Perhaps because I was not raised in a Christian religion, I have never been concerned about "sin." It just seemed like an imaginary layer of guilt added onto ordinary human foibles.

I was reading an interview with Dr. A.C. Grayling and I felt that he explained it really well:

"The Greeks have this marvelous idea, so different from the theological moralities where sin is a stain on your soul which you have to work hard to scrub off, and perhaps never quite get rid of. The Greek conception is what they called hamartia, which is the mistaken shot. You shoot your arrow at the target and if you miss, what do you do? You take better aim next time."


"Sin" seems like a cruel method of controlling people through fear. Our mistakes are part of our learning process and are perfectly natural. There is no reason to claim that mistakes offend God.

According to you it is impossible to get rid of. You said, "I try to not sin but it is impossible to never sin."

"Sin" and "does wrong" are not interchangable.

There is no reason to think that you or any other person needs magic forgiveness. Ordinary forgiveness, for and from the humans in your life, is what actually works.

Somebody told you that you were "separate from God" and you just believed them? Why?

Somebody told you the Bible is the word of God and you just believed them? Why?

Ancient people believed a lot of weird things. That is why it is important that their ideas be evaluated for merit.

To an extent, but what of it? We are not obliged to do everything they did just to explore one of their concepts. The purpose of raising the discussion is to decide which is a better approach to understanding human error now.


The Greek concept of hamartia - "the missed shot" - is that your mistakes and missteps are a natural part of the learning process. If you make a mistake or do the wrong thing, you have the opportunity to learn from the experience and the results, and do better next time. This seems like a realistic and compassionate way to understand human error.

"Sin," on the other hand, adds a ridiculous imaginary layer of cause - It's disobeying God! It's because Adam ate the fruit! - and a ridiculous imaginary layer of effect - It's hurting God! It makes you "separate"!! etc.


Well, there is plenty of evidence of ordinary humans, making mistakes, and even learning from them as they go. This happens; hamartia exists. On the other hand, there is no evidence of Adam, no evidence that humans are born with Original Sin, no evidence that there are moral laws created by God, and no evidence that He is offended or separated from humans as a result of certain mistakes. All of that appears to be just as imaginary as Hades, Tartarus and the River Styx.


So, which approach seems like a better way to understand human error? The mean, cruel and imaginary one, or the realistic, understanding and compassionate one?

The medieval concept of magic wrongdoing, because humans are magically tainted with evil, is causing a world of unnecessary angst and guilt, and a dangerously distorted view of cause and effect. A more compassionate and realistic view of the human condition would be uplifting to all humanity, and allow yet greater opportunities for learning and growing.

I can and am. If you can't separate those terms from their contexts, just substitute "magic wrongdoing" and "natural error".

There is no reason to claim that ordinary human mistakes - made as we learn to navigate an extremely complex reality with limited understanding - are magically bad because they are against "god." There is no evidence of it. There is no evidence of magic wrongdoing. There is evidence only of natural error.

I disagree. Humans routinely experiment with their own systems and frequently adopt different ideas than they had before. That is why Christianity has thirty-two thousand sects. That is why no two people have identical beliefs. That is why beliefs and ideas change over time. As people are exposed to new ideas they are capable of incorporating them into their previous understanding.

In fact, if new ideas are presented in a sufficiently succinct and clear manner, and at the right moment, there can even be a gestalt - a moment of entirely new understanding, after which a person can never go back to seeing things as they did before.

Such moments of transformed understanding are to be sought, at least I think so.


Additionally, I am a proponent of Workonomics, or the idea that we should use ideas that work, regardless of where they "come from," even if they come from another political or ideological framework. The merit of an idea or process is, is it true and does it work? If the idea is true and works it can be employed with success.

This is a specific effort to combat the partisan and ideological compartmentalization of ideas which is strangling human progress. Humans should be free to employ solutions based on their demonstratable merits.

Well I think maybe some people could do that. But even better would be to look beyond the "systems," and all the ancient ideas, and simply examine what is.


If you leave the religious systems of the Jews and the Greeks behind and look at people of unrelated systems, if you simply observe people anywhere, you always find the same thing - people, trying to balance their own needs with the needs of the group, trying to make things work, and sometimes failing. Failing more often in youth than in maturity, showing that some of the lessons actually are learned over time.


This is not a high-handed philosophical conjecture. This is pure observation. This isn't just what the Greeks saw or what I see, this is what you or any other person will see if they look. People, trying, sometimes missing, trying again...and often, getting better.

It doesn't matter what you call it, this is what is, and is readily observable. On the other hand, no gods, no moral laws from above, no divine standards, no judgement, no redemption is apparent. There is nothing which can be observed which confirms that any of this is real or what it is claimed to be. All that may be no more real than Hades.

So by observation, "hamartia" is no more than an accurate description of what is occurring, regardless of what it is called.


Understanding human error as hamartia instead of as sin is more than unplugging one idea and plugging in another. It is experiencing the gestalt to see that an understanding of reality can and has been arrived at by an examination of reality. It is realizing that we do not need to believe or follow any system just because a bunch of people have for a really long time. It is seeing that the truth is not in ancient folktales, it is before us, and we are it.


I like to think that there might be a way to get people to see this.

But even if no person who reads this is capable of changing their ideas, well, who cares, it's worth a try. It's fun. :-)

I disagree that sin means no more than this. SweetTea states that sin is "wilfully disobeying God" and I agree with her that is the sense most people will think of when they hear the word "sin."


If "sin" implied nothing more than being responsible and learning from mistakes it would be a perfectly reasonable concept. By reasonable, I mean, acceptable to reason, physically possible, observable, etc.

However we all know that "sin" is actually a supernatural mistake, that is, a supposed crime against God. It is also held, at least in Christianity - the dominant system in my culture - to be the main force determining human behavior - ie, humans are inherently wrong-doers because they have inherited "Original Sin" from Adam and Eve. This spiritual hangover, the "sin nature" as they call it, is the entire justification for Christianity.

It goes, because Adam ate the fruit, all humans are morally and spiritually repugnant to God. Only by the blood sacrifce of a magic being could this repugnance be overcome. As Houseplant puts it, "Jesus Blood! Jesus blood cover everything!"


So, humans are told their entire lives that they are inherently evil-doers and repugnant to the One Good Thing, unless they are covered in Jesus Blood.


This is barbaric, ridiculous, cruel, and completely unwarranted by any examination of the facts. There is no evidence that it is remotely true. Telling children this, before they are capable of critical thinking, and telling them they have to believe it / be good or else they will GO TO HELL!, seems a hideous abuse of trust.

Completely disagree. The trick would be to start with the accurate truth and then make the religion portray it accurately.

There is no reason to use the old religions. We cannot verify their claims and they don't seem to be true. But that doesn't mean no religion could ever be useful. In the age of reason, religion would just need to be true to be useful.


As an example of how this might work, I would offer Zen Buddhism. This flavor of Buddhism is not concerned with claims about gods, souls, afterlives, reincarnations, bodhisattvas or anything supernatural. It claims that you can reduce suffering through techniques, and explains the techniques. It says you can be more moral using guidelines, and explains the guidelines. There is nothing there that any person could not personally verify.


Religion does a lot of important things for society. The fact that most of the legacy religions are bunk is just a historical hangover. We can start over, make completely new religions, using all the amazing, incredible, wonderful "provable" truth we have learned, and embracing the mystery of all yet to know.

It would be cool.

Let's try. Why not?


Truth is the easiest. Statements are true if they are accurate. The accuracy of statements can be checked. If they can't be checked, then you have a different truth - that you don't know.

Guidelines are also easy. They are good guidelines if they work. If they don't work they can be changed.

Business groups and other organizations are able to come together around ideals and formats. It can be done.


I am not even suggesting there should only be one new religion that everyone has to like or agree with. There could be many, with different rituals, etc. But verifiable accuracy should be at the heart of any quest for enlightenment. Religion is of no use at all without it.

I don't see any reason to approach them at all. I agree it would be a waste of effort for the most part, so why bother?

But, there are new people coming along every day. Do we really want nothing better to offer them than the old ways?


The old traditions are dying, crumbling under the weight of their unreason. There is a cultural vacuum. I think future generations will fill it with new religions. So I'm floating the idea of a true religion to get the zeitgeist going in the right direction. :-)

Well look how great THAT has worked out for humanity. Obviously a dead end. It's time we expanded our horizons, don't you think?


I use this definition from dictionary.com:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


So, usually involving superhuman agencies...but not necessarily. I would say that creating a set of ideas concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, involving ritual observance, containing a moral code, is taking all of the parts of religion that are useful and important and leaving out only the dead end.


Humans invented religion in order to enshrine a narrative tradition. The tradition existed to bring the culture together and pass the rules to the next generation. It worked by bringing the reality of the natural world - facts - together with what is important - values. This allowed people to internally map the world, and their place in it, and their place within the community, to bring personal wholeness and social cohesion.

Legacy religions were started by ancient people who did not understand a single thing about the cause and effect that dominated their lives. Of course they are filled with made-up explanations, superstitious taboos and tribal out-grouping. They need to be thrown on the scrap heap of history.

But humans still need personal wholeness and social cohesion, as much if not more than ever. So why not create a new narrative tradition - using a true narrative, to the best of our ability to discern - to bring together facts and values?


The true story of what we are and how we came to be here like this is the most magnificent story ever told, the greatest show on Earth. The biological basis for our love and compassion and morality is a far better foundation for understanding how to be than leaning on the dictates of a wrathful non-entity. Techniques that really work for alleviating suffering and creating happiness exist and can be disseminated and tested and built on. Plus, it would provide expression for esoterica usually ignored by secular culture, like transcendence and the technology of spiritual experience.

There is a lot of material there to work with. Just because there is nothing supernatural, doesn't mean there is nothing meaningful or uplifting to say. The new religions need not be burdened by pretending, and can talk about the real reasons for what this is.

So don't do it that way.

I don't agree that a system where everybody "finds their own truth" is working, or could work.

If everyone finds their own "truth," it can't be verified to be actually true. So, it could be wrong. And, there is no reason for it to be consistent from one person to the next. Everyone gets to declare it to be whatever they want, or whatever their continent usually says it is, and there is no way to reconcile the differences or determine which description is more accurate. Forever unresolvable conflict is the result.

Unfortunately, you are not alone, and the attempts to usher this in have serious geopolitical consequences.


So, case in point.

Perhaps you will appreciate this source more:

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Let's see. Every single history teacher in the WHOLE WORLD will tell you that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Every single one. There's not even a law that says they have to use that date. They just do, all of them, like robots in lockstep. Creepy? Orwellian?

Whoa, slow down. What are you talking about? I never said anything about a "new world religion." Did you read what I actually wrote? Among other things, I said:


"I am not even suggesting there should only be one new religion that everyone has to like or agree with. There could be many, with different rituals, etc. But verifiable accuracy should be at the heart of any quest for enlightenment. Religion is of no use at all without it."


You are making a ton of assumptions, so for clarity here is what I am NOT suggesting:

• Compulsory religion

• State religion

• One religion

• Religion in school

• Ritual uniformity

• Religious Majority


Now please stop panicking and listen to what I am actually saying. There is a reason why all the history teachers say that Pearl Harbor happened on December 7, 1941. It's not because it's creepy Orwellian groupthink. It's because, to the best of our ability to determine, the information is accurate.

The legacy religions from thousands of years ago are clearly inaccurate about a lot of things. People did not used to be concerned with accuracy, but now they are. The religions of the future, whatever they are, will have to be based on something other than made up stuff from thousands of years ago, or they will be as problematic as the old ones. They will need to be verifiably accurate to be of any use at all.

Yes, when things can be verified, everyone who cares about accuracy says the same thing. It's not Orwellian, it's trying to be real.

Everything is ripe for abuse. That is no reason to do nothing.

What prevents abuse is checks and balances. Currently, religion has none. No one is accountable for what religions claim.

The entire point of making verifiable accuracy a requirement for religions of the future is to provide checks against abuse and other forms of bullshit. Verifiable accuracy is what made chemistry an improvement over alchemy, astronomy an improvement over astrology.

Reason and accuracy work. Why not apply them to the narrative systems we turn to for meaning and wholeness?

If by "policing," you mean holding people accountable for the accuracy of things they claim are true, then damn straight. That would be a huge improvement over our current system of zero accountability, where anyone can claim anything in the name of religion and no matter how hateful, stupid or obviously wrong it is, it gets a pass. There is no reason for this.

Anyone. Everyone. Any person who wants to know if a claim is accurate is free to check it. If there are discrepancies with the claim they can be demonstrated. Others who wish to know which is correct can check also, and all concerned can confer and compare what they find until the discrepancies are resolved. That is how you find out what is true.

The point is to say things which are accurate, so that when people check them, everything lines up. Why is that less important in religion than anywhere else? It should be more important.

If by "policing," you mean fact-checking, why not? Sure, it's harder to preach to a choir who are using critical thinking, but it would keep the preacher on his toes. He should be accountable for the accuracy of what he is claiming is true. Why isn't he?

Maybe people will get tired of being fed a bunch of unsubstantiated claims from thousands of years ago that contradict each other and make no sense, and they will begin to gravitate to religions that are true and work. It could catch on.

It tells people what they "should" do.

You should walk where it tells you to walk.

We are in complete control of the path. If some of the steps lead nowhere, or to bad places, we can take out the markers telling people to walk there.

The point is, "paths" do tell people what to do.

No one suggested anything remotely otherwise. That does not exempt the path itself from being evaluated for merit.

Of course. The fact that anyone isn't trying is inexcusable.

That would be a crappy cop-out of a reason not to try.

Did the road have these?

It probably did. If it didn't, the road could certainly be evaluated for merit and found seriously wanting. But, a road doesn't build itself. The people who built the road and maintained the road and used the road, and even the ones who saw the road are all responsible for ignoring a dangerous hazard.

What we need is a few of these inserted into religion. In Christianity, for example, we need one right where the sign points to "Homosexual sex is abomination" and before each path that says "There is no way to God but through me."

"Blaming religion" has nothing to do with suggesting that religion has agency. It is pointing out that there are flaws in "the path" that people are getting hung up on.

The fact that people stand by and let "gays are abomination" and "Christ-only salvation" remain as part of the Christian religion is inexcusable.

This does not justify failing to correct the flaws. It's like saying that it's just fine for Ikea to include wrong directions in their furniture assembly instructions. Why provide good directions that work? After all, people may be looking there specifically for guidance - but they have brains, let them figure out which instructions to ignore.

Look at a pack of cigarettes. Some things create enough suffering that they merit warnings.

Christians are accountable for what their religion is saying.

I'm saying that people should try to get the bad paths out of their religion or at least warn people that we know better now.

That is what a lot of Christians tell me. All the more reason to change the religion so it reflects what you actually believe.

The UUs did it. The rest of Christianity would do well to follow their lead.

Because those claims are cruel, exclusionary, and completely unsubstantiated. They correspond to nothing that can be observed in reality. They exist only as stuff people say. Promulgating these ideas as true is divisive and creates massive unresolvable conflict.

You don't even believe this stuff. What justification could there possibly be for keeping the signposts which point this way on the path?

That is why we use error correction. We may not be able to be perfect, but we can try to be better.


"Nothing is perfect" is no excuse for failing to correct flaws.

I'm not talking about changing history, I'm talking about changing current official policy.

The Unitarian Universalists got together and declared that they believe in Universal Salvation. That is now their official policy. If they can do it, other people can too.

America has officially refuted slavery. The Unitarians officially refuted Christ-only salvation. If they can do it, others can too.


"It's impossible" is no excuse for failing to correct flaws.

No. The fact that it is not subjective is what makes knowing so vastly superior to simply deciding. Knowing comes from looking at how things actually are.

You can simply examine homosexuality and how it works in nature and observe directly for yourself that it is not a pathology. It's not "a matter of opinion" that it is wrong. It has no demonstratable wrong. No wrong can be shown of it. Therefore the description of it as wrong is not accurate.

It is also possible to see that labeling it as wrong is cruel, divisive, and causing an untold amount of suffering.

"We don't really know better" is no excuse for not correcting flaws - particularly that one.

They did something you are claiming is impossible. Jealous? ;)

I disagree that Christianity needs to offer both hate policies and love policies so that people can have a choice.

Are the Unitarian Universalists guilty of "censorship"?

"It would limit our choices" and "it would be censorship" are ridiculous excuses for failing to correct flaws.

If the majority of Christians have grown, it's time to update the policies of the majority groups to reflect that growth.

Throughout Christian history there have been many, many official declarations of policy and movements where people declared a different understanding than what had been official before.

It's time for a New Reformation.

I am not talking about the entire religion. I am talking about putting "warning signs" on the particular toxic parts of the religion which are helpful to nobody.

Having it a matter of official policy that those ideas are flawed, that they cause great suffering, and that we have learned better, is how the warnings about those ideas are posted.

"White people" is an ethnic designation. It can't be changed. People have no choices about what designation they are. The designation does not represent any kind of policy.

Christianity is an ideology. It is self-selecting. It can be changed. People in ideological groups are responsible for the ideology of the group. Who else could possibly be responsible for it? Christianity will be what the people who have selected themselves into those groups want it to be.


If you think that changing Christianity is impossible, by all means, do not work for it. But, since Christianity is supposed to be about love, you would think there would be a lot of Christians who want better, more loving doctrines...enough so that there would be a widespread movement working within Christianity to have the doctrines updated. However, except for outlying groups like the UUs, there isn't.

The fact that there isn't, that most groups are not working to address the flaws in Christian doctrine the way the Unitarian Universalists have done, is inexcusable.

Tell that to Martin Luther. Or the UUs. People who want better can change.

I don't think a majority really agrees that maligning gays and preaching exclusive salvation is a good idea. Anyone can look and see these are unsubstantiated, cruel, exclusionary, and are causing suffering.

People may not be ready to change it officially today, but as error correction kicks in and people become concerned about suffering, I think it likely that someday they will.

As time goes on I feel confident that the moral arc of history will continue to bend toward justice.

I'm not saying they should agree with me. I am saying they should check and see what actually is.

Believe me, I know what the elephant in the room is. It has been overcome before.

Simply believing is not checking. Not checking is the problem.

Every claim can be checked against what actually is to see how it holds up.


For example, let's start with the claim that homosexuality is "abomination," or fundamentally wrong. Why do people think it is? For one, because some people a long time ago said so. Well, people a long time ago said a lot of things. Some of it was wrong. Any other reason?

Next, we ask, can we confirm this claim? There is plenty we can check to find out about homosexuality - namely, homosexuality: how it occurs in humans and other animals, where it appears in the population, what functions it serves, how it affects the individuals and group, etc.

A careful examination of homosexuality, as I stated before, shows no pathology. It is not a mental illness or a defect in development. It is entirely naturally occurring in many species including human, it serves functions, and is no more inherently harmful than heterosexuality. That is the truth about what it is, gathered by checking, to the best of our ability to discern.

Is what we find abomination, or fundamentally wrong? No. There is no evidence to support the claim that it is.

In addition, let's look at the effects of the claim. In this country, the claim is causing great suffering to LGBT people, by demonizing their natural disposition and, up until very recently and still in some places, legally making them second-class citizens.

So, the claim has nothing at all to support it, is contradicted by examination, and is causing great suffering. The claim does not check out.



Next, let's look at Christ-only salvation, the claim to know that humans are inherently damned and only by faith in Jesus can people avoid the "bad" afterlife. Or, as I sometimes call it, Hell for Hindus.

A harder claim to examine? Not really.

First of all, why do people think so? Because some people a long time ago said so. Again, a lot of what they said was wrong. So...any other reasons?

Next, can we confirm the claim? Well, it is about something which supposedly occurs "after" death. We can examine death, and see exactly what it is - it is the end of the functioning biosystem which sustains a discrete genetic pattern, and it appears to happen no differently in humans than in any other thing that lives.

That is it. Nothing can be discerned about what, if anything, could "happen" after that. No person has any more information than any other person on this. The obvious, unavoidable truth revealed by the checking is that what, if anything, happens "after" death is a total mystery to every human, and no single claim to the contrary has anything at all to recommend it over any other. There is no evidence to support any claim.

That is the truth about what it is, gathered by checking, to the best of our ability to discern.

So, the claim that some people know what to do to get a good afterlife is completely unsupported.

In addition, let's look at the effects of the claim. It has resulted in holy wars, inquisitions, persecutions and Crusades. It fosters in-group / outgroup divisions and serves to demonize other groups. It treats other human cultures pejoratively, designating those people too blind or stupid to understand the afterlife like "we" do. It creates utterly unresolvable conflict by putting the unsubstantiated claims of this group above the unsubstantiated claims of others. It greatly devalues reason by pretending to know what no human knows.

It also results in untold amounts of human guilt and fear as individuals quail before the horror of possibly not quite making it.


So, the claim that some humans know about the afterlife has nothing at all to support it, is contradicted by examination, and is causing great suffering. The claim does not check out.


Not because I said so. Because that is what you will find if you check also. Ditto everyone.

I disagree that this is because people *cannot* look and see. It is because they don't.

And thus, we come to the elephant in the room. The "real" reason. The truth is, people feel they cannot change the doctrines of religion because God Wants Them Like This.

Well, that has been overcome many times before, whenever checking revealed something different from what the doctrines were saying.

Eventually enough people check, and How God Figures In is relegated to mythology and metaphor.

How does anyone ever make things happen? Talking about it. Writing about it. Doing activism. Being a strong voice for better. Agitating for change. Leading by example. There are many, many ways. You are doing some of it already.

If enough Catholics got together for better policies, they wouldn't need Rome.

I think humans figuring things out and bringing everyone else up to speed is exactly how we got where we are today...able to transcend flawed systems and create incredible wonders because of figuring things out.

I am saying that people can make their church into something they would like it to be. Is this really good enough? The Catholics I know are well aware of grave shortcomings in the traditional doctrines. I think the people in an organization are the only ones who can make their organization be what they want.

If the organization is not what people want - if they feel the basic ideology is incorrect and cruel, for example - then I have to wonder why people keep doing it.

Religious systems are one hundred percent optional. People do not have to stand for a system that does not reflect their true values. We are not stuck. If we care about how our system aligns with our understanding, but we can't change the system, and see no hope of it ever changing, then we can leave it. There may be better systems which align more closely to what we actually believe, or we can start new systems, or transcend systems.


Change is always possible.

Up until five minutes ago, evolutionarily speaking, those young men needed every bit of aggression and energy they had to hunt the meat and defend the tribe. It was all on them.

It takes more than a few paltry millennia of civilization to learn to control such powerful biological wiring.

Are you saying that some young men are "different" from the vast majority of humans?

Absolutely. But that describes everyone.

Every person struggles with impulse control and every person "inflicts intentional harm" on others, at some point in their life, mainly while they are learning what to do and what not to do. Many people figure it all out by maturity, many others struggle with such issues life long, but everyone deals with them - to a lesser or greater degree. The degree is the level of pathology.

My point is that humans have always needed SOME people in the group, men mainly, to be very hyper agressive and low on the think-things-out scale. We also need other people to be wimps and thinkers, and everything in between. Human behaviors almost always fall out in a range, where the best shot for the group is to have different members all along the range.

However I do agree most particularly that environmental factors play a role. There are hyper-aggressive cultures which produce more individuals on the far end of the range, and push everyone up the range, our own being one of them.

Like they know.

Any person.

I think trying to second-guess what people thought a long time ago is meaningless. Perhaps the discrepancies mean gender-fluidity; perhaps they are indicative only of a mιlange.

The ancient Greeks definitely had a gender-fluid character in their panoply, Hermaphroditus. Truly, art reflects life.


None of it has anything to do with actual gods of course, and pretending otherwise is the actual problem.