Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
Sin, as in the prohibition on negative human acts, isn't vastly different to various reward theories, or theories on evolutionary symbiosis, or affirmative behavioural theories. You could say that 'sin controls' - and there's bit where you'd be right - but you could just as easily say 'sin is an anthropocentric articulation of the evolutionary principle of reward systems in socialised animals'. I know it's not precisely how sin is used in religion, but at base, isn't sin the principle that if you fuck over another human, you will get fucked over back? Ok, you can disagree on the agency of that reciprocal fucking over, but surely that's a very basic principle of socialised existence (and therefore not exclusive to the religious dialogue, except in a piddling nomenklatura)?
|
nope. as far as "sin" goes, it is not about a karmic retribution. sin is, in christianity, a stain upon the soul. sin damages the soul in that sense.
catholics believe that some sins are irreparable, and will automaticall land you in hell, even though jesus died to atone for all opf humanity's sins, including the ones the church deems "mortal sins". Hell, the stupid fuckingh catholic church created the idea of "original sin" to essentially force every believer into thinking they were born sinful, that a baby newborn is already stained in it's soul. bunch of fucking assholes.
karma works through good and bad or even inaction, and has nothing to do with what christians have termed "sin."