Why do we sin?

[Terrapin Station]

The Golden Rule as written is rather selfish, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." It should read "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Much less selfish, as now you are taking their needs and desires into account, and not just your own.

Although just think of how the behavior of many women would change when they're around me with that reformulation.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In some situations it requires knowing the other person, and their wishes.

What do you mean?

The Golden Rule as written is rather selfish, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." It should read "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Much less selfish, as now you are taking their needs and desires into account, and not just your own.

I think it is more maturely written"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"

[thedoc]

The Golden Rule as written is rather selfish, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." It should read "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Much less selfish, as now you are taking their needs and desires into account, and not just your own.

Although just think of how the behavior of many women would change when they're around me with that reformulation.

You might be surprised at how many are willing, but you would need to accept the rejection as well.

[bahman]

1) Your definition of sin is ridiculous

How do you define sin?

I think you need to do that, since you brought up the word

The better definition can be: Sin is acting contrary accepted moral principle. How that sounds?

2) Look up "socratic paradox".

You mean "I know that I know nothing". How that is related to sin?

No- "no one knowingly is bad"

I see.

I never feel any guilt - not anymore. Guilt is for children, adults take on responsibility for their actions.

But adults actions can also be the result of their ignorance so they cannot take the responsibility for their actions therefor what is left is guilt for what they have done.

Why would any person feel guilt for not knowing something? Socrates, who knew nothing for sure, could not feel guilt if his supposed wrongdoing was the result of not knowing what they did was supposed to be wrong.

I mean that you can perform an act which is against the accepted moral principle. You are not sure that what is the outcome of the act so you perform the act because of the sense of curiosity or lack of proper outlook.

[thedoc]

I think it is more maturely written "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"

And if you can't or won't, at least be nice about it.

[thedoc]

No- "no one knowingly is bad"

I have to disagree with this, I have encountered people who have knowingly done bad things, and felt no guilt about it.

[Terrapin Station]

The Golden Rule as written is rather selfish, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." It should read "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Much less selfish, as now you are taking their needs and desires into account, and not just your own.

Although just think of how the behavior of many women would change when they're around me with that reformulation.

You might be surprised at how many are willing, but you would need to accept the rejection as well.

How would we have rejections where someone does unto others as they would have one do unto them though?

[Lacewing]

How would we have rejections where someone does unto others as they would have one do unto them though?

Because some might want some really freaky stuff done to them?

[bobevenson]

Lets define sin as incorrect act in a given situation.

That's a meaningless definition since I think you will agree there are multitudes of incorrect acts in a given situation that are not normally thought of as sins.

[bahman]

Lets define sin as incorrect act in a given situation.

That's a meaningless definition since I think you will agree there are multitudes of incorrect acts in a given situation that are not normally thought of as sins.

How about this definition: Sin is an act contrary accepted moral principle.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How do you define sin?

I think you need to do that, since you brought up the word

The better definition can be: Sin is acting contrary accepted moral principle. How that sounds?

You mean "I know that I know nothing". How that is related to sin?

No- "no one knowingly is bad"

I see.

But adults actions can also be the result of their ignorance so they cannot take the responsibility for their actions therefor what is left is guilt for what they have done.

Why would any person feel guilt for not knowing something? Socrates, who knew nothing for sure, could not feel guilt if his supposed wrongdoing was the result of not knowing what they did was supposed to be wrong.

I mean that you can perform an act which is against the accepted moral principle. You are not sure that what is the outcome of the act so you perform the act because of the sense of curiosity or lack of proper outlook.

I would regard sin as an anachronism. Sin is an act against the will of god. Since god is no longer a serious consideration with most people, I think 'sin' is out of date.

As for your own definition, even if you accept the use of the word there is a massive problem with the phrase "accepted moral principle". This is a thing, no longer well defined - thankfully. Our practice of ethics offers us a more nuanced and context related response to moral acts, in a such a way that we no longer have to follow strict moral laws; there is no more sin. People can act illegally, but do not "sin".

Your opening definition ;"incorrect act in a given situation." is far too general to be useful, and begs the question; how would we determine what is 'incorrect'? And if we know it is incorrect - why would we do it in the first place.

Why would anyone feel guilt for an 'incorrect' act if they do not know it is incorrect?
And why would they feel guilt for knowingly and intentionally committing an act they know to be wrong?

Guilt is a completely redundant emotion.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No- "no one knowingly is bad"

I have to disagree with this, I have encountered people who have knowingly done bad things, and felt no guilt about it.

That;s because at that moment they do it; they are not bothered that, or do not agree that, the act is wrong. But do not take it up with me - you need to take that up with Socrates.

[Walker]

An act is a sin only if you know it’s a sin. This distinguishes sin from crime, since ignorance is no defense before the law, that is, unless you’re special. Then your crimes are treated as sins and since you have expressed regret for your claimed ignorance that led to crimes now considered e-sins and forgivable because you are special, you are forgiven, Politician.

[bahman]

I would regard sin as an anachronism. Sin is an act against the will of god. Since god is no longer a serious consideration with most people, I think 'sin' is out of date.

I don't think so. There are religious people around. According to demographics of atheism which is published in Wikithere are at most 13% atheist worldwide.

As for your own definition, even if you accept the use of the word there is a massive problem with the phrase "accepted moral laws". This is a thing, no longer well defined - thankfully.

Why not? Religious people believe in a set of moral laws.

Our practice of ethics offers us a more nuanced and context related response to moral acts, in a such a way that we no longer have to follow strict moral laws; there is no more sin. People can act illegally, but do not "sin".

That is not true. Please read the first comment.

Your opening definition ;"incorrect act in a given situation." is far too general to be useful, and begs the question; how would we determine what is 'incorrect'? And if we know it is incorrect - why would we do it in the first place.

That is not a incorrect definition if you accept the sin are defined by God. God is all knowing hence an act could be incorrect, reaching to bad end, in a given situation.

Why would anyone feel guilt for an 'incorrect' act if they do not know it is incorrect?

They shouldn't if the act is not defined wrong.

And why would they feel guilt for knowingly and intentionally committing an act they know to be wrong?

Why not?

Guilt is a completely redundant emotion.

I don't think so. I think that guilt like other emotions has a deep root in human nature. Non of our emotion is bad per-se.

[bahman]

An act is a sin only if you know it’s a sin.

I agree.

This distinguishes sin from crime, since ignorance is no defense before the law, that is, unless you’re special.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Then your crimes are treated as sins and since you have expressed regret for your claimed ignorance that led to crimes now considered e-sins and forgivable because you are special, you are forgiven, Politician.

I think that crime is different from sin, crime is defined by a social system whereas sin is defined by God.