Why do people react with such vitriol when sin is called sin?

Question

Could it be that they are blinded by moral relativism (a philosophy which ultimately leads to destruction--both in this life and in the next)? How do atheists and secular humanists determine what is moral/immoral without an author defining the concept for us? For example, if one believes a monogamous homosexual relationship is morally acceptable, then why not a monogamous bestial relationship, or polygamy, or whoremongering? How does one determine where to draw the line? The rationalization that in some of these, people are hurt, and in others they are not is illogical, since the definition of "hurt" requires a defining moral foundation. This would require using an undefined concept (the moral question of whether someone is "hurt" or not) to determine the moral legitamicy of the very same undefined concept (whether certain sexual activities are innately immoral). Circular reasoning. Criticism by moral relativists of Christians for their beliefs are self-defeating and humorous.

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

> Why do people react with such vitriol when sin is called sin?

Sin is a made up excuse to make people feel guilty.


> Could it be that they are blinded by moral relativism (a philosophy which ultimately leads to destruction--both in this life and in the next)?

> How do atheists and secular humanists determine what is
> moral/immoral without an author defining the concept for us?

If christianity is so moral, explain the Nazis and the KKK. Don't cop out with nonsense like "They're not christians!" They claim they're christians, so they are christians.

Or you could take a more realistic view: Faith is how you treat a "god". Morality is how you treat people.


> For example, if one believes a monogamous homosexual
> relationship is morally acceptable, then why not a
> monogamous bestial relationship, or polygamy, or
> whoremongering?

Well, if being a christian is morally acceptable, what's wrong with being a christian pedophile, a christian rapist, or a christian terrorist?

What's that? You don't like some people's action being associated with you and your personal habits? Then why do you make such insinuations against others?

You are naught more than a typical hypochristian.

You and those of your ilk want to claim "moral superiority" to and "moral absolutes" to falsely claim those who don't have your religion are immoral. What starts being labelled as "immoral" will be labelled "illegal", then "criminal", and finally "killable". The christians did it, the jews are doing it, the muslims are doing it, the communists do it, etc. etc. etc.

You're looking for examples to follow, alright, just not in the way you claim to be.


Additional:

To "Puff", if I said "Joe Stalin wasn't a true atheist", would you accept that as true or laugh your head off? If people say "there is no god", then they're atheists, regardless of my opinion of them and how much I disagree with their opinions and actions. That's called _honesty_.

The same applies to christians: The KKK, the nazis, Dennis Rader (the BTK serial killer), Ted Bundy, Robert Yates, Eric Rudolph, and James Kopp are all as much christians as Martin Luther King Jr. They all believe there was a "jezus" and claim to obey "his" teachings, whether you claim they do or not.

I don't know what your motivation is, but most christians are in denial about their fellow christians because it allows them not to be hypocrites when lumping non-christians or atheists into one bowl. I don't deny the reality of scum like Pol Pot, the PRC government and others sharing my lack of religion.

Why do you deny the reality of scum being christians? For me to point out the filth of David Duke does not mean I am inferring that you share his views. My only purpose is to point out that "religious morality" is a lie. Ethics do not come from religion.

Answer 3

I'll respond to the first part of your question...how do you go from a monogamous relationship to bestiality? I am always fascinated by how these and other sexual behaviors are considered the same. A monogamous homosexual relationship is consensual, and between two people. Some of the other things listed in your statement do not have these elements, and they are a core difference.
The difference between someone from church drawing a line, and a 'moral relativist'/ secularist drawing the line is that someone from church is letting the line be drawn for them by scripture or dogma. They rely on scripture to define their morality.
A secularist uses ideas from philosophers, experience and possibly even religion, as well as other sources to shape their moral definitions. Both are using definitions given to them by another source- there are no original ideas. It just depends on what you are comfortable using as a basis for your morality.

Answer 4

You are a little too deep for me.
However, in answer to your first question, I guess people hate the word sin, simply because the truth sometimes hurts. It takes the Holy Spirit to open up people's eyes to see that sin does exist and that they are in fact sinners, in desperate need of a savior.

I don't know where or how liberals draw the line between what's right and wrong. If there is no God, who is to say what's ok and not ok? I guess they just go with whatever is atleast somewhat accepted by society, such as homosexuality, and then once that sin gets more accepted they change their beliefs about something else that they used to say was wrong and now say is ok. I wouldn't be surprised if twenty years from now most liberals and atheists considered child abuse ok. We as a culture just keep getting more and more desensitized. Romans 1, though, warns us that it is a sign of the end times. God knew it would happen, it doesn't surprise Him. He is still in control and will one day judge the earth.
In conclusion, quit trying to figure out the minds of liberals. It's really a matter of the heart,not head. Pray God will soften their hearts and just love the sinner, but hate the sin.

MC Hummer, just because a person claims to be a Christian, doesn't mean he or she is. Jesus said not everyone who says to him "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. The bible warns us that there will be false prophets, teachers, anti Christs, etc. Hitler was obviously one of them. I suggest you read the Bible, especially the new testament. A lot of people claim to be a lot of things, but really aren't. People lie. Satan is the father of all lies.

Answer 5

In my particular case, the line IS drawn where you start to hurt a person or living being. And "hurt" is not a moral concept for me. It's a psychological or physical concept. Besides, it's a social and personal concept, too. I mean, if I know my girlfriend will be hurt if I have several women, I will not do it. On the other hand, if I lived in a society where men do have several women, and that's the accepted norm, I'd do it. Or if I were in an open relation where this license were explicitly agreed.

I think you're mistake is to think that everybody considers "hurt" to be a moral concept. It may be for you as a Christian, but it is not for me. I don't think of what should or shouldn't hurt you in a theoretical world or scale of values. I think of what does or does not hurt you according to my best knowledge of who you are and what you believe in. And I act accordingly.

So of course, moral relativism does work for me.

Answer 6

Atheists and secular humanists reject the concept of "innate" morality. Morality is something that humans assign to a thing, it is not something that is innate in anything.

On that basis, they use their own judgment to decide morality. Keep in mind that "harm" is not necessarily defined by morality. You can define a moral code, and then claim that transgressions of it constitute harm, but that's nothing but a subjective judgment - it has no basis in reality.

When atheists decide whether or not something harms people, they do it on a very simple basis - does an action cause more net "good" than "bad", with "good" being defined as the betterment of a person's condition, whether emotional or physical, and "bad" being defined as the worsening of a person's condition, emotional or physical.

Example: stabbing someone in the face harms them. That's not a question of morality, that's a question of fact. On that basis, typically, stabbing someone in the face is immoral.
If, however, stabbing someone in the face does more good than harm (such as, for example, stopping someone from killing you or your family), then it is not immoral.

Believe it or not, it actually works quite well - as a secular humanist, i can assure you of this.

Answer 7

You are blinded by Moral Absolutism, a philosophy that incites those who espouse it to inflict unnecessary suffering on anyone they disagree with.

My moral yardstick boils down to this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Jesus)

Another: Love your neighbor as yourself. (Jesus)

Another: First love, then do as you please. (St. Augustine)

Some people spend so much time complaining about the speck of sawdust in their neghbor's eye that they never even notice the plank in their own. So here's a thought: let me worry about the plank in my eye, and you take care of the plank in yours. Then we'll have no time left to complain about the specks in other people's eyes. Sound like a plan?

Answer 8

That and I believe that many people, including some Christians, have made Christianity P.I.(politically incorrect).

Answer 9

Exactly the reason why rejecting Jesus Christ leads to perdition (notice I didn't say believing one particular organized church). The Bible is the Word of God.

Answer 10

You may assert anything you want -- but many, if not most mainstream Christians do not agree with you drmike.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

Answer 11

Nah, it just usually refers to something they're doing, at that upsets them.

Such as me. You little contentious turd, who the hell are you to compare homosexuality to bestiality? FU.