Performing sin is just matter of time

[STT]

That is not what I asked.

How would one sin if there is no moral obligation?

Your action by definition is not wrong if there is no moral obligation.

You made a statement but I fail to see how that is possible. So I ask you to provide examples. Believing deeply on certain things such as I think the earth is flat doesn’t make it a sin if there is no moral obligation to do so. There are 2 parts. One is moral and the other obligation. If a belief has no moral significance, there is no sin. If a belief has no obligation, it doesn’t impose a requirement on me to comply.

Hence you need to provide examples that support your assertion.

Like believing in same sex marriage, etc.

 

[ericc]

Your action by definition is not wrong if there is no moral obligation.

We are on the same page.

Like believing in same sex marriage, etc.

Same sex acts are immoral as decreed by God. Plenty of Bible verses condemning that. So is stealing, murder, adultery, idolatry etc.

Notwithstanding that, even if personal beliefs are in error, but the person refrain from DOING those acts knowing those are not in accordance with God’s commandments, he has not sin. It is engaging in those acts that make it sinful, not the tendency or inclination itself. A person with homosexual etc (insert your favorite sins) tendencies but resisted in doing so, has not sinned. God will be pleased that he hasn’t fallen into temptation. As is a heterosexual who resisted fornication/adultery.

 

[STT]

We are on the same page.

Good.

Same sex acts are immoral as decreed by God. Plenty of Bible verses condemning that. So is stealing, murder, adultery, idolatry etc.

Notwithstanding that, even if personal beliefs are in error, but the person refrain from DOING those acts knowing those are not in accordance with God’s commandments, he has not sin. It is engaging in those acts that make it sinful, not the tendency or inclination itself. A person with homosexual etc (insert your favorite sins) tendencies but resisted in doing so, has not sinned. God will be pleased that he hasn’t fallen into temptation. As is a heterosexual who resisted fornication/adultery.

People engage in same sex marriage because they don’t believe in the Bible. In their opinion they are not performing a wrong act.

 

[ericc]

People engage in same sex marriage because they don’t believe in the Bible. In their opinion they are not performing a wrong act.

A sin is a wrongful act against God. Regardless of what they believe or choose not to believe is a wrong act. If opinions decide what is wrong or not, then anything goes. Group sex among married couples, with animals, with young children, with own family members etc will be ok as long as everyone think it is not wrong by that logic. Another example would be one who wish to die and another who wish to kill. Or a willing buyer/willing seller transaction in illegal drugs. Or a sadist/masochist team. No objections from either party so everything’s is fine and dandy. Once the deciding factor is by mutual assent no sense of morality can be inferred from it because they choose not to be bound by any sense of moral laws. But a sin is still a sin and one can thump their noses at God. That is their choice.

But that wasn’t what your thread is about.

 

[Vico]

Tendencies to perform a sin or not to perform a sin are even in absence of temptation and moral obligation. Moral obligation and temptation work against each other. We perform sin if there is no moral obligation. Therefore performing sin is just matter of time when temptation is stronger than moral obligation.

How can absence of temptation exist for a potentially sinful act?

 

[STT]

A sin is a wrongful act against God. Regardless of what they believe or choose not to believe is a wrong act. If opinions decide what is wrong or not, then anything goes. Group sex among married couples, with animals, with young children, with own family members etc will be ok as long as everyone think it is not wrong by that logic. Another example would be one who wish to die and another who wish to kill. Or a willing buyer/willing seller transaction in illegal drugs. Or a sadist/masochist team. No objections from either party so everything’s is fine and dandy. Once the deciding factor is by mutual assent no sense of morality can be inferred from it because they choose not to be bound by any sense of moral laws. But a sin is still a sin and one can thump their noses at God. That is their choice.

To me an act is wrong if it is against mutual agreement between two persons. All example you provide except sex with animal and young children are permissible since the agreement between individuals can be made.

But that wasn’t what your thread is about.

You are right.

 

[STT]

How can absence of temptation exist for a potentially sinful act?

I didn’t say so. I said: Tendencies to perform a sin or not to perform a sin are even in absence of temptation and moral obligation.

 

[Vico]

I didn’t say so. I said: Tendencies to perform a sin or not to perform a sin are even in absence of temptation and moral obligation.

I have this definition for temptation: a desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise.

So using that your sentence is:

Tendencies to perform a sin or not to perform a sin are even in absence of a desire to do something wrong or unwise and moral obligation.

 

[STT]

I have this definition for temptation: a desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise.

So using that your sentence is:

Tendencies to perform a sin or not to perform a sin are even in absence of a desire to do something wrong or unwise and moral obligation.

Yes, I agree with that. Then?

 

[Vico]

Yes, I agree with that. Then?

Catholic teaching that concupiscence is that tendency. The opposition of appetite and reason is natural for man, and is not a corruption of human nature.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I agree with that. Then?

Also, the Catholic dogma of faith is that a human would naturally fall into mortal sin if not given the gift sanctifying grace, after which is it possible to remain free from all mortal sin, the grace being sufficient but not irresistible.

 

[STT]

Catholic teaching that concupiscence is that tendency. The opposition of appetite and reason is natural for man, and is not a corruption of human nature.

I see.

 

[STT]

Also, the Catholic dogma of faith is that a human would naturally fall into mortal sin if not given the gift sanctifying grace, after which is it possible to remain free from all mortal sin, the grace being sufficient but not irresistible.

I see.

 

[ericc]

To me an act is wrong if it is against mutual agreement between two persons. All example you provide except sex with animal and young children are permissible since the agreement between individuals can be made.

.

Mutual consent is not the same as moral obligation. Consenting people agreeing to do bad things to themselves don’t make it not wrong. A group of people consenting to fight to the death is wrong. A group of people agreeing to cheat on each other is wrong. Gang warfare is wrong even if all the gang members agree to wipe out the other gangs. Tribal warfare is wrong even if all the tribes agree that they have to fight to the death till the other is annihilated. Stupid/sick people mutually agreeing to do stupid and bad things are wrong. All you end up is a group of people agreeing to do bad things together and yet you think it is not wrong? What kind of philosophy do you subscribe to?

 

[STT]

Mutual consent is not the same as moral obligation. Consenting people agreeing to do bad things to themselves don’t make it not wrong. A group of people consenting to fight to the death is wrong. A group of people agreeing to cheat on each other is wrong. Gang warfare is wrong even if all the gang members agree to wipe out the other gangs. Tribal warfare is wrong even if all the tribes agree that they have to fight to the death till the other is annihilated. Stupid/sick people mutually agreeing to do stupid and bad things are wrong. All you end up is a group of people agreeing to do bad things together and yet you think it is not wrong? What kind of philosophy do you subscribe to?

What if there is no physical and mental harm? At the end what is matter is the meaning otherwise everything including moral obligation is empty. Life becomes valuable when there is meaning.

 

[ericc]

What if there is no physical and mental harm? At the end what is matter is the meaning otherwise everything including moral obligation is empty. Life becomes valuable when there is meaning.

Who decides that there is no harm? Would a consenting pair of father and daughter, daughter is already an adult, engaging in sex be alright with you, as long as both of think there was no physical or mental harm? If society views that this is an immoral act, but that this father/daughter team did not feel it is, then what is your stance then?

Perhaps you have no way to distinguish between moral obligation vs whether an act that does not result in harm is meaningful or wrong. In the previous posts you seem to ok cheating spouses as long as it is mutual. But you don’t seem to put any value on this behavior effect on family values, impact on children’s mind, broken families, impact on society’s view on cheats and dishonesty and so on. It premise on selfish satisfaction trumping over others. So your view on moral obligation now consist of chiefly:

1. Mutual assent
2. Absence of physical /mental harm of consenting parties and that is to be decided by same parties

So one makes their own rules in deciding whether an act is immoral or not. Is that your philosophy? If one don’t think it is immoral, it is not. Which is saying I have no obligation unless I define it is so. How convenient and carefree. Must be meaningful then.

 

[STT]

Who decides that there is no harm?

The person who is involved in the relationship or act after reaching the age of maturity.

Would a consenting pair of father and daughter, daughter is already an adult, engaging in sex be alright with you, as long as both of think there was no physical or mental harm?

Only the opinion of the daughter is important. That is her life.

If society views that this is an immoral act, but that this father/daughter team did not feel it is, then what is your stance then?

There have been always these kind of tension between society and individuals. Of course individual has the right to decide about their own life.

Perhaps you have no way to distinguish between moral obligation vs whether an act that does not result in harm is meaningful or wrong.

An act is morally wrong if it is against the meaning of life. There is no moral obligation in absence of meaning.

In the previous posts you seem to ok cheating spouses as long as it is mutual. But you don’t seem to put any value on this behavior effect on family values, impact on children’s mind, broken families, impact on society’s view on cheats and dishonesty and so on. It premise on selfish satisfaction trumping over others.

Sexual need is not a selfish need. It is a need like other need that drive us to live our life. There could be a tension between sexual need and the need of being a good mother/father. This tension is of course due to social norms. The problem is solved once you open your mind and set your partner free.

So your view on moral obligation now consist of chiefly:

1. Mutual assent
2. Absence of physical /mental harm of consenting parties and that is to be decided by same parties

In my view everything is empty in absence of meaning therefore there is no moral obligation at all yet I agree with what you stated minimally when we don’t have access to meaning.

So one makes their own rules in deciding whether an act is immoral or not. Is that your philosophy?

No, one has to realize whether an act is immoral or not. Decision has nothing to do here.

If one don’t think it is immoral, it is not. Which is saying I have no obligation unless I define it is so. How convenient and carefree. Must be meaningful then.

It is not matter of defining. You need something to strive to, meaning, in order to derive morality from. The mutual agreement and absence of any harm are the key parameters for defining a right act/relationship when we don’t have any idea about what meaning is.

 

[ericc]

The person who is involved in the relationship or act after reaching the age of maturity.

Only the opinion of the daughter is important. That is her life.

Interesting to see how you reason such things out. It must have made a lot of sense and logic to you. I’d fear for those family members though, when they reached their age of maturity.

There have been always these kind of tension between society and individuals. Of course individual has the right to decide about their own life.

An act is morally wrong if it is against the meaning of life. There is no moral obligation in absence of meaning.

Sexual need is not a selfish need. It is a need like other need that drive us to live our life. There could be a tension between sexual need and the need of being a good mother/father. This tension is of course due to social norms. The problem is solved once you open your mind and set your partner free.

In my view everything is empty in absence of meaning therefore there is no moral obligation at all yet I agree with what you stated minimally when we don’t have access to meaning.

No, one has to realize whether an act is immoral or not. Decision has nothing to do here.

It is not matter of defining. You need something to strive to, meaning, in order to derive morality from. The mutual agreement and absence of any harm are the key parameters for defining a right act/relationship when we don’t have any idea about what meaning is.

That sounds very zen-like and yet super-selfish. Meaning of life and all that and yet what is skipped is the acts done to achieve the “meaning-of-life”, whether that is immoral or not seems to have gone by the side or relegated to a position of less importance. And yet your title says it all and seems disconnected to what you subscribe. Or should it have been “freedom to choose to sin: meaning of life”? But it is good to see you articulate your view on morality. At least we know where you stand on who decides what is morality though I am not sure why you bring in age of maturity. There is no right age of maturity. Some still have very immature thinking despite the age or vice versa.

No wonder you are pushing for an “enlightened” view towards sin. God did warned us though.

 

[STT]

That sounds very zen-like and yet super-selfish.

Why it is zen-like and why it is selfish?

Meaning of life and all that and yet what is skipped is the acts done to achieve the “meaning-of-life”, whether that is immoral or not seems to have gone by the side or relegated to a position of less importance.

It took me very long time that I manage to set myself free of all view on morality and find an appropriate view. Yes, it is all about the meaning.

And yet your title says it all and seems disconnected to what you subscribe. Or should it have been “freedom to choose to sin: meaning of life”?

That wouldn’t be a good title. The right one could be: Right approach to distinguish between right and wrong: meaning of life.

But it is good to see you articulate your view on morality. At least we know where you stand on who decides what is morality though I am not sure why you bring in age of maturity. There is no right age of maturity. Some still have very immature thinking despite the age or vice versa.

I agree that people reach to age of maturity at different stage of their lives.

No wonder you are pushing for an “enlightened” view towards sin. God did warned us though.

That is strange. Why God should prohibited that? To me it is better to understand what a moral act is instead of blindly accepting what is given by higher authority.