Philosophy Now Forum

Lets define sin as incorrect act in a given situation. The question is that why we do sin? Do we sin because of lack of proper overlook on subject matter or sense of curiosity? If so why we should feel guilty?

People sin because they do not follow God's way.

thedoc wrote: People sin because they do not follow God's way.

What is God's way? How do you know what is God's way in a specific situation?

bahman wrote:

thedoc wrote: People sin because they do not follow God's way.

What is God's way? How do you know what is God's way in a specific situation?

God's way is to love others in the Agape sense. In some situations it requires knowing the other person, and their wishes.

bahman wrote:Lets define sin as incorrect act in a given situation. The question is that why we do sin? Do we sin because of lack of proper overlook on subject matter or sense of curiosity? If so why we should feel guilty?

1) Your definition of sin is ridiculous
2) Look up "socratic paradox".

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

Category error: acts are not the sorts of things that can be correct or incorrect.

Aside from that, I don't think that "sin" amounts to much outside of a religious context.

In religious contexts (which is the context I'm talking about for the rest of this paragraph; it's not a context I agree with, but I understand the view), sin is usually parsed as "going against God," or simply acting contrary to God's normative ethics (which are usually said to obtain per "his nature"). The reason we can do that is that we have free will; we have the ability to freely choose how we will act. We do not always choose to act in a way that's in line with God's normative ethics. We're not perfectly wise, we can have bad judgment, we can be confused about how we should act, etc.

bahman wrote:Lets define sin as incorrect act in a given situation

We can fail. If yo try to add numbers, soon or late you'll make an arithmetic mistake. If you play basketball, you can't expect to make points every time you throw the ball. If "correct" is defined as perfect with perfect knowledge, we will never have perfect knowledge, so you act in ignorance.

We know we are not perfect, but we have some concepts to measure how "perfect" we can be. We compare between those who fail more and those who don't with the same guiven situation (and a situation is... a life, but...)

Why do people sin? because they(we (I)) are stupid enough to do it.

thedoc wrote: God's way is to love others in the Agape sense.

That is natural thing for human nature considering the fact that human is social animal.

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

What do you mean?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 1) Your definition of sin is ridiculous

How do you define sin?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 2) Look up "socratic paradox".

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

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 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.

TSBU wrote:

bahman wrote: Lets define sin as incorrect act in a given situation

We can fail. If yo try to add numbers, soon or late you'll make an arithmetic mistake. If you play basketball, you can't expect to make points every time you throw the ball. If "correct" is defined as perfect with perfect knowledge, we will never have perfect knowledge, so you act in ignorance.

We know we are not perfect, but we have some concepts to measure how "perfect" we can be. We compare between those who fail more and those who don't with the same guiven situation (and a situation is... a life, but...)

Why do people sin? because they(we (I)) are stupid enough to do it.

But stupidity is difference from ignorance. Isn't it?

Terrapin Station wrote: Category error: acts are not the sorts of things that can be correct or incorrect.

How about action?

Terrapin Station wrote: Aside from that, I don't think that "sin" amounts to much outside of a religious context.

In religious contexts (which is the context I'm talking about for the rest of this paragraph; it's not a context I agree with, but I understand the view), sin is usually parsed as "going against God," or simply acting contrary to God's normative ethics (which are usually said to obtain per "his nature"). The reason we can do that is that we have free will; we have the ability to freely choose how we will act. We do not always choose to act in a way that's in line with God's normative ethics. We're not perfectly wise, we can have bad judgment, we can be confused about how we should act, etc.

We can do wrong thing too. Something that it is not related to religious context.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: Category error: acts are not the sorts of things that can be correct or incorrect.

How about action?

"Acts" is the same as "actions." I'm a moral noncognitivist. Moral judgments are not true or false, correct or incorrect. They're utterances of how we feel about the behavior in question--basically whether we're yaying or booing the behavior.

bahman wrote:

thedoc wrote: 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.

bahman wrote: But stupidity is difference from ignorance. Isn't it?

Yes it is.

bahman wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 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

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 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'

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 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.