Are you sinless?

[Etritonakin]

You could read the ten commandments to a monkey all day, and they'd still be like....

.....because the law CANNOT apply to them. Their interactions are governed by certain laws based on their nature, but they do not consider the concept as we do. They can do things which are technically against the commandments, but can not even consider them to be sins.

This also applies to other sorts of law.

The difference between monkeys and man allows man to create wonderful things and accomplish astounding feats.

It also allows them to understand the concepts of law and government -which enable them to accomplish a common goal, or work for the common good, by governing individual action toward an end result.

This means that concepts of sin and law CAN apply to us.

It also means that our actions cannot be measured by, or justified by, simply comparing them to the actions of animals.

If you are hired by a company to be part of a team that makes a certain product, you will submit to their laws -or you will be fired.

Your actions cannot be allowed to adversely affect others on the team -or the intended end result. (This is now being applied by companies to personal lives outside of work perhaps more than ever -and is causing much controversy)

"Sin" is exactly the same -but applies to everything and everyone -and the eternal well-being and happiness of all is the common goal. This means that everyone cannot do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it -and that's a GOOD THING.

Most can understand the good which would come from keeping most of the commandments, but the purpose of keeping those commandments concerning a God which they have never seen and do not know is not apparent to them.

They don't see or know the purpose of the law, and aren't convinced that the law should apply to them -even though they possibly could at some point.

Therefore, they can sin in ignorance -and are actually innocent inasmuch as they are not aware. If they do that which they do understand to be harmful or wrong in any other way, they are then guilty and convicted by their own conscience -even if they ignore their conscience. The other part of the law is not a part of their conscience at that point.

The commandments concerning how to begin to relate to God have to do with the establishment of order throughout eternity -whereas the others apply to order primarily in this life (though both apply in principle now and forever).

Any effective law must consider all pertinent things -and many do not believe that "God" pertains to them. So, some see that the idea of God is messing up man's self-government by introducing error -and some see that not considering God -because he does exist -is the reason man is in such a bad state. One thing is correct. One thing is not.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

(This is why your boss gets mad. Otherwise, you could all just throw the rules out the window -as well as the common goal and common good)

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

****************************************

(I was recently considering how the commandments/law might apply to the truly sexually ambiguous. The law was intended for a certain state -and therefore would need to be applied based on an individual's present state.
The law concerning adultery and those things pertaining to sexuality cannot apply physically to a person completely without gender, for example -though the spiritual aspect of faithfulness can. God is primarily interested in one's desire to do what is right and to keep the law, but the individual should honestly consider what is their true state. Some do not consider such things, so )

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't know about the spending problem, since I can, and do, take precautions against it. I don't really believe genes have complete dominance over us.


I never said intention. Having the intention means the action will be carried out, if an opportunity presents itself. Imagine two people, both of whom fantasize about raping children. One of them, given the opportunity, would do so, whether feeling guilty about it or not. Even if guilt is felt, no matter how strong, there's an excuse of "I can't control myself! I'm sorry!" The other, however, recognizes that the fantasy is of an action that, if carried out, is absolutely horrible. Therefore, this person actively takes precautions to never be in a situation where the fantasy can be fulfilled, even to the point of getting psychotherapy and making a vow to "never have children". (If the person is a woman, perhaps she might get her tubes tied, to make absolutely sure.)

If raping children is too dark a subject, think of murder. Murder is a horrible thing to do. And yet, when I play Just Cause 2 (think Grand Theft Auto but frankly better IMO), I kill the in-game virtual people, not all of whom are shooting back at me, all the time with lots and lots of joy and sadistic glee. Does that make me a murderer? I think not. I would NEVER do any of that in real life, EVER.

Our genes work in concert with our environment. Your genetic disposition toward overspending is being checked by some other genetic disposition(s) working in concert with your experiences (which manipulate your genes, remember evolution). Our DNA contains the information of who we are-- to say it doesn't have dominance is nonsensical, because it literally determines who we are. If you had the DNA of a horse, you would be a horse. If you like your brain, thank your DNA for constructing it.


Intent is important. I noticed you didn't mention it, which is why I brought it up. The first child rapist has the intent to rape, regardless of how he/she feels afterwards-- as evidenced by that statement, "I can't control myself." This person could not control their desire, which evolved into the intent to rape, and instead carried out their intent. The second does not have the intent to rape, but apparently has the intent to be rid of their desire for children. If it happens that the second person acts on his/her desire for a child, that intent becomes obvious. In either case, these desires are harmful to themselves, and potentially harmful to others. I would call these desires sinful/unlawful/unacceptable/evil-- really even mental illnesses.

Just Cause 2 is a video game. It has basis in our specific human reality, but is detached. You have the intent to murder certain characters. If the game doesn't have a law which states you are a murderer, you just aren't. The characters are presumably made precisely for the purpose of murdering them, and aren't actual human beings.

 

[Sapiens]

You could read the ten commandments to a monkey all day, and they'd still be like....

.....because the law CANNOT apply to them. Their interactions are governed by certain laws based on their nature, but they do not consider the concept as we do. They can do things which are technically against the commandments, but can not even consider them to be sins.

This also applies to other sorts of law.

...

Actually other primates have been shown to be able to make moral judgements without having to have the rules read to them, just like atheists.

It's only religionists that need to see the rules in black and white before they will think about following them.

 

[Nakosis]

Any sinless people here? And not in the 'it isn't my fault because I don't have freewill etc. type answer, but actual, sinless people.

An idea from some other threads discussing original sin, sinful nature.

If I was sinless I wouldn't be here.
Sin as I define it is accepting a lie as the truth. Aiming for the truth and missing it.

I am constantly tempted by lies. To accept the lie as truth. Accepting the lie feeds my ego. Sin gives us what we want. As long as you continue to want it sin will remain a temptation for you. So I don't reject sin. You'll never win that because the desire will remain with you. I learn to see my desires for what they are and let go of them as I can. The more I let go, the less temptation for sin.

I suspect if when I am completely free of temptation for sin I will also be free of this world.

 

[Sleeppy]

Actually other primates have been shown to be able to make moral judgements without having to have the rules read to them, just like atheists.

It's only religionists that need to see the rules in black and white before they will think about following them.

That makes perfect sense.-- Certain moral judgments are seen to be innately based, but somehow the religionists who write these judgements down, were skipped in the evolutionary process that determined them.

You're missing quite a bit of information here.

 

[Nakosis]

That makes perfect sense.-- Certain moral judgments are seen to be innately based, but somehow the religionists who write these judgements down, were skipped in the evolutionary process that determined them.

You're missing quite a bit of information here.

Morality is probably somewhat genetic. Our sense of right and wrong we may not be actually born with but it's development is likely feed from the personality traits we are born with.

Prophets who assume they are messengers of God could see this developed morality as given by God. If morality has a genetic component, and successful morality continues in the species then a genetic group could develop a common sense of morals.

But there'd always be genetic variations. So the group would create ethical codes/moral codes to limit the variation from morality that was see as successful for the group.

 

[Sleeppy]

Morality is probably somewhat genetic. Our sense of right and wrong we may not be actually born with but it's development is likely feed from the personality traits we are born with.

Prophets who assume they are messengers of God could see this developed morality as given by God. If morality has a genetic component, and successful morality continues in the species then a genetic group could develop a common sense of morals.

But there'd always be genetic variations. So the group would create ethical codes/moral codes to limit the variation from morality that was see as successful for the group.

Everything we do is genetic. We can't skip over our DNA. Everything else, I agree with.

 

[Matemkar]

I am a sinner.

Yet I believe in infallible human beings. Absolute ones among Prophets and Imams are infallible in my beliefs. It is a must for them to be sinless whereas for others it is not a must but not impossible either to be sinless.

So I believe any not chosen-appointed person today can be infallible too if they follow both the scripture and the infallible leaders that are the words of God in flesh.

And I think, the examples would be meaningsless if it were never meant to be taken. Thus, there has to be infallible subscribers-followers as well.

Sorry for rambling. And thanks.

 

[Riverwolf]

Our genes work in concert with our environment. Your genetic disposition toward overspending is being checked by some other genetic disposition(s) working in concert with your experiences (which manipulate your genes, remember evolution). Our DNA contains the information of who we are-- to say it doesn't have dominance is nonsensical, because it literally determines who we are. If you had the DNA of a horse, you would be a horse. If you like your brain, thank your DNA for constructing it.

I mean to say that I've seen no indication that we are incapable of resisting our genetic dispositions via knowledge and experience. I cannot change my Wyrd, but I can slightly alter the thread if I knew the proper techniques. The Butterfly Effect can do the rest.

Besides, if I understand correctly, my genes are there at birth and are constant through my life. Without gene therapy, there will be no genetic mutations for me.

Intent is important. I noticed you didn't mention it, which is why I brought it up. The first child rapist has the intent to rape, regardless of how he/she feels afterwards-- as evidenced by that statement, "I can't control myself." This person could not control their desire, which evolved into the intent to rape, and instead carried out their intent. The second does not have the intent to rape, but apparently has the intent to be rid of their desire for children. If it happens that the second person acts on his/her desire for a child, that intent becomes obvious. In either case, these desires are harmful to themselves, and potentially harmful to others. I would call these desires sinful/unlawful/unacceptable/evil-- really even mental illnesses.

I disagree. It basically implies that we have no ultimate self-control, and are either just evil, with no potential to be anything else, or just good, with no potential to be anything else. Therefore, good and evil become meaningless concepts in terms of applying them to persons.

Desires can be harmful if they're not properly tempered and checked. The desire can be a bad one, because it's of a bad thing, but having a bad desire or a bad thought does not make the person bad. Otherwise, Paul was right that there's no such thing as a good person, not even one. Good and evil cannot exist without each other, so if there is no good, then evil loses all meaning, as well.

In terms of the Wild, this is the case. There is no good or evil in the Wild. They are socio-cultural constructs. But here's the thing about such things: that they are artificial abstract concepts with no existence in the Wild does not mean they don't exist at all.

Just Cause 2 is a video game. It has basis in our specific human reality, but is detached. You have the intent to murder certain characters. If the game doesn't have a law which states you are a murderer, you just aren't. The characters are presumably made precisely for the purpose of murdering them, and aren't actual human beings.

But they appear to be.

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually other primates have been shown to be able to make moral judgements without having to have the rules read to them, just like atheists.

Which makes sense.

A pet theory of mine is that good and evil are inherent to Tribal behavior: good is that which helps the Tribe, and evil is that which harms the Tribe. Humans are, of course, not the only tribal species; most other apes are, as well, as are wolves, elephants, and other animals with strong group-social instincts. Elephants have apparently been observed to take revenge.

That these animals would have conceptions of morality, even if basic, is something I expect.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is no concept of "sin" in my beliefs. The closest to that would probably be ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Sapiens]

Ignorance might be a sin, stupidity however is a curse.

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

If "sin" really exists, it is My personal opinion that "sin is disobeying your conscious."

If you always obey your conscious, you will never sin.

If you always disobey your conscious, you are always sinning.

~PEACE~

 

[Sonofason]

Any sinless people here? And not in the 'it isn't my fault because I don't have freewill etc. type answer, but actual, sinless people.

An idea from some other threads discussing original sin, sinful nature.

This is my perspective.
God is good. All that God wills is good. If a person does that which is good, he does that which is favorable to God. It would be in accordance to God's good will.

But human beings have free will. They can choose to do that which is contrary to the will and nature of God.

I don't know if it is by design, but the Spanish word sin means "without". This is interesting to me, because I believe that when we do something that is not in accordance with the will of God, we do it "sin" (without) God.

In a sense, if we are sinful, we are full of sin, or in other words, full of without God.

To me, original sin was when Adam and Eve chose to do something without God's consent. They chose to do something without God. They committed an act "without".

 

[roger1440]

A sin is when one breaks or goes against the laws of their chosen deity. I have no deity, meaning I have never sinned. Making me sinless.

Are you perfect? Have you found the way of perfection?

 

[Etritonakin]

Actually other primates have been shown to be able to make moral judgements without having to have the rules read to them, just like atheists.

It's only religionists that need to see the rules in black and white before they will think about following them.

I don't doubt they do make moral judgments to some degree.

"but they do not consider the concept as we do".... was a bit unclear, but my point is still valid.

Reminded me of this verse, though....

Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

I don't really take offense to what you wrote, because much of what is called religion causes me to grimace at the thought of it.

 

[psychoslice]

Well I don't have a belief or concept of sin, so I must be without sin.

 

[Draka]

Are you perfect? Have you found the way of perfection?

What is perfect?

 

[Sonofason]

Actually other primates have been shown to be able to make moral judgements without having to have the rules read to them, just like atheists.

It's only religionists that need to see the rules in black and white before they will think about following them.

Actually, I believe the black and white confirms what we already know.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am sinless, I am guiltless, and I am free from and unhindered by such notions. The only way I could sin is if I gave up on mySelf and neglected My path.