Sin De"Find"

[tana]

From the wiki:

"Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin, but believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion."

"In the Christian Bible, "sin is lawlessness", and so in Western Christianity, salvation tends to be understood in legal terms. Sin alienates the sinner from God."

"In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan"

"Muslims see sin as anything that goes against the commands of Allah. Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being."

I would think that God would be a logical fellow, and would institute rules for a purpose, for a means to an end. So if sin really just boils down to 'The Golden Rule', then......

I'm curious, lets say sometime in the future society develops a cure for all STD's. What exactly would be the problem God could have with two *sterile*, single, consenting adults fornicating with each other?

Is it because 'Every seed is sacred'? No, no seeds involved.

Unwanted pregnancy? Nay, still no seeds.

STD's? No, see OP.

Orgasm sans love? Hmm, Nope, no apparent law against married couples who hate (edit/add, have no deep connection or bond) each other....from having sex.

'Thinking about' having sex with a single, sterile, healthy partner? Nope, see rest of OP.

What could it be then? I'm not sure I know.

Edited April 20, 2012 by tana

[changed]

...

"In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships ...I would think that God would be a logical fellow, and would institute rules for a purpose,

I like the EC view of sin. imo it's all about relashonships - don't steal, don't be jealous, don't kill one another - it's all about how we treat one another, and the big deal in heaven is eternal relationships, so I would define sin as anything that isolates you.

I'm curious, lets say sometime in the future society develops a cure for all STD's. What exactly would be the problem God could have with two *sterile*, single, consenting adults fornicating with each other?

I don't know, but I'd guess it might have to do with the ability to create your own children? It might also have to do with getting to know both halves of society well? (the male and female half) - like if you married someone who was _________ (fill in a nationality - Chinese, African, European) you would be more familiar with their culture because there was someone in your household of that culture. I think there is a culture that goes along with being male / female, and you would miss out on that familiarity in as single gender household.

[Calm]

What exactly would be the problem God could have with two *sterile*, single, consenting adults fornicating with each other?

Actually there is a law against hating one another, whether or not sex is involved.

Perhaps that which physical intercourse is a part of is a special gift even when not being used to create another human being and to use it carelessly and selfishly (married or not) is a sign of disrespect not only for the gift, but for those involved and especially the giver. If we use the intelligence God gave us to acquire material possessions solely for our own pleasure while disregarding the needs of others, surely this is a sin. Why would it not be the same for any other gift, including the ability to love?

[tana]

I like the EC view of sin. imo it's all about relashonships - don't steal, don't be jealous, don't kill one another - it's all about how we treat one another, and the big deal in heaven is eternal relationships, so I would define sin as anything that isolates you.

I don't know, but I'd guess it might have to do with the ability to create your own children? It might also have to do with getting to know both halves of society well? (the male and female half) - like if you married someone who was _________ (fill in a nationality - Chinese, African, European) you would be more familiar with their culture because there was someone in your household of that culture. I think there is a culture that goes along with being male / female, and you would miss out on that familiarity in as single gender household.

Any/every physical pleasure stimuli is ultimately personal. It isn't a sin to 'share a laugh' with a total stranger. Again, restating, many married couples do not have a deep meaningful rapport, yet this doesn't seem to be a requirement of god to allow them to share the physical stimuli of procreation-less sex.

[tana]

Actually there is a law against hating one another, whether or not sex is involved.

Perhaps that which physical intercourse is a part of is a special gift even when not being used to create another human being and to use it carelessly and selfishly (married or not) is a sign of disrespect not only for the gift, but for those involved and especially the giver. If we use the intelligence God gave us to acquire material possessions solely for our own pleasure while disregarding the needs of others, surely this is a sin. Why would it not be the same for any other gift, including the ability to love?

I think tho "Hating" is a whole nother subject. Where does one draw the line between hate and dislike, or 'prefer'? I prefer blue M&M's.

Also, it's gets a little legalistic...as to why God requires us to not dislike/hate. A means to what end?

[Calm]

many married couples do not have a deep meaningful rapport, yet this doesn't seem to be a requirement of god to allow them to share the physical stimuli of procreation-less sex

I think you are making an unfounded assumption that God is not displeased when someone uses that which is to express love in a physical way outside of the context of pure love, even if they are married. There are many mentions of the commandment to love and respect and cleave unto and become as one with one's husband or wife.

[Calm]

as to why God requires us to not dislike/hate. A means to what end?

He commands us to love one another....maybe because it is a good thing? And it brings man (and woman) joy?

How is this "legalistic"? Pretty simple and straightforward to me.

Edited April 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[changed]

Any/every physical pleasure stimuli is ultimately personal. It isn't a sin to 'share a laugh' with a total stranger. Again, restating, many married couples do not have a deep meaningful rapport, yet this doesn't seem to be a requirement of god to allow them to share the physical stimuli of procreation-less sex.

you have to admit, that much of marriage (not all) is about kids...

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force." - http://www.lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng

We are each created by a male and a female - I think we each have these two halves within our self, the half we inherit from our father, and the half we inherit from our mother, I think marriage is rejoining these two halves, and think that children benefit from being in a home where these two halves are harmoniously enjoined as well.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm curious, lets say sometime in the future society develops a cure for all STD's. What exactly would be the problem God could have with two *sterile*, single, consenting adults fornicating with each other?

Answer

Also, it's gets a little legalistic...as to why God requires us to not dislike/hate. A means to what end?

Our happiness. Hatred robs the possessor of peace and, in the end, destroys her/him.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[tana]

you have to admit, that much of marriage (not all) is about kids...

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force." - http://www.lds.org/f...mation?lang=eng

We are each created by a male and a female - I think we each have these two halves within our self, the half we inherit from our father, and the half we inherit from our mother, I think marriage is rejoining these two halves, and think that children benefit from being in a home where these two halves are harmoniously enjoined as well.

I agree. I should have stated it more clearly in the OP. Single, sterile, past child bearing/rearing people. If they felt the proper love for each other at the moment, what would be the sin?

By the way, I am happily married and devoutly monogamous.

[tana]

Answer

Iff'n you like, could you summarize this for us?

[tana]

He commands us to love one another....maybe because it is a good thing? And it brings man (and woman) joy?

How is this "legalistic"? Pretty simple and straightforward to me.

To do something simply because God commands it is really missing the point, imo. That would be why I defined it as legalistic. Seeking the carrot and fearing the stick isn't going to bring the cream to the top.

Existence is about eternal physical stimuli? Seeking that which brings pleasure, joy to the senses?

[changed]

I agree. I should have stated it more clearly in the OP. Single, sterile, past child bearing/rearing people. If they felt the proper love for each other at the moment, what would be the sin?

By the way, I am happily married and devoutly monogamous.

no sin of coarse, and again I don't know the why's behind all that God asks us to do, but perhaps there is the aspect of reaching out to someone who is different than us involved in the commandment, and more to becoming parents than physically having children.

[Calm]

To do something simply because God commands it is really missing the point, imo. That would be why I defined it as legalistic. Seeking the carrot and fearing the stick isn't going to bring the cream to the top.

Existence is about eternal physical stimuli? Seeking that which brings pleasure, joy to the senses?

You are really missing my points....hmm, perhaps I need to stop for the night and get some sleep if I'm not making sense like I thought I was.

I would never suggest save for the youngest or most inexperienced seeker of righteousness and God taking their first uncertain steps along the way with little understanding why that they do something solely because God commanded us and most definitely not out of fear for the stick and love of the carrot, though many more mature in love and wisdom will do something solely because God commanded because they love God and they are not looking for any reward or trying to avoid any punishment, they just want to do right by the one they love and who loves them.

I will try one more....the wise and loving ones do the things that God commands because they know God loves them and wish to return that love, they understand he wants to bring them eternal joy and happiness and he gives us commandments to help us find the best way to those states of heaven (and heaven on earth if done right). IOW, it is the wise and joyful thing to do if you want to learn how to prepare yourself and help others do the same for returning to the Lord, to even be able to have the chance to have a 'face to face' with your Father.

While existence does include external physical stimuli, that is certainly not what it is "about" anymore than our bodies, minds and spirits are what it is about. What existence, life is about is what we do with our bodies, minds and spirits and mostly in my opinion how we use them in interaction with others attempting to do the same thing (find our way back home to God together as individuals first, family second, faith community third, social community fourth and the rest of the world along as well.) One can't divorce the appropriate physical actions of sex from the appropriate emotions and understandings of pure love intimacy and act as if it is the identical experience. It is instead a fractured, twisted version of what is supposed to be one of the most intimate, self aware and self sharing experiences true, committed lovers can have. Even when not creating children, it is still a creative act because each time pure love is expressed, it can be an act of discovery of the other and of "us"; that love can become something new and even more glorious than before.

OTOH, casual sex achieves only casual sex and the momentary pleasures and pains associated with it. The contrast between what can be nurtured into full growth and glory when done in love and purity and chastity and even in covenant and what takes place in a relationship that not only lacks these things, but cares nothing for them is like the difference between an original masterpiece that takes a lifetime to create and a piece of mass produced trendy popart that's main purpose is to take up enough space and time to give it the appearance of importance though it leaves no real, lasting impression on the heart, mind and soul of the individual viewing it.

Edited April 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[tana]

You are really missing my points....hmm, perhaps I need to stop for the night and get some sleep if I'm not making sense like I thought I was.

I would never suggest save for the youngest or most inexperienced seeker of righteousness and God taking their first uncertain steps along the way with little understanding why that they do something solely because God commanded us and most definitely not out of fear for the stick and love of the carrot, though many more mature in love and wisdom will do something solely because God commanded because they love God and they are not looking for any reward or trying to avoid any punishment, they just want to do right by the one they love and who loves them.

I will try one more....the wise and loving ones do the things that God commands because they know God loves them and wish to return that love, they understand he wants to bring them eternal joy and happiness and he gives us commandments to help us find the best way to those states of heaven (and heaven on earth if done right). IOW, it is the wise and joyful thing to do if you want to learn how to prepare yourself and help others do the same for returning to the Lord, to even be able to have the chance to have a 'face to face' with your Father.

While existence does include external physical stimuli, that is certainly not what it is "about" anymore than our bodies, minds and spirits are what it is about. What existence, life is about is what we do with our bodies, minds and spirits and mostly in my opinion how we use them in interaction with others attempting to do the same thing (find our way back home to God together as individuals first, family second, faith community third, social community fourth and the rest of the world along as well.) One can't divorce the appropriate physical actions of sex from the appropriate emotions and understandings of pure love intimacy and act as if it is the identical experience. It is instead a fractured, twisted version of what is supposed to be one of the most intimate, self aware and self sharing experiences true, committed lovers can have. Even when not creating children, it is still a creative act because each time pure love is expressed, it can be an act of discovery of the other and of "us"; that love can become something new and even more glorious than before.

OTOH, casual sex achieves only casual sex and the momentary pleasures and pains associated with it. The contrast between what can be nurtured into full growth and glory when done in love and purity and chastity and even in covenant and what takes place in a relationship that not only lacks these things, but cares nothing for them is like the difference between an original masterpiece that takes a lifetime to create and a piece of mass produced trendy popart that's main purpose is to take up enough space and time to give it the appearance of importance though it leaves no real, lasting impression on the heart, mind and soul of the individual viewing it.

As far as I can tell it all comes down to commitment. A married couple can have sin free relations as long as there is commitment in their hearts to stay together forever.....*because* and only because, they will be together to raise spirit children together in the CK.....Is there any other because?

Hey Cal, thanks for the discussion. I do hear you and understand your POV on the sacredness of intimacy. Sex was probably a bad choice for as an example on examining the theory of sin.

[Calm]

As far as I can tell it all comes down to commitment. A married couple can have sin free relations as long as there is commitment in their hearts to stay together forever...

Not just commitment, love and purity and chastity and giving of oneself...it all has to be there in order for the relationship to fulfill all of its potential. And I would say the potential for sin free relations would exist for anyone who was fully committed to their understanding of what their covenant of marriage entail, which for most is until death. God judges by the law people have.

..*because* and only because, they will be together to raise spirit children together in the CK.....Is there any other because

Everything else that can come to them out of commitment, love, purity, chastity, giving of oneself and becoming one with God and all others of similar choices. I don't see having children as the end, but it is part of the process of the expression of love and commitment in the relationship as well as other relationships that become tied to them because of shared beliefs and actions lead to common bonds.

[changed]

... do something solely because God commanded us and most definitely not out of fear for the stick and love of the carrot, ..

I agree. It's an interesting question, to wonder if some of the commandments are given for no other purpose than to strengthen faith. At first many of the commandments seem illogical - like asking Moses to talk to a rock to get water out of it - this is illogical - why not provide water through some logical means? like telling Moses to go down into the valley, and then dig a well or something? perhaps if asked to do something logical, we would do it for the sake of logic and not for the sake of trust - if someone tells me to eat healthy food, I'll do it, not because I respect the person who is telling me this logical thing, but because it's logical... perhaps the deepest relationships need to experience trust - not leaning to your own understanding - getting outside of the box we all live in, and having faith in someone else? it's just doing it based on our own understanding, rather than doing it for trust/faith/love if there is a logical explanation behind it.... the more illogical the request, the more trust/faith/love is required in doing it... people don't get angry about God asking Moses to talk to a rock to get water... some people get angry over Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son... the ultimate end to all of it is relationships though, and the most noble relationships involve sacrifice and complete trust/faith in one another... so perhaps the reason behind some things is simply "I want you to learn what it is to do something based on trust, rather than on logic" and that is a valid reason.

Edited April 20, 2012 by changed

[CV75]

What could it be then? I'm not sure I know.

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12 )” and “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luke 6:31)” are for spiritual and eternal guidance as well as practical mortal application. The Golden Rule is not about whatever can be imagined to be done to be done between consenting adults.

Interpersonal relationships and activities have spiritual components that are not of this world but may be manifest in this world for good or ill. For the sake of your example, which attempts to strip all mortal consequences from the act of fornication, we can articulate the spiritual damage, even in cases where there is no willful disobedience or knowledge involved (http://www.lds.org/study/topics/sin?lang=eng):

The Lord atoned for those cases where there is no willful disobedience or knowledge involved. The spiritual ramifications for fornicating unwed partners involves their lack of understanding eternal covenants, relationships and gender roles, and therefore a lack of meaning to the acts committed, compared to what they might otherwise enjoy. This lack of connecting the spiritual with the physical realms (Matthew 16:9, 18:19; D&C 132) creates a great disadvantage for them. This lack will have to be made up in the spirit world’s remedial program, which is an act of grace on the Lord’s part through His atonement.

[tana]

Thanks for the interest and input everyone, CV, Changed, Cal, Hamba.

I believe it would be wise of me to concede now....as even me DW is against me on this point, and I am not knowledgeable enough in the science of relationship/love.

I do however have a sense that love and sex......have nothing to do with each other.

[CV75]

I do however have a sense that love and sex......have nothing to do with each other.

I have a sense that our sense about how love and sex relate to each other (and how we act on it) depends on the individual and individuals involved. The relayshionship between love and sex can be wonderful or not, as both of them can follow a heavenly pattern even in this world. This is why marriage as orignally designed is so important. It is part of how a man and a woman draw clser to each other as they draw closer to God.

[tana]

I would think that the reason for god to make sex so sacred, would be the procreation aspect. The thing is tho, to put such emphasis on procreation is in my mind over-rated. I mean, it's not like we are creating a soul/entity. They are uncreated. We are just creating a physical vehicle for them to nest in for a time. I can't see how the original parents have anything to do with assembling the resurrected eternal body.....too many paradoxes there to get into. Also, mortal parents cannot/must not be an any way responsible for Gods eternal disposition of the subject because of their nurture.....as the subject could then deny fault. So, Why make sex sacred?

[Calm]

I would think that the reason for god to make sex so sacred, would be the procreation aspect. The thing is tho, to put such emphasis on procreation is in my mind over-rated.

Then perhaps you are wrong in supposing this is the reason for it being set apart as sacred.

Perhaps it is as much the relationship it potentially creates and continually influences between man and woman, drawing them together. IMO, the amount of scripture discussing how man and woman are to become one in comparison to 'multiple and replenish' should be considered.

I think a major problem in your analysis is removing it from the context of the relationship it is supposed to be functioning in which is what will define, imo, its sacredness. It is necessary to consider the whole process of physical intimacy and not just one potential end result (children) or even limit examination to the purely sexual aspect of physical intimacy or only the physical aspect of sexual intimacy.

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[tana]

Here is where I get in over my head. Why is "Eros" different from "Agape".....except for the passion? If we take procreation out of the equation, then why would ones companion merit more/different love than the love for all?

Edited April 22, 2012 by tana

[Calm]

I can't remember, but are you married?

Why is "Eros" different from "Agape".....except for the passion?

Unless we are defining "passion" differently here, I am not sure how to convey this as I thought I already had more or less. It seems to me so fundamentally obvious if one has experienced it and I would have thought my prior comments would have made it clear what I was talking about and yet you apparently do not understand, I have failed to communicate my meaning but don't know why.

I could conclude that this is because you have not experience the same thing, but it may be because we are using the same terms and assuming 'givens' the other understands when it is not so. Or something else. I am not sure how to determine what the issue is.

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

An idea occurred to me, we'll see if this works any better.

Sex or rather physical intimacy is part of our communication process. Think of it as another language (both nonverbal and verbal). Like all languages, practice will make us more fluent and adept at using it (at least if we are paying attention and trying to learn to communicate better and not just being totally selfcentered as can occur when sex becomes just about pleasure or 'recreation' outside of any commitment). Also, it is not a public language but a private one, one that is developed between two people and is thus unique to them though many characteristics are likely shared with others' version due to the commonality of human experience. Thus it requires commitment and time to develop an effective dialect, one that communicates not only superficial generalities, but detailed nuances.

Does this make sense so far?

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah