Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Amish! That's who. Not Quakers. Okay. Cary on...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lovesong's seven deadly sins of religion.
- Thread starter lovesong
- Start date
Amish! That's who. Not Quakers. Okay. Cary on...
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
I am not sure about this one. Since many religions have a belief in eternal hell - Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Dvaita Hinduism, forms of Sikhism - this seems too open-ended to me.
In my religion, for instance, Hell is considered...
"...Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life...The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy..."Eternal damnation", therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God's judgement ratifies this state...The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom..."
- Pope St.John Paul II (General Audience, July 28, 1999)
- Pope St.John Paul II (General Audience, July 28, 1999)
Does this description qualify for your deadly sin?
Again this is a bit too general for me.
Most religions have ethical precepts relating to sex that, in theory, restrict some activities to varying or greater degrees.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism all believe that sex is good - indeed holy - in certain circumstances but not in others.
Highly ascetic religions such as Jainism and Buddhism often view sexual desire - ultimately - as a negative distraction from nibbana, even if they permit it for lay people. It's absolutely banned for monks.
So, I think this is far too discriminatory to far too many religions.
Also, would shaming "adultery" be included in your definition? Unfaithfulness to a partner?
Far too vague
Much too vague
psychoslice
Veteran Member
There is much more than just seven deadly sins, that's for sure.
I agree that much religion is harmful.
A religion is harmful if:
1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
I believe we should not hate people. But it is not wrong to hate groups that practice evil: organizations promoting pedophilia and ISIS, for example. Psalm 97:10 says; "you who love Jehovah, hate what is bad."
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
The Bible teaches complete submission to Jehovah and Jesus Christ; not to any human. (2 Corinthians 10:5)
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
Agree.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
Agree
5. it shames sex or the body.
Agree
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.
What people want to do is often harmful to themselves or others. IMO, we simply do not have the ability nor the right to do as we please. I believe we are wise to listen to the true God as he gives direction on how to live our lives. Concerning God's commands, Psalm 19:10,11 says; "They are more desirable than gold, than much fine gold, and sweeter than honey, the honey that drips from the combs. By them your servant has been warned; in keeping them, there is a large reward."
First Baseman
Retired athlete
I have one two-part question and I hope you don't take it the wrong way.
Who decided that you should be the one to decide these things and what gives anyone else the right to decide them?
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Eternal torment for not obeying the tennets or leadership of a religion (or cult) is a form of coercion. That's the issue, I believe, the OP is denouncing.
Of course there is morality with sex; as with everything else; but some religions go so far as to make one feel ashamed of being sexual human beings. That is just as psychologically damaging and unhealthy as promiscuity.
Well, seeing as you are Catholic ... your God gave us each free will and a brain to reason with. As a result ... well ... your God did and does.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about behaviors, choices, how we treat others, the environment, ourselves nd our bodies, etc. I suspect your post is way off the beaten path simply to be argumentative.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
God gave us free will.
But make no mistake that God does not think it is okay to for men and women to decide what is right and wrong. He reserves all judgement for Himself. Man is inherently wicked and unable to decide what is best all by himself.
Assessing something as "good" or "bad" always depends on values. Hate is not necessarily "bad," even though it tends to be painted as such. I'd wager most of us "hate" criminals, and have an attitude of "un-acceptance" towards them. Strongly following the guidance of a leader isn't necessarily "bad" - remember that not every culture is America and obsessed with individualism (honestly, I find America's obsession with this unhealthy, and it creates a lot of egoistic conflict). One doesn't have to value the sciences either, so I don't see how it is necessarily "bad" to discourage it. Threats of punishment aren't necessarily "bad" and on the whole that seems to be an accepted way to maintain social order in human cultures that I'm aware of. And who cares if someone shames sex or the body? People are allowed to put their values elsewhere, and putting their values elsewhere doesn't make them "bad," it makes them different.
At the end of the day, I don't have a problem with this list provided it's understood in the context of being a reflection of one's own values. But attempting to universalize it, or suggesting that others should follow it, is not something I can agree with.
Inherently wicked?
And here was me thinking that Catholicism gave the world the Italian Renaissance...
To me, your statement sounds a tad too much like the heretical Calvinist doctrine of "total depravity". Yes man cannot "be justified before God by his own works, ... without the grace of God through Jesus Christ" but your taking this way too far. Calvinism teaches that fallen human persons can do nothing good, and that their every act is sinful. Catholicism most certainly doesn't.
This Protestant doctrine was unilaterally condemned with an 'anathema' at the Ecumenical Council of Trent in 1547.
The Council taught the contrary, that free will was only weakened, not taken away, by original sin: "although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them." (Decree on Justification, Chapter I.)
The same Council taught that salvation is achieved by the cooperation of the free will with grace, and is lost by the choice of the free will also:
"The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: 'Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,' we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; 'Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,' we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God."
The Catholic Church teaches that human nature, even after the fall, remains inherently good and continues to be an image of God. This teaching is essential to oppose and correct the error of Calvinism called total depravity. Even without redeeming grace human nature, being good in itself after the Fall, can still do acts that are morally good but just not deserving of eternal reward without grace - which is freely offered to all.
Your statement (at first glance) is very Calvinistic in tone.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I guess my overall point is:
Is it a sin because of what religious do? or. Is it a sin because of what the religion teaches?
If the religion teaches you are going to hell if you don't believe in god, that's not a sin. It's just a claim or belief.
If the religious started killing people who didn't believe based on this teaching, that action is a sin. So, it would be instead, "any religion that promotes killing based on a given faith is a sin"
@lovesong Do you think your OP deadly sins are geared towards a specific audience like Christianity?
For example:
I don't know any religion not people that teaches to hate others of another group. In Christianity, say Catholicism, the teachings of the Church does not say "hate people who are not like you." If that be the case, they wouldn't give me food, furniture, and emergency money. They'd kick me from the Church door going to the Easter Vigil when they find out I don't practice Catholicism. The Muslim faith not specific Muslims teach about loving people. One gentleman invited me to his Mosque and we talked about the Quran a bit. No pressure. We just talked. Same with Jehovah's Witness.
I think you are focusing on the people and not what the actual religion teaches. If I practiced Catholicism, I would never see hate in another group. That's not the Christian faith. Unless I'm the only Christian who sees it that way. Needle in a haystack I guess. It also sounds like personal experience not an objective sin for all religions.
What is an example of individuality or free thought that X religion disagrees with?
If a religion teaches god saves people from their sins and as a result we must help others from their sins, and a person goes a kill that person thinking that's the will of his god, is that the religion's fault or the fault of the person?
Usually, the religious agree that submission is not forced but something you are willing to do for someone else (like a parent) for a good cause. They also feel because they submit, they are able to do good things for society.
This seems more like looking at the people not the religion.
If X religion denies/physically prevents a child dying of a chronic illness a cure because they say "god" or whomever will take care of it, then I see it as a sin. Discouragement isn't a sin if the person who is being discouraged disagrees an have the guts to say "that is your belief" and it doesn't apply to me.
The last two, scientific and technical advances, how does denying those make it a sin? Is it causing harm? Is it making people turn against each other?
This is for a specific audience. Regardless, promises is not an action. In the Bible it teaches that people will go straight to god when they die and people who do not will be forever separated from god (dead-no life). It talks about golden gates and pearled roads towards heaven yet these things like fire are all earthly.
So, it's really an irrelevant if not empty statement. It's like saying "it's a sin that Trolls eat people alive." In analogy, yeah, I an see that. In reality, I don't see it as a sin. Unless the people are forcing this belief on others. Outside of the people, I know Christianity (going by the Bible) doesn't teach it. Buddhism doesn't teach it (some sects are political and the people tell outsiders that they are not Buddhist because they don't believe in what they do: SGI and Shoshu split). Nichiren talked about eternal torture as well.
Is it real? In the former, they actually forced people who disbelieve to act in specific ways to be Buddhist. They said, the only way to be enlightened is to go through the priest. SGI disagreed and Shoshu said they are not part of the priesthood anymore. It was a big issue in Japan and it affects SGI members here.
This isn't a sin. This is just a belief unless people are telling others to cover up. In Muslim and Catholic case, it doesn't shame sex or the body. It's an act of humility. Unless it's doing harm, what would make it a sin that other people who disagree are affected from it? (I live in a diverse environment, so..)
What do people want to do that some religions disprove of? Is it against their religion or is it a sin because it's objectively wrong?
For example, if I murdered someone because that is what I wanted to do, any parent would tell their child (or me, way back when) that what I did was bad and I need to come to terms with that by doing X, Y, or Z for your spiritual health. It was something I wanted to do, though. The desire isn't a sin (the Church, for example, says we don't go to confession because of our desires, we go because we act on those desires.
So, this sounds people oriented not religion.
How so?
Is it a sin because of what religious do? or. Is it a sin because of what the religion teaches?
If the religion teaches you are going to hell if you don't believe in god, that's not a sin. It's just a claim or belief.
If the religious started killing people who didn't believe based on this teaching, that action is a sin. So, it would be instead, "any religion that promotes killing based on a given faith is a sin"
@lovesong Do you think your OP deadly sins are geared towards a specific audience like Christianity?
For example:
It's not a sin to hate a group of people. It's a sin to act on that hate. I like chocolate and Sam likes Vanilla. I disagree;and, it's not a sin. It does nothing to society because it's just a moral. If Sam went around throwing Vanilla into people's faces for not accepting that flavor, then I see it a sin.
I don't know any religion not people that teaches to hate others of another group. In Christianity, say Catholicism, the teachings of the Church does not say "hate people who are not like you." If that be the case, they wouldn't give me food, furniture, and emergency money. They'd kick me from the Church door going to the Easter Vigil when they find out I don't practice Catholicism. The Muslim faith not specific Muslims teach about loving people. One gentleman invited me to his Mosque and we talked about the Quran a bit. No pressure. We just talked. Same with Jehovah's Witness.
I think you are focusing on the people and not what the actual religion teaches. If I practiced Catholicism, I would never see hate in another group. That's not the Christian faith. Unless I'm the only Christian who sees it that way. Needle in a haystack I guess. It also sounds like personal experience not an objective sin for all religions.
What is an example of individuality or free thought that X religion disagrees with?
If a religion teaches god saves people from their sins and as a result we must help others from their sins, and a person goes a kill that person thinking that's the will of his god, is that the religion's fault or the fault of the person?
Usually, the religious agree that submission is not forced but something you are willing to do for someone else (like a parent) for a good cause. They also feel because they submit, they are able to do good things for society.
This seems more like looking at the people not the religion.
If X religion denies/physically prevents a child dying of a chronic illness a cure because they say "god" or whomever will take care of it, then I see it as a sin. Discouragement isn't a sin if the person who is being discouraged disagrees an have the guts to say "that is your belief" and it doesn't apply to me.
The last two, scientific and technical advances, how does denying those make it a sin? Is it causing harm? Is it making people turn against each other?
My great aunt before she passed held in her lap the King James Bible. She told me that this is the only book I should read when learning about god. She also lived with no electricity and a couple of other things so she can live like they did in Jesus day. Was it a sin that she did this? No. That's her belief as a person. The Bible doesn't teach this, though; so, how is it a sin?
This is for a specific audience. Regardless, promises is not an action. In the Bible it teaches that people will go straight to god when they die and people who do not will be forever separated from god (dead-no life). It talks about golden gates and pearled roads towards heaven yet these things like fire are all earthly.
So, it's really an irrelevant if not empty statement. It's like saying "it's a sin that Trolls eat people alive." In analogy, yeah, I an see that. In reality, I don't see it as a sin. Unless the people are forcing this belief on others. Outside of the people, I know Christianity (going by the Bible) doesn't teach it. Buddhism doesn't teach it (some sects are political and the people tell outsiders that they are not Buddhist because they don't believe in what they do: SGI and Shoshu split). Nichiren talked about eternal torture as well.
Is it real? In the former, they actually forced people who disbelieve to act in specific ways to be Buddhist. They said, the only way to be enlightened is to go through the priest. SGI disagreed and Shoshu said they are not part of the priesthood anymore. It was a big issue in Japan and it affects SGI members here.
This isn't a sin. This is just a belief unless people are telling others to cover up. In Muslim and Catholic case, it doesn't shame sex or the body. It's an act of humility. Unless it's doing harm, what would make it a sin that other people who disagree are affected from it? (I live in a diverse environment, so..)
What do people want to do that some religions disprove of? Is it against their religion or is it a sin because it's objectively wrong?
For example, if I murdered someone because that is what I wanted to do, any parent would tell their child (or me, way back when) that what I did was bad and I need to come to terms with that by doing X, Y, or Z for your spiritual health. It was something I wanted to do, though. The desire isn't a sin (the Church, for example, says we don't go to confession because of our desires, we go because we act on those desires.
So, this sounds people oriented not religion.
How so?
Last edited:
First Baseman
Retired athlete
You're reading into my post. Perhaps this will make it more clear.
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
and
"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"
I didn't say either of those things, the Bible does.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
In the Bible, God actually commands his followers to kill homosexuals. You're saying if the people act on that, it's a sin. But the religion issues a direct command through it's holy book to kill. That's not a sin attributable to the religion?
If you take the hardline view, NOT killing homosexuals would be going against the religion, and against God's wishes. How can you blame the people and not the religion, if the people believe they are following the word of their God?
It didn't. It was mostly inspired by Classical culture and values and many of the people involved were humanists and rebellious towards the Church. The Church was a huge mess during that time and a den of corruption. That was the time of the gangster popes, like the Borgias. Wasn't much to take inspiration from then. The Renaissance was the precursor to the Enlightenment. Catholicism trying to lay claim to it is disingenuous at best.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Wrong, dude. The Israelites were commanded by God to do that among their own only. Also, don't forget that all the people of Israel promised God that they would obey Him when God promised to protect them and prosper them.
We are not commanded to do that today, as you well know.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for the OP, but I think the use of the term "sin" was intended to be more figurative. Like when someone says "it's a sin to waste your talent." From a literal, religious "sin" standpoint, it's obviously not a real true sin if you are a good singer but refuse to sing in public. But it could be thought of as a figurative "sin" more of like "isn't it a shame" that the person won't share their gift with the world.
Related to Lovesong's #5: "it shames sex or the body," I can see the figurative use of the word sin here. I think it's a shame when I see people who were raised very religiously viewing human sexuality as dirty and shameful, something not to be discussed, something dirty. I personally feel sex is a wonderful part of life to be celebrated, and I think it's a "sin" when people have the joy sucked out of sex by puritanical religious training.
I recognize someone with dysfunctional, negative ideas about sex isn't sinning against anyone...isn't causing harm to others due to their views. It's not a sin in that regard. But it's a "sin" in the sense that it's too bad for that person, it's a shame, it's unfortunate. That's my idea of what Lovesong meant by "sin" but again, I'm just giving my view.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
So at one point God did command his followers to murder homosexuals.
Can you blame modern Christians, then, for maintaining a very negative view of homosexuals? This is my point. Carlita's supposition was that the people are to blame for the hatred, not the religion. In her words "I don't know any religion not people that teaches to hate others of another group." I can't see how you can hold the religion blameless for being the inspiration for the hatred of a group, when the religion tells stories about it's supreme leader ordering the murder of this group, and labeling this group abominations. I mean where did the people get the idea in the first place? From the religion. Just ask anyone why they have problems with gay people, and they will say "it's because of my religion." My refuting of Carlita's point is that the religion does indeed teach people to hate the other group. If not the religion, what is teaching the hate?
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to post the passage from the New Testament where Jesus says only a man and a woman can be married. If we're saying the Old Testament command to murder homosexuals is negated by the New Covenant, than the same should be true of any Old Testament mandate that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. So where in the New Testament does Jesus say marriage can only be between a man and a woman? If you can't find it, you have to retire the old "Jesus defined marriage as one man one woman" for the same reason you'd have to retire the "God says to kill gay people."
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Yes I can and do blame modern Christians for being directly disobedient to Christ's commandments. It is what always gets us in trouble every time we do it.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
So where did Christ command his followers to disallow marriage between two people of the same sex.
Because you use the New Testament to negate a lot of stuff from the Old Testament...yet curiously hang on to the Old Testament mandate against homosexuality.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The action is a sin not the statement.
"A Saranim monster killed a Fillihoid, chopped him in pieces, and fed him to the wolves."
Nice statement. We can philosophize with it all we want. It's not a sin unless it is an actual action. Since I just made it up and unless you know there is such thing as a Saranim and Fillihoid, it's an empty fictional statement. It can't do anything.
If people started following Saranim and killed too, the sin is their action not Saranim's. So, the statement is not a sin. What people do with that statement, say kill others, is.
Think about it. We read fiction books all the time. I don't mean to disrespect on holy books, just making a point; but, if The Terminator kills people because that is what he does and made for, is he actually sinning or is it Arnold dressed as a terminator with a fake gun shooting at people who pretend they are dead?
A lot of ex-christians and a lot of Christians (same boat) have to-if looking at reality-step from the holy book and stop making god the bible. He is not the bible.
Homosexuality...
Not killing homosexuals would be? In my honest and blunt opinion, the Church is a hypocrite when it comes to homosexuality. Being a hypocrite isn't an action. It's just two morals conflicting with each other but told as if they relate (or however the definition goes). The Church does help homosexuals. They they teach that their desires are not normal (not a sin-not normal). They teach that if you act on those desires, then it is a sin. Helping someone at the same time as telling them they are broken and can't be helped without the Church'es blessings. Loving the sinner but hating who they love and how which is part of the sinner himself. It's hypocritical but until the Church (at least today) start hog tying homosexuals for their desires, I don't see how their religion sees their sexual orientation as a sin. Being unnatural doesn't make something a sin. They believe the action is a sin not the desire.
Blaming the People...
A lot of people are impressionable. If the Pope said jump up and down, probably 80 percent of Catholics if not more would probably do so. The Pope did nothing. He didn't reach out to grab them. He didn't pull them by the color. It was the Catholic who made the action (or what people say free will) to jump. Is it healthy? In my opinion, no. I agree with lovesong when it comes to submission. However, I feel @lovesong was gearing towards a specific audience not religion as a whole.
first the ten commandment. I'd interpret that as god only has the rights to kill. Philosophically speaking, god is sinning. However, until you have an actual god to actually sin, how is he sinning anymore than the Terminator?
It's an actual action against one's morals not an imaginary one.[/QUOTE]
"A Saranim monster killed a Fillihoid, chopped him in pieces, and fed him to the wolves."
Nice statement. We can philosophize with it all we want. It's not a sin unless it is an actual action. Since I just made it up and unless you know there is such thing as a Saranim and Fillihoid, it's an empty fictional statement. It can't do anything.
If people started following Saranim and killed too, the sin is their action not Saranim's. So, the statement is not a sin. What people do with that statement, say kill others, is.
The answer to your question, no. God commanding people isn't a sin. It's a statement. We can philosophize it and say it is; and, it all comes down to reality and action. Unless you can bring god out of the Bible and see him (or watch him on the news, I guess) command and kill other people, it's just a statement.
Think about it. We read fiction books all the time. I don't mean to disrespect on holy books, just making a point; but, if The Terminator kills people because that is what he does and made for, is he actually sinning or is it Arnold dressed as a terminator with a fake gun shooting at people who pretend they are dead?
A lot of ex-christians and a lot of Christians (same boat) have to-if looking at reality-step from the holy book and stop making god the bible. He is not the bible.
If you can show me that god sins without the bible then I will change my answer and agree. Until then, when I read the Bible, I'm reading, for lack of appropriate words, what a character says, not a person. Until he becomes a person, he is "philosophically sinning."
Do you consider philosophical (or imaginary?) sin a real sin?
Homosexuality...
Not killing homosexuals would be? In my honest and blunt opinion, the Church is a hypocrite when it comes to homosexuality. Being a hypocrite isn't an action. It's just two morals conflicting with each other but told as if they relate (or however the definition goes). The Church does help homosexuals. They they teach that their desires are not normal (not a sin-not normal). They teach that if you act on those desires, then it is a sin. Helping someone at the same time as telling them they are broken and can't be helped without the Church'es blessings. Loving the sinner but hating who they love and how which is part of the sinner himself. It's hypocritical but until the Church (at least today) start hog tying homosexuals for their desires, I don't see how their religion sees their sexual orientation as a sin. Being unnatural doesn't make something a sin. They believe the action is a sin not the desire.
Blaming the People...
A lot of people are impressionable. If the Pope said jump up and down, probably 80 percent of Catholics if not more would probably do so. The Pope did nothing. He didn't reach out to grab them. He didn't pull them by the color. It was the Catholic who made the action (or what people say free will) to jump. Is it healthy? In my opinion, no. I agree with lovesong when it comes to submission. However, I feel @lovesong was gearing towards a specific audience not religion as a whole.
The people make up the Church sin a lot. The Church doctrine doesn't promote half the sins Catholics do in the name of their religion.
Sinning is when an actual person does something against a faith's morals. One moral of Christianity is sacrifice. You sacrifice yourself for others in service an vow as Christ did for you. If a Christian acts against these vows, they are sinning. God commanded the Israelite to sin. Yet, he said killing is wrong according to the
It's an actual action against one's morals not an imaginary one.[/QUOTE]
Last edited: