1. Some animals eat each other, it does not make it less 'wrong' for humans do. Differences exist between expectations and abilities among species of life.

2. Christianity does not treat women 'second class'. Anymore than the right hand treats the left hand 'second class'. Christianity lays out how males and females work TOGETHER. That this difference is a matter of inferior or superior is a modern construct of the ego.

3. Many religions do consider sex with same sex a sin, just like sex with family. Love is love, that is not a justification for all types of sex.


4. No matter how much we push evolution, the same question exists, where did whatever we 'evolved' from, come from then? and where did THAT come from? Neither evolution or creation have an adequate and definitive 'beginning' from which everything starts.

5. IT is a shame that many push things that are nowhere in their scriptures. The Bible, for instance, mentions nothing about sex ONLY being for 'procreation'. The Bible describes sex as a pleasure to be enjoyed between husband and wife.

Some humans eat each other too; there are a few on mingle I think could be tasty.

I respectfully disagree totally with you about the way religions (all of them!) treat women as second class to men. Women are 'not allowed' to be elders in the Mormon and JW belief system, only men can do those tasks. Why? Why not women too? Only men can be Catholic priests. Why? Why not women too? What if a woman feels 'called' to be a priest. The answer is always, "Sorry, no, you cannot be 'called' because you are a woman". Muslim women follow their husband down the street, walking at a respectful distance behind him. Many men insist that their women wear the veil in its various forms. It is not the woman's choice to do so, but obedience to their man. This and many, many other examples prove my point that religions (all of them!) treat women as inferior to men. Some even go so far as to refuse to allow girls to go to school and learn, even FGM is performed to prevent the girl from enjoying sex when she becomes an adult.

Indeed, many religions do indeed consider same-sex relationships to be a 'sin' and all because of a misunderstanding of the true meaning of words in the bible. If you have no belief then it is OK to be gay and have a same sex relationship. Here in the UK, gay couples have in recent years been allowed to have a marriage ceremony, which gives them the same legal rights as a man/woman couple who get married.

I don't know the bible well enough to argue with you about the reason for sex, but I do know that preachers in many religions will state quite clearly that the only reason to have sex is to procreate. The Catholic wedding service mentions that the purpose of marriage is to have children. For me, the purpose of marriage is to have a companion to share life with. We might, or might not, wish to have children as part of our relationship. It is our choice, our business, and nothing to do with anyone else, church or not.

Scientists currently believe (most of them - not all of them) that there was a Big Bang and there was simply nothing before it because by definition, time itself started at that point. I have a slightly different idea, which I know is what some scientists are thinking. I believe time is infinite, always has been and always will be. The universe is currently expanding. It seems possible to me that one day the expansion will slow and after a time the universe will start to shrink, eventually reaching an unbelievably small size at which point there will be another Big Bng and it will start all over again. Just my thinking. None of this has anything to do with religion, it is just a convenient explanation that there was a God who existed 'before' the Big Bang and that he created that and everything else since that point in time. No harm in believing mythis and fairy tales, but it is impossible to look for and find any evidence that could possibly become a proof one day.

I am amazed at how easily people can be fooled into beliving these myths and fairy tales and also at how easily people can be controlled by others. An extreme example of this mind control is found in those suicide bombers. They seem to have turned what they used to think of as being wrong into being something they really have to do. Could this be an extreme example of the sort of mind control that produces all this belief in nothing at all?

Are there any sins in Humanism?

One persons virture is another persons sin. So if I don’t like doing certain things because they cause me to become petrified with fear, and you like doing them because they make you feel energized with peace, or some other dichotomy, then don’t let my fear freak you out.

Is it:
1) Do unto others as others do unto you
2) Do unto others you would have as others do unto you
3) Do unto others as others would have others do unto them
Or is it something else entirely?

Is translation of one persons beliefs to another persons beliefs required for empathy?

Do you ever feel crazy if you start listening to your own arguments against other people’s arguements?

Good girls go to heaven...
Bad girls go everywhere....

Just a couple things to consider;

Time requires motion, a change of 'state' from present to present which occurs as duration.
Before motion, time could not exist.
In a static Universe, time does not esist.
Only after a change in state can time exist.
If that change of state is labeled as "Let There Be Light" it doesn't change the fact that there was a change of state.


My question is "Are there any sins at all"?
Right and wrong is not a natural state.
The natural state is reality and reality either is or isn't.
Right and wrong is purely opinion.
Sin is based on the idea of right or wrong.
Who determines sanity?
Who determines sin, God? ... Why?


Try to think about it from a different perspective.
In reality, it doesn't matter if you "Do unto others as others do unto you".
It isn't how reality actually happens.
It is a pipe dream of fantasy.
In a perfect world it would be reality but who thinks we live in a perfect reality?
In the "Do unto others you would have as others do unto you" makes you the example of all motives. A delusion of superiority.
In "Do unto others as others would have others do unto them" makes others the authority on how you live in reality. An Inferiority Delusion.

These concepts are unrealistic to the reality we experience every moment.
Our morals and virtues allow us to make exceptions to these rules but the only rule that actually applies is
"Do what is needed to survive another moment or Die"

When faced with death, all morals and virtues are secondary to organism survival. Circumstances that are not life and death are subject to any fantasies we want to manifest to explain them. A delusional luxury.

Non-marital sex is not life threatening unless you contract a fatal disease or inspire rage from a jealous lover. You can make any justification for or against as you might fantasize.

No, the word 'sin' relates to religion. It is where someone transgresses the rules laid down by that religion.

Humanists are ethical people and believe in many of the 'christian' virtues - love your neighbour, don't kill or steal and so on. We have respect for others. Of course the concept of 'sin' is 'bad' and a Humanist who does something bad is guilty of the same badness as a Christian who does the same thing if it happens to have been described as a sin by the men who wrote the rule book.

1) does not apply, others often do wrong, why would anyone want to do the same thing?

2) is right for me and I am sure for most people. I like people who are kind, compassionate and friendly and I try to be the same to other people.

3) doesn't make sense.

No, empathy is possible across different beliefs but a deep understanding usually evades me. Why on earth would anyone believe so strongly in a system of myths and fairy tales? Beats me!

I don't feel crazy. If I did I wouldn't post here or on similar threads.

It probably is not good to talk about sin too much because someone might think you’re calling them out.

Individuals, relationships, and communities with large scale social dynamics each have their subjectively observed sins of their own. To prescribe sin for an individual can be a sin of a community because it is irrelevant to what is important, makes things complicated, and even seeks to undermine the self control of the individual. But then again, it also could be very beneficial to that person too.

Saying something is a sin as defined in the Bible yet transcribed by man. That relates information. Yet there leaves wide gaps between different scriptures. Yet each scripture related by an apostle, or book of the Bible each relates a human perspective of the information related to them per their understanding. Teaching us through their adventures and preachings.

I think it all depends on how YOUR society defines sin.
It does matter the application in which we consider ones actions.
For those in first world societies, ones which subscribe to the new world order of values presented to us by media, how we treat the female population is important to how we think of how sin is committed. Yet in other cultures, who females are treated is dependent on how our culture dictates.
In this culture, sin is defined quite differently.
The entire idea of sin is predicated on the culture assessing it.

While I can agree with that substance of your association, it can't apply to all cultural associations.
In other words, sin is determined by cultural acceptance.
The same can be said about sanity.

In life, we all face reality as it is. Most of the time we are able to justify reality but there are times when reality makes no seance to what we are taught. So, instead of trying to understand reality we substitute our defined delusions to try to make reality fit.
But a delusion is always a delusion.

This can actually apply to dating.
Failure to understand the reality to which we are faced, we delude ourselves to make things out to be more than they actually are.

There are moral and values that predicate our actions.
It is all related to the morals and values we are led to believe are reality.
The reason why we have wars and conflicts is because we assume our morals and values are the 'right' ones and see all others as defective.

There can never be a union of predilection as long as that assumption exists.
The utopian unity is a fantasy.
It all requires a mindset beyond the social capacity.
It requires an individual mindset that is social.
We will never reach that type of unity as long as we fail to agree on moral and values that are so wide ranging.

The bottom line is, we are not mature enough as a species to find the enlightenment of unity.

I want to clarify, as a Christian, I am only speaking of knowledge of The Bible and Chrisianity. Many things people think are in the Bible are not, and many things they think are not ARE.


I believe whole heartedly that it is mostly ego that perceives the different roles as a matter of second class or inferior status. I appreciate the love Christ had for mankind, I don't view it as making me 'second class' to Christ. He had one role, we have others, that all work to complement each other.

I want to clarify, as a Christian, I am only speaking of knowledge of The Bible and Chrisianity. Many things people think are in the Bible are not, and many things they think are not ARE.


I believe whole heartedly that it is mostly ego that perceives the different roles as a matter of second class or inferior status. I appreciate the love Christ had for mankind, I don't view it as making me 'second class' to Christ. He had one role, we have others, that all work to complement each other.

From a religious point of view, i can accept your statement.
Your motivations are clearly religion based.
I don't see where this could be a problem.
If the world shared this insight, perhaps we might live in a better world.
The main problem is most of the world does not share your view
Of the other 7.7 BILLION people alive right now. The consensus of agreement diminished.
As the world 'wakes up', religion begins to lose validity because reality gets in the way.

Your religious vues are valid as applied and considered only from a religions vue.
Not universal.
In the past, the religious vue was enough.
People agreed on them.
In the present, the reality, people tend to question religious vues.
Not because the are wrong but more of a need to 'know'.
Its not about the religion as much as it is about how that religion translates to the reality of life.
Sometimes religion aligns with life but those times when it doesn't causes questions that are never answered.

When you CAN justify religion to explain the reality before us, it can also be explained by other means.
Its those other means that causes people to reject region.
The ONLY reason why the marriage bed might be 'holy' solely depends on the religion in which you subscribe.
It doesn't matter if others think as you, what matters is how YOU think.

I agree with only one additional comment. Although I think there is a need to know which drives much dissension and disagreement. I think beneath that is also the ego. As I have explained this analogy before to Mormon visitors, a problem in the EVE story, more so maybe than questioning the why was the need to have justification for the why not. If the command were not to eat the dirt, assuming she didn't want to eat it, the reason 'why' would not have come up. I find it a natural human trait to begin questioning mostly things that somehow contradict what we WANT, due to ego, and a need to validate that desire through invalidating any direction to neglect that desire instead.

As I said earlier, "each to their own". If you choose to subscribe to one of the religions that exist on this planet, then of course you must obey all the rules. Women must accept that their role in their church will always be 'complementary' meaning they will never be allowed to do the more important things, like being the preacher. If your choice (or culture) means you are a Muslim woman, you will always be happy to do whatever your husband tells you to do. Somewhere in the Bible there is reference to a woman obeying her husband, but no reference to a man obeying his wife. The marriage ceremony even has a part where the women promises to obey her husband, but no part where the husband promises to obey his wife. Fortunately that ridiculous idea has almost vanished and has not been present in any of the marriages I have attended in recent years. People even joke about it with the woman making it clear to the minister that part is not to be included.

As Tom observes, reality has changed. Those concepts were OK a couple of thousand years ago when the Bible was written. Seems to me that people still follow those old rules even though society has moved on. Why is that? Today there are male nurses in hospitals, there are female company directors and firemen (fire people?). That was unheard of even quite recently in history.

If like me, you break free of the constraints of religion, you can now do as you wish, obeying only the inherent rules of common sense and those laws made by the community or country in which you live. If you don't like the laws in the USA, you could look at other countries and maybe make a move if you find somewhere better.

I'm not saying belief in a religion and all that follows is wrong it is just untrue that there is a God anyway, and thus all those rules are totally meaningless. From the point of view of scientific accuracy there is quite simply no such thing, however from the point of view that we live in a free society it is fine for people to believe whatever they want, so long as it is not a 'radicalised' view that says a certain group of people should be killed. Sadly some people take their religious belief so seriously that when when convinced by others, they will do whatever those others instruct them to do, as we have seen so sadly in several parts of the world in recent years.

I'm not saying that terrorism is a part of religion, I think it is part of a culture and would still exist if there were no such thing as religion.

I agree that most of it is ego driven.
But, what are we?
We are the culmination of our egos.

Ego is not the exception, it is the rule.

It is our egos that define us as 'persons'.
We need our egos.
Its the ego that causes us to do what we do.
You speak as if ego is a bad thing but it isn't, it makes us who we are.
Without ego, we become less than what we are.

Does ego play a part, certainly.
Is ego the only factor, not likely.
I think and it is my own opinion.
We strive to understand reality but only selectively embrace it.
We choose the reality that aligns with how we want and reject everything else.
But see, reality doesn't work that way.
It doesn't cooperate with what we want.
Reality is reality no matter how we might think it occurs.
Its that conflict with what we experience to what we expect that gives us turmoil.

The problem, in my understanding, is we fight the reality while trying to impose our own deluded rules.
It doesn't matter if it is one view or another.
What matters is how we cope with the reality we understand.
If sex without marriage is a sin in your reality, it is a sin.
You either obey the rules or you defy them but if it is not a sin, in your mind, there is no defiance and no remorse.

The exceptions are a purely personal assessment.
Its only a sin if YOU make it a sin.
It all is determined by you and your own belief structure.

The OP:

Choice is the common element when talking about ANY standard, rule or law, whether 'religious' or worldly.

Because there are rules, does not mean one cannot choose to disregard them. Every action has a consequence, and broken rules, if discovered, are no different, rather 'religious' or worldly.

I may want to throw my trash in the field. But it is a crime called littering. and if I am caught there will be circumstances. Even if my trash did not harm anyone and it was what I wanted to do, there was a law against it because a type of authority determined the potential for harm COLLECTIVELY, not from one person choosing to do it, but if a large enough number of people chose to do it.

I see this as no different than 'biblical' sins. I can choose to disregard them. I can choose to accept whatever consequence comes and I can trust in the higher authority and the wisdom of how things work together IF they are permitted and chosen by a large enough group of people. THe right leg can never be the left arm, but quite frankly, So what?

What other people view as not allowed, I view as so what, because I view the authority that explained how things are MEANT to complement each other, and my ego feels no need to disregard it. In another analogy. Cars are produced to be used as transportation. Each part of the car is designed for certain things. The brakes CANNOT ever be the Steering wheel. and if they were sentient maybe they would ask 'why cant I be allowed?". Since they have no ego or sentience, that we know of, they just do the part their designer made them to do TOGETHER for the car to function as it was produced to.

I see the family, the community, the church, and mankind as that car, produced by an intelligent creator, all with purposes that work in complement to each other, without any concern or thought of that meaning any are either inferior or superior to the other.


Now, of course, a person can use a car as artwork, or take the parts separately to use out side of the manufacturers product design, or use it as a greenhouse. and that is free will. But the ultimate and most ideal use for that car, according to how it is DESIGNED, has parts working in complement to each other, for the purpose of transportation.

I understand.
The thing I feel needs pointed out is the fact that many parts of religious doctrine are not laws according to the said society.
Yes, littering is a law but it is a law of society, not religion.
The aspect of the OP is strictly about religious laws.
It is not against the law in society (at least not in the one in which I live) that sex outside of marriage is a violation.
Thus, the only law, it might violate is based on religion and not society.
You will not go to jail if you have sex with a "LEGAL" adult outside of marriage.
The whole argument is moot because of that fact.

The LAW that might prevent sex outside of marriage is a personal agreement with a belief and not a law.
The distinction of source is the defining factor.
You will not be persecuted for having sex outside of marriage in the society where I live (other societies have different laws).

Its all a matter of YOUR OWN BELIEFS when considering the legality of said interactions.
Yes, some people DO have issue with it but LAW, society's laws, do not.
The conviction to engage in extramarital sex is a decision but only has significance according to the participants beliefs.

You can't commit a sin if you don't consider that action as a sin.
However, if you do believe and commit the sin, it is your battle with your own guilt and not a societal issue.