I guess thats one way of looking at it!

Or may be that is what God intended to happen ;) and then it just got labelled. Gives justification to the end!

Ahh..dats wonderful, you got the brainbuds salivating already. See this is what I love about message boards, you start with something and it just builds up, getting juicier by the line. The question stands in the post, just to gather the views of people abt sins and virtues, how they correlate the two, if they do at all, in what context and to what extent.

And as far as what came first is concerned, there were no virtues on the face of the earth without man, Adam had to set foot to give rise to all virtues, though his arrival was a result of SIN...isnt it?

Nothing is simple :- )

However, sometimes we do make things complicated ourselves. But that is another post ;-)

You are right, whats good for someone, cud be bad for the other. However, what we call sinful, is normally something i.e out of the norm. Or may be decided upon by majority(if its man made) or ascribed by religion to be wrongful. In other words institutionalized in some form or shape.

May be I am not understanding your question correctly. Are you saying that there is good because we have 'sin' in place already? Without sin, we would not have the good? Are we asking here what came first, the good or the bad?

Guess I shouldnt have used morality and virtues in the same breath! I was talking in too general a term. In descriptive terms morality can differe from individual to individual and society to society and is purely judgemental, however, its based on more of good and less of bad (according to my flawed understanding) and thats the reason that word was used here. I should have just limited the discussion to virtues and not extended it to morality, dat would require a new post.

And if the world indeed needs balance, why are sins and sinners scorned upon? Why not accept them as a part of the whole ?

Ntosofast, isnt that too general a description, I was expecting something deeper perhaps !! You say order in this world is provided by demarkating good n bad, whats good for one may figure as a sin for the other and vice versa. Is the demarkation this simple?

There is good and bad in this world. We need order and belief systems provide one. Use of 'sin' is just a way of institutionalizing that order. Kinda like creating black and white out of all they grey stuff. Hope this helps... :- )

the world needs balance - good needs evil, cold needs heat, yin needs yang. dark needs light etc

agree with plato that morality and sin are not necessarily related. as are morality and religion - those are nto synonomous either. morality is not necessarily 'goodness' and virtues, ethics and principles are belief systems that are taught and that evolve.

i think your title, that sin qualifies all that is good is nearer the mark.

morality and sin's are not nessesarily related.

the trolley problem for example, is an issue where morality and "sins" while kind ofon the same field, are really not playing the same game.

(trolley problem- short and sweet - u in runaway trolly through no fault of your own, it's going down the traks, going to hit 5 innocent people, you have time to do only one thing, either switch the track so that it only hits and kills one person, or leave it, so that it surely hits and kills 5)

whats the moral thing to do?

hard descision to make.
sin may or may not play a role, but it seems any descision will be exempt from the "sin" involved.



(for more discussion on the trolly probelm, by some fo your favirite naseebers, go to philosophy village)


other issues, more basic, is it a moral obligation to join the military?
some would argue yes.
is there sin involved in doing so?

i would argue no.





interesting topic though!