• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Free-will and sin.

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
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

if I had been God, I would have programmed immune defenses, or natural rejections, against sinning, while preserving free will. We have a lot of those psychological and physiological restrictions already. Just needed one more. Problem solved.

so, this all sinning stuff is just an excuse to explain why God failed so epically with His creation. By giving the fault to us. Where in fact, this is due solely to His incompetence. Will be fun to see if souls will preserve that same free will when they are in heaven.

so, since an incompetent God is sort of contradictory, the result of creation can be used as a strong argument against His actual existence.

ciao

- viole
 

chinu

chinu
if I had been God, I would have programmed immune defenses, or natural rejections, against sinning, while preserving free will. We have a lot of those psychological and physiological restrictions already. Just needed one more. Problem solved.

so, this all sinning stuff is just an excuse to explain why God failed so epically with His creation. By giving the fault to us. Where in fact, this is due solely to His incompetence. Will be fun to see if souls will preserve that same free will when they are in heaven.

so, since an incompetent God is sort of contradictory, the result of creation can be used as a strong argument against His actual existence.

ciao

- viole
No If.
You was God in the beginning.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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.

If there was "Oneness" then there was no we. So God would have to have chosen to depart from themselves.

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, clearly is clearly shown in the bible to mean disobedience to God. If departing from God is a sin then God must have chosen to disobey themselves.
 

chinu

chinu
If there was "Oneness" then there was no we. So God would have to have chosen to depart from themselves.
Yes, there were no we. I agree.
Use of word "we" because; some things are beyond the limits of words to put in.
 

chinu

chinu
Sin, clearly is clearly shown in the bible to mean disobedience to God. If departing from God is a sin then God must have chosen to disobey themselves.
Yes its the God who disobeyed itself. I agree this too.
Hence, who are we ? we are God who disobeyed itself by departing and further distance keep on increasing.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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 ?
Is aparted even a word?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
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 ?
Yes

When we part from God we lack "free-will"
 

EconGuy

Active Member
Using the definition of sin also proves existence of sin
This is a terrible line of argumentation.

A definition is a formal and precise statement that conveys the essential characteristics, boundaries, and meaning of a concept, term, or object within a particular context. It aims to provide clarity, establish common understanding, and facilitate effective communication by succinctly encapsulating the fundamental attributes and criteria that distinguish the defined entity from others in its category or domain.

Understanding and using the definition of sin proves that you understand the concept of sin, not that sin exists.

I assume you know what the term "Flat Earth" is, but it doesn't mean that because you know what it is means that the earth is flat.
 

EconGuy

Active Member
On the topic of "free will," I have a more nuanced idea of just how much control we have over our actions. I don't see free will as a binary question of having it or not having it, but more of a continuum. Some people have a greater ability to exercise free will than others.

Our consciousness is almost certainly a product of our environment, how we are nurtured, and probably also to a degree our genetics.

These forces create what I would consider to be something like floating on a river metaphorically speaking. That river flows in a direction that exerts influence over the decisions we make over some lengthy period of time (this would be the physiological part of our brains and it's chemistry). I think most people don't even realize they are in the river because they are looking straight down at the water, they don't see the river move or the shore, they have no perspective and in this sense they have very little free will. Others are more enlightened and more aware.

But let's be clear, in any moment, the river influences our decisions, but for the most part we are free to make small, easy, inconsequential choices. The harder and the more consequential the choice, the harder to will be to "swim" against the flow, but the easier and less consequential the choice, the less effect it has on changing who we are.

I don't think the combination of traits that makes us us, which forms the "river" and directs the course of who we are, is unchangeable.

To exert free-will we have to do two things.

1. Realize that free will is more than just individual decisions (do I want pancakes or french toast), but a collection of many choices made over time with effort, sacrifice, meaning can change who we are.

2. Have the desire, capacity and willpower to change. One can be aware of the things I've said, and still be unwilling or unable to make hard choices.
So our individual choices add up over time and can change the course the "river" if you will of who we are. Usually fairly slowly.

Think about a food you dislike; could you wake up tomorrow and suddenly like it? But, conversely, I do think it's possible to slowly change how you feel about the taste of something, perhaps through exposure or effort. If you needed to eat something you didn't like to prevent disease, I think it's possible to change how you feel about it over time.


There is an exception to change. Trauma.

Breaking up with someone you love, almost losing one's life, experiencing intense hardship, these experiences are generally speaking the exception to the rule. These things can give people the capacity to change, even if they don't realize that they have been stuck in a behavioral pattern controlled by their brain. I think this is an evolutionary trait that allows us to make drastic necessary changes very quickly.

Trauma allows us to skip #2, at least as long as its affects are strong in our minds.

Anyway, it's a hard topic to explain clearly, I hope that made sense to at least some of you.
 
Last edited:

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
No guesses please. Please come-up with something that you are sure of.
I missed this. Well, if you insist, but you literally asked for it.

I'm sure your position is laughably ridiculous nonsense and I'm sure nobody in their right mind would actually consider any of the outlandish falsehoods you've proposed in this thread. I'm sure that your reasons for believing obvious untruths are horribly cringe-worthy and terrible.

I'm sure that if you were actually interested in and capable of serious discussion, you would accept that inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain, but it's the best we have for arriving at a posteriori truths. I'm sure that if you fully understood what that last sentence even meant, you would never have made the mistake of believing in something so silly to begin with and wouldn't have made this thread.

Would you like the statistical proofs, or do I have to tell you that this was all revealed to me in a vision by a magic fairy before you take it seriously?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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 ?
Yes. It's all made up.
 

Tinkerpeach

Active Member
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.
That is exactly correct.

God has often condoned bad action and performed it Himself.
 
Top