Free-will and sin.

[wellwisher]

In the first place -- we all were one with God (Oneness). That oneness has its own free-will.
In the second place -- we aparted from God. Now, God has its own free-will and we all have our own free-will.

We aparted from God was the first-sin that we did that time using our free-will.
Chain of sins started from this first-sin.

Do you find any defect in the statement above ?

Sin comes from law. Without law there is no sin. Law defines sin. For example, in the US, marijuana laws vary from state to state, being only a sin where there is a law against it. One will not be punished in every state for this sin, since in some states, there is no law against it.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was in paradise long before the prohibition was created that made eating of that tree a sin. Adam and Eve may have eaten of that tree, without sin, in the early days. Once the law was created; thou shall not eat, sin appears.

In Washington, insider trading was something many of the leaders did, since they made laws that influenced business decisions, which then affected stock prices. That extra benefit for the leaders got unpopular among the citizens, so laws were created to hold the leaders accountable. Now it is a sin. The very same act became a sin, once a law was created defining good and evil.

Jesus taught about the forgiveness of sins. This is the scenario where there is law, but it it does not have to be enforced, therefore there is no punishment, as prescribed by the law. The end result is similar to no law and no sin. For example, you are speeding on the highway and the State Trooper stops you. He uses his judgement and decides to teach you, gives you a warning, and then lets you go. The end result is the same as no sin, even with a law in place, due to his forgiveness. Love and mercy can forgive sins created by the law.

Former President Trump is being indicted on crimes, that were not even discussed years ago. The reason was the accusers needed time to create attachments to law. This is how you can railroad people. The goal is to create the illusion that a behavior was always a sin, and not just newly minted, to be a sin. The lawyers will argue this.

With President Biden, influence peddling that was always a sin. Forgiveness of sin was in affect via the Injustice Department, since so many others, in the gang, also did it. Now, the law is being enforced, since a dual justice system had formed, with sin and/or forgiveness of a sin a function of political party. This is being made fair, again.

Law has outlived it usefulness, since it can also be used by criminals in power to escape justice and persecute the innocent with hypocritical laws. Law was not made for the sinners, but to protect the righteous from the sinners; human rights. Now the sinners make laws, to make the righteous appear as sinners; extort and intimidate. Almost all censorship laws only applied to Conservatives; law being used to target people as sinners, by political party. This is being corrected also.

 

[chinu]

Do you believe them only because you trust them, not because they've provided any scientific evidence?

Yes, they've provided me scientific evidences too.

 

[chinu]

Sin comes from law. Without law there is no sin. Law defines sin. For example, in the US, marijuana laws vary from state to state, being only a sin where there is a law against it. One will not be punished in every state for this sin, since in some states, there is no law against it.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was in paradise long before the prohibition was created that made eating of that tree a sin. Adam and Eve may have eaten of that tree, without sin, in the early days. Once the law was created; thou shall not eat, sin appears.

In Washington, insider trading was something many of the leaders did, since they made laws that influenced business decisions, which then affected stock prices. That extra benefit for the leaders got unpopular among the citizens, so laws were created to hold the leaders accountable. Now it is a sin. The very same act became a sin, once a law was created defining good and evil.

Jesus taught about the forgiveness of sins. This is the scenario where there is law, but it it does not have to be enforced, therefore there is no punishment, as prescribed by the law. The end result is similar to no law and no sin. For example, you are speeding on the highway and the State Trooper stops you. He uses his judgement and decides to teach you, gives you a warning, and then lets you go. The end result is the same as no sin, even with a law in place, due to his forgiveness. Love and mercy can forgive sins created by the law.

Former President Trump is being indicted on crimes, that were not even discussed years ago. The reason was the accusers needed time to create attachments to law. This is how you can railroad people. The goal is to create the illusion that a behavior was always a sin, and not just newly minted, to be a sin. The lawyers will argue this.

With President Biden, influence peddling that was always a sin. Forgiveness of sin was in affect via the Injustice Department, since so many others, in the gang, also did it. Now, the law is being enforced, since a dual justice system had formed, with sin and/or forgiveness of a sin a function of political party. This is being made fair, again.

Law has outlived it usefulness, since it can also be used by criminals in power to escape justice and persecute the innocent with hypocritical laws. Law was not made for the sinners, but to protect the righteous from the sinners; human rights. Now the sinners make laws, to make the righteous appear as sinners; extort and intimidate. Almost all censorship laws only applied to Conservatives; law being used to target people as sinners, by political party. This is being corrected also.

According to me Sin is not equal to bad-action. Sin is equal to "Seperation from God"
Whereas, the opposite of bad-action is good-action.

Regardless of we are already far from God, any actions that takes us more far from God is Sin. This has nothing to do with bad, as well as good actions.

 

[1213]

As an atheist i cannot sin

What do you think sin is?

 

[ChristineM]

What do you think sin is?

I have given the definition of sin in post 4

 

[Quintessence]

Do you find any defect in the statement above ?

Not really. It's probably fine for monotheists who accept the concept of sin.

But I'm not a monotheist, I'm a polytheist. And my religion doesn't have a concept of sin. The statements failing to apply to my religion, though, doesn't make the statements "defective" as much as simply not applicable outside of its relevant context.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I do not believe that we were all "one with God" at some point, unless by "God" you mean the nebula that our sun formed from, which contained most of the atoms that compose our flesh today.

Why not a nebula? I bet a nebula has more raw power in it than an Old Testament author assumed God to have. If these authors assumed their God to only have a fraction of the power that we assume a given nebula to have, why not call a nebula "God"?

I would not consider that nebula to have free-will, though.

Agreed. If free will is a prerequisite for something to be God, then a nebula certainly can't be God. But without that caveat (God needs to have free will.), a nebula or the whole of material existence (from a power perspective, and "created the earth and all life" perspective) may very well qualify as divinity. Perhaps even more than religious scriptures indicate. The Upanishads and the concept of Brahman is the closest I've seen a religious text describe such a God.

I think what we call a "mind" is merely an abstraction of a certain kind of computational system, the most well-known example being the neural activity of our brains. We call the output of this computational process a "choice," but that choice was always fated to be made. There was never any ability for us to have "chosen differently" or a future where we did not make that choice.

I consider this position to be plausible. But (IMO) we don't know quite enough to call the matter settled.

 

[1213]

I have given the definition of sin in post 4

"Sin is an immoral act or transgression against divine law". If sin means that, how can you say atheist can't sin? You can't brake the love your neighbor rule?

 

[ChristineM]

"Sin is an immoral act or transgression against divine law". If sin means that, how can you say atheist can't sin? You can't brake the love your neighbor rule?

Of course i can break the love thy neighbour rule. I consider love to be special and personal. I do not give my love away the guy who lives across the street.

 

[Ella S.]

Why not a nebula? I bet a nebula has more raw power in it than an Old Testament author assumed God to have. If these authors assumed their God to only have a fraction of the power that we assume a given nebula to have, why not call a nebula "God"?



Agreed. If free will is a prerequisite for something to be God, then a nebula certainly can't be God. But without that caveat (God needs to have free will.), a nebula or the whole of material existence (from a power perspective, and "created the earth and all life" perspective) may very well qualify as divinity. Perhaps even more than religious scriptures indicate. The Upanishads and the concept of Brahman is the closest I've seen a religious text describe such a God.

I think we could consider the nebula that birthed the solar system to be a god, although I am sure saying this might make me look like an idolator. Gods are not necessarily supernatural beings, as we see in some animist religions, naturalistic pantheism, and so on. There are mountains and tools in Japan that are considered gods.

It's interesting to me to think of gods in this way. Rather than supernatural agents, we can think of them, instead, as sacred objects worthy of veneration. Is that not how some monotheists interpret idolatry, anyway? They say that greedy plutocrats worship money as their god, or that egoists worship themselves as their god (and would actually be right in the case of autotheists like Anton LaVey.)

Could concepts be treated as gods? After all, all throughout mysticism we see the idea of unity or oneness treated as a god in and of itself, even when it has no agency of its own. I've seen that idea in some sects of Daoism and Gnosticism, including older strains of Hermeticism which were highly influenced by both of those.

In my own way, I have my own gods that I worship. Perhaps the Logos would be the most relevant to the time I spend on this forum, with its connections to Christianity, Gnosticism, and Stoicism. The concept has essentially followed me my entire life, this notion of a divine logic that animates the universe in an orderly fashion. It is reflected within our own rational faculties when we apprehend small pieces of the whole, glimpsing behind the veil into cosmic mystery.

Apotheosis of the sacred object is, admittedly, a romantic notion, but I think that might be to its benefit. I do not consider myself to have abandoned the spirituality I found in my time as a hermit. Rather, I consider that spirituality to have grown and matured.

Maybe a bit arrogantly or condescendingly, I tend to see this frequent discussion of a God with free will or gods as sentient beings living in our collective unconscious as relatively underdeveloped, by contrast. They are romantic and idealistic, but they do not admit the limitations of the real. Not that it matters too much what my opinion is, but I think religion needs to naturalize if it is to earn back the respect that it's lost from the Anti-Enlightenment movements that have devoured it.

So I think it does make sense to call such a nebula "God." It inspires more awe in me than the imaginary friends of the superstitious. I think there is some danger in concreting personification into anthropomorphism, though. Perhaps that's what the history of religion warns us about; we went from a harmonious animism and, with our magical thinking, distorted the natural into the supernatural. With every generation, the stories of the gods warped further until they became faint reflections of their former glory, cast on the fun house mirror of clerical dogma.

How pitiful words like "God" and "divine" seem to me now that their meanings have been co-opted by magic. Can they be rescued? Are they worth restoring? Does our attempt to renew the breath of life into these concepts merely desecrate the corpse of an era best left in the past? I don't know. I think divinity is on life support right now, but maybe it has never fully died. It seems right to keep stoking the flames, hoping that the truth will survive the tests of time and bring us something greater in the future.

Forgive my rambling. This is an argument that I have with myself fairly regularly. As it stands, I am fairly sympathetic to either direction, whether one wishes to call such a nebula a god or not. I'm not sure if I'll ever decide on an answer, myself.

I consider this position to be plausible. But (IMO) we don't know quite enough to call the matter settled.

I agree that the matter isn't settled, although I might be confident in this explanation to a great degree. I think it is rare for anything to be truly settled in these sorts of matters and this is simply the scenario that I find to be the most likely.

I do think, if the past is any predictor of the future, it seems reasonable to think that the explanation I've given here will only become more likely over time. It's certainly won out as a hypothetical model over some rough competition through the years. It is still nowhere near as substantiated as something like the Theory of Evolution or the Laws of Thermodynamics, though, which I must admit.

 

[danieldemol]

In the first place -- we all were one with God (Oneness). That oneness has its own free-will.
In the second place -- we aparted from God. Now, God has its own free-will and we all have our own free-will.

We aparted from God was the first-sin that we did that time using our free-will.
Chain of sins started from this first-sin.

Do you find any defect in the statement above ?

Can you even explain why departure from God is a sin?

 

[chinu]

Can you even explain why departure from God is a sin?

God = Oneness.
Departure/seperation from God = Numberless/sin.

Some people complain God; why you created chaos and sufferings in this world ?
Says God; chaos and sufferings are inevitable due to numberless.

 

[ChristineM]

Can you even explain why departure from God is a sin?

God = Oneness.
Departure/seperation from God = Numberless/sin.

Some people complain God; why you created chaos and sufferings in this world ?
Says God; chaos and sufferings are inevitable due to numberless.

@danieldemol

In a word... No

In a sentence... The typical self delusional nonsense and misunderstanding we have come to expect

 

[danieldemol]

God = Oneness.
Departure/seperation from God = Numberless/sin.

Some people complain God; why you created chaos and sufferings in this world ?
Says God; chaos and sufferings are inevitable due to numberless.

First of all division is not numberless in my view, if i separate an apple into slices it will become 2 slices if divided in half, 3 if divided in thirds etc.

Secondly you haven't explained why numberless is sin, only asserted it in my view.

Since the people who misled you with this trivially easy to refute answer claim to have got it from God I think we can pretty safely assume it wasn't a very wise God they got their answer from, since their answer resembles the answer of a human lacking even the knowledge to do basic division in my opinion.

 

[chinu]

First of all division is not numberless in my view, if i separate an apple into slices it will become 2 slices if divided in half, 3 if divided in thirds etc.

Secondly you haven't explained why numberless is sin, only asserted it in my view.

Numberless is sin because it creates inevitable chaos and sufferings.

Sea is one. Sea cannot be divided into 2, or 3.
Water evaporates from sea and form numberless drops.

Since the people who misled you with this trivially easy to refute answer claim to have got it from God I think we can pretty safely assume it wasn't a very wise God they got their answer from, since their answer resembles the answer of a human lacking even the knowledge to do basic division in my opinion.

Please refrain asking questions if you have pre-conclusions.

 

[1213]

Of course i can break the love thy neighbour rule. ...

Then, if sin means breaking the divine law, you can sin and "As an atheist i cannot sin" was not true?

 

[danieldemol]

Numberless is sin because it creates inevitable chaos and sufferings.

Bare assertion.

Sea is one. Sea cannot be divided into 2, or 3.

It can if you have enough means to build a division such as a wall through the middle of it in my view

Water evaporates from sea and form numberless drops.

Just because you don't have the means to count the drops doesn't make them numberless in my view.

Please refrain asking questions if you have pre-conclusions.

I approached the issue without pre-conclusions, this is just projection on your part. You pre-concluded your indoctrination is true and are complaining about valid questions being raised in my opinion.

 

[ChristineM]

Then, if sin means breaking the divine law, you can sin and "As an atheist i cannot sin" was not true?

It is true you just have no compensation.

Divine has no meaning and does not impose on my life

Its like the laws of another country. Example: In the UK the national dpeed limited is 70 mph. I live in france and in some stretches of the autoroute i can travel at 130kph (just over 80mph).
I am breaking uk law but i am not in England so meh!

 

[1213]

It is true you just have no compensation.

Divine has no meaning and does not impose on my life

Its like the laws of another country. Example: In the UK the national dpeed limited is 70 mph. I live in france and in some stretches of the autoroute i can travel at 130kph (just over 80mph).
I am breaking uk law but i am not in England so meh!

So, you meant you can brake the law, but you believe it has no consequences. Ok.

 

[ChristineM]

So, you meant you can brake the law, but you believe it has no consequences. Ok.

It is not a law,