Sin: What's It Good For?

Hmm, I've never really bought the whole sin thing, I always found it nauseating. However, I never thought about it like this! Now I'm thinking that the actual concept of sin is paradoxical, in that to believe in sin and that all your enemies etc. will go to hell, is a sin in itself, yet not to believe in sin would also be... a sin! Wonderful, Thanks Brian!

Hedde, Medway, UK
November 26, 2006 11:44am

I think the whole concept of Sin is an uneasy accomodation to civilized life. Just about all sins are things we want to do -- standing in icy water or eating burnt cabbage aren't sins because they hold no appeal.

But most sins are things which have potential downsides when you're doing them in a community of others -- especially a small community like a preindustrial village with no social mobility. Start wife-swapping or swinging and pretty soon someone's going to get homicidally jealous. Getting drunk has its obvious disadvantages (both social and economic).

Aside from the "disrupting the village" sins, there are all the religious "internal security" sins -- no denying God, blowing off churchgoing, etc.

So I think there was a practical motive behind most of the sins being declared sinful. However, the modern world has changed the conditions and the religions haven't adapted.

There's also a psychological element: people seem to like being told things are sinful. If you look at modern Christianity, the Protestant denominations which decided to take a "whatever" attitude are dying out. The new Fundamentalist denominations and the traditional wing of the Catholic Church are doing fine. I think people feel the need of some kind of guidance. If you have kids you know that children raised without rules and structure wind up insecure and chaotic. There's probably some neurological explanation.

Cambias, Amherst, MA
November 27, 2006 7:14am

Interesting. As far as the Christian perspective is concerned, there seems to be a couple misinterpretations. For example, you say lying is a sin, but what the ten commandments says is simply, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." I'm sure that doesn't include the sin of "giving someone one of those quick fake smiles when you pass them in the hall — as if seeing them makes you happy" as you say. Also, what is your justification for claiming cybersex with your wife is a sin? Also, since when is drinking a sin? Jesus himself turned water into wine. Or tobacco, I don't see any biblical backing to claiming it's a sin, tobacco is more just self-destructive than anything. I for one enjoy a good martini and cigar while reading God's Word.

Stephen, Portland, Oregon
November 27, 2006 1:28pm

Excellent, a true hypo(crite) with Hons. A top rate example of I'll do what suits me and settle up with the lord later (a sort of credit card sin list). Hey I can murder too, as long as it's for him. Sin is quite simply a CONTROL for the poor 'matrix' of the human mind-which as we can all see, is a different mind for each person. As for eternal sin...I hear that he gave us free will, so can't we decide for ourselves, based on evidence of our/others actions what's right and wrong(NOT GOOD and BAD).Religions consist of rules meant to take away your free will.So does this imply they are actually against his will.(Sorry for the habitual use of male pronouns).

Talking of the big J. it's my understanding that he is illegitimate, from what I've read. Adultery is o.k. if it's with god? I mean Madonna was married,right,to Joseph,right and yet she had something else's baby.? A puzzle isn't it? This means that god encourages adultery(and hence sin in general) by virtue of his own example.When the bible says...'man is born out of sin'...or words to that effect,now I understand the meaning...Mr.J.Christ --Father,not known(or not present)...Mother,sinner via child birth.

Another example of male-centered-ego (boys will be boys)!

I love my wife and daughter eternally and I feel sorry for people married to those who put their own selfish ways first.

P.S. Yes I'm married but I don't connect that old ceremony to MY commitment to my wife and child. There is no place in this house for god.And yet we are good people, my friends too.Some psycho nut will now probably think I'm in cahoots with Mr.Sin, but of course that part of their story is just as ba

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
November 28, 2006 4:54am

"... to join my wife and I..."???

What IS this problem some people have with plural grammatical subjects?

Howard, Warradale, South Australia
December 11, 2006 4:08am

Howard. Boasting is a sin, too! You naughty boy. 1000 hail marys...

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
December 12, 2006 3:16pm

Isn't it a sin to lie?

God said to Adam...if you eat of the tree of knowledge, you will die!

But he didn't, did he? Aah...

So, not only does he have sexual intercourse with Joseph's wife, kill untold millions, threaten to kill for stealing an apple but, he's a liar, too.

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
December 14, 2006 4:15pm

I just discovered your podcast today and found it interesting. Everything I listened to was well argued until I listened to the message on "sin." You seem, for the most part, to take an existentialist approach to discussing issues. This is your approach when you attempt to inform the “Creationists” about evolution. However, you left that “objectivity” behind for this. You openly trash the ideas on sin as if there is nothing to disprove…as if it’s quite obvious your right. I see a little Bill O’Reily in this episode. You make the claim that many “sins” do not hurt anyone. How do you know that? You mention lust (“impure thoughts”). Doesn’t this effect a marriage? Doesn’t sex outside of marriage effect (possibly) the family structure (accidental pregnancies)? You also frame the “Adam and Eve” sin as something like this “they had the nerve to eat some fruit offered to them” as if this was truly the problem. The problem wasn’t eating it; it was disobeying what God had commanded them to avoid for their own good. The whole idea of sin (practically) is that it is ultimately not good for you; thus, you shouldn’t do it. The whole idea of sin (spiritually) is that it is the wedge between God and humanity. Spiritually, sin prevents relationship. Lack of relationship with God is what (speaking of most Traditional Christians) “sends one to hell” as you say. The Gospels lump all SIN together into one “preventive” basket. So for you to discuss the “types” of sins as if one is “okay” but another is damnable seems to be a mischaracterization of Traditional Christianity. (I realize there are technical differences for the purposes of theology, but there is n

Chad McCracken, Dundee, Florida
December 15, 2006 2:59pm

Where did you find this list of "sins"? Who said condoms were a sin? Who said fetishes with ur wife is a sin? Who said being angry was a sin? because the bible i read says a husband and wifes bed is undefiled. and i don't remember it saying getting mad is a sin or wearing a condem. Oh wait i know what happened you just took a line out of one book of the Bible and said oh well this is what they believe. Man is it that difficult to read the Bible in its entirety, and understand what God is tryin to tell you. I mean i know its alot easier to take it out of context it does help ur point better if you just take one line. but next time why don't you try reading a page or two and finding out what its really trying to tell you. Christianity isn't about sinning or not sinning. Its not about being a good person and always going to church. Christianity at its core is following Jesus and becoming more like him. Chrsitianity is Loveing ur God, loveing ur self, and loveing ur neihbors

Tyler Thompson, Dundee, Florida
December 15, 2006 11:24pm

Honesty, I appreciate that. To address the point above vis a vis 'condom wearing' - very important, prevents diseases. The fact is, it is outlawed by the catholics [pope's orders] as it is almost - murder. Or something like that. Here then, you would be sinning to wear one but what of the ramifications...HIV.

Other faiths, no doubt believe other.

I was of course being serious about LEADING BY EXAMPLE, meaning 'Didn't god SIN when he broke the marriage vows of mary and joseph?...Adultery is a sin, isn't it?

Is this just another example of double standards. This time NO ONE can claim that it is a PERSON breaking their DOCTRINES because it was the FOUNDER of the said rules, who is the sinner!

RSVP

For anyone who wants to know more about the FALSE bible [and curran], see The Skeptics Annotated Bible, on the web just under SKEPTOID. It compares the two big books.

As far as taking a line out of context is concerned...

If you quiz a believer they retort:'Oh, the bible has many meanings. Each person must look and find what god is saying to them!'

What it says to me: 'Hi. I'm god. I created everything from nothing [an apparent problem for science theories that claim the exchange of energy & mass (not)]. It took me 6 days. [WHY? Couldn't HE manage it in ONE?!]

RSVP

You lot do exactly as I say and you'll be O.K. Else, I KILL YOU!'

P.S. Do as I say, NOT as I do. [To kill is another sin] Yours, god.

P.P.S. OBITER DICTUM. See you for judgement, bye!

Be more like jesus? Didn't he storm [fury]into a church and kick out people that he didn't like - a form of ethnic cleansing, in religious terms. HATE is the opposite of L

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
December 20, 2006 5:15am

Oh dam and bugger...nearly forgot!

I LOVE Florida guys! Got married in Orange County!

Yeah, sorry for going through a ritual that means nothing to me [except in that I honour my wife!]. Shakira ROCKS - Bush Gardens!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
December 20, 2006 5:21am

What about grace?

Mary, Portland, Oregon
December 28, 2006 10:00pm

Here is an example then of religion NOT answering questions! Unless it's with another question.

Grace: gift of god to humans OR freedom of sin by repentance to god.

This defines grace in terms of god for which there is no evidence and so it's really a pointless definition.

As for the 'sin free' - ''let those without sin ...'' I believe there where [and still are] none!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 03, 2007 7:18am

What about the sin of believing in sin? Or the sin of believing in God. Or the sin of believing that right and wrong are not arbitrary constructs, made up as the situation seems to dictate, exclusive to the opinion of each individual, and interchangeable at the whim of any and all variations of supposedly 'autonomous' self-anointed demi-deities.

Do any of y'all have children, or been in close proximity to them for any length of time? (why am I doubtful?) In that surprising event, is the evidence for the 'innate goodness of man' something that just leaps out at you with blinding clarity when in their company? Especially the children of Aged Aquarius neo-hippies. If so, you can only be looking at a mythical still-life in watercolor ... the real thing is somewhat less than an idealistic vision of pink cherubs.

A few thoughts; People without children tend to have strange notions about them (especially 'Child Development' majors), which propagates even stranger notions about adults. Leftists in general (which covers atheists and many other 'ists' and 'isms' of that stripe) have fewer children, if they have any at all, than Christians (everyone has fewer children than Muslims - but that's another topic). Marxist atheists and their sycophants believe that counter-revolutionary activity (godless sin) can be remedied by the State, either by arranging the sinner's circumstances, or arranging his demise.

The concepts of right, wrong, good, evil, virtue, vice, beauty, tragedy, etc. are hardwired into the human consciousness. Those who deny it give lie to their faith by the way they live. They call for an amorphous 'justice', and declare it to be

MIchael Kilpatrick, Macon, Ga. USA
January 10, 2007 6:29am

Objection 1. It would seem that sin is unfittingly defined by saying: "Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law." Because "Word," "deed," and "desire" imply an act; whereas not every sin implies an act, as stated above (5). Therefore this definition does not include every sin.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Duab. Anim. xii): "Sin is the will to retain or obtain what justice forbids." Now will is comprised under desire, in so far as desire denotes any act of the appetite. Therefore it was enough to say: "Sin is a desire contrary to the eternal law," nor was there need to add "word" or "deed."

Objection 3. Further, sin apparently consists properly in aversion from the end: because good and evil are measured chiefly with regard to the end as explained above (1, 3; 18, A4,6; 20, A2,3): wherefore Augustine (De Lib. Arb. i) defines sin in reference to the end, by saying that "sin is nothing else than to neglect eternal things, and seek after temporal things": and again he says (Qq. lxxxii, qu. 30) that "all human wickedness consists in using what we should enjoy, and in enjoying what we should use." Now the definition is question contains no mention of aversion from our due end: therefore it is an insufficient definition of sin.

Objection 4. Further, a thing is said to be forbidden, because it is contrary to the law. Now not all sins are evil through being forbidden, but some are forbidden because they are evil. Therefore sin in general should not be defined as being against the law of God.

Objection 5. Further, a sin denotes a bad human act, as was explained above (1). Now man's

mike, SD /United States
January 18, 2007 3:05pm

Do theologians get out much? I'm not certain, but my guess would be that even in 'love', high church theology may not be the most effective tool in this setting - not to imply that it wouldn't be fascinating at seminary.

I've found, in my limited experience, that the debate on whether or not God 'Is', comes a step or two before Augustine. But if your approach has been a winner for you in the past, knock yourself out.

"Darwinism and design theory are not about different subjects -
science versus religion. Instead they are competing answers to the same
question: How did life arise in the universe?" N. Pearcey, "Total Truth"

I have reached what should have been an obvious conclusion; Using
reason to persuade people who appeal to reason as their god is fruitless.
Science was once a vehicle for God given reason to follow the evidence to
wherever it led. It has 'evolved' into a mechanism to forbid anyone from
even suggesting that any evidence (or no evidence) leads to anywhere but
one place - atheism. Only the Creator Himself can remove the primordial
scales from blinded eyes. MK

Michael Kilpatrick, Macon, Ga. USA
January 18, 2007 7:27pm

What my learn'id' friend appears to forget [conveniently] is that science is not meant to bear fruit.Science is like nature 'pitiless and indifferent'...a bit like god.

Blind is not the same as dumb. You wouldn't commit a man without evidence in a court[unless you're a racist or faither].So to then, god remains just an idea, with no substance or evidence-just 'blind and ignorant faith as a guide in their darkness'.

So wrong. Evolution theory remains unproven only in as much as science is gaining evidence, once the case is complete and the file is submitted the plea will be :religion,'guilty' as charged.

Design theory is NOT a theory. It does not withstand the criteria of examination viz a viz it fails to show any evidence for it's main hypothesis ie a creator. The self-penalising, circular argument, of who creates the creator is the final nail in the coffin.

Sin and morals are merely the control tools of hypocritical, religious buisness MEN seeking to impoverish the masses eg evangelists.

You have reached no conclusion, only that which fulfills your own ego. A typical religious zealot. Although even here I notice you criticising theology. I have come to a conclusion...Mike criticises anyone who disagrees with him.

So, I must redress the balance. I agree with you Mike. Somewhere you said children are not as people perceive them: ie innocent. My own experience is that they follow MY idea that they will behave badly 'if they can get away with it',but then so to does DAWKINS argue the self same point in the Selfish Gene.

Let me make it clear: even if god was real and sat here next to me, I still would expect a few explanations from it. I wo

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 23, 2007 1:53am

"who creates the creator is the final nail in the coffin"

Self-existing universe? The un-caused cause? Something from nothing? Animate matter from inanimate matter? These are, notwithstanding your protestations, all religious faith statements. I hear that given enough time science will unravel all mysteries. Alright then, given enough time God will be proved. Or is time a private materialist domain?

The atheists merely maintain their own set of sins and morals, whatever they may choose to call them, and all who refuse to bow down to materialism are apostate heretics to be shouted down and maligned ( in a properly professional manner).

It's heartening to hear that Neil is so open minded that he eschews criticism of those who disagree with him. I shall strive, in the future, to open my mind as well - being careful nonetheless, not to let my brains fall out.

I've mentioned once already; it was the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil", not "knowledge". Stick to extra-biblical references unless you just can't avoid it - or better yet, read it yourself first.

My apologies for any embarrassment you suffer here. I can say unashamedly that you, on the other hand, are quite entertaining, in a slapstick sort of way.

The God I know, and use as a crutch, and is my substitute for opium would love to have you pose Him your questions - if not now, then most certainly, and unavoidably, later. MK

".. a functional definition describes religion as "a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality. This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or no

Michael Kilpatrick, Macon, Ga. USA
January 24, 2007 5:41pm

I AM. The existence of God
Is the proposition "God exists" self-evident?
Is it demonstrable?
Does God exist?
Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.

Objection 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Therefore &qu

Mike, SD /United States
January 27, 2007 10:44am

Mike, Is there a Cliff notes, or Reader's Digest Condensed version of this? Brevity is not exclusively the soul of wit. MK

Michael Kilpatrick, Macon, Ga. USA
January 29, 2007 4:39am

Objection (1)

Phew!

Objection (2)

'Self-evident'-obvious without explanation. Hence, if you need to explain it, it is not self-evident. QED.

And if is not self-evident then it is the product of the imagination of individuals.

I think the term you seek is: 'self-justifying'. Hardly the self-flagellation I would expect from a HUMBLE follower of god.

(3)-'But nothing can be reduced from [passive] to [active] except by the [active]'.

Again a circular response. If god is active, to change the passive to active, then something [BY YOUR LOGIC] must be 'activate' to god's passiveness!
So there must be something to set off god, and hence god is not the top-banana! QED.

It doesn't have to be infinite, either, I'm only taking about a step back [in front of] god! It's creator. Who of course is none other than MAN [the mischievous].

Cod's wallop. This is like reading the bible [or a legal document], talk about hot air! Both of which have their own self-interests at heart.

Some of your 'Newtonian' movers need their 'moments' sorted out.

Take nuclear decay. A spontaneous process, where say uranium converts to plutonium. No 'outside' force can [stop] the U-235 from decaying AND no 'outside' force causes it. Oh an uncaused cause! Quick get the bible to see what it says! The originally moving matter coalesces but in doing so becomes unstable. No more tricky than a cloud that fills up with condensation until it rains.

You wouldn't ask: 'Which came first the sun, sea or water? You need all 3. There is no 'rain' without the 3.

And if a stationary object explodes into many piece

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 30, 2007 5:16am

'x to power -1'=? That proves everything. We are done now, end of conversation.

Evidence for Intelligent Design

So, how do I connect the dots between the organic and inorganic world? Evidence for Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any mechanical machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer.

Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level.

Back in the mid-1700's, David Hume successfully invalidated the "machine" analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level. However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines - even to the deepest, molecular level!

It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and computer technology that Hume's criticism has been finally invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing… In every direction the biochemist ga

TOM, x to the power of -1
January 30, 2007 8:23am

Ever heard of Avogadro TOM?

N(a)= 600,000,,000,000,,000,000,,000,000

6*10^23.........Makes your odds look INFANTILE.

That number is the number of atoms in 12g of C-12. Can YOU figure out the number of atoms of carbon needed to make a 'you'?

49C6 = 13,983,816 [casio.fx-991MS]. That's the odds of winning the uk lottery, AND SOMETIMES WE EVEN GET multiple WINNERS.

13983816*52000000 = 727158432000000 = 7.27*10^14.

6*10^23 / 7.27*10^14 = 825,,129,674.1

So you fangasmorphical odds are 825 million times LESS than the number of atoms in JUST 12g of C-12.

Good luck with those tickets!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 31, 2007 6:07am

Ok...where did we come from? Who supplied the cosmic dust for earth to exist? How did that all happen?

What is sin good for… are you kidding me?

Let’s suppose I have an extra marital affair with your wife Neil you got a problem with that? I mean its all relative isn’t it? Is it o.k. for people to kidnap children and keep them locked up for their own sick designs, or is that also just relative. Is this o.k. with you or is it what works for you is fine as long as it doesn’t bother me?

Mark, USA
January 31, 2007 2:40pm

Ok...where did god come from?Who supplied it's cosmetics?

Well I view you having an affair with my wife like this...It's similar to a displacement reaction in chemistry. For example carbon reacts with oxygen that was joined to iron, to leave poor old iron all by himself!

And that's it.

If my wife wanted 'another' I'd let her go...even if it was hard...that's life!

I don't OWN her, unlike those religious mentalities, who make man the prime and everything else does his biding...wrong!

As far as kidnapping, murder etc. I personally think it's wrong...but I still hold it's subjective...some people get a kick from it...even when they're caught, they don't show remorse...why?...because, to THEM, they haven't done anything 'wrong'.

Just like a vampire, who HAS TO EAT. They don't choose it anymore than you choose lettuce in stead of 'rare' steak!

You have to eat, what you eat is irrelevant. No choice!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
February 02, 2007 11:43am

Oh TOM x to the -1, viruses my friend connect the 'living' to the 'non-living'.See the faith killing section.I don't wish to repeat repeat myself!

You know, a lesser anti-christ would have taken his 'false' fangs out, put them in some fresh virgin's blood and gone to bed!...but here I am.

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
February 02, 2007 3:59pm

Neil:
I see, there are no consequences for our actions we can do what ever pleases us because it "subjective". I'm sure everyone buys that in the world of science.

Back to the question that you did not answer.

Where did we come from?

Who supplied the cosmic dust for earth to exist?

How did that all happen?

I sure would like to know my learned friend.

Mark, USA
February 04, 2007 1:14pm

Very clever, you answered it yourself!

WE came from 'space dust' that gravity pulled together in all its fascinating ways!

'Who' supplied it?- no-one, no-person, no-thing...

If god created, then in that act IT must have diminished.

If god started the Universe, IT must have been started by something. WHAT?

Scientific research, physics particularly, shows us that when matter is 'destroyed' it 'changes' to energy; as matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Which, by the way, contradicts religion, in that the concept of 'original creation' becomes meaningless. Ergo no god required; IT's on the scrap heap.

But I fail to see what this has to do with sin!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
February 07, 2007 3:58am

Mark USA, I've just finished reading a very interesting article in the section on abiogenesis [Mike MK may want to read this also], by someone who knows more than me about biochemistry...

It turns out that Adenine, found in DNA, RNA, and ATP, a pure base has been SYNTHESISED from ammonium cyanide [in the lab!].

Turns out we're getting there............

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
February 07, 2007 5:27am

Nobody knows how we got here, we are just a type of species that ended up in this parallel universe.

scott morgan, pontypridd
February 14, 2007 10:10am

Hello Neil and Michael:

I have more to say about sin.

Objection 1. It would seem that every sin includes an action. For as merit is compared with virtue, even so is sin compared with vice. Now there can be no merit without an action. Neither, therefore, can there be sin without action.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) [Cf. De Vera Relig. xiv.]: So "true is it that every sin is voluntary, that, unless it be voluntary, it is no sin at all." Now nothing can be voluntary, save through an act of the will. Therefore every sin implies an act.

Objection 3. Further, if sin could be without act, it would follow that a man sins as soon as he ceases doing what he ought. Now he who never does something that he ought to do, ceases continually doing what he ought. Therefore it would follow that he sins continually; and this is untrue. Therefore there is no sin without an act.

On the contrary, It is written (James 4:17): "To him . . . who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is a sin." Now "not to do" does not imply an act. Therefore sin can be without act.

I answer that, The reason for urging this question has reference to the sin of omission, about which there have been various opinions. For some say that in every sin of omission there is some act, either interior or exterior--interior, as when a man wills "not to go to church," when he is bound to go--exterior, as when a man, at the very hour that he is bound to go to church (or even before), occupies himself in such a way that he is hindered from going. This seems, in a way, to amount to the same as the first, for whoever wills one thing that is incompatible with this other, wills, con

mike, us
February 23, 2007 4:00pm

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis? He was, as you probably know, an atheist that converted to Christianity. His treatises on pain, sin, etc. might make you rethink your premise. One other thing, when you say Christianity, do you mean Catholicism and the host (1,000's) of religions that broke away--Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.? If so, your premise is skewed. You can't base all religions on the theology of one church--especially one that has a long history of corruption, murder (in the name of God????), debauchery, etc. Read some C.S. Lewis, and see if you don't feel a little different about sin.

Barry, USA
February 28, 2007 10:24am

You can't base all religions on the theology of one church--especially one that has a long history of corruption, murder (in the name of God????), debauchery, etc.

True Barry however, I do not feel the Catholic Church is the only source of evil in our day. Furthermore the Catholic Church was corrupt 500 years ago I do not think that same corruption and murder exist today. I do think that some Catholic priests have problems as do the same percentage of Protestant clergy, however, I think the church in its self is not corrupt. The Catholic Church is built on a tradition of 2000 years that of which has been borrowed by our Protestant brothers and sisters and incorporated into own traditions over the last 500 years. A question to my Protestant friends is if Jesus said upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Matthew 16: 18) what church was Jesus speaking about? Did God make a mistake here since we now have 2000 denomination? Which one is the right church? What church is the one true faith for over 200 years? And if it has to prevail against the "gates of hell" would that not mean there would be a schism, a falling away from the one true church and a start of many false teachings.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

And how about by faith alone am I saved. Just let me step over the man in the street with no coat, no food, no money, on my way to worship. That works doesn’t is. Humankind is our work, it is a way to show God that we love him by helping those who cannot help themselves. Just read James, Proverbs, and John , faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James, US
March 01, 2007 8:27am

Hi James -

Part of my point is that helping the man in the street is a great thing to do, regardless of whether or not there are invisible magicians in the sky. Pleasing a god should not be the only reason to do this.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
March 01, 2007 8:39am

Ah Ha!

A classic, from above, to show the TRUTH of the faithers corruption in terms of MORAL values...

James,US:''Humankind{ness} is our work, it is a way to {show god that we love 'IT'} by helping those...''

If I, as a BIOPHILE or HUMANIST wish to help someone, it is because I empathise with their struggle! Not to please some phantom of the imagination...

This shows how de-Humanised religious people truly are...

In this case I have to THANK god...for if 'IT' wasn't there as an 'idea' in the brains of these delusional minds then: god help us all!!

The greatest fear I have for 'killing faith in IT' is that it would release THE BEAST inside all these faithers!

This is why education has to be so important to our future mind's state...

Ponder it well...Griff!

Neil Griffiths, Cardiff, UK
March 03, 2007 4:54am

I can't believe no one has taken you up on the hot tub yet. Who can resist a cold margarita? Much more valuable than my top.

My take on the rest of this? Do what you do every day because *you* think its the right thing to do. Otherwise your actions are meaningless because they aren't really heartfelt. They are motivated by fear.

Holly, Renton, WA
March 19, 2007 11:18pm

Is it better to torture a child, or to hug that child?
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral.

Where Do You Stand?
Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine for yourself which position to hold where morality is concerned, you must first determine what you believe about the origin of life. Do you believe life evolved or do you believe life was created? Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter. If you believe we are created, however, moral relativism cannot work. Creation implies a Creator. All th

tom, us
March 21, 2007 5:56pm

The main point that is wrong with the above is that the religious person, claiming to receive a list of do's and dont's, then chooses to accept some and not others, leaving it to judgement day to square-up with god.

Example:

A train controller directs an out-of-control train, full of people, 2 ways...

1- into the path of another 'full' train, or

2- into the path of a 'single' rail worker.

(None are related in any way to others).

Which would you pick?

Example:

3- A doctor chooses 1 patient for life saving therapy and lets the other 9 die, due to the fact there's only one heart left.

4- A doctor goes into a bar, kills a person, removes 10 organs and saves 10 people.

Which would you pick?

Maybe we could run this as a short test...

I pick 2 and 3...

I'm an atheist...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 22, 2007 7:37am

Oh Lord, say unto us...

God Will Kill the Children of Sinners


God:"If even then you remain hostile toward Me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)"...

Ah, thank you most wise and compassionate one, HOW could we doubt your glory?

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 26, 2007 1:02am

Neil:
Since you do not believe in God or that the bible is the inspired word of God why do you hate He that does not exist in your mind? It really does not make any sense to me at all.

tom, us
March 28, 2007 12:49pm

A good question...

Personally I don't hate THAT which does not exist. I hate:-

1- lies

2- bullying

3- branding children with preconceived names or even red hot pokers

4- willful neglect of this true life in favour of a dream of everlasting life

5- hippocrates

6- wars based on religions, most of them are

7- Racism, anti-feminism, gay-ism, gentile-ism

So, in short, it's the effects of the affect I hate. The true affect is simply an imaginary character. It's like basing your life on the teachings of Peter Pan...Sad.

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 29, 2007 5:09am

Could someone please explain this one to me...

"11, When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. "

If this is saying what I think it is...

Griff...

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 29, 2007 4:37pm

The porn of the bible and the demonising of women by hateful men...Notice the father of these 2 'slags' was totally innocent of their evil doings...

"30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father." 33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [1] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [2] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today. "

Genesis 19:30-38

Be assured, religion HATES women...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 29, 2007 5:23pm

Griff:

Religion hates women?

Eve the mother of mankind

Mary the mother of the Most High God.

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.
Amen.

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

1 Mary Magdalene as a disciple of Jesus (Luke 8:1-3)
Mary is described as a woman whom Jesus cured of an unspecified illness. She led a group of women who provided for Jesus and his followers from their own financial resources.
2 Mary at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40-41

tom, us
March 30, 2007 4:11pm

2 counter examples...wow...my head is spinning...Both named Mary!

Depending o upon who you speak with Mary Magdalene was either 1- A hoar, 2- A princess ( which is why she had money and 3- the wife of the MAN Jesus. He probably did marry her since he too was royalty...descended from kings...

Hardly the 'poor little infant born in a stable!'

More like the son of a rich king raised to inherit what they had lost in the first place!

He was made out to be poor simply to appeal to the poor masses of people, so they would do his fighting for him...

Griff...leaving space to breath!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 31, 2007 5:27am

Griff:

So much anger and hatred inside of you. Just reading all of your posts is a testament to how seathing anger and hatred you have inside of you.
What is the foundation of all the hatred toward those who believe from you who does not.
Can we not merely disagree?
Instead all I see is hatred, anger, the need to belittle those that disagree with you.
You want to mock what is sacred to many and I find you to be highly offensive.
But let me ask you this...what if you got it all wrong about God? Could this ever be?
I would bet that you are never wrong are you. Your too proud to admit that. I am certain that the people who know you think your a know it all, proud as a peacock spewing your sewage of discontent and never looking back at all the people you have harmed in you wake.
I cannot stand a proud man they are intollerable and yet they never know how intollerable they can be. Ask your wife, if you have one, what a pompass arrogant ass your are. Or your friends, if you have any, what they think of your writings, it would make anyone sick of what an boastful, vainglory ass you are.

What if your wrong Griff, all this for nothing.
And what if I'm wrong I have lost nothing...I'll end up in the same place as you cosmic dust. But if your wrong and God does exist?

Go ahead spew away and don't think about the last paragraph because it says you might be wrong and the proud cannot stand the thought can they.

tom, us
April 01, 2007 1:08pm

My word, I've lost count of the number of times I've been wrong...like doing the pendulum experiment and getting g=18.7? Don't ask me how!

Wrong? How can I be wrong? Like the time when I thought some workers had entered my house and while there stole my necklace (a gift from my WIFE). I went ape! I threatened to get them arrested etc.etc. Then my wife found it in my shorts pocket...opps!

As a scientist I ADMIT when I'm in error...you faithers should try it sometime. And as for 'edging' my bets...Well no! But a good scientist will say this..."If there is enough evidence {any} for a god then of course we'll be happy to ACCEPT the result of that experiment!

My hypothesis is this...If there is no evidence for something, let's say an intergalactic-fart propelled cow; it uses methane under pressure to travel the Universe bringing cheese to us. I mean...how else would we know how to make cheese unless a greater intelligence had given us the cheese making gene?

Do you dispute the Cheese God? I have proof! There is cheese in my fridge! I feel sorry for all those who do not believe in the Holy Trinity...The Cow, The Cheese God ...and The Udder One!

If you try to stop the Cheese 'Spread', I will have to wage a Milky War upon you!

Griff...The reason I have just 'spewed' all this is that I HATE CHEESE!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 02, 2007 3:24pm

Said by Tom: "And what if I'm wrong I have lost nothing...I'll end up in the same place as you cosmic dust. But if your wrong and God does exist?"

I always find this argument amusing. To me it sounds like you are saying that the reason you believe in god is becuase you are afraid of god.

What else do you do because you afraid of god? Sit through church? Pay tithing? Read the bible? Make sure you say enough prayers? Make plans for suicide bombers to visit public places?

Also, which god should I hedge my bets with? There is more than one of them plotting to do unspeakable things to me after I die just becuase I'm not convinced of their actuality (they sound like petty bastards!)

The god I was taught to believe in valued honesty of thought, character, and speech quite a bit. Perhaps it's ironic that in order to live up to any semblance of that ideal I need to admit that I don't believe in them.

Holly Knapp, Renton, WA
April 04, 2007 7:16pm

From the Joseph Smith History 1:15-20 LDS (Mormons)

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) — and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time."

See, completely made up!
But also you notice the "other faiths" are "all wrong"...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 07, 2007 1:09pm

You have got to be kidding... Joseph Smith book of Mormon.
Well.....that proves everything let's just follow the Griffmister he's got all the answers. Next week we will examine the Davinci Code! I can hardly wait.

tom, us
May 18, 2007 11:31am

This is for Griff: I mostly think your posts are very intelligent and amusing, too, but I just want to say that something you wrote in the post on the whole Moral Center thing made me sick and I was shocked no one had the balls to call you on it-- basically, your thing about saying "Jews reap what they sow," and all the awful stuff in the Jewish bible is why people don't like Jews and the Jews deserve what's been done to them over the years. Then you went on to say that Jews are killing all these Palestinians, etc.
First of all, Jew=Israeli? Since when? I've never even been there.

I'm ethnically Jewish, but I don't believe in the religion. I don't think that would've mattered to the Nazis in 1940s Poland or Germany. I would've still got gassed if I lived back then. Plenty of aethists of Jewish descent were.

As for reaping what you sow? Nobody has a choice what ethnicity or religion they're born into. There is no excuse for the killing of a person who has not harmed anyone else, no matter what holy book that person chooses to follow.

Sciluv, Toronto
June 05, 2007 8:20pm

Sin,my dear apostates, has a threefold purpose. 1)To keep the manufacturers of rosary beads in employment
2) To allow the streets to be clear of errant elderly drivers for at least an hour on Sunday mornings,thus giving other drivers some small respite
3)To give senior Catholic college ladies something to rebel against (this being my personal favorite)
4)To facilitate the location of perpetrators of undesirable, socially unacceptable and plain illegal venal sins committed against the purest members of the flock by locating them at the front of a congregation, attempting to cleanse the sins of the less pure.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
June 06, 2007 4:18am

Sciluv...Thanks but could you tell me exactly where the post is as I've looked & can't find it....

I'd love to re-read it first before commenting...but I'll have a stab.

I think the point I would have been "trying" to make was that WE hear so much of these nasty muslims killing jews (not mention catholics killing jews by the millions -- yes I mean Hitler)...Now then my point is that they all (faithers) tend to call the others "the bad guys" but the reason the muslims hate the jews is that the jews committed acts of wanton genocide towards the muslims many 1000's of yrs ago...see book of moses.

In point of fact I was shocked to read that book and imagine the brutality of men/women/children being killed..because god told the jews "this land I give to you"...truly sickening.

It's the "faith" I am referring to as "getting what it deserves"...but then that is as true for jews as it is for muslims and catholics and protestants...They all "ask for it"...from the other faiths, by the way, not from atheists!

The faiths all elevate themselves above all others and this causes wars.

In short FAITH causes wars.

Griff.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 06, 2007 11:49am

Article 1. Whether the object of faith is the First Truth?
Objection 1. It would seem that the object of faith is not the First Truth. For it seems that the object of faith is that which is proposed to us to be believed. Now not only things pertaining to the Godhead, i.e. the First Truth, are proposed to us to be believed, but also things concerning Christ's human nature, and the sacraments of the Church, and the condition of creatures. Therefore the object of faith is not only the First Truth.

Objection 2. Further, faith and unbelief have the same object since they are opposed to one another. Now unbelief can be about all things contained in Holy Writ, for whichever one of them a man denies, he is considered an unbeliever. Therefore faith also is about all things contained in Holy Writ. But there are many things therein, concerning man and other creatures. Therefore the object of faith is not only the First Truth, but also created truth.

Objection 3. Further, faith is condivided with charity, as stated above (I-II, 62, 3). Now by charity we love not only God, who is the sovereign Good, but also our neighbor. Therefore the object of Faith is not only the First Truth.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that "faith is about the simple and everlasting truth." Now this is the First Truth. Therefore the object of faith is the First Truth.

I answer that, The object of every cognitive habit includes two things: first, that which is known materially, and is the material object, so to speak, and, secondly, that whereby it is known, which is the formal aspect of the object. Thus in the science of geometry, the conclusions are what is known materially, while the formal aspect of the scie

Mike, US
June 08, 2007 3:11pm

Objection to objection 2: A person who does NOT believe in the writ (or anything else) is NOT an unbeliever... they are a NON-believer. Meaning 'do not' believe rather than, 'believe' there is not! Sooo the 2 are not equal and opposite but unequal and opposite. Only faithers try to equate science and religion; science relies on evidence, religion on 'blind' faith and shear ignorance to truth.

Objection 2 to whole of the above plagiarism...please finish a quote and reference it; people will think more of you!

Griff...What is scie? See?

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 08, 2007 11:48pm

Actually it is a sin to say religion is not equal to science...it is indeed a theory of the universe...just a really, really bad one!

Kid:"Sir.How does a rainbow from?"

Faither:"It is a message from god to us, to tell us that IT will not flood us and kill us anymore; my son."

Kid:"Oh? I thought it was due to refraction of light, produced by the differential velocities of light entering a denser medium."

Faither:"It's you that are dense and what's all this about a fortune teller?"

Kid:"And sir. Is it true that you'll go blind if you masturbate?"

Faither:"Cum over here where I can see you...my eyes aren't as good as they were!"

Griff..... It's not a sin to live; so live!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
July 04, 2007 5:06pm

But it is a sin to abuse children... as the catholic church has been doing in the US (it's been reported) for the past 60 yrs (and who knows how much longer!)... after all they've been around for the best part of 2 THOUSAND YRS!!!

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 09, 2007 12:58am

@Neil Griffiths
Mary Magdalene was a hoar? As in hoarfrost? Not clear about that.

I would be most surprised that the Books of Moses discussed any action taken by the ancient Hebrews against Muslims, as Islam was only founded about two thousand years after the writing of the Pentateuch.

But the evil sins of those damn Jews coming back to haunt them does make for a lovely excuse for antisemitism, doesn't it? (I do wonder then those Muslims are going to get theirs for the violent spread of their religion... or maybe we should just judge individuals on their behavior in their circumstances, and stop attributing rights and wrongs to arbitrary labels we choose to apply to groups of people.)

Marc Naimark, Paris, France
April 05, 2008 1:31pm

Wow, that was a wild one, Brian. Very funny--I like your podcasts best when your personality and personal opinions shine through.

Mike Smith, Albuquerque, NM
April 20, 2008 11:40am

Sorry, Marc, I don't follow. Or perhaps it's you that has got the wrong end of my stick...

If I called Mary a Hooar, I may have been referring to the other Mary (mother of Jesus) BUT I took it back under debate, as I was made to see the error of my ways: how dare I lay the blame at the feet of that poor woman who was 'raped' by that zoophyle, referred to as, god.

As far as I'm aware Mrs.Christ (aka Mary Magdalene) was a good girl.

And as for 'nit-picking' I'm sure we all know very well why the muslims hate the jews(& the christians, too).

"Do as to others as you would have them do unto you..."

Talk about pissing into the wind and getting 'your own' back!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 27, 2008 5:08pm

Ok that episode is wrong on so many levels. Where to begin I don't even know. Well the first couple of paragraphs about sin is completely false. To a christian, well more to God, all sins are equal. Whether you kill your friend, or if you tell a lie, It's all the same to God. And not one sin can separate you from God, if you are a Christian. So i'm guessing you got your "sin laws" from a catholic, which they believe that you must confess your sins over and over everytime you commit one. And if you don't you will go to Hell, if you die before you get a chance to go to confession. This is virtually impossible to do becuase we sin every moment of everyday, it's hard to live a non-sinful life and be human. It's just part of it. But since Jesus died for us, we have been forgiven for all of our sins, past present and future. Wow. You really need to get your facts straight about christianity...and catholism

Stephanie, Kansas
May 08, 2008 8:53am

Let's analyse this Faither mentality:
Stephanie (and Mike on another page):"But since Jesus died for us, we have been forgiven for all of our sins, past present and future. Wow."

Yeh - Wow... couldn't say it better!
Also:-

Stephanie (Religion as a moral Centre):"Living a "moral life" is something that comes naturally to most people, it just comes easier to Christians."

Let's take 2 examples of 'good' christians' who were 'allowed by god' to commit horrific deeds of evil; AND, since "not one sin will stand between god and a christian", then we can be sure that these 2 lovely people will be sitting there at IT's side, in heaven!

1- Adolf Hitler

2- Josef Fritzl

Both from Austria as it happens. and they have the same number of letters in their name!

A sign, perhaps!
Well if those are the sorts of people that IT wants in heaven, then I hope I'm going somewhere else!

So Stephanie, a moral life came easily to those 2 christian-wretches of humanity, did it?

I think not!

When you're wrong - and you are wrong - then you're wrong!

AND so to the hilarious theoretical point about Jesus.

1- he died to save us- no he didn't. he can't die can he?

2- he sacrificed himself-what sacrifice? he's meant to be a god so he can't live/die, & can't give a life he doesn't have! his life was not a real life,if he was a god. Only a normal person can be said to sacrifice life;so he must be 'just' a man, after all.

AND if all sin was removed, we're all OKAY!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 23, 2008 8:20am

Whoa, Brian...I've been a Christian for more than 30 years and I've never heard anything explained so poorly...or incorrectly. Whoever shared all those rules and regulations with you must have been involved in at least ONE of the things you described as sin -- drunkenness! An intelligent, sober person -- someone familiar with the true tenants of Christianity -- would never describe their faith the way you seem to understand it. I know your job is to open a Pandora's box or two, and normally I find your points well researched, but with this one you didn't do your homework: If I didn't know what you are attempting to convey, I wouldn't realize the article is supposed to be about Christians and our faith. But hey, contrary to what you believe, or what you think WE believe, it isn't a sin to be wrong, so you don't have to worry that your summation is incorrect. And speaking as a Christian, I don't know one person who ever made the decision to find out if Jesus is for real just because people debated their faith online. It's a personal issue; I won't force my beliefs on you, just try to get a few of them correct if you want to show me that I'm wrong.

Mary, Stockbridge, GA
May 29, 2008 11:28pm

Typical of many... don't criticize Brian without stating specifics. Evidence please!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 31, 2008 5:40am

Griffiths, I tried to wade through your jumbled and angry remarks, but decided to use my time more wisely...washed the family dog. Read my last sentence again; I'm not going to change your mind and you certainly have said nothing that will alter my personal beliefs. As an adult, I made a choice to become a Christian -- no one forced me. I could list volumes of reasons, none of which you would accept or even believe, so why bother. You like to debate issues...no problem there. I just know that for me, some issues aren't negotiable. I wasn't criticizing Brian; he's an intelligent and interesting writer. That's the very reason I wrote -- to tell him this isn't how Christianity works; he's been misinformed. Your challenge to me was for evidence -- frankly, I said nothing that needs to be proven. I stated remarks referring to my personal Christian knowledge, something you don't share. If you feel you need evidence you can use the same source that convinced me: the Bible. I learned years ago that those who really want an answer -- about anything, not just faith -- will find one; those who just want to argue won't listen to anything anyway, so why waste both of our time. Have a peaceful and satisfying life adventure.

Mary, Stockbridge, GA
May 31, 2008 1:56pm

Reference:-The New Testament and Psalms - Gideons bible.

Page 133...

"A dead girl and a sick woman"

21- "When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake..."

Here, I must admit I stopped reading, to ponder why-on-Earth a 'man' who could walk on water, would waste time using a boat?

That's a bit like trying to solve logarithms in your head, when all the time, there's a calculator on your desk!

Now, look here - Stockbridge, using a surname, bluntly, like that can cause offence... (none taken!)

Jumbled? ... Explain.

Angry? ... Misinformation, down right lies and hypocrisy can do that to a person!

And as for proving anything... Please inform us where exactly you have differences of opinion with the author - Brian.

If you tell someone they are wrong, then please state exactly what is wrong; rather than simply writing a 'throw away' comment about someone else's misinformation.

That's just lazy!

Put you feet up dear, you must be tired...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 05, 2008 2:47am

I would simply state that, contrary to the author's statements, a great many men women and children have indeed been hurt by a great many of the practices listed in his article as sins anger, greed, lust (and not the lustful inclination of one truly committed lover to another but objectifying lust that dehumanizes another person and breaks them down to a simple tool for personal enjoyment), jealously, hate, addiction, murder, lying (which, though admittedly a constant thorn, I have no illusions about those times when my lying has hurt another either directly or indirectly)

Certainly most all religions have taken the idea of sin to the extreme.And it's easy to get caught up on the whole 'sending people to Hell' bandwagon...far easier than actually dealing with my problems.Still saying these things do not lie at the root of the real evils of the world (abuse and murder of children, genocides et. al) is an equally false assumption.

Sadly, unlike many of the articles up here, this one does seem to be greatly lacking in real research and filled with a great amount of assumption about what some faiths actually teach.

As for some of the comments regarding extremely fundamental interpretations of scripture.The 272 or so characters I have left are not nearly sufficient to provide the kind of biblical interpretation needed to clarify some very badly quoted examples.

Still.I do like the sight.I'll be back in spite of one articles flaws.(And I don't think Brian's going to Hell) ;o)

Eric, Regina, Sask. Canada
July 04, 2008 12:53pm

Eric:"And I don't think Brian's going to Hell."

Damn it, that means I'll be all alone down there!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 08, 2008 4:26pm

Sin is the lack of devine character within ourselves. Since God is all that is good (omnipotent) and cannot do anything wrong, anything that is not good is not of God and is sin. Or, anything that is not of God is sin. Thus, the absense of devine character is sin, in its simplest and purist form. Everything else comes from this point. With this logic, it is easier to see how we all share 'original sin', and require the body and blood of Jesus Christ, through his sacrifice on the cross, if we are to engage in an effort to know God on a personal, more intimate level. For, it is only when we truly know God as a friend, that we can overcome sin, because our desires reflect that of our Savior, in whom we have a living example of faith.

reader, california
September 08, 2008 3:48pm

In response to reader.

But what is God?
God is fundamentally undefinable.
Thus, sin is fundamentally undefinable.

nathan, Baton Rouge, LA
September 08, 2008 9:42pm

Dear Reader:

The terrible thing about arguing from religion, is that it always goes in vicious circles. God is good (which does not mean omnipotent), god creates world and Lucifer, ergo world and Lucifer are good? But world is full of sin? So it's not created by god? Oops. Where'd that circle go?

Too many fallacies to deal with.

scott peterson, Pohang, South Korea
September 26, 2008 12:11am

"Drunkenness and... male adulthood."
You know, that's the exact same thing my cardiologist said: "Exercise regularly, eat healthy foods, smoke, and get totally wasted. If you don't die of some heart/respiratory disease, your liver failure should do the trick." All consideration of sins aside, it's still a pretty stupid claim to vindicate nasty habits.

"In fact... impure thoughts."
Maybe... but I am still reminded of the saying "the thought precedes the action." However, I do understand your point that some thoughts are so unpredictable or unavoidable that it is unfair to label it as a sin. The REAL sin comes when you dwell or muse on that impure thought instead of dismissing it - or worse, follow it up with an action. Either way, impure thoughts still corrupt your mind and outward behavior.

"Take social... all participants."
Nearly all individuals born to this earth posses two "God-like" powers: the power to create life and the power to terminate life. I find an abuse of either of these powers to be inexcusable. Sex should only be between a man and a woman - married - for the purpose of creating a family or showing love for one another. Abusing these powers will bring undesired temp./eternal consequences such as unplanned pregnancies, STD's, the dissolving of families, internal psychological conflict, etc.

Brian, regardless of your eternal destination, your actions will have their consequences. I have more to say, but for now I will just say thanks for 95% of the podcasts!

David Brunner Halliday (aka - Nerd of the Night), Mesa, AZ, USA
November 12, 2008 10:46pm

I believe that doubt is a great sin in Islam, at least doubt about any religious issues, anything at all contained in the Koran. This is according to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel

Amy M. Cools, Oakland, CA
December 15, 2008 12:50am

"Said by Tom: "And what if I'm wrong I have lost nothing...I'll end up in the same place as you cosmic dust. But if your wrong and God does exist?"

I always find this argument amusing. To me it sounds like you are saying that the reason you believe in god is becuase you are afraid of god."

I always find this argument amusing because it presupposes a specific god, the one of the believer presenting the argument.
But, it fails to take into account another possibility-that there is a god, but not the one the believer believes in. Thus leaving the believer as screwed as the non-believer if it's a god who requires devotion to prevent damnation.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
December 22, 2008 6:37pm

Well I doubt that those islamic tossers who flew into the history books in 9/11 didn't feel doubt as they approached their "final destination".

I bet they were too scared to look out the window and pissed their pants, thinking about what doesn't lie ahead...

Losers!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 06, 2009 11:55am

I don't believe in God, but I do believe that people should not commit sins. My list of sins is obviously not the same as any church's, nor is my definition.

You should ask yourself, why do people classify certain things as sin? I can think of only one actual (as opposed to philosophical or religious) reason - social control. We label things sin because we don't want people doing them. (Or, we want people to do them so we can control them through guilt, or we at least want to control them by subtly manipulating their actions and thoughts.)

I once asked a Hindu why cows were considered sacred in India. He, and educated man, speculated that it was the simplest and surest way to get Indians to protect cows, for the long term benefit of milk, instead of the short term benefit of meat. I think churches label things sin for reasons like that. It's bad for you, or for society, so don't do it. It's a sin.

I look at it from a practical perspective - a sin is something you shouldn't be doing. This includes the obvious suspects, like murder and rape. But it also includes things like lying to others for personal benefit. I don't think I'll go to Hell for it (I don't believe in Hell, of course), but I do believe I'm hurting others - and actually, I believe that I'm hurting myself (although in a very subtle, potentially only long-term way). So a sin is something that's bad for everyone involved.

I suggest reading "Children of the Lie" for an excellent "rational" definition of sin.

Billy Kang, Long Beach, California
February 27, 2009 11:11am

Man, I'm so glad that Brian doesn't talk politics anymore. He's a political imbocile.

Anthony, Perk
March 12, 2009 7:07pm

Sin is one of the biggest topics of the Bible, so it's a big topic of God. Ok, for us believers...

It's actually defined as "disobedience to, or rebellion against, God." The main purpose is that we are to recognize our flaws (given the ability to chose right or wrong) and to know what God thinks of this. He hates sin but He doesn't hate the sinner. The story of Jesus is proof of that, if it's a story of anything.

Brian, you stated "Outside of a religious context, the word sin is, for all practical purposes, meaningless." Well, that seems to me to be somewhat vague and meaningless as an explanation. For example, most of the world has a religion of some sort, which involves the concept of sin, which implies a moral guideline. So how is that impractical, if religious people everywhere try to avoid sin or at least seek a resolution/forgiveness?

One last thing: please don't cover all Christians with the same blanket. Osama bin Laden blames westerners as Christians who are responsible for the grand sin of the Crusades. Not true. That was the medaevil Catholic church, not the Bible-believing born-again believers. Just the same, I am as much a sinner as anybody else - God does not distinguish a level or flavor of sin, no big size or small size. But then, the Christian gospel (the very word means "good news") shows the way of appeasing God for our sins. I guarantee you won't find any denominations in the Bible who outright condemn you to hell simply for habitual sinning.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario, Canada
May 03, 2009 9:26pm

What did the actor Will Smith reply when someone was trying to bash Scientology?
Have you ever even studied it? Have you read all the material?

Brian this article reads like you just came back from some drunken orgy and you wrote a personal tirade more than an investigative skeptical article.

Actually many of your anti-religion rants read that way.

Mortal sin and deadly sin are constructs of man and of certain branches of religion.

They are not a universal belief of Christianity.

You would do yourself well to read the bible, but hmm which one?
Well for you I’d suggest any one.

Also read the non-biblical “scriptures” and study how the “modern” bible became to be.

At that point I am sure you will have a greater understanding of “God, religion and spirituality.”

You then won’t be bringing a knife to a gunfight!

I also dare say you might be swayed to “believe” a little more than you do.

Christopher, Your House/Eating your left over eggrolls
June 20, 2009 10:09pm

Okay, I have read all the books of Scientology. I've read all the Narcanon pamphlets. I read the articles in their magazines. I've read the stuff the CCHR written about it. I've seen all the videos made by Golden Era productions. I've even seen the secret documents that Scientology did not want people to see. It looked like a good organization on the surface.

Then when I dug deeper, I realized that their tenants were downright nutty. All of our evil desires came from spirits that were blown up in volcanoes 75 million years ago and disseminated all over the planet. They were force to settle on our cave dwelling ancestors. That is why we suffer and have pain.

Their explanation of Jesus Christ is equally as nutty. There was a sound stage where the evil lord Xenu staged the whole thing, from the birth to the ressurrection. All of it was staged for our benefit.

Once I dismissed scientology for being insane, I realized that I could not hold onto my old christianity anymore. I could not justify why Xenu was a cray thing and at the same time think that Virgin births, walking on water, parting the red sea, and a man living inside a whale were completely rational.

I have come to realize that the only sins that I should care about are the ones that stem from courtesy, like washing hands before eating, keeping your body clean, and not using coins to pay the strippers, that sort of thing.

Mithras be praised.

John McGee, Imperial, Ca
June 21, 2009 9:26am

oh John you are missing so much!

I've seen strippers pick up a stack of quarters with a certain part of the female anatomy.

Not as fun as paper money!!

Christopher, Your House/Eating your left over eggrolls
June 21, 2009 11:55am

Pictures, or it didnt happen.

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
June 21, 2009 7:42pm

Hey,
One wise old person once told me that no matter how many societies or groups try to deny the concept of sin, there is one thing everybody cannot avoid; guilt.

Now... I wonder where and how that emotion comes into play..?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 23, 2009 2:15pm

What's guilt go to do with anything? Guilt is an emotion and emotions are expressions of brain function. I feel no guilt over many things that fundamentalists (of all persuasions) would call sin, including dire, unforgivable kill on sight sin. At the same time I feel guilty over stupid little things that aren't even my fault/responsibility. If sin is, by definition, the breaking of a religious rule then it's a pointless useless concept in today's world....until someone gives me credible evidence that their particular set of rules (out of the hundreds/thousands available) are the correct ones.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 22, 2009 1:57am

Adrian, in general and in principle, I agree with you.

But humans (all of us) do at times suffer guilt. I think I mean that we all at times feel that we have done a wrong. Why? Maybe because we have hurt somebody with our foolishness.

Adrian, you should examine yourself and specify what things you are feeling a bit queesy about. Surely you cannot say that you have so far live an exemplary life and have never done a single wrongful deed of any kind, can you?

Above, you mentioned two things: "fundamentalist, dire, unforgivable kill on sight sin" and "stupid little things". Yes, those are not your guilts. But there has to be some guilts in your life - little lies, indescretions, cheatings, temper tantrums, bad language that insults others (a f*** you statement), failing to obey a local law (even a speed limit) etc etc. According to the Bible, sin is disobedience to God or lawlessness or rebelliousness. I can't think of a single person who hasn't behaved like this, including yours truly.

Adrian, if there could be only one God (theoretically) and his rules are broken, what does that mean? If there is no God, why are there still wrongs in the world, and do you think people never should feel guilt for those 'wrongs"? It's a valid argument, don't you thnk? It's one of the main questions (tho formulated in different language sometimes) of the human race.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 23, 2009 12:39pm

No, guilt is still not a valid argument for anything supernatural. Psychopaths who have something wrong with their brains or whose mental development was damaged by life events (combined with a genetic predispostion) don't feel guilt over very horrible things. But this is beside the point. What is the causal connection between a brain process reinforced by my upbringing and life events to a thing that hasn't be shown to exist at all. Most people also feel lust...is this an evolved response to encourage reproduction or satan/god trying to trick us into sinning? I'm going to keep thinking all the perverted, lustful thoughts that I have everyday and not feel bad about it for a second, because it is not a sin harming any god's feelings or harming anyone else at all.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 25, 2009 3:52pm

Guilt?

Well. A rational, thinking being is going to think back about decisions and actions. Some of these will be not sins, I'm sure, yet the essence is the guilt feeling you refer to...

I exceed the speed limit and don't feel guilt. Why should I?

Joe, you said above:"According to the Bible, sin is disobedience to God or lawlessness or rebelliousness. I can't think of a single person who hasn't behaved like this, including yours truly."

Yes, a rebel, like Jesus, in his day. So Jesus was a sinner.

Thanks!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 13, 2009 5:43pm

Neil,
Why would you misconstrue something I said?

"...Yes, a rebel, like Jesus, in his day. So Jesus was a sinner..."

I was the rebel, not Jesus. According to the Bible, Jesus was without sin. He fulfilled every 'jot and tittle' of the Law. Of course, you may not believe in the historical Jesus but you also cannot proved he sinned.

If you don't think you have ever had any guilt, for anything, that's your problem or dilemna. It would also mean you believe you are a prefectly moral person, in every way, in every instance. Please inform me how you are able to completely avoid Guilt...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario
October 19, 2009 8:18am

Great podcast, Brian, and I agree with 99.999% of everything you say. We're on the same political and religious page. Since I disagree with one little thing here, I'm going to nitpick it.

I believe that some of the "harmless" sins can potentially cause harm, and some of our societal taboos originate from societal judgment rather than Christian dogma.

Polyamory, for instance. I believe it's disrespectful to your wife. I'm sure she consents--and I certainly don't believe it should be outlawed--but in my experience, women tend to be more monogamous than men. She might have convinced herself that she enjoys seeing you happy with other women. But I wonder if there's some unspoken psychological damage there. Young people experiment with sex and love, and don't form a concrete sense of what they want until later in life. Generalizing, I think women try to please their partner when they're in their 20s, and reject those ideas once they hit sexual maturity in their 30s. Lots of guys want the swinger lifestyle and are open to polyamory, and I think this is biology at work. But women are different.

Is polyamory a sin or a crime? No. Can it be damaging? Yes, I think so, although it's one of those nebulous unspoken things that people don't like to talk about. Peronally, I agree with the societal taboo against it, although I was never raised Christian.

Abby, Austin, TX
February 15, 2010 3:59am

You are disagreeing with a point I didn't make, and wouldn't agree with either. I never said polyamory is free of any pitfalls to a relationship. Obviously it's not.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
February 15, 2010 6:03am

"Take social relationships, including plural marriages ... Take it out of a religious context, and suddenly there's nothing wrong with it."

I say there can be something wrong with it, even outside of a religious context.

"Polyamory is also a victimless crime that for some reason is considered sinful."

I say it's not necessarily victimless. Since most of the sin list (killing, stealing, etc.) rose out of societal mores, I think adultery and (more recently) polyamory wound up on the sin list for the same reason.

Abby, Austin, TX
February 17, 2010 8:42pm

@Howard, i see your astonishment about the "my wife and I" part, but please think before you write a comment here.

This part of the sentence is the object and not the subject. If it was the subject "my wife and I" would have been correct.

Karsten, Germany
February 22, 2010 12:04pm

"And since I cannot honestly say that there are any supernatural invisible flying magicians whom I love more than my own family, idolatry is definitely a sin that I need to commit every minute of every day, as much as I need to draw breath".

This could not have been said better by anyone, anywhere.

Cam, Thunder Bay, ON.
March 02, 2010 9:28am

Participate in enough gangbangs and it will have a toll on you psychologically, im pretty sure of that. Shit even 2pac understood that at some point, he says it in one of his last interviews. If you constantly degrade other people in one form or another it will hurt you in some way because I think we do have some kinda global interconnected consciousness or somethin(unless your a complete psycho:-).

As for truly "victimless sins", I think it depends on how deeply certain beliefs have been ingrained into your head. Then your mind will start punishing itself if it believes you are doing wrong.

Janusz, Hamburg, DE
April 20, 2010 12:13am

Back in the day the major religions were not just church but also state. And like state they enforced laws. A law is profoundly more effective if you believe it has supernatural connotations. Now I think at the very top of the church heirarchies, they fully knew this (it started out with good intentions I think, but then you know what the road to hell is paved with) and set laws as sins, and advovated in things like inquisitions and crusades decreeing it in the name if God thereby giving its partakers divine right to do as they please (which in fact they did, and the uneducated nonsceptical populace fully believed). I think the church heads were the most cynical people ever, and considering how many can use religion as a tool of malevolent control (The stinking rat Peter Popoff for example), I fully advocate sceptical thinking so you are not led around by the nose by cynical people who are looking to rob you through the use of what for some people is a decent way of life, religion. To paraphrase Frank Herbert "To seek freedom is to become a slave to your own desires. To seek discipline is to find freedom". In this case to seek religion is to become a slave to those who would use religion to rule you, and to seek scepticism is to find your own way and not be led around by the nose by anybody.

Cam, Thunder Bay
April 22, 2010 9:16am