Is sinning sometimes necessary for the advancement of civilization?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
For example,

There was a time during the Vatican 1 days when women weren’t allowed to play sports. That was the culture of the time and Pope, bishops, agreed with this sentiment.

Women rebelled and played sports anyway, people began to realize “hey, girls can play sports too!”…now it would be considered discriminatory in our culture today by the church if we were to forbid women from playing sports.
 
I don’t believe sin is ever necessary. But I do believe God can take and make something good come from even the worst evil. That doesn’t mean the evil was ever necessary, just that God used it to make something good come of it because God will always triumph over the devil.
 
Good example!

I am sure I have seen other cases where the Church and/or civilisation has been advanced by disobedience to legitimate authority - which some at the time may have called a “sin”. Christ himself disobeyed the old law in some ways (eg. picking corn on the Sabbath). I think some canonised Saints also disobeyed legitimate authority at some point in their lives. The Australian saint Mary MacKillop comes to mind, who disobeyed a direct (and legitimate) order from her Bishop and was excommunicated on account.

Apart from an apparent sin of disobedience, I can’t think of cases where it has been necessary to sin against a more fundamental moral law (eg. adultery, fornication, hatred, envy, etc.) for good to occur, although, as AKDee pointed out, God does seem to produce good from the sin.
 
Women’s sports is “the advancement of civilization”? Western Civilization isn’t what it used to be! In any case, playing sports was never a sin. Until very recently, most people worked on the farm from sunrise to sundown and had no time or energy for sports.
 
I only exist because of the commission of a mortal sin, and I have big plans for advancing civilization. So yes, it’s sometimes necessary. :D:D:D

In all seriousness though, the mental energy expended in considering the question of whether a sin is necessary would be much better spent reflecting on the sheer wonder of a God who takes our worst sins and produces good out of them. If we reflected on that more often, maybe we wouldn’t be so grumpy.
 
Is there even one single church document anywhere that says they ever taught women playing sports was a sin?

My first issue.

My second being that this particular example has nothing to do with civilization advancement. As much as it might be cool to hear someone broke a sport record or some such thing, it has not the slightest effect to advance a civilization. I mean the car? Yeah. The computer? Yeah. The printing press? Yeah… etc etc.

So I would ask to grasp this question, what sin is necessary for the advancement of civilization?
 
Edmundus1581 said:
Good example!

I am sure I have seen other cases where the Church and/or civilisation has been advanced by disobedience to legitimate authority - which some at the time may have called a “sin”. Christ himself disobeyed the old law in some ways (eg. picking corn on the Sabbath). I think some canonised Saints also disobeyed legitimate authority at some point in their lives. The Australian saint Mary MacKillop comes to mind, who disobeyed a direct (and legitimate) order from her Bishop and was excommunicated on account.

Apart from an apparent sin of disobedience, I can’t think of cases where it has been necessary to sin against a more fundamental moral law (eg. adultery, fornication, hatred, envy, etc.) for good to occur, although, as AKDee pointed out, God does seem to produce good from the sin.
Click to expand...
I doubt you’re implying Christ committed sin by disobeying old law. Jesus was sinless!
 
truetofaith said:
I doubt you’re implying Christ committed sin by disobeying old law. Jesus was sinless!
Click to expand...
I think the implication was more that some things that were/are categorized as sin during any given point in history may not in fact be sins at all.
 
1neophyte;14154234]I only exist because of the commission of a mortal sin, and I have big plans for advancing civilization. So yes, it’s sometimes necessary. :D:D:D
Click to expand...
Marital relations between a husband and wife does NOT constitute mortal sin.
 
I try to assume the best in people.
But no, sin is never a necessity. Never.
 
pianistclare said:
I try to assume the best in people.
But no, sin is never a necessity. Never.
Click to expand...
Assuming that I was under the impression that marital relations constitutes a mortal sin was not assuming the best in me. It was somewhat hurtful, actually.

And of course philosophically sin is never a necessity, but there are many positive events that would not have occurred if not for sin, and many people who exist who would not have existed if not for sin. We would not know the extent of God’s love if not for the sin of those who unjustly crucified Jesus. You could certainly argue that sin wasn’t NECESSARY for certain good things to occur, but you could also argue that it isn’t necessary for the sky to be blue. Some things just are, including sin. But God’s response to it is really something to marvel at.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
For example,

There was a time during the Vatican 1 days when women weren’t allowed to play sports. That was the culture of the time and Pope, bishops, agreed with this sentiment.

Women rebelled and played sports anyway, people began to realize “hey, girls can play sports too!”…now it would be considered discriminatory in our culture today by the church if we were to forbid women from playing sports.
Click to expand...
One can never sin that good may come of it. That is simply not allowed. The ends do not justify the means. I believe Aquinas spoke on this and it’s certainly in the teaching of the church (forgive me for not providing reference right now).

That said, I don’t think that women playing sports would ever be considered a sin even in the times you describe. It may have been poo pooed but I don’t think it would have been ever claimed by the church to be an immoral act.
 
Bearing an illegitimate child who becomes an Einstein is an example of a sin that advances civilization.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
For example,

There was a time during the Vatican 1 days when women weren’t allowed to play sports. That was the culture of the time and Pope, bishops, agreed with this sentiment.

Women rebelled and played sports anyway, people began to realize “hey, girls can play sports too!”…now it would be considered discriminatory in our culture today by the church if we were to forbid women from playing sports.
Click to expand...
There are two false assumptions in this post.

The first is that “non-discrimination against women in sports” represents some sort of meaningful advancement of civilization. That is debatable. Is it “fun” or “cool”? Perhaps. (I’m not a sportsman, as you can tell. :D) But whether it constitutes a true advance of civilization is debatable. Does the fact that women play sports make us better persons? Does it lead to the moral development of our culture and the salvation of souls? Or is an occasion of sin for some?

The second is that because God can bring good out of evil, evil is necessary. That is a common, but serious error. Evil is never necessary. Even if God brings good out of evil, that does not eradicate the intrinsic sinful nature of the initial evil event or act. Otherwise, we’d have to absolve and canonize Judas, Caiaphas, Annas and Pontius Pilate. 😛
 
allessior said:
Bearing an illegitimate child who becomes an Einstein is an example of a sin that advances civilization.
Click to expand...
Confucius and Leonardo da Vinci were children of an unmarried couple, and yet both advanced civilization.
 
allessior said:
Bearing an illegitimate child who becomes an Einstein is an example of a sin that advances civilization.
Click to expand...
Bearing a child is not a sin. Premarital sex is. So, the sin of premarital sex is not excused if your reasoning for committing it is “I want to conceive a child who will cure cancer, etc.” But the new life created from the premarital sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
Bearing a child is not a sin. Premarital sex is. So, the sin of premarital sex is not excused if your reasoning for committing it is “I want to conceive a child who will cure cancer, etc.” But the new life created from the premarital sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing.
Click to expand...
well stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top