FYI this is NOT to be rude, I was just wondering because if "sin" is against God and you don't believe in God, do you believe in "sin" and what is the definition
2007-11-01 05:00:11 · 39 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
let me thank most of you now for your honest answers...
2007-11-01 05:15:15 · update #1
Anjel, you absolutely nailed it! All sin IS against God and since atheist don't believe in God, they thusly deny the fact of sin. Your responses from atheist should be very interesting.
2007-11-01 06:13:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, I do not believe in 'sin'.
Some people do good things, some do bad things. The definition of good and bad varies from society to society and over time within a society. For example, is slavery good or bad? What about 150 years ago in the US? What about 150 years ago in the UK? What about 200 years ago in the US or the UK?
If you are Christian, do you believe slavery is a sin? If no, why not repeal the anti-slavery laws?
If yes, then open up your bible at Leviticus 25, or Exodus 21, or Ephesians 6, or Timothy 6. Slavery is accepted and condoned in the bible. So how can it be a sin?
Edit:
Lion of Judah needs to go re-read his bible. Where does it say abortion is wrong? In fact Exodus 21:22-24 says that if a man hurts a pregnant woman that:
If the fetus is miscarried that the man must pay a fine.
If the woman dies then the man must be killed (a life for a life)
This is clearly saying that a fetus is not a living person, otherwise it would be 'a life for a life' for the miscarriage.
I do not see any way which Christians can argue with this. It is biblical law from God. (According to the bible.)
2007-11-01 05:12:30 · answer #2 · answered by Simon T 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Outside of a religious context, "sin" can represent a taboo, a violation of cultural norms that may not be legally codified. Some bad behavior can't be legislated without causing more problems than it solves.
On a practical, personal level, "sin" can represent any act or omission that damages or destroys relationships. It helps to consider "sin" as a state of being rather than a list of infractions. If you have done or failed to do something that makes you want to avoid contact (such as eye contact), with someone else, through no fault of their own, you are in a state of "sin" with that person.
Such "sin" can only be overcome by communication and reconcilliation. It is possible that the offended party may not even be aware of your "sin", only the strained relationship. The resolution is still the same.
The insertion of "God" into the equation only serves to muddle the situation. People seek forgiveness from "God" for wrongs against other people (individual or in agregate), rather than making direct restitution to those injured.
What about "victimless sins"? It is possible to "sin" by damaging one's relationship to the community through compassion-dulling and objectification activities, but that is essentially a mental health issue. Constructive dissent should be tolerated. But if one's outlook becomes truly sociopathic, analysis, counselling and therapy should be used to head off criminal behavior.
2007-11-01 05:38:43 · answer #3 · answered by skepsis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The concept of sin is a religious concept that basically means to offend god. Since an atheist does not believe in god it would pretty hard for them to offend an imaginary being. So it is impossible for an atheist to "sin". This, of course, does not mean that atheists have no morals. I simply rely on my own since of right and wrong to determine weather my actions are moral. I only do something if it feels right. (Not to be confused with if it feels good. Totally different ball of wax there)I personally feel that most people have such a complete lack of faith in their own ability to make judgments that they need to rely on ancient outdated concepts of what is right and wrong which they define as sin. I say believe in yourself and listen to your own conscience and you won't have to worry about weather or not you are a sinner.
2007-11-01 05:10:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
First, I'm not even Christian and I know that your definition of "sin" is inaccurate. "Sin", in the Christian definition, is an act that defies the teachings of God, not God himself.
Furthermore, I'm perplexed as to how you suppose that "sin" is "justified" .. I mean, like ever. Your question really just makes no sense.
I'm a Buddhist and I'm actually not a believer in sin. I believe that people live life and make mistakes and that to learn and grow from these mistakes is one of our greatest gifts as humans.
2007-11-01 05:07:20 · answer #5 · answered by djdubs 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't use the word "sin," but I have strong morals against many of the same things outlined in the bible. Murder, for one. I don't like it. I'm against it. I know, that may be a bold statement for an Atheist to make...since we eat babies and whatnot.
When you think about it, "The Golden Rule" is really all we need.
2007-11-01 05:07:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, I have a definition of morality, which has nothing to do with "sin."
"Sin" is the idea that "If I do this, God will get mad." You hold back from axe-murdering your family because God said not to, and you don't want to piss Him off. Otherwise, it would be open season, apparently.
"Morality" is when you refrain from axe-murdering your family on "first principles." That is, A) you love your family, and B) even if you DON'T love your family, you value life and respect the will-to-live of other human beings.
In other words, "sin" is all psychopathy and superstition, while "morality" is basic human social instinct and common sense.
BTW, of course "Lion of Judah" has to chime in with "Atheists' morals are not absolute." Well, you're right as far as this atheist is concerned. I DON'T believe that there's a single set of rules applicable to all people in all circumstances in perpetuity forever. I am a proud "moral relativist." To slavishly follow out a set of dead conventions is to shift the entire responsibility of conduct off to some mythological "law giver" of the past, rather than doing the hard original work of figuring out how best to adapt to the changing conditions of life without interfering unnecessarily with others.
Even "Jesus" was constantly chiding the Pharisees for their formalism, which had sapped all the virtue of the Law. See such incidents as Matt 7:10-11, in which he heals a man on the Sabbath and is criticized for it. Does that make Jesus a moral relativist?
2007-11-01 05:06:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 2⤋
I am not an atheist, I am a free thinker/Thelemite
the definition of Sin is Restriction
to deny one's true will
2007-11-01 06:46:28 · answer #8 · answered by CinnamonGirl777 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I call it doing good things and doing bad things and being a human being with a heart. I don't define morality and being decent as sins and non-sins.
You don't kill people, not because God said not to, but because everyone has the right to live.
You don't steal people's stuff, not because God said not to, but because it's a crappy thing to do to steal someone's hard earned money or belongings.
On the other hand, you should be generous and loving, not because God says to, but because doing otherwise would make you a jerk and a not so nice person to be around.
2007-11-01 05:05:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
wow.. Man is a true definition of sin cause we are all siners in his eyes.. I would just pray for the ones who dont believe.. that is a very good question you have asked.. must have been trigured by someones statement earlier today.
2007-11-01 05:27:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋