hmmm are they really tho?
Let’s define ‘sin’
an immoral act that is a transgression against Divine Law. - Oxford dictionary
So let’s define some of the parts of that definition.
The word “immoral” simply means in conflict with moral principles or wrong, meaning a wrongdoing.
Something that is not a right, something that initiates harm against other sentient beings. That’s what an immoral behavior is. in the usage as an adjective, it simply means that it is in conflict with what is right.
The word “transgression” simply means
an act that goes against a law, an offense of some type - Oxford dictionary
very simple, very accurate definition.
sin is transgression against Divine Law.
if you don’t like the term Divine Law, use the term the laws of God, the laws of the Creator, natural laws, moral laws. Laws that define true and objective morality. laws of cause and effect because they actually bring a result into the human experience when we behave either in alignment with them or out of alignment with them. Some call it consequentialism others Karma.
Karma means action and then the result that you get from the taking of that action.
This is in alignment with the correct definition of what would be considered sin and in alignment with natural law principles.
Natural law is a set of universal, inherent, objective, non-man-made, eternal, and immutable conditions which govern the consequences of behaviors of beings with the capacity for understanding the difference between harmful and non-harmful behavior.
So it’s universal, everywhere present, no matter where you go in the universe. Inherent, that means it’s part of nature. It’s actually embedded in the fabric of reality. It is not a constructional idea in the mind. It’s objective, that means it’s not based on human opinion or perception. It’s not subjective. It’s non-man-made, this is not made by any human beings. It is not made by society. It is not made by any groups of people. It is made by the universe itself. It is eternal, it exists for as long as the universe exists. It is immutable, it can never be changed by any action of anyone or anything. And they are conditions which govern the consequences of behaviors. These are moral consequences that we receive when we act either in alignment with the laws of morality or out of alignment with the laws of morality.
The understanding of natural law is centered upon bringing our own conscience, our knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, into alignment with objective morality. It’s choosing moral behavior over immoral behavior. That is what it means to bring our behavior into alignment with morality. So to do that means definitively knowing which behaviors are rights because they do not initiate harm to other sentient beings and knowing which behaviors are wrongdoings because they do initiate harm to other sentient beings.
when human beings in the aggregate, in the collective, actually live in harmony with natural law and are therefore considered to be acting morally in the aggregate, they become and remain free. This is how the laws of consequence of behavior work. When human beings in the aggregate, in the collective overall, live in opposition to natural law and are therefore overall immoral as a species, they will become and remain enslaved.
it’s very simple to understand: as morality increases, freedom increases, and as morality declines, freedom declines.
So what are rights? What is an actual human right? A sin is something that we do not have the right to perform. We don’t have the right to conduct sin without negative karmic consequence. So if we know what our rights are by knowing what comprises sin, what are the wrongdoings?, then we will create freedom when we behave in alignment with those laws of morality in the aggregate.
A right is an action that does not initiate harm to another sentient being.
You are not beginning harming someone else. If you don’t do that, there will be no problem, there will be no trouble, there will be no sin, therefore there will be no negative karmic consequence
So in the defining of a right, we actually immediately define the wrongdoings because we’re defining the right in the negative or the apophatic definition.
apophatic is involving the practice of describing something by stating which characteristics it does not have - merriam-webster
Based of that logic we can conclude that wrong-doings
are actions that do initiate harm to other sentient beings
It’s very simple, it’s very easy to understand.
So now that we have some definitions, let’s look at the seven (7) deadly sins we are told are.
in the Roman Catholic ideology are as follows:
pride
gluttony
sloth
lust
anger
jealousy
greed.
if we look at these, it is not behaviors that we would say we necessarily want to dwell in, live in continually, constantly engage in, make the driving impetus of our lives. But these are not sins in and of themselves. If we constantly lived in these modes of consciousness, they could be an impetus for us to begin conducting real sin. In and of themselves, they are not sin per see.
The definition of a sin, again, a transgression against natural law, is an action that does initiate harm against another sentient being
meaning they can’t be actions that we perform to ourselves. If we do it to ourselves, it can’t be defined as a sin. It is a vice. That is the difference between a vice and a sin.
But are given false definitions and understanding. They tell us these are immoral behaviors in and of themselves, it leads to all kinds of confusion in the general population about morality.
So let’s look at these behaviors in turn from a logical point of view.
pride
Is pride a behavior we do to someone else? Once again, you wouldn’t want to constantly dwell in the modality of counterproductive pride, like thinking that you’re way better than you actually are and you’re actually doing in the world. if you have done really well from an objective point of view and you have gotten what you want accomplished and you’ve done it to the best of your ability and it’s very well done, even from other people’s perspective, you know, assessing it all together and just about having agreement universally that you’ve done a brilliant job, you could take pride in that work. It’s something that is not necessarily the initiation of any harmful thing against another. Counterproductive pride, you’re going to basically diminish what you could be doing better. That’s why there’s a good form of pride and there’s a bad form of pride. But I don’t think anybody disputes that this is an internal emotion that one feels toward oneself. We’re just applying the simple logic. Is this done toward the self internally? Is it an emotion that exists purely internally within the self, or is it an action, a behavior that you do outside of yourself towards someone else? It is an emotion. Pride is a noun, it’s not a behavior, it’s not a verb.
Gluttony
So let’s look at gluttony. Gluttony is overindulgence in food. That’s self-indulgence, that’s something you do to yourself. That could be a vice. You could get sick, you could get heavy and overweight and out of shape and in bad health. All kinds of bad things can come out of gluttony. If I am gluttonous one day of the year or maybe two or three, it’s not going to undermine my health necessarily. So it’s like just engaging in that behavior is not doing something harmful to someone else. You could potentially, if it’s overboard, do harm to the self, but your body is your property. As long as you’re not forcing food down someone else’s throat in too large of an amount when they’re telling you they don’t want that done to themselves, then it’s not a harmful action against others.
sloth
By definition, it is inaction. It’s the state of inaction. It’s laziness. Now you could say, well, maybe not taking any action when someone’s actually having violence conducted upon them, you’re sort of complicit with the violence. That’s a rare exception to the rule. Sloth just generally means you’re lazy, you’re in a state of inaction, you’re not actively harming someone else
Lust
again, it’s an internal emotion, the desire for sex, the desire to perceive others in a sexual way too much. Lust is an internal emotion, it’s not a behavior that you’re doing to someone else. Rape, if you went overboard with lust and then said, “I’m just going to rape somebody because I feel like I have the right to engage in sexual activity with them without their consent,” no, that’s a crime. That’s a transgression against natural law. Lust in and of itself, an internal emotion, not an outward behavior toward others, so it cannot be a transgression against others.
Anger
again, an internal emotion. Different kinds of anger: anger over trivialities and nonsensical things just because you want to placate your emotions or rage against something that isn’t even really truly important in the world, just from your own whims. That’s counterproductive anger. Righteous indignation about a matter of true justice in our world, that’s a righteous form of anger that could compel someone to then take true right action against injustices and iniquities in our world. So anger could be a positive thing, but again, I don’t think anyone would argue it’s not an act against others, it’s an internal emotion.
Jealousy
the same thing, another internal emotion. I could be jealous of someone else’s skill sets as a presenter and say, “Boy, I wish I had that ability. Boy, I wish I had that knowledge and know-how. Boy, I wish I could present like that and make slides like that.” That’s just an internal emotion. They might never even know that I’m jealous of them, and it could compel me to go and do good things. Bad jealousy is like you’re worried about trivial things. You’re just wanting what other people have just because they have it and you don’t. Oh, just physical possessions. Then, okay, if it leads to you going and saying, “I’m going to take something from someone else,” well then that’s theft, then that’s a transgression. But the internal emotion of jealousy itself is not a sin because it’s not even an action. Jealousy is an emotion, it’s not an action.
Greed
another form of self-indulgence like gluttony, but just with things and possessions. Again, that is a form of behavior, but it’s not an action that’s taken against others.
We have to understand if we are doing these behaviors to ourselves, they are vices. These are definitions of vices, of specific instances of vices, and there’s many others. But vices themselves are not immoral acts against others. This is something you wouldn’t want to dwell in all the time that might debauch and debase the self, but it’s still not violence against others. It’s not violating anyone else’s natural rights.
So what are the true deadly sins?
Look at the qualitative difference in the words.
pride
gluttony
sloth
lust
anger
jealousy
greed
compared to the real seven deadly sins. The false seven deadly sins don’t even rate when it comes to the level of harm and evil that results from these types of behaviors.
The real seven deadly sins, the real violations of natural law, are:
murder
assault
rape
theft
trespass
coercion
deception
Look at the qualitative difference between the vices versus the real sins, there’s zero comparison
We’re looking at why these now are actual transgressions against others because something has to be done in order for a transgression against someone else to have taken place, not thought, not felt, but acted upon. That’s why sins are actions.
Conscience literally means common sense when we etymologically break it down into con, meaning together or within, and science, meaning to know or to understand.
Murder
Murder is the theft of life without having the right to take someone else’s life. There is such a thing as the rightful ability to kill in self-defense, but that is not murder. That is a killing done in self-defense. When we talk about murder, it is the theft of life without right. So you have stolen something that doesn’t belong to you, namely the life of another being, when you did not have the right to do that
Assault
Is the theft of well-being without right. Now, if I defend myself against assault, that’s not assault, that’s the right of self-defense being engaged with. So again, you can’t do murder, but you can kill in self-defense. You can’t do assault, but you can defend yourself with physical force in self-defense.
Rape
like we said, lust is an inward emotion, but rape is an external action done to another. That’s the theft of sexual association that one has the right to engage with. So you’re taking another form of property from someone else, like their life, their well-being, and now their sexual association.
Theft
the act of taking something that doesn’t belong to you, is the unrightful taking of someone else’s property. Again, you’re taking something that doesn’t belong to you.
Trespass
you’re taking security of another being within their living domain, their living space, their rightful property. That’s the theft of someone else’s security. You’re taking something that doesn’t belong to you.
Coercion
The theft of someone else’s free will to make their own decisions in life, so long as their actions are not harming other people. This is what the government always advocates for. This is what the supporters of government always advocate for, the taking of someone else’s free will when they have not harmed someone else. Coercion and duress are threats of violence if you don’t comply to the commands of another claiming to be the authority over you. That’s theft of free will.
Deception
the theft of someone else’s informed decision making because you’re giving them false information, misinformation, lies, and willingly doing that, knowing that they’re false and misleading so that someone else makes incorrect decisions.
that is the commonality between all of the wrongdoings listed from a logical perspective: they all share one common characteristic. You’re taking something. By engaging in those behaviors, you are taking something that does not belong to you rightfully. You are stealing. You are engaging in theft. Theft is the root of all sin. If theft is not taking place, there is no transgression taking place.
some people want to say that things are immoral when, if that behavior has been engaged and conducted, nothing has been stolen. For example, homosexuality is a right. To say that someone cannot engage in a consensual behavior with another adult is trying to coerce them against their free will. Whether you like the behavior or not, whether it suits you, whether you find it comfortable or something that is within your preferences, it doesn’t matter how you want to word it. It’s not somebody doing something harmful to someone else. So it can’t be considered immoral. Immoral means someone’s rights are being violated. So in a consensual sexual act between homogeneous beings in gender, how could it be an immoral act? It’s immoral only when it’s forced upon another, when it’s initiated without consent. If it’s consensual between adults, it’s a moral behavior because that’s the definition of morality: an action that does not initiate harm against another. Rape is not simple homosexual behavior. If one man rapes another man, that’s rape. If one man rapes a woman, that’s rape. If a woman rapes a woman, that’s rape. The act is non-consensual. The act is initiating harm against another. That’s rape. Any form of consensual sexuality between two people, that’s a right. Religionists can get as upset as they want about that. You’re still wrong.
So since theft is the root of anything that is an immoral behavior, what by definition from a logical standpoint must be the root of virtue? The understanding of property. Property and its understanding is the root of all virtuous behavior.
