flaunt religious or otherwise mythological signage.

We already have a global moral framework in the United Nations evidenced by yesterday's judgement supporting South Africa's case against Israel .

The concept of sin in its wide, not necessarily religious, usage will continue to decline only if we fight hard enough to support human rights .Human rights are always going to be threatened by oppressors .

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:54 am

Sushan wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 10:56 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 8:49 am The word 'sin' is defined by its use.For instance ,there are vanishingly few sins from my point of view whereas for a autocrat or a dogmatist there is long list of sins each of them named in a big book.

Your point about the varied perception of 'sin' among different authorities, such as autocrats or dogmatists, compared to individuals, is particularly thought-provoking. It indeed brings to light the multifaceted role of moral authority in our societies.

For instance, consider historical examples like the use of 'sin' in theocratic governments to control behavior. In such settings, 'sins' were often codified into law, reflecting not just spiritual beliefs but also serving political or societal control mechanisms. Another example can be seen in contemporary societies where certain behaviors, once widely regarded as 'sinful', have been reassessed and are now accepted, like various LGBTQ+ rights. This shift reflects evolving societal values and a move towards a more inclusive and diverse understanding of morality.

As global interconnectedness grows, these changes become more pronounced. With the exchange of ideas across cultures, the once rigid definitions of 'sin' are being questioned and reevaluated. This process can lead to a more empathetic and understanding society, where moral standards are not just dictated by a single authority but are a product of collective, global discourse.

However, this raises another question: In a world where moral authority is decentralized and varied, how do we navigate the complexities of a global moral framework? Can we find common ground in our definitions of right and wrong, or will the concept of 'sin' continue to diversify and evolve with cultural and societal changes?

Laws reflect the religious or otherwise evaluative system that guides a people's conduct.

Thankfully this is not the case.
If you look at the core of Christian belief, there are only a couple of exampes where law co-incides with the 10 commandments, and none of them are owed to Christianity, being largely universal such as murder and theft.
Our world would be a very different place were religion to steer legal policy.

I going to suggest that religion was more of an attempt to control the people whilst mobilising natural rules of conduct; often manipulating them in various ways.
This has been dogmatic to such a degree that religion has always fallen behind the curve and plays catch up.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 9:10 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:54 am

Sushan wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 10:56 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 8:49 am The word 'sin' is defined by its use.For instance ,there are vanishingly few sins from my point of view whereas for a autocrat or a dogmatist there is long list of sins each of them named in a big book.

Your point about the varied perception of 'sin' among different authorities, such as autocrats or dogmatists, compared to individuals, is particularly thought-provoking. It indeed brings to light the multifaceted role of moral authority in our societies.

For instance, consider historical examples like the use of 'sin' in theocratic governments to control behavior. In such settings, 'sins' were often codified into law, reflecting not just spiritual beliefs but also serving political or societal control mechanisms. Another example can be seen in contemporary societies where certain behaviors, once widely regarded as 'sinful', have been reassessed and are now accepted, like various LGBTQ+ rights. This shift reflects evolving societal values and a move towards a more inclusive and diverse understanding of morality.

As global interconnectedness grows, these changes become more pronounced. With the exchange of ideas across cultures, the once rigid definitions of 'sin' are being questioned and reevaluated. This process can lead to a more empathetic and understanding society, where moral standards are not just dictated by a single authority but are a product of collective, global discourse.

However, this raises another question: In a world where moral authority is decentralized and varied, how do we navigate the complexities of a global moral framework? Can we find common ground in our definitions of right and wrong, or will the concept of 'sin' continue to diversify and evolve with cultural and societal changes?

Laws reflect the religious or otherwise evaluative system that guides a people's conduct.

Thankfully this is not the case.
If you look at the core of Christian belief, there are only a couple of exampes where law co-incides with the 10 commandments, and none of them are owed to Christianity, being largely universal such as murder and theft.
Our world would be a very different place were religion to steer legal policy.

I going to suggest that religion was more of an attempt to control the people whilst mobilising natural rules of conduct; often manipulating them in various ways.
This has been dogmatic to such a degree that religion has always fallen behind the curve and plays catch up.

Sculptor, I don't understand how the undoubted influence of the religious power elite would not have influenced Judeo-Christianity towards Christianity's more punitive interpretation . From the days of Christendom when the pope was in charge of real power, through the Reformation when one of the three ruling estates was the religious hierarchy(for the latter maybe see Robert Burns's letters and poetry)***the Protestant churches had a heck of lot of power.

However Judeo -Christianity especially perhaps the Irish Celtic tradition, despite its being politicised , also was the medium in which the humanitarian message was carried.
****

The rank is but the guinea stamp, the man's the gold for all that!

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 10:46 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 9:10 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:54 am

Sushan wrote: ↑January 25th, 2024, 10:56 pm

Your point about the varied perception of 'sin' among different authorities, such as autocrats or dogmatists, compared to individuals, is particularly thought-provoking. It indeed brings to light the multifaceted role of moral authority in our societies.

For instance, consider historical examples like the use of 'sin' in theocratic governments to control behavior. In such settings, 'sins' were often codified into law, reflecting not just spiritual beliefs but also serving political or societal control mechanisms. Another example can be seen in contemporary societies where certain behaviors, once widely regarded as 'sinful', have been reassessed and are now accepted, like various LGBTQ+ rights. This shift reflects evolving societal values and a move towards a more inclusive and diverse understanding of morality.

As global interconnectedness grows, these changes become more pronounced. With the exchange of ideas across cultures, the once rigid definitions of 'sin' are being questioned and reevaluated. This process can lead to a more empathetic and understanding society, where moral standards are not just dictated by a single authority but are a product of collective, global discourse.

However, this raises another question: In a world where moral authority is decentralized and varied, how do we navigate the complexities of a global moral framework? Can we find common ground in our definitions of right and wrong, or will the concept of 'sin' continue to diversify and evolve with cultural and societal changes?

Laws reflect the religious or otherwise evaluative system that guides a people's conduct.

Thankfully this is not the case.
If you look at the core of Christian belief, there are only a couple of exampes where law co-incides with the 10 commandments, and none of them are owed to Christianity, being largely universal such as murder and theft.
Our world would be a very different place were religion to steer legal policy.

I going to suggest that religion was more of an attempt to control the people whilst mobilising natural rules of conduct; often manipulating them in various ways.
This has been dogmatic to such a degree that religion has always fallen behind the curve and plays catch up.

Sculptor, I don't understand how the undoubted influence of the religious power elite would not have influenced Judeo-Christianity towards Christianity's more punitive interpretation .

Eh?
I think you have a circular argument.

From the days of Christendom when the pope was in charge of real power, through the Reformation when one of the three ruling estates was the religious hierarchy(for the latter maybe see Robert Burns's letters and poetry)***the Protestant churches had a heck of lot of power.

Protestantism was a movement against the prevailing order. A democritisation.
But both Catholicism and Protestantism can be argued both for and against ahderence to WETF "Christianity" is supposed to be. You canll one version "punitive" - they both are. And atrocities comitted on both sides.

However Judeo -Christianity especially perhaps the Irish Celtic tradition, despite its being politicised , also was the medium in which the humanitarian message was carried.

Desite it being politicisied? LOL
Religion was indivisible from politics.
Thankfully (as I was saying) it no longer is.

And - as I was saying laws do not follow the creeds of either types of Xian religion.
Name any of the decologue that is codified into law, which was not already a prechristian law.
Shall we go through them?
I am happy to.

I don't know, Sculptor. I was parroting a practicing lawyer who told me UK law is founded on Jewish law. And we know that Xianity is mostly an advanced form of Judaism , or you might say, a Jewish cult that , kicking and screaming, has undergone a scientific and philosophical Enlightenment.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 11:31 am Religion was indivisible from politics.
Thankfully (as I was saying) it no longer is.

I think what you're referring to here is the rise in European countries of the ideal of the secular state. Religion demoted from being the guiding ethos of the state to being a matter of private conviction.

Which is an idea of a particular place and time - Enlightenment Europe. Which has found its way into the US constitution, because that constitution was being drawn up by people of European culture at that point in history.

The Islamic world does not accept this idea. Many Muslims worldwide think it right that the state should punish sins against Allah. Others may have more knowledge of cultures further afield...

One of the failings of education in the UK (and doubtless some other European countries) is that (perhaps because of a well-founded fear of education becoming indoctrination) we have little attachment to any explicit statement of this idea.

So that, semi-conscious of the pillars of our own society, we admit immigrants who do not share this core belief.

Seems to me that the US is more explicit about its own cultural values. But curiously, this hasn't made politics in the US any more detached from religion; rather the opposite...

Christianity in the US has become tied up with conservatism, and conservatism to right-leaning politics.