Is there a difference between "Immoral" and "Sinful?"

Or are the two synonymous.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Sin is an offense against religious dogma that may or may not include actual immorality. Sin is a victimless crime where immorality usually has real-world consequences.

conservative christians have set the terms for this and by immoral they mean a deep and abiding character defect -- something outside of all that we would consider to good.

by that same token they would say that we are all sinful -- which why they are able to claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner.
they're being phony of course -- but that is their intent.

''immoral'' in this case is the new ''mental disease'' that we used to have to labour under.

however -- i wonder if this isn't even more sinister -- in that i don't believe the ''leaders'' in this conversation -- i don't think they really believe that -- but i think they are using it.

I do agree that they have conflated immorality and sinfulness and mental disorder into one, such that, in their minds, a person who commits a sinful life (in their minds) is certainly immoral and mentally unstable as well.

That said I'm talking about the more extreme fundamentalist/Christian Conservatives; obviously the idea that we are all sinners and therefore dependent on Christ for salvation appeals to Liberal Christians as well (probably more so).

Bryant

especially the pope.

a highly educated invidual -- there is no way that i believe the pope thinks anything but that gay folk are a normal fixture of human experiences.

but he wants to maintain a traditional power -- i.e. not ordaining women, allowing married priests, etc.

jerry and pat and others -- i'm cynical about any of their beliefs -- except that they want power.

manipulating christians and making them feel under assault from ''alien'' forces is a tried and true tactic.

and from my own personal christian beliefs -- i'm very, very liberal about who i think attains salvation -- and i don't think you need jesus to get there. it's just my way -- but i recognize saints in many, many people who aren't christian.

whether one can overall be ethical without being simultaneously moral. It's a designation of right-wrong/black-white thinking. It's employed primarily for self-regulation for the sake of a community at large as well as for keeping one from being impulsive. Morality can be either religious or areligious.

OTOH, sinfulness is a wholly created concept from a religious standpoint. It combines the aspects of morality with the threat of retribution by a supernatural entity if the "wrong" decision is made. Sinfulness is not "on the books" of our legal system (yet). It's something that's thrown out as a last resort to get you to "behave" in case the arguments of you're hurting yourself, a third party, or society in general don't persuade you to conform to someone else's narrow standards of "good" and "moral".

To an Orthodox Jew, eating a double bacon cheeseburger would be "sinful." The same act, to a vegan who also happened to be an atheist, would be "immoral." To old immoral, sinful me, it would just be one of my favorite meals. :9

I think there's a large overlap--most immoral things are according to my religious code at least also sinful.

But I'm not quite sure that I can put Sabbath breaking or eating shrimp in the category of things immoral.

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality, despite their efforts to say as much.

Austine of Hippo did the world a great diservice when he focused so much of his writings on the hypothesis of sin.

and you know of that commandment, and choose to break it?

As referenced above, if you are a Jew or a Muslim and you choose to eat a ham sandwich, what is that called?

Bryant

No god no sin.

Does man's acceptance that "sin" exists cause "sin" to exist? I tend to think not, since that is the road to solipsism. But does a believers belief that he has sinned constitute sin? Hmmm...

Who's standard are we using? The believers, mine, yours, an unmoved mover, a holy book?

This has lead me down a very difficult mental path. I can only answer from my viewpoint. There is no sin, only immoral or illegal acts.

All holy books and commandments were (obviously in my opinion) created and written by humans and have been nurtured by other humans, despite what the ardent believers claim. I don't believe there is a fixed moral ethic laid down in the firmament for all times.

But obviously you have to live in a world in which there are believers. And therefore you need to have a language that encompasses both their beliefs and yours. You can say that sin doesn't exist for you; fair enough. But it obviously does for me or for others.

Bryant

:toast:

They're certainly very similar.

One could make the case that "sin" is a specifically religious concept, whereas immorality isn't, but equally one could dispute it.

It is the breaking of a person's relationship with God. To commit a sin requires faith, a developed and informed conscience, willfully and free intent to take action and finally taking action. The two are separate except for the fact that some things fall under both categories. However there are many things would be considered a sin, such as not adhering to holy days that very few would consider immoral.