Which is the greater sin, if Christianity is wrong? Christianity, or irrationality?
I think this would depend considerably on which particular non-Christian set of beliefs turned out to be right. Asking “how should we behave in a non-Christian universe?” sounds to me like asking “what should we feed to a non-cat?”.
I’ll ask you to review the child of this post wherein I provide a clearer definition of the term “sin”. It is a generally held consensus that there is in fact an objective morality which is causally disconnected from (or at least causally unaffected by) any extant religion. In that sense, my question is, I believe, sensical.
The above is predicated upon my inference, from your comment, that you read into my use of the word “sin” a religious connotation. Another possible inference is that you legitimately believe that we live in a Christian universe, and therefore that supposing counterfactuals is useless. In that case, I wonder how you get by during the day without making any plans based upon hypothetical events.
.… and I also, in that case, appreciate not being the only Christian on this site. ;D But that doesn’t forgive your error.
I’m not sure where our assumptions disconnect, so I’ll just try to spell out as many of mine as I can think of.
I assume that Christianity contains or constitutes claims about what the correct moral code is, such that accepting Christianity is true necessarily implies accepting a certain standard of right and wrong. I further assume that there exist at least two mutually-incompatible non-Christian claims about what the correct moral code is.
That is, if we reject Christian moral values, we still have to decide between Buddhism and Hinduism.
...not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that I’m assuming that most religions, and Christianity in particular, imply moralities, but there may also be nonreligious moralities.
I realize I’m hugely oversimplifying (for example, by treating “Christianity” as internally homogeneous), but I need to omit most of the variables in order to get anything done in finite time.
This started with the phrase “if Christianity is wrong”; are you saying that this was not meant to imply anything along the lines of “if Christian morality is wrong”, that it was meant entirely as an empirical proposition, holding moral values constant? [edit: …holding terminal moral values constant?]
Yes and no. :3 This is one of those “large inferential distances” things, but I’ll take a stab at explaining.
First, there are laws that God is bound to; laws of morality, not just laws of physics, although I think He’s also, in all probability, bound by the laws of physics (not necessarily as we understand them). This is evidenced by the number of times that God has told us that He is “bound”; if He did not follow these rules, He would “cease to be God”.
On the other hand! God gave rules to the Jews (a la all of Deuteronomy) that do not apply to modern-day Christians, because Jesus’ sacrifice “fulfilled” that law. God gives different commands at different times to different people: for example, God has at various times in history endorsed polygamy for various peoples, but He has indicated that polygamy outside His explicit instructions is sinful (cf. Jacob 2, D&C 132).
So: Everything that God commands us to do is Good, but not everything that is Good is something that God has explicitly commanded us to do.
I think this would depend considerably on which particular non-Christian set of beliefs turned out to be right. Asking “how should we behave in a non-Christian universe?” sounds to me like asking “what should we feed to a non-cat?”.
I’ll ask you to review the child of this post wherein I provide a clearer definition of the term “sin”. It is a generally held consensus that there is in fact an objective morality which is causally disconnected from (or at least causally unaffected by) any extant religion. In that sense, my question is, I believe, sensical.
The above is predicated upon my inference, from your comment, that you read into my use of the word “sin” a religious connotation. Another possible inference is that you legitimately believe that we live in a Christian universe, and therefore that supposing counterfactuals is useless. In that case, I wonder how you get by during the day without making any plans based upon hypothetical events.
.… and I also, in that case, appreciate not being the only Christian on this site. ;D But that doesn’t forgive your error.
I did see the comment in which you defined sin.
I’m not sure where our assumptions disconnect, so I’ll just try to spell out as many of mine as I can think of.
I assume that Christianity contains or constitutes claims about what the correct moral code is, such that accepting Christianity is true necessarily implies accepting a certain standard of right and wrong. I further assume that there exist at least two mutually-incompatible non-Christian claims about what the correct moral code is.
That is, if we reject Christian moral values, we still have to decide between Buddhism and Hinduism.
Let me verify your meaning before I respond in earnest: You are operating under the proposition that morality necessarily derives from religion?
...not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that I’m assuming that most religions, and Christianity in particular, imply moralities, but there may also be nonreligious moralities.
I realize I’m hugely oversimplifying (for example, by treating “Christianity” as internally homogeneous), but I need to omit most of the variables in order to get anything done in finite time.
This started with the phrase “if Christianity is wrong”; are you saying that this was not meant to imply anything along the lines of “if Christian morality is wrong”, that it was meant entirely as an empirical proposition, holding moral values constant? [edit: …holding terminal moral values constant?]
Oh! I see. :3 Yes, that is what I’m saying. If I wasn’t Christian, I certainly wouldn’t start murdering people.
Interesting.
Do you believe, then, that God commands a thing because it is good, rather than that a thing is good because God commands it?
Yes and no. :3 This is one of those “large inferential distances” things, but I’ll take a stab at explaining.
First, there are laws that God is bound to; laws of morality, not just laws of physics, although I think He’s also, in all probability, bound by the laws of physics (not necessarily as we understand them). This is evidenced by the number of times that God has told us that He is “bound”; if He did not follow these rules, He would “cease to be God”.
On the other hand! God gave rules to the Jews (a la all of Deuteronomy) that do not apply to modern-day Christians, because Jesus’ sacrifice “fulfilled” that law. God gives different commands at different times to different people: for example, God has at various times in history endorsed polygamy for various peoples, but He has indicated that polygamy outside His explicit instructions is sinful (cf. Jacob 2, D&C 132).
So: Everything that God commands us to do is Good, but not everything that is Good is something that God has explicitly commanded us to do.