NationStates Jolt Archive

So many Christians and other religions have their idea of the is the worst sin. Here is a list of mostly minor or widely practiced sins (Adultery is against the Ten Commandments themselves but 40% of preachers commit adultery according to some studies). Which is the worst?

I'm not a prude as I do what I do as much as anyone but most religions condemn fornication. I think fornication is to an extent impure, but mostly everyone in the world has had sex outside of marriage I would say. Then you look at homosexuality and most religions try to put them to death. Then women cannot be adulterous as often as men without being judged.

It is all very interesting how different sins are judged all across the world.

NOTE: The kind of hatred mentioned here and I assume most people are thinking is the kind that is the very burning hatred though some would debate if hatred can be used in constructive ways. The kind of hatred that leads to violence and worse "sins" like murder, etc.

This is the correct thread.

What are these 'sins' you speak of? Are they crimes?

Where is flummery on the poll?

What are these 'sins' you speak of? Are they crimes?

They're like crimes, but you're kind of metaphorically punished for them (or punished on a vigilante basis).
And sometimes, if you tell someone you've committed a sin (like pleading guilty, I suppose) then it doesn't count anymore.

You see a list of evil, I see a good night out...

what are the new 7 deadly sins
I know 2 of them, pollution and peodiphilia

You see a list of evil, I see a good night out...


lol yer a good night out isn't complete without sleeping with a same-sex married prostitute and running out on the bill afterwards.

Most people have, so far, put hatred - in and of itself, hatred isn't the worst, it can even be put to good use as either a motivator or simply emotional release. Where it's lasting and/or negative action arises from hatred then probably not so good but as an emotion it serves a purpose.

My pick would be stealing.

I think "sin" is a poor excuse for a moral framework. It has no rational references to social behaviour, and no independent justification.

As such, I think the worst sin is to believe in sins.

what are the new 7 deadly sins
I know 2 of them, pollution and peodiphilia

One that was declared by one Roman Catholic Bishop was obscene wealth. Not sure how the Roman Catholic Church itself could criticize that. Seeing as how the Church has had the obscene wealth it has had through the ages until recent times. Though I agree that that may very well be a sin when people are starving in third world countries, and children die by the thousands every day.

I'd think fornication is the best sin!

Greed and hate are a big part of most of the issues that exist nowadays, however I also believe hate can be constructive rather than destructive if people would only focus it more in that direction.

So, I'm going with greed.

I'd think fornication is the best sin!

Seconded. :D

*fornicates*

I'm not a prude as I do what I do as much as anyone but most religions condemn fornication. I think fornication is to an extent impure, but mostly everyone in the world has had sex outside of marriage I would say.

I think soon they'll make an amendment for that, stating that as long as it's done with possible intent to marry, premarital sex is not a sin, but merely a minor infraction, punished by up to 3 days in the Purgatory and a fine of 100 Heaven Dollars.

I voted for greed after thinking about it from responses. Seems to be what drives many of the ills of the world, even more than hatred in some cases.

I voted for greed after thinking about it from responses. Seems to be what drives many of the ills of the world, even more than hatred in some cases.

Quite. Then again, if it wasn't for greed, our economy would simply collapse, catapulting us back into the Dark Ages. I don't see the moral harm in preventing that from happening, to be honest.

I voted for greed after thinking about it from responses. Seems to be what drives many of the ills of the world, even more than hatred in some cases.

Yes. Greed started many more wars than Hatred ever did. It was the first rationale behind slavery. It still is today cause of the exploitation, poverty and misery of a significant portion (perhaps even the majority) of the human population. It is also a factor in cases of pollution and lack of respect of the environment by corporations.

Quite. Then again, if it wasn't for greed, our economy would simply collapse, catapulting us back into the Dark Ages. I don't see the moral harm in preventing that from happening, to be honest.

Don't you think simple ambition would serve us a bit better for that than greed?
If more people wanted to have more, instead of a few wanting to have everything, it would solve a lot of problems we already have. Without capapulting us to the Dark Ages to boot.

Capitalism is stealing!

Stop bosses appropriating the rightful products of their workers!

*throws a molotov*

*throws a molotov*

*catches molotov*
*removes flaming rag from molotov*
*drinks contents of molotov*
*recycles bottle*

Capitalism is stealing!

Stop bosses appropriating the rightful products of their workers!

*throws a molotov*

*tries to play devil's advocate while simultaneously dodging molotov*

Technically socialism could be considered stealing too. In the Marxist model, workers still don't get the full value of their labour in socialism, a portion being diverted to a system of welfare and to "common goods" whether an individual worker likes it or not. And this only stops with the transition to communism, which occurs when industry has been built up enough to ensure universal abundance. Given overpopulation and resource depletion, universal abundance seems impossible, so it would seem we can't get to communism. So it wouldn't even appear to be stealing for the purposes of getting to a realistic final goal. Thus socialism is as bad as capitalism?

stealing. Also known as communism.

Hatred and Greed are probably the two worst sins. Jesus talked at length about avoiding hate and while he would hang out with thieves, homosexuals and prostitutes, who did He go apeshit at the sight of? Money-changers. *nod*

Thus socialism is as bad as capitalism?

I bet you 3 Internets that Andaras will say yes.

If I remember the lessons pf my Presbyterian upbringing correctly, 'sin is sin is sin is sin'.

All sins are, according to the Christian theology I'm most familiar with, equal. There is no 'worst' sin, no 'best' sin.

Talking of 'sin' outside of Christian thinking, however, seems a bit strange to me.


*catches molotov*
*removes flaming rag from molotov*
*drinks contents of molotov*
*recycles bottle*
*applauds*

*applauds*

*stumbles off, intoxicated*

All sins stain you, all sins equally prevent you from having a meaningful relationship with God, and as such there are no sins that are 'less' than others. But with that being said, if the question is, which sins have the most negative impact on society at large, I guess I'll have to vote for Adultery.

Matthew 19:3-12
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

Adultery wrecks the fabric that makes humans more than the animals, it destroys the relationship between a husband and his wife, it is like idol worship, like destroying the relationship between Christ and the Church. Chastity in the marriage is the glue that holds civilization together, lose that and society suffers the most.

IMO.

All sins stain you, all sins equally prevent you from having a meaningful relationship with God, and as such there are no sins that are 'less' than others
I thought I remembered correctly.

Adultery wrecks the fabric that makes humans more than the animals
Ignoring the pertinent fact that humans are animals, what about all the nonhuman animals who partner for life, monogamously?

Adultery wrecks the fabric that makes humans more than the animals, it destroys the relationship between a husband and his wife, it is like idol worship, like destroying the relationship between Christ and the Church. Chastity in the marriage is the glue that holds civilization together, lose that and society suffers the most.

IMO.

*roflmao

*wipes tears from eye*

Oh dear, that was funny!!! Have you ever tried getting on stage with that?

Ignoring the pertinent fact that humans are animals, what about all the nonhuman animals who partner for life, monogamously?

Yes, at base we are animals. Animals are good examples of both good and bad behaviors, for us to use as examples for teaching ourselves and our children.

We are worse than animals though too, when left to our own resources we create our own code of conduct (or lack thereof) and make excuses for our bad behavior and even try to justify our bad behavior as though it were good behavior.

We have been given the instruction on how to become more than the animals, and following good conduct is a part of that process, or we can act like animals and pretend that we do good.

All sins are equal in Gods eyes. K?

All sins are equal in Gods eyes. K?

Except suicide?

All sins are equal in Gods eyes. K?

no, not "k" at all. I find it stretching all bounds of common sense that such a powerful entity is so utterly lacking in nuance

Except suicide?
Hmm? I'm not Catholic. So please elaborate a little...

Hmm? I'm not Catholic. So please elaborate a little...

Some people of faith believe that suicide is the gravest sin you can commit. They are usually pro-life protestors who believe all life is sacred so murdered abortion doctors had it coming.

Some people of faith believe that suicide is the gravest sin you can commit. They are usually pro-life protestors who believe all life is sacred so murdered abortion doctors have it coming.
Ah.

AOL usage qualifies are more sinful than half the choices you listed.

no, not "k" at all. I find it stretching all bounds of common sense that such a powerful entity is so utterly lacking in nuance

A single dose of poison in your food is as bad as ten doses of poison in food. The amount that kills you after the deadly dose is irrelevant.

The 'common sense' is that poisoned is poisoned, either a lot or a little is not important, dead a little is the same as dead a lot.

A single dose of poison in your food is as bad as ten doses of poison in food. The amount that kills you after the deadly dose is irrelevant.

The 'common sense' is that poisoned is poisoned, either a lot or a little is not important, dead a little is the same as dead a lot.

And this is why "sin" as a moral rationale is utterly useless.

hatred

because jesus specifically commanded that we are to love god with our whole heart, our neighbors as ourselves and to forgive whenever we are asked to forgive.

although we can see from the incident of the pious rich guy who wasnt willing to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor, greed is a dire impediment to getting into heaven.

And this is why "sin" as a moral rationale is utterly useless.

Not entirely useless. I mean, it can be easily transmitted to a large group of people, and they can all agree on it easily. In that respect, the concept of sin, as judeochristianity models it, provides a method of transmitting a general morality to the populace. It has a social function, but not an individual function, I think.

However, I would agree with Neo Art's criticism that it is not quite nuanced enough to function on a specific level. For a proper function of morality on an individual level, elements such as compassion and empathy are far more important than someone's belief in an afterlife. And these come from the individual.

So I would say mostly useless on one level, and somewhat useful on another level.

Edit: Oh, I picked greed as it is the most rampant and the one most rewarded by our society.

A single dose of poison in your food is as bad as ten doses of poison in food. The

. . . .

The 'common sense' is that poisoned is poisoned, either a lot or a little is not important

I am so glad that you're not a doctor.

I think fornication is to an extent impure

I would have to disagree.

I feel that many religions demonize all of the feelings, emotions and instincts that make us human. Lust is one of those basic things that we would not exist without.

I am what could be called a Humanist (this term is also used in other fields. i do not mean the sociology, philosophy, or psychology terms.) I feel that instead of demonizing ourselves, we should embrace ourselves.

After all, if we were "created in god's image", and we worship god, than isn't that just an excuse for self-worship? We should call it what it is, and let ourselves do what makes us happy.

PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM ARE SOMETIMES VERY SENSITIVE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK, BUT AN ITELLECTUAL STATEMENT AND AN INVITATION FOR DEBATE.

Not entirely useless. I mean, it can be easily transmitted to a large group of people, and they can all agree on it easily. In that respect, the concept of sin, as judeochristianity models it, provides a method of transmitting a general morality to the populace. It has a social function, but not an individual function, I think.

However, I would agree with Neo Art's criticism that it is not quite nuanced enough to function on a specific level. For a proper function of morality on an individual level, elements such as compassion and empathy are far more important than someone's belief in an afterlife. And these come from the individual.

So I would say mostly useless on one level, and somewhat useful on another level.

Edit: Oh, I picked greed as it is the most rampant and the one most rewarded by our society.

The problem I see with the concept of "sin" is that 1) it is based entirely on the creator of the list of sins-to-be, and has no rational backing whatsoever. As a result, every new moral dilema needs a new directive, as nothing can be deduced easily from the current code. Also, it is only really applicable if the sinners in question first believe in the creator of the code. And 2) it apparently doesn't apply to the creator of said code, making it ultimately pointless and superfluous. How can you trust a judge who doesn't live by the rules he applies to you?

I am so glad that you're not a doctor.

Why, because doctors get hung up on things like LD50 amounts, the premise of which precisely illustrates why the poison analogy supports the opposite of Balderdash's assertion by framing it in something as complex as human biochemistry? That's because doctors are trained in evolution based models of biology, not scriptural based models.

Seriously, Neo Art, Balderdash is right, wrongdoing can and should be modeled in as simple a Boolean dichotomy as possible, that way we can call all sin equal.

I'd call you a fucking Jew lawyer ****, but since you're handling my divorce after LG schtupped my wife, I'm going to let it go.

I'm missing the following choices in the poll:

1. Polyester
2. Britney Spears
3. Golf pants
4. Mariah Carey
5. Bowling shoes

Why, because doctors get hung up on things like LD50 amounts, the premise of which precisely illustrates why the poison analogy supports the opposite of Balderdash's assertion by framing it in something as complex as human biochemistry? That's because doctors are trained in evolution based models of biology, not scriptural based models.

Seriously, Neo Art, Balderdash is right, wrongdoing can and should be modeled in as simple a Boolean dichotomy as possible, that way we can call all sin equal.

Let's put it to the test shall we? We shall meet at a place of mutual convenience, I shall ingest cyanide in an amount equal to .4mg per kilogram of my body weight.

You shall ingest cyanide in an amount equal to 4 mg per kilogram of your body weight.

Who so ever dies first, loses.

If we die at the same time, I'll admit that having impure thoughts about my 9th grade english teaches is just as bad as LG screwing your wife.

I would have to disagree.

I feel that many religions demonize all of the feelings, emotions and instincts that make us human. Lust is one of those basic things that we would not exist without.

I am what could be called a Humanist (this term is also used in other fields. i do not mean the sociology, philosophy, or psychology terms.) I feel that instead of demonizing ourselves, we should embrace ourselves.

After all, if we were "created in god's image", and we worship god, than isn't that just an excuse for self-worship? We should call it what it is, and let ourselves do what makes us happy.

PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM ARE SOMETIMES VERY SENSITIVE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK, BUT AN ITELLECTUAL STATEMENT AND AN INVITATION FOR DEBATE.

Your little red disclaimer does nothing to ameliorate the insult you have made to everything I believe in.

Where would this secular Godless shit leave us? Wallowing in nothing but a sincere and internally sourced respect for all people which could restrain our more maladaptive and destructive urges while allowing safe and reasonable expression of naturally occurring biological impulse.

Followed by eternity in hell.

Where is rumor-mongering and spreading lies about people? Where is barratry (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/barratry)? Where is genocide (or does that come under hatred)?

Why is sex considered sinful (unless, of course, it's exploitative and hurtful to another - say pedophilia)?

With a couple of exceptions, the concept of sin is being used as a means of exploitation and control by various religions.

I just got off the kids in nappies thread, so I'm hard put to be serious right now.

Where would this secular Godless shit leave us? Wallowing in nothing but a sincere and internally sourced respect for all people which could restrain our more maladaptive and destructive urges while allowing safe and reasonable expression of naturally occurring biological impulse.

Death first!

....in jesus, of course.

I am so glad that you're not a doctor.

If you're already dead, a Doctor isn't going to help you.

If you're already dead, a Doctor isn't going to help you.

True, but one who cannot tell what amount of medicine will help cure you and what amount is actually poisonous and fatal will be not much help, either.

I should expand on what I mean by 'stealing' to explain my choice.

Stealing is not limited to scrumping an apple from the orchard. Stealing, for me, is the theft of a variety of either physical objects or emotional feelings.

Murder for me is stealing, it's the theft of life.

Taking away a person's liberty or even self-respect is stealing - stealing is taking without permission and it extends to nearly all facets of life.

Hatred and greed can certainly lead to stealing yet, with integrity, they do not necessarily evolve into actual theft, they can be held internally in check.

I cannot imagine any thought or emotion itself to be a 'sin' as such - and I grant the idea of sin itself is up for debate - and so I discount emotions as necessarily sinful.

Yet the act of stealing, of theft, of taking from someone, be it physical or ethereal, that which is rightfully theirs, that, for me, lies at the heart of anything we deem wrong - or sinful - in this world.

There's no sin in feeling or thinking, it's through wrongful acting that real pain occurs.

If you're already dead, a Doctor isn't going to help you.

I'll raise the same challenge. Would you be willing to ingest cyanide equal to an amount of 4mg per kilogram of your body weight in exchange for me to ingest cyanide equal to an amount of .4mg per kilogram of my body weight?

In fact, I'll even go first. If I don't die, you can go next.

True, but one who cannot tell what amount of medicine will help cure you and what amount is actually poisonous and fatal will be not much help, either.

The amount of this poison is irrelevant, exposure is always fatal (and there is only one remedy but no medicine).

The amount of this poison is irrelevant, exposure is always fatal

Which makes it completely unlike poison at all really. And makes your analogy total fail.

I'll raise the same challenge. Would you be willing to ingest cyanide equal to an amount of 4mg per kilogram of your body weight in exchange for me to ingest cyanide equal to an amount of .4mg per kilogram of my body weight?

In fact, I'll even go first. If I don't die, you can go next.

I've seen The Princess Bride, no thank you. How about instead we both just wait a hundred years or so, we'll both be dead eventually, no need to rush things.

I've seen The Princess Bride, no thank you.

Why not? I thought you said the dosage of poison doesn't matter.

The amount of this poison is irrelevant, exposure is always fatal (and there is only one remedy but no medicine).

Right... so you've got very little graps of basic chemistry. Or you're a homoepath.

Why not? I thought you said the dosage of poison doesn't matter.

You think there is only one type of poison? Good thing you're not a doctor.

You think there is only one type of poison? Good thing you're not a doctor.

There are lots. But there isn't a single one in which the dosis doesn't matter.

You think there is only one type of poison? Good thing you're not a doctor.

Turn the other cheek Balderdash, isn't that the message?

Adultery is the worst sin you have mentioned. It is a betrayal of the person you love, a violation of an oath you have sworn to G-d.

Fornication, homosexuality, and stealing are simply a matter of giving in to forbidden desires. They are each damaging to society in their own way. Fornication and homosexuality corrupt the social fabric, creating an atmosphere where the value of sexuality and marriage is weakened. Western society is almost at the endpoint*. Stealing, on the other hand, destroys the economic system which society depends on. A society that permitted stealing would not last that long.

Greed and hatred are merely emotions. Greed is of course forbidden by the 10th commandment. Greed leads to stealing, which destroys society. But desire for material goods is not a sin per se. Here is the litmus test: can your desire for X possession of your neighbor be assuaged by purchasing an identical item off the market? If so, then it isn't sin. In today's world, where almost everything is mass-produced, the obstacle is usually a financial one. Even if the item in question is totally unique (say a custom PC, or a home theater system your neighbor built himself), it is usually possible to replicate it (particularly if you convince your neighbor to help you). It's only sin if you really want that specific item (say a baseball signed by Babe Ruth).

Hatred is not truly a sin in Judaism - indeed, there are certain groups we are commanded to hate (particularly Amalekites). Now, hate for one's fellow man is destructive, and should be restricted. Judaism does not believe in turning the other cheek. If a man harms or insults you, you should seek restitution. It is natural to hate him if he refuses to atone for his deeds. But once he has atoned, you should forgive him.

*Just to clarify, I do NOT favor putting restrictions on sexuality based on the Bible in Western society. The ONLY tolerable theocracy is a strict Jewish one, ruled by the word of G-d. If that is not possible, then a liberal democracy is the best choice, because at least it doesn't prevent you from obeying G-d's word.

Adultery is the worst sin you have mentioned. It is a betrayal of the person you love, a violation of an oath you have sworn to G-d.


Bollocks.
My BF - and future husband - and I are happy swingers. There's no betrayal whatsoever involved.

There are lots. But there isn't a single one in which the dosis doesn't matter.

There are lots of things that once you become infected there is no cure.

There are lots of things that once you become infected there is no cure.

You don't become infected with poison. You must be thinking of viral infections.

Hmm. See, the thing with this poll is that I don't actually believe anything on it is intrinsically "sinful" per se.

Going down the list -

Homosexuality is right out. It's not even an action but a biological trait. To call such a thing "sinful" is nonsensical.

Fornication is at least an action, but hardly one which intrinsically harms anyone. Mostly it's just good fun that makes people happy. Why would that be sinful?

Adultery, I think, certainly can be a sin (or, at least, an evil action, if one is uncomfortable with the term "sin"), but since consensually open marriages would technically be "adulterous," one can hardly reasonably call it a sin in all cases.

Stealing certainly seems a bad sort of thing to do - but as Hugo asks, was Jean Valjean really a terrible sinner when he stole bread to feed his sister's starving children? Is the ownership of property really so important to us that it overrides everything else and renders theft eternally and inextricably evil?

Then we get the two really tricky ones - hatred and greed, both of them bad things, but neither of them actions. I have always been deeply uncomfortable with the idea that thinking evil thoughts is in itself sinful. If I hate someone, but never let myself so much as wish them ill, how have I harmed them? If I am terribly greedy, but manage always to overcome my greed and behave in a kind and generous manner, how have I sinned?

Turn the other cheek Balderdash, isn't that the message?

A mirror is sometimes helpful for everyone to pluck the speck from their own eyes.

A mirror is sometimes helpful for everyone to pluck the speck from their own eyes.

Isn't your own the first?

Stealing certainly seems a bad sort of thing to do - but as Hugo asks, was Jean Valjean really a terrible sinner when he stole bread to feed his sister's starving children? Is the ownership of property really so important to us that it overrides everything else and renders theft eternally and inextricably evil?

See, here I have degrees of stealing - what's really happening here is that Jean Valjean had his choice stolen from him by being in a position where he felt forced to steal bread.

Choice is the first thing that is ever stolen.

You don't become infected with poison. You must be thinking of viral infections.

Which one do you think Sin is like?

You think there is only one type of poison?

No, indeed, there are several. Care to find me a poison that is fatal at any dosage?

Seeing as I am above the concept of "sin" and am therefore incapable of committing "sins", I feel I am unqualified to pass judgement on the quality of any given "sin".

There are lots of things that once you become infected there is no cure.

since when do you become infected with poison?

No, indeed, there are several. Care to find me a poison that is fatal at any dosage?


Sin

Which one do you think Sin is like?

apparently, poison (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13819081&postcount=39)

Sin

sin is fatal? Well god damn it!

Oh crap, lord's name in vein! ....wait....I'm not dead yet...hmmmm...

god damn it shit balls motherfucker!

...nope, not dead.

This theory of yours has a lot of holes.

The problem I see with the concept of "sin" is that 1) it is based entirely on the creator of the list of sins-to-be, and has no rational backing whatsoever. As a result, every new moral dilema needs a new directive, as nothing can be deduced easily from the current code. Also, it is only really applicable if the sinners in question first believe in the creator of the code. And 2) it apparently doesn't apply to the creator of said code, making it ultimately pointless and superfluous. How can you trust a judge who doesn't live by the rules he applies to you?

Well, it's not actually based on anything god said. It's based on what some old men from a nomadic desert society said. And within that context, it does have an internal logic. The problem is that it is not really applicable to modern society in many ways. This is one of the reasons why it is only useful in a general sense rather than a specific sense. Only those moral norms that are shared by modern society and prebiblical Judaic society can really be transmitted, and those would have to be very general indeed. It also makes it difficult to apply to our modern interaction, as you said, but I think that has more to do with the dissonance between today and 2500 years ago.

I don't think you actually have to believe in the creator god to live by these rules. I think it would suffice to have been socialised by people who had internalised these moral norms. An example of this is the North American work ethic. Everyone over here believes that working hard is a good thing. This comes from our Calvinist heritage, and is still a part of our society despite the fact that the vast majority of us are not Calvinists.

In my experience, it doesn't seem to matter to an orthodox judeochristian believer if the creator god is exempt from the same moral code. There is a whole branch of theology that is concerned with reconciling this, though, called theodicy. New approaches are moving away from the idea of omnibenevolence, which is more logical, in my opinion.

Which one do you think Sin is like?

Depends on who she's talking to.

sin is fatal? Well god damn it!

Oh crap, lord's name in vein! ....wait....I'm not dead yet...hmmmm...

god damn it shit balls motherfucker!

...nope, not dead.

This theory of yours has a lot of holes.

You have some insider information that leads you to believe that you won't die? I suspect that you are in error.

You have some insider information that leads you to believe that you won't die? I suspect that you are in error.

According to my interpretation of most faiths, we are all going to live forever. And the one's that this deity loves (not necessarily the ones who've been sinless) will get to sit in great heavenly bleachers singing love songs to God while watching the ones the deity doesn't love (not necessarily the ones who've been sinful) burn in agonizing flames forever. Nice.

You have some insider information that leads you to believe that you won't die?

When I die, it will be because of one thing and one thing only, lack of oxygen to the brain.

How that occurs is anyone's guess (I'm hoping for "too many orgasms") but whatever causes it I promise you one thing. It won't be "sin" Imaginary concepts are rather harmless in the end.

Unless, of course, you mean this Sin:

http://www.rpgsite.net/images/screens/6/sin.jpg

According to my interpretation of most faiths, we are all going to live forever. And the one's that this deity loves (not necessarily the ones who've been sinless) will get to sit in great heavenly bleachers singing love songs to God while watching the ones the deity doesn't love (not necessarily the ones who've been sinful) burn in agonizing flames forever. Nice.

I think you have a poor understanding of theology then, if you think God doesn't love the sinners.

I think you have a poor understanding of theology then, if you think God doesn't love the sinners.

I think you have a poor understanding of reality, if you presume to speak for a god.

I think you have a poor understanding of theology then, if you think God doesn't love the sinners.

And I think you have a poor understanding of my response.

I think you have a poor understanding of theology then, if you think God doesn't love the sinners.

There seems to also be a misunderstanding about "sin". There isn't a "worse" or "better" sin. It's all sin, and any sin gets you a ticket to Hell unless you ask for Jesus to help you out.

There seems to also be a misunderstanding about "sin". There isn't a "worse" or "better" sin. It's all sin, and any sin gets you a ticket to Hell unless you ask for Jesus to help you out.

and as I said before, it is silly beyond compare to state that an almighty god is not capable of a more nuanced understanding of human nature.

and as I said before, it is silly beyond compare to state that an almighty god is not capable of a more nuanced understanding of human nature.

Well, I dunno about that. An almighty god might very well be capable. But that doesn't mean he gives a shit.

If you'd added in "benevolent" that might have held, but as the current phrasing stands, god could just as easily be a dick and want to damn people who don't kiss his ass.

Well, I dunno about that. An almighty god might very well be capable. But that doesn't mean he gives a shit.

If you'd added in "benevolent" that might have held, but as the current phrasing stands, god could just as easily be a dick and want to damn people who don't kiss his ass.

Well, rephrase it thusly: I'm certainly not going to waste my time worshiping the sort of deity who makes no distinction between a serial rapist and someone who occasionally says, "Aw, Christ!" when they stub their toe.

Well, rephrase it thusly: I'm certainly not going to waste my time worshiping the sort of deity who makes no distinction between a serial rapist and someone who occasionally says, "Aw, Christ!" when they stub their toe.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. The god of the Old Testament, and to an extent that New Testament, is fairly unsavory compared to many other gods out there (some because of sheer coolness, others due to sheer mellowness). But it is still possible for that deity to be omnipotent. It'd just be an omnipotent douche.

and as I said before, it is silly beyond compare to state that an almighty god is not capable of a more nuanced understanding of human nature.

Write your own bible, then, and start your own religion. I'm sure Tom Cruise and Buttfuck Travolta are available...

So many Christians and other religions have their idea of the is the worst sin. Here is a list of mostly minor or widely practiced sins (Adultery is against the Ten Commandments themselves but 40% of preachers commit adultery according to some studies). Which is the worst?

I'm not a prude as I do what I do as much as anyone but most religions condemn fornication. I think fornication is to an extent impure, but mostly everyone in the world has had sex outside of marriage I would say. Then you look at homosexuality and most religions try to put them to death. Then women cannot be adulterous as often as men without being judged.

It is all very interesting how different sins are judged all across the world.

NOTE: The kind of hatred mentioned here and I assume most people are thinking is the kind that is the very burning hatred though some would debate if hatred can be used in constructive ways. The kind of hatred that leads to violence and worse "sins" like murder, etc.

Sins are equal in the eyes of God, any sin, no matter how small seperates us from His perfection, and therefore, technically sin is sin, and all equal.

In a different sense, I feel that sins that directly hurt others are worse than those that only hurt ourselves... so, without voting (for the aforementioned reason) I would say, on this list, they are all equally bad, but stealing is the first among equals, as it were.

And, out fo curiousity, can you provide a source that says that 40% of all preacher commit adultery? And what do you mean by the term 'adultery'? Do you mean the definition that Jesus gave it, or the colloqueial definition we commonly use today... the two are laughably different.

Write your own bible, then, and start your own religion.

Why the fuck would I want to do that?

Why the fuck would I want to do that?

People would send you money over the internets.

Why the fuck would I want to do that?

Umm... to get crazy rich, like Hubbard, c'mon, thats an easy one!

:p

In my belief hatred is the worst of sins. Why? Because it eats at you and it hurts the subject of your hatred. It's akin to some sort of cancer.:(

Umm... to get crazy rich, like Hubbard, c'mon, thats an easy one!

:p

hmm, that may well be worth the investment. But to pull it off I'd have to be able to passably pretend to care about people, I don't think I have it in me.

In my belief hatred is the worst of sins. Why? Because it eats at you and it hurts the subject of your hatred. It's akin to some sort of cancer.:(

Ewww… hatred tumours.

So many Christians and other religions have their idea of the is the worst sin. Here is a list of mostly minor or widely practiced sins (Adultery is against the Ten Commandments themselves but 40% of preachers commit adultery according to some studies). Which is the worst?

I'm not a prude as I do what I do as much as anyone but most religions condemn fornication. I think fornication is to an extent impure, but mostly everyone in the world has had sex outside of marriage I would say. Then you look at homosexuality and most religions try to put them to death. Then women cannot be adulterous as often as men without being judged.

It is all very interesting how different sins are judged all across the world.

NOTE: The kind of hatred mentioned here and I assume most people are thinking is the kind that is the very burning hatred though some would debate if hatred can be used in constructive ways. The kind of hatred that leads to violence and worse "sins" like murder, etc.

Adultery is sex with someone you aren't married to. Fornication is sex that is harmful to someone else, like rape, child sexual abuse, bestiality, etc.

I won't answer the poll because the question is too simple and I can't dumb myself down enough today to answer it.

Worse in whose eyes? The Christian God according to fundamentalist protestants? The Catholic God? The Jewish G-d? Me? My community? My cat?

If worse to me, in what way?

What does worse mean? Is it quantified in how much damage is done? If so, to who? The perpetrator? The victim? The community at large?

Although, yay for a semi-lucid morning! Hopefully this trend continues for me.

hmm, that may well be worth the investment. But to pull it off I'd have to be able to passably pretend to care about people, I don't think I have it in me.

You're a lawyer. You get paid to pretend to care about your clients.

Ewww… hatred tumours.

<.<
O...kay...

hmm, that may well be worth the investment. But to pull it off I'd have to be able to passably pretend to care about people, I don't think I have it in me.

Make a retribution/fear based religion, that way you can work from a hostile angle.

hmm, that may well be worth the investment. But to pull it off I'd have to be able to passably pretend to care about people, I don't think I have it in me.

Hey, for a sufficient amount of money, even I can pretend to care about people. Considering some of the televangelists I've seen, you don't even have to be all that convincing.

<.<
O...kay...

New Malachite Square: overextending analogies since '07.

You're a lawyer. You get paid to pretend to care about your clients.

I am in no way obligated to have any vested personal interest in the outcome or in their lives to do my job.

I am in no way obligated to have any vested personal interest in the outcome or in their lives to do my job.

You may say that, but the client expects you to "care". It's not in the contract, but most clients assume you "care".

You may say that, but the client expects you to "care". It's not in the contract, but most clients assume you "care".

I'd rather have a lawyer who is competent than a lawyer who pretends to care.

Adultery is sex with someone you aren't married to.


Actually, the Christian definition of adultery is decidedly more stringent. Jesus said that any man who so much as looked at another woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery, and by 'another' this does of course mean someone you're not married to, which is a larger pool for the unmarrieds.

And, of course the sex can be reversed so that any woman who looks at another man, and whatnot. (Matthew 5:27-28)

New Malachite Square: overextending analogies since '07.

Do not worry. Nanatsu no Tsuki is aware of this...>.>

I'd rather have a lawyer who is competent than a lawyer who pretends to care.

generally speaking, people will view the incompetent lawyer as "uncaring".

generally speaking, people will view the incompetent lawyer as "uncaring".

Unless he's like Chris Farley, then they'd just think the lawyer is... well incompetent. :p

Actually, the Christian definition of adultery is decidedly more stringent. Jesus said that any man who so much as looked at another woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery, and by 'another' this does of course mean someone you're not married to, which is a larger pool for the unmarrieds.

And, of course the sex can be reversed so that any woman who looks at another man, and whatnot. (Matthew 5:27-28)

True, Jesus was pointing out there are some roads you shouldn't go down. Likewise if you are actively thinking about shooting up your workplace, you are already deep enough into the darkness and need to get out of that like....now.

This poll seems a little odd. Are we sure we're not confusing sins with motivations for sins?

Greed, for example. What is it, exactly? "I want more stuff"? Or "I want too much stuff"? Who gets to say what too much is? Desire for stuff can be a motivator for good behaviour or bad.

Fornication? Who wouldn't be here without it? (Oh put your hand down, that kind of cloning technology is still a few years out.) Considering that it is absolutely necessary to our existence, it doesn't sound right calling it a sin. Circumstances of fornication, yes, like adultery, but as a whole?

And, see how it breaks the pattern? If we're talking about Greed and Hatred, shouldn't Fornication and Adultery be replaced by Lust? And if we're talking about Adultery, shouldn't the comparable sins related to Greed and Hatred be more like Theft and Violence?

The whole thing just doesn't work for me. Forget apples and oranges, we're comparing hypotenuses and chinchillas here.

While I'm at it, the high incidence of adultery and/or other sexual crimes among clerics is proof positive, to me, that they don't *really* beleive in God. Not a one of them would have stepped out of line if he believed that the husband/father was watching at the time (especially if husband/father had a shotgun), but they felt OK knowing that God was watching? Nonsense. If they actually believed, they would have been even more scared of Him.

generally speaking, people will view the incompetent lawyer as "uncaring".

Maybe so, but a judge will view it as grounds for appeal. And THAT makes a difference.

Greed. From a Ten Commandments standpoint, greed is the closest you can get in that list of sins to becoming your own God, which is against the first two commandments.

From a humanistic perspective, greed is essentially believing that you are above other human beings and you are more deserving of riches than others and living that way. Greed is what widens the gap between the rich and the poor. Greed is what is forcing Americans to pay over $4.00 a gallon for gas and for causing prices for GROCERIES, a basic human need, to increase.

As far as the rest of the list goes, hatred, fornication, homosexuality, and maybe even adultery (one could argue that humans are not monogamous by nature) are all naturally occurring things in humans, so I can't see how they can be sins.

Greed. From a Ten Commandments standpoint, greed is the closest you can get in that list of sins to becoming your own God, which is against the first two commandments.

From a humanistic perspective, greed is essentially believing that you are above other human beings and you are more deserving of riches than others and living that way. Greed is what widens the gap between the rich and the poor. Greed is what is forcing Americans to pay over $4.00 a gallon for gas and for causing prices for GROCERIES, a basic human need, to increase.

As far as the rest of the list goes, hatred, fornication, homosexuality, and maybe even adultery (one could argue that humans are not monogamous by nature) are all naturally occurring things in humans, so I can't see how they can be sins.


If you are dismissing hatred, fornication, homosexuality, and maybe even adultery as inconsequential because they occur naturally, and yet you hold Greed Avarice accountable, does this mean you don't think Greed/Avarice doesn't occur naturally in humans? I think it does though, but I can't prove it I suppose.

Bollocks.
My BF - and future husband - and I are happy swingers. There's no betrayal whatsoever involved.

Adultery is breaking a promise to be faithful. No promise exists here, so there is no adultery - just fornication.

If you are dismissing hatred, fornication, homosexuality, and maybe even adultery as inconsequential because they occur naturally, and yet you hold Greed Avarice accountable, does this mean you don't think Greed/Avarice doesn't occur naturally in humans? I think it does though, but I can't prove it I suppose.

I think the proof of your point is that many species fight over posessions, whether it is better hunting territory, toys, mates (is a Zebra stallion with more than one mare being greedy?), nesting sites, pebbles (Penguins!) or any kind of colorful trinket that Bowerbirds might want to put into a nest.

Given that I can think of more examples of Animal Greed than Animal Hatred (most animal fights are over very reasonable issues, one wants to eat the other, or take something the other has, no real dislike of the other as an individual), perhaps Greed is the more "natural"?

If you are dismissing hatred, fornication, homosexuality, and maybe even adultery as inconsequential because they occur naturally, and yet you hold Greed Avarice accountable, does this mean you don't think Greed/Avarice doesn't occur naturally in humans? I think it does though, but I can't prove it I suppose.

Point taken. Perhaps I should have either been more specific or not dismissed them completely. I'm trying to look at it at the most basic level. I'm agnostic, and I'm coming from the viewpoint that religion is a human construct regardless of whether God or gods were involved with its creation.

I believe sex and sexuality are inborn, biological aspects of human (and other species') existence. Marriage is a system, a contractual agreement, a human construct. With that in mind, the act of fornicating is natural, but it is seen as a sin because it is the violation of a "sacred contract."

Homosexuality is as natural (albeit not as common) as heterosexuality, and to view it as a sin requires a level of ignorance that simply doesn't belong in modern culture any longer.

Either way, sex and sexuality are mainly private acts, especially when compared to greed. I think in the most general sense, the effects of greed are felt by more than that of sex and sexuality.

I think we'd agree that desire is the emotion as the base of greed, and I think we'd agree that desire is a naturally occurring human emotion. I guess greed comes into play once you start looking at systems such as economics. And nowadays, where the effects of one country's economy can be seen world-wide, something like greed has a much greater impact on the world than something as trivial as sex.

I have trouble with the concept of sin. There are acts that harm people, acts that help people and neutral acts. What religion does is take a whole list of acts, harmful, helpful and neutral, and lump them together under the heading of sin: and for what purpose? It's to exercise control over people who might other wise actually try to think for themselves and thus determine that while murder, rape, child abuse, theft, hate and lying are, indeed, harmful, sex, taking deity's name in vain, worshipping other gods (or not worshipping any gods) and hidden lust are, at worst, neutral, and occasionally helpful (at least sex).

The biggest sins, as I see it, are - using the concept of "sin" as a bludgeon to get people to believe in the impossible, using the concept of "sin" as an excuse to harm others who don't believe as you wish them to. Sin is burning people who disagree with you at stake, sin is torturing people because you think they "might be witches." Sin is killing others because "they aren't us." Who's guiltly of sin - Christians, Muslims, Jews ... need I go on?

Where's Gluttony? That's one of the worst sins there are.

Sin is burning people who disagree with you at stake, sin is torturing people because you think they "might be witches."

And if you're absolutely certain?

Sin is killing others because "they aren't us." Who's guiltly of sin - Christians, Muslims, Jews ... need I go on?

A fair amount of the killing in this world is not "they aren't us". It's "they got stuff I want to take" and "they dissed me". And the biggy: sexual jealousy.

In the US, in fact, it's most of it. Most murderers are the same race as their victims.

A fair amount of the killing in this world is not "they aren't us". It's "they got stuff I want to take" and "they dissed me". And the biggy: sexual jealousy.

In the US, in fact, it's most of it. Most murderers are the same race as their victims.

...how does that preclude "they aren't us"?

A single dose of poison in your food is as bad as ten doses of poison in food. The amount that kills you after the deadly dose is irrelevant.

Actually, it does matter. See, when you die, your body, and everything in it, does not cease to exist. In other words, the excess poison has been introduced to the environment.

...how does that preclude "they aren't us"?

If you're going to go all pedantic here, the only time murder is ever, technically, visited upon "us" it's a mass suicide cult thing.

But on the whole, a young, black, American male is more likely to be murdered by someone who closely shares his cultural values- someone he would consider part of the "us", and maybe he did, right up to the time when he said the wrong thing about someone's girlfriend.

If you're going to go all pedantic here, the only time murder is ever, technically, visited upon "us" it's a mass suicide cult thing.

But on the whole, a young, black, American male is more likely to be murdered by someone who closely shares his cultural values- someone he would consider part of the "us", and maybe he did, right up to the time when he said the wrong thing about someone's girlfriend.

I'd actually be curious to see stats on that, but I suspect there aren't many easily-located charts comparing motives online. It would be interesting if you could find one, though.

I wasn't being pedantic, though. It's outright silly to pretend that race is the only or even the most important factor in determining who is one of "us" and who isn't. For an easy example, I rather suspect your young black American male is more likely to be killed for being affiliated with the wrong gang than for saying the wrong thing about someone's girlfriend.

For an easy example, I rather suspect your young black American male is more likely to be killed for being affiliated with the wrong gang than for saying the wrong thing about someone's girlfriend.


Gangs aren't exactly what the media portrays them as. They aren't intrinsically hostile to each other. When they clash, it's usually over something. Money is a big one. Or girls. In fact, big gang on gang violence is actually prevented by a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction. Generally. In fact, safety is one reason a kid joins a gang. He sees life as safer with the numbers on his side. But violence *within* the gang is just as likely. When it happens, the gang can split very quickly into "my friends" and "your friends" and may heal again just as quickly, or not. Plenty of times, a kid gets beat up by fellow gang members for doing something wrong, challenging a leader, whatever.

I haven't voted because:

Fornication, Adultery and Homosexuality:
What people do in their sex lives is up to them, provided they don't tell me what to do I don't care what they do.

Stealing
I commit software theft all the time, it would be hypocritical of me to vote for this.

Hatred and Greed
Both are good motivators and ultimately part of human nature.

Which one do you think Sin is like?

Ear pregnancy?

Adultery is breaking a promise to be faithful. No promise exists here, so there is no adultery - just fornication.

adultery

• noun voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse.

source (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/adultery?view=uk)

fornicate

• verb formal or humorous have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to.

source (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fornicate?view=uk)

So, yes, currently it's fornication. From next April onwards, it'll be adultery.

And if you're absolutely certain?



A fair amount of the killing in this world is not "they aren't us". It's "they got stuff I want to take" and "they dissed me". And the biggy: sexual jealousy.

In the US, in fact, it's most of it. Most murderers are the same race as their victims.

Forgive me for not making myself clear. I detest the concept of sin when it is used as part of an arsenal of weapons used by organized religion (or anyone or thing else for, that matter) to control people through fear and batter them into emotional and spiritual submission. Sex is not sin, emotional battery is. Taking god's name in vain is not sin, killing the spirit is. Organized religion is responsible for more sinful behavior than prostitution, because prostitution, whether physical, spiritual or emotional, is a direct outgrowth of organized religion!

I think soon they'll make an amendment for that, stating that as long as it's done with possible intent to marry, premarital sex is not a sin, but merely a minor infraction, punished by up to 3 days in the Purgatory and a fine of 100 Heaven Dollars.

How much is that Canadian Tire Money?

I was always taught that sins were equal before God, so the only way I know to decide this is to pick the one that most directly harms another person. From that list, it'd be theft.

Notice nobody has a problem with fornication, here ;)
Well it is the internet, after all.

Um, I'd have to brush up on my Catholicism, but I was under the impression that there was a gradation in the concept of sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venial_sin). But that being said, the gradation mentioned there is not to say "Theft is less bad than perjury", so it might not be of use in this discussion.

To the extent there is a lesser or greater sin among those listed, it's greater or lesser because of its earthly effects. Which one is greater depends somewhat on the person doing the telling, but for my money hatred is the worst, followed by greed. I say this because of all the things listed, hatred is the most dehumanizing of all the things listed: hate is in the end nothing more or less than the refusal to accept a fellow person's humanity and the incumbent responsibility you have to respect that person as a person. Greed often has the same effects, but greed in my experience tends to blind one temporarily to a person's responsibility to his fellow man or obscure it beneath the concern that every man need take for himself for his own survival. A greedy man can be shocked out of greed by looking at the consequences of his greed, which is why, for instance, looking at Tim's headstone is such a heartrending experience for Scrooge. A hateful man, by contrast, looks at the horrific consequences of his actions and approves of them. Nothing makes a hateful man feel better and less human than to make another feel shattered by his inhumanity.

I don't believe in the idea of "sin" as most of my fellow Westerners understand it. Also, my religious belief system does not include a concept of sin. However, I do believe in good and evil, and that some choices people make and some impulses people feel can have either very good or very bad effects on our lives and our souls.

With that said, I picked Greed as the worst thing that influences human minds and actions, because it is a corrupting force. It can take all those other listed "minor" sins and kick them up to true evil against others. It lies beneath the surface of countless acts of malice, destruction, and dishonesty. It is the driving force behind millions of bad decisions.

People who believe in sin don't list fear as a sin -- I guess because fear isn't seen as something people choose to indulge in -- but I think fear runs neck and neck with greed for most evil influence on the human mind.

People who believe in sin don't list fear as a sin -- I guess because fear isn't seen as something people choose to indulge in -- but I think fear runs neck and neck with greed for most evil influence on the human mind.
I consider hatred to be a particularly evil form of fear. Fear itself isn't always bad: survival-wise, it can be quite useful. But when fear of something leads to hatred of it, unhappiness is almost bound to follow.

stealing

1 and 3 are pretty much harmless in and of themselves, and of the others only stealing and adultery actually cause harm. The others mearly have potential to cause harm.

I voted theft, though weather its more harmful than adultery would depend both on the individuals and circumstances in question, and on how much is stolen.

What is interesting to me is that no one picked Fornication, most picked Hatred. Only 7 picked Homosexuality.

I wonder why so many see homosexuals as going to hell then.

Fornication covers all sexual acts outside of marriage, and is condemned over 30 times in the Bible.

Personally I believe in human ignorance, not sin. I have more of a Karmic view of sin.