4 ms·

> the fact of sin Yeah, there's your problem right there. At the risk of stating what should be painfully obvious to any sane person, there is no "fact of sin

by lisper 5y ago

> the fact of sin Yeah, there's your problem right there. At the risk of stating what should be painfully obvious to any sane person, there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin. It's a completely circular argument. Garbage in, garbage out.

skinkestek 5y ago
> there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin. So, what do you call me the thing that drives otherwise reasonable humans to hate each other?
- sam0x17 5y ago
  Genetics, cultural values, chemicals, hormones, electrical impulses, all conspiring to create the illusion of objective morality
  - hitekker 5y ago
    We pretend to seek out reasons, when we're actually just looking for excuses. "I didn't actually do anything wrong, something outside of me made me do wrong, you can't prove it wasn't chemicals" "There's no such thing as a shared moral code ,it doesn't exist, unless someone hurts me and then suddenly, they did something horribly wrong" Our ancestors are fortunately a bit wiser than we are, they know there are things that cannot be excused, swept under the rug of moral relativism. They can only be "forgiven" as C.S Lewis explains in https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/111 https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/111
    - sam0x17 5y ago
      Thinking all there is is moral relativism is a tiny baby step in the long journey of deriving your own objective basis for making moral judgements, and C.S. Lewis's works are essentially religious allegories but with better character development, so hardly a reference that carries rhetorical weight here.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    Just as - there is no conflict between lower level concepts such as quarks, electrons, atoms, molecules and higher level concepts like reactions, processes, yield and throughput I think there is no conflict between "Genetics, cultural values, chemicals, hormones, electrical impulses" and sin. I don't expect any answers, but at least I've tried explain my position.
- 3sigma 5y ago
  Religion.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    You'll find atheists hate each other as much as religious people. Maybe more.
    - JackGreyhat 5y ago
      Name one war, that has no religion involved.
      - Clubber 5y ago
        >Name one war, that has no religion involved. US Revolutionary War War of 1812 US Civil War Spanish American War WWI WWII Korean War Vietnam War GWI GWII WoT Nearly all of them really. Wars are fought over resources and pride of leaders. Sometimes religion can be used as a recruiting tool, but the war isn't really about religion. You can argue that since people who fight in wars have religious beliefs that religion is involved, but you can say the same things about sticks and shoes. I don't think that is a compelling argument.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > WoT If you mean the war between the US on one side and al-Qaeda and various other Islamist groups on the other, that’s…a pretty bad exampe of a war that doesn’t involve religion. > Korean War > Vietnam War The US’s global war on Communism, during and as a symbol of which it added religious languge to the pledge of allegiance and replaced its diversity-endorsing de facto model with a religious official motto is, while less of a clearly bad example than the “Global War on Terror”, not a great example of a war not involving religion.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        The WoT is related to religion, but isn’t primarily about religion. Granted, the parent comment overstated its case.
- 3sigma 5y ago
  >So, what do you call me the thing that drives otherwise reasonable humans to hate each other? Go to Google News and search for the terms 'sectarian violence', 'religious violence' and 'blasphemy'. There are the Sunni and Shia killing each other in the Middle East, the Christians and Muslims killing each other in Nigeria and Hindu religious leaders calling for the mass killing of Muslims in India. In Pakistan, angry mobs regularly beat people to death and set them on fire for the merest perceived slight against Islam. There is far too much intolerance, violence, misery and death in the world today caused by people acting on or motivated by their unsubstantiated religious beliefs.
  - theonething 5y ago
    There is far too much intolerance, violence, misery and death in the world today caused by people acting on or motivated by their u̶n̶s̶u̶b̶s̶t̶a̶n̶t̶i̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶i̶g̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ beliefs. e.g. USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941: "The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for an education process on religion in order to further disseminate atheism and materialist philosophy. " "The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church and Islam, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3]" "Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the LMG, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR.[43] It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.[43]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(... I used your original wording with strikethrough to make my point, but I think this would be a more accurate statement: There is far too much intolerance, violence, misery and death in the world today caused by violent people acting on or motivated by their beliefs without any restraint. This applies to any kinds of beliefs be it religious, political, economic, philosophical, moral, etc.
    - 5y ago
theonething 5y ago
> should be painfully obvious to any sane person, there is no "fact of sin" When Chesterson asserts the fact of sin, he's saying that there in fact exists plainly perceptible offenses against morality [1], e.g. murder, pedophilia, rape to name the more extreme and obvious cases. In other words, evil. So you deny the existence of offenses against morality or evil? [1] "But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street"
- lisper 5y ago
  > So you deny the existence of offenses against morality or evil? I deny that any human has ever come out of the womb having committed any such offenses, and I deny that infants (and even children) are morally culpable for offenses committed by fully fledged persons with moral agency. You should be ashamed of yourself for even contemplating such a horrible notion. Also, since you list pedophilia in your trinity of offenses against morality, I will also point out that the biggest coverups of child sexual abuse in history was conducted by the Catholic church. The cases that have come to light recently are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Taking men at the peak of their sexuality, telling them that having sex is a sin, and then putting them in charge of a congregation is like putting someone in charge of a kitchen and telling them that eating is sin. And finally, as long as you've gone and pulled my trigger, I will also point out that there is a lot of daylight between pedophilia (which is a psychiatric disorder, not a moral offense) and actual child abuse (which is a moral offense because there is a victim). Getting sexually aroused is not a sin. Neither is gratifying that arousal by self-pleasuring, or by any sexual activity between mutually consenting adults irrespective of their gender and marital status. You want a "fact of sin"? Here you go: one of the biggest sins humans commit is telling people they are sinful simply because they experience a normal human emotion. That is so sick and twisted that the word "sin" doesn't even do it justice. If you believe in original sin and you want to see evil, look in the mirror.
  - theonething 5y ago
    > I deny that any human has ever come out of the womb having committed any such offenses... That doesn't answer my question. Based on your answer, you seem to be interpreting the "fact of sin" to be original sin. I don't believe that is Chesteron's meaning as I showed in my comment. The fact of sin is the assertion that sin exists. Chesteron says it's obvious because one can "see it on the street" However, in this statement you made: > there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin you do differentiate between the fact of sin and original sin. I'll ask another way. Do you believe murder is an offense against morality and is evil? If so, I don't understand why you would deny the fact of sin. On child sexual abuse in the Catholic church. My stance on that is that it is shameful and absolutely repugnant. The men involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And for those who are unrepentant, I highly doubt their faith is genuine. The life of a true Christian is marked by repentance after moral failure. On your comments on pedophilia. From reading your comment, I realize that I used the wrong wording by including pedophilia in the list of sins. I assumed the term included acting out of the behavior, but it doesn't. So I redact that term from the list and replace it with "sexual abuse of children". Btw, it might not matter to you too much, but I don't aim to trigger you or anyone else with my comments. I see HN as a place for dispassionate and intellectual discourse on a wide variety of topics. Since the topic at hand is about spiritual things, I offer my comments about Christianity here. There are Christians way smarter than me that have much better writing on this topic than I do. e.g. https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/the-evidence-for-christianity https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/the-evidence...

by lisper 5y ago

skinkestek 5y ago

> there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin. So, what do you call me the thing that drives otherwise reasonable humans to hate each other?

sam0x17 5y ago
Genetics, cultural values, chemicals, hormones, electrical impulses, all conspiring to create the illusion of objective morality
- hitekker 5y ago
  We pretend to seek out reasons, when we're actually just looking for excuses. "I didn't actually do anything wrong, something outside of me made me do wrong, you can't prove it wasn't chemicals" "There's no such thing as a shared moral code ,it doesn't exist, unless someone hurts me and then suddenly, they did something horribly wrong" Our ancestors are fortunately a bit wiser than we are, they know there are things that cannot be excused, swept under the rug of moral relativism. They can only be "forgiven" as C.S Lewis explains in https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/111 https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/111
  - sam0x17 5y ago
    Thinking all there is is moral relativism is a tiny baby step in the long journey of deriving your own objective basis for making moral judgements, and C.S. Lewis's works are essentially religious allegories but with better character development, so hardly a reference that carries rhetorical weight here.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Just as - there is no conflict between lower level concepts such as quarks, electrons, atoms, molecules and higher level concepts like reactions, processes, yield and throughput I think there is no conflict between "Genetics, cultural values, chemicals, hormones, electrical impulses" and sin. I don't expect any answers, but at least I've tried explain my position.
3sigma 5y ago
Religion.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  You'll find atheists hate each other as much as religious people. Maybe more.
  - JackGreyhat 5y ago
    Name one war, that has no religion involved.
    - Clubber 5y ago
      >Name one war, that has no religion involved. US Revolutionary War War of 1812 US Civil War Spanish American War WWI WWII Korean War Vietnam War GWI GWII WoT Nearly all of them really. Wars are fought over resources and pride of leaders. Sometimes religion can be used as a recruiting tool, but the war isn't really about religion. You can argue that since people who fight in wars have religious beliefs that religion is involved, but you can say the same things about sticks and shoes. I don't think that is a compelling argument.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > WoT If you mean the war between the US on one side and al-Qaeda and various other Islamist groups on the other, that’s…a pretty bad exampe of a war that doesn’t involve religion. > Korean War > Vietnam War The US’s global war on Communism, during and as a symbol of which it added religious languge to the pledge of allegiance and replaced its diversity-endorsing de facto model with a religious official motto is, while less of a clearly bad example than the “Global War on Terror”, not a great example of a war not involving religion.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        The WoT is related to religion, but isn’t primarily about religion. Granted, the parent comment overstated its case.
3sigma 5y ago
>So, what do you call me the thing that drives otherwise reasonable humans to hate each other? Go to Google News and search for the terms 'sectarian violence', 'religious violence' and 'blasphemy'. There are the Sunni and Shia killing each other in the Middle East, the Christians and Muslims killing each other in Nigeria and Hindu religious leaders calling for the mass killing of Muslims in India. In Pakistan, angry mobs regularly beat people to death and set them on fire for the merest perceived slight against Islam. There is far too much intolerance, violence, misery and death in the world today caused by people acting on or motivated by their unsubstantiated religious beliefs.
- theonething 5y ago
  There is far too much intolerance, violence, misery and death in the world today caused by people acting on or motivated by their u̶n̶s̶u̶b̶s̶t̶a̶n̶t̶i̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶i̶g̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ beliefs. e.g. USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941: "The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for an education process on religion in order to further disseminate atheism and materialist philosophy. " "The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church and Islam, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3]" "Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the LMG, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR.[43] It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.[43]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(... I used your original wording with strikethrough to make my point, but I think this would be a more accurate statement: There is far too much intolerance, violence, misery and death in the world today caused by violent people acting on or motivated by their beliefs without any restraint. This applies to any kinds of beliefs be it religious, political, economic, philosophical, moral, etc.
  - 5y ago

theonething 5y ago

> should be painfully obvious to any sane person, there is no "fact of sin" When Chesterson asserts the fact of sin, he's saying that there in fact exists plainly perceptible offenses against morality [1], e.g. murder, pedophilia, rape to name the more extreme and obvious cases. In other words, evil. So you deny the existence of offenses against morality or evil? [1] "But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street"

lisper 5y ago
> So you deny the existence of offenses against morality or evil? I deny that any human has ever come out of the womb having committed any such offenses, and I deny that infants (and even children) are morally culpable for offenses committed by fully fledged persons with moral agency. You should be ashamed of yourself for even contemplating such a horrible notion. Also, since you list pedophilia in your trinity of offenses against morality, I will also point out that the biggest coverups of child sexual abuse in history was conducted by the Catholic church. The cases that have come to light recently are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Taking men at the peak of their sexuality, telling them that having sex is a sin, and then putting them in charge of a congregation is like putting someone in charge of a kitchen and telling them that eating is sin. And finally, as long as you've gone and pulled my trigger, I will also point out that there is a lot of daylight between pedophilia (which is a psychiatric disorder, not a moral offense) and actual child abuse (which is a moral offense because there is a victim). Getting sexually aroused is not a sin. Neither is gratifying that arousal by self-pleasuring, or by any sexual activity between mutually consenting adults irrespective of their gender and marital status. You want a "fact of sin"? Here you go: one of the biggest sins humans commit is telling people they are sinful simply because they experience a normal human emotion. That is so sick and twisted that the word "sin" doesn't even do it justice. If you believe in original sin and you want to see evil, look in the mirror.
- theonething 5y ago
  > I deny that any human has ever come out of the womb having committed any such offenses... That doesn't answer my question. Based on your answer, you seem to be interpreting the "fact of sin" to be original sin. I don't believe that is Chesteron's meaning as I showed in my comment. The fact of sin is the assertion that sin exists. Chesteron says it's obvious because one can "see it on the street" However, in this statement you made: > there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin you do differentiate between the fact of sin and original sin. I'll ask another way. Do you believe murder is an offense against morality and is evil? If so, I don't understand why you would deny the fact of sin. On child sexual abuse in the Catholic church. My stance on that is that it is shameful and absolutely repugnant. The men involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And for those who are unrepentant, I highly doubt their faith is genuine. The life of a true Christian is marked by repentance after moral failure. On your comments on pedophilia. From reading your comment, I realize that I used the wrong wording by including pedophilia in the list of sins. I assumed the term included acting out of the behavior, but it doesn't. So I redact that term from the list and replace it with "sexual abuse of children". Btw, it might not matter to you too much, but I don't aim to trigger you or anyone else with my comments. I see HN as a place for dispassionate and intellectual discourse on a wide variety of topics. Since the topic at hand is about spiritual things, I offer my comments about Christianity here. There are Christians way smarter than me that have much better writing on this topic than I do. e.g. https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/the-evidence-for-christianity https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/the-evidence...