If you are a religious zealot, this post is not for you. However, if you are a thinker, a philosophy aficionado, or a non-religious person, dive into this thought.
Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?
In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?
I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.
Morality can exist without religion or Faith.
Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.
If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.
If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?
I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome, but I will not sit here and entertain the rants of just any visitor that comes along. Bloggers generally want visitors that can read a post and both improve and expand on ideas, not debate them. I am looking for comments that advance thought. Insight is more productive than an insult. Be productive, not disruptive. Adding to a discussion you disagree with in a constructive manner allows the opportunity to get a feel for a view you may not have fully understood. I can pull any chucklehead off the street who disagrees with me. Don't be a chucklehead.
Comments are moderated and will not appear until I approve them.