What is Sin?

[Ben Avraham]

Solomon wasn't perfect, if you believe the story to be true that is, and I don't believe any god had anything to do with the bible, so I wont argue on that.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you believed Solomon was a wise man. I know already that there is not a single perfect man on earth. So, my question again, if you do not believe the Primal Cause exists, who caused the Universe to exist? Why would you not argue on that, afraid to be persuaded that you were mistaken? If you want, I promise no religion; only Physics and Logic.

 

[psychoslice]

Only amoral people don't feel guilty after breaking the law and you don't sound to be amoral.

Knowing you broke the law doesn't necessarily mean you have to feel guilt, you just simple broke the law, you either pay or not pay for breaking that law.

 

[psychoslice]

Okay, if the Primal Cause does not exist, who caused the Universe to exist?

Why who ?, do you think there was a man with a beard who just said, let there be light, of course not, there was just light, or what we call the big bang, we cannot go beyond that, science have some good theories, religion just say's, god did it all, come on get real.

 

[psychoslice]

That's not what I asked. I asked if you believed Solomon was a wise man. I know already that there is not a single perfect man on earth. So, my question again, if you do not believe the Primal Cause exists, who caused the Universe to exist? Why would you not argue on that, afraid to be persuaded that you were mistaken? If you want, I promise no religion; only Physics and Logic.

Good, keep god out of it, so yes, of course i could be persuaded by physics, but again no one can truly know, so I wouldn't take any evidence too seriously, especially religious.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Good, keep god out of it, so yes, of course i could be persuaded by physics, but again no one can truly know, so I wouldn't take any evidence too seriously, especially religious.

You are back to religion again. Are you paranoid about religions?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Why who ?, do you think there was a man with a beard who just said, let there be light, of course not, there was just light, or what we call the big bang, we cannot go beyond that, science have some good theories, religion just say's, god did it all, come on get real.

What caused the big bang to blow and what was the big bang composed of?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Knowing you broke the law doesn't necessarily mean you have to feel guilt, you just simple broke the law, you either pay or not pay for breaking that law.

The law says, "Thou shall not commit murder." Break that law to see how you will feel. If you don't feel guilty... well, I don't know about you.

 

[allfoak]

The Doctrines of Jacob Boehme: Mystic DNA in the Electric Universe | Electricity of Life
Then Jesus turned to the Jews who had claimed to believe in him. “If you stick with this, living out what I tell you, you are my disciples for sure. Then you will experience for yourselves the truth, and the truth will free you.”

This was according to John 8:31. Soon afterwards in John 8:44, Jesus said that the Jews who had believed in him were children of the Devil. Does it make any sense to you? It does not to me! And the Jews who had believe in him, did not understand him either. They seemed to have grown up together with him from youth and revealed a secret about Jesus which is in John 8:41. That Jesus had been born out of fornication. I wonder if this was due to what Josephus wrote in his book "Wars of the Jews" that, the Romans in Israel used to rape thousands of young Jewish ladies who bore children without a Jewish father. Don't you find John 8:41 suggestive of that tragic event?[/QUOTE]


I do not read the Bible as a history book.
It is allegory.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Sin is a wrongdoing from the standpoint of God.

Nadia Faiazova, Actually, the Bible tells us exactly what sin is, at 1John 3:4.
I believe the concept of sin is explained fully, at Romans 3:23, where we are told that all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. Reasonably then, sin is doing something different than what God would do at that time.
For the reason that we do not even know what God would do on some occasions, we sin without even knowing it, but we all sin, 1John 1:7-10. James 4:17.

So, she stated her opinion correctly, but you, being a member of the watchtower, had to completely reword the same thing she said to make her think she's wrong and your exact same opinion is right?

 

[Acim]

Years ago, I was told that sin is "an offense against God". That seemed pretty simple and straight forward to me, but now and then I have heard people speak of sin as an offense against other people. So I'm wondering if they are mistaken about the nature of sin, or if sin is both an offense against God and other people, or what? That is, is sin an offense against someone, and if so, who? And more broadly, what is sin?

This question is mainly for Abrahamics, of course, but anyone can offer their views.

I see sin as error in judgment. I feel that doesn't explain much and begs question of what makes for accurate/righteous judgment.

I think it helps to remember scriptural quote of: judge not, that ye be not judged.

This would be one of those spiritual ideas that distinguish between Gnostic and Orthodox. For the Gnostic, Creator God is not a judge, not engaged in judging (at any point of Creator's existence). For the Orthodox believer, God is (allegedly) the Supreme Judge, and those who are devoted to this Judge, feel it is their divine duty to understand such judgment, pointing out the errors in others, helping keep as many as possible (preferably everyone) on the righteous path. While they will quickly acknowledge that Supreme Judgment is up to God, they plausibly feel they have enough of a handle on righteous judgment themselves to be a de facto judge here on earth (in the divine sense, not the earthly one).

I currently think not judging at all is between very challenging and implausible. Though, I also acknowledge that not judging against anyone is necessary for salvation / atonement. So, I do think there is such a thing as accurate / righteous judgment, and that it comes via forgiveness. I see sin as illusion, and forgiveness as the illusion (or tool within illusion) that ends all fundamental illusions, which seek to separate Creator God from Creation (aka humanity).

This topic, like other spiritual topics regarding Judgment has me wanting to write a wall of text, but currently not feeling I have time for such an endeavor. There's one huge tangent on Hypocrisy that matters (significantly) to me, and that is something I see as rather inescapable where judgment is present. I've developed acute awareness around (mostly my own) hypocrisy when it comes to (mainly my own) judgments. I think exploring this topic helps with relating sin to everyday life, more than most intellectual discussions do with regards to sin. But alas, that will have to be a longer diatribe for another day, or post.

I think of righteous Judgment as Love. With Creator God, I think it is without limit, and thus received as maximal or overflowing, inducing great joy and wonderful sense of peace. I can, sometimes do, filter it as a sense of judgment (which I see as mostly on me, not Creator God), but feel from Creator's perspective, it is not judgment, as there is no distinguishing between who is deserving of such Love and who isn't. Somewhat child-like, but is where Innocence (of the divine variety) would create another tangent / wall of text.

My spiritual path, when first on the Gnostic path, considered sin as 'lack of Love.' Which I translate as error in judgment. If ever encountering another soul (or even own soul) and deciding/judging that this soul (or being) is not deserving full love, then sin is occurring, and something has gone wrong. Forgiveness rectifies the error, and takes care of the perceived block(s) to Love at the source where the error occurred, aka within the mind of the judge.

 

[Thief]

I have noticed.....in Spanish.....sin means....
without

anything that leaves you standing without God
would be a sin

 

[Acim]

Well, this is necessary entailed in what I have been posting until now.

It might sound absurd to you, but I can assure you that this is an hypothesis which is taken seriously bt various scientists, especially relativists, and philosophers of science. Your problem is that you rely on your intuition. You probably believe that time flows. That there is a present that separates the things that do not exist anymore (our past) from the things that are yet to exist (our future).

Alas, this flow of time is nowhere to be seen in relativity. There is not such a thing as e present, and therefore there is not such a thing as the past or the future.

Probably, the best analogy is the one of a movie, even if it is not 100% accurate. Imagine a movie seen as a long sequence of photograms. Where every photogram is followed by the next in a continuous manner. What you experience now is just one of those photograms. And what you will experience tomorrow is an already existing and well defined photogram. But the whole movie did not start to exist at its first photogram, obviously. And the whole movie does no change either, equally obviously.

In order to get yourself some knowledge about the subject, All you have to to do is google around things like "B theory of time", "block universe", "eternalism" or "Rietdjik-Putnam" argument.
Or read Greene or Carroll. Or P. Davies. Or the link I posted, and start argumenting in truely scientific way instead of resorting to arguments which even my grandma can do.

Or just enthall me with your acumen by showing to me how the spacetime of special relativity, namely the 4 dimensional space with a constant relavistic metric, can change. Which, until now, you failed to do.

If, for some reason, you do not understand these concepts, which are indeed not the simplest ones, and or you cannot seriously address them, then I suggest you keep on with your illusion of causality and change being a necessity of nature.

Ciao

- viole

Not so easy adapting to the non-flowing aspect of time, now is it? Is the failure on the person not showing it in the present (or up to the present) or in the person not looking at the moment where it was/is perfectly presented?

 

[Acim]

Well I don't have any guilt, I did when I was a Christian, but not now since I left, I am free as a bird.

...And this bird you cannot change
Oh oh oh oh oh oh
And the bird you cannot change
And this bird you cannot change
Lord knows, I can't change

 

[psychoslice]

You are back to religion again. Are you paranoid about religions?

No of course not, but I can see where you are heading, and it just ain't going to work with me.

 

[psychoslice]

What caused the big bang to blow and what was the big bang composed of?

Science has the answer for that, just google it.

 

[psychoslice]

The law says, "Thou shall not commit murder." Break that law to see how you will feel. If you don't feel guilty... well, I don't know about you.

If I ever murdred anyone it would be in self defence, no guilt for me there, maybe for you ?.

 

[psychoslice]

...And this bird you cannot change
Oh oh oh oh oh oh
And the bird you cannot change
And this bird you cannot change
Lord knows, I can't change

Ye as free as a bird.

 

[Bible Guy]

Because there hasn't, what you or anyone experiences isn't proof, if you had 100% proof, you would be the first ever, reading old scriptures and hearsay isn't proof.

Ok....we've got a LOGICAL problem here (forget about God or religion or sin for now)....

There's a purely PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL problem here. A philosophy 101 class is in order!

I asked: "How do you know that there has never been any proof that the Biblical God exists?"

You responded:
(a) because there hasn't,
(b) what you or anyone experiences isn't proof
(c) if you had 100% proof, you would be the first ever
(d) reading old scriptures and hearsay isn't proof


My response:

Here's the problem.

Consider premise H: The Biblical God exists

Now, (a) is NOT evidence that H is false, because psychoslice gave us no evidence that there hasn't been any proof that H is true. Proof by assertion is not proof. Psychoslice merely asserted that there hasn't been any proof of H. That's not proof...nor is it even evidence. It's merely a bald and unsupported assertion.

And (b) is NOT evidence that H is false, because it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that the Biblical God may have revealed to some people that H is true, and psychoslice gave us no proof that this logical possibility has not occurred. Furthermore, psychoslice most assuredly does NOT know what many other people throughout the world have experienced...therefore, psychoslice has failed to justify the claim that all experiences of all others are not proof of H.

And, (c) is not evidence that H is false, because psychoslice gave us no evidence that there exists no one anywhere with 100% proof that H is true. Again, psychoslice merely assumed (without any evidence) that I would be the first ever to provide 100% proof. Again, proof without evidence is no proof at all. Bald and unsupported assertions are more akin to wishful thinking....not evidence.

And, (d) is not evidence that H is false, because it is logically possible that some people know H is true (without appealing to old scriptures and hearsay), and psychoslice gave us no evidence that this logical possibility has not, in fact, occurred. Yet again, psychoslice merely assumed the premise she asserted, yet no supporting evidence was provided. We have yet another case of, in effect, her wishful thinking.

And, psychoslice showed no reasonable effort to engage the literature which purports to provide evidence for H, thereby revealing an inadequate amount of research behind psychoslice's viewpoint.

So, until we bring psychoslice to a better understanding of the relationship between evidence, theory, confirmation, proof, logical possibilities, and justification of premises, we will be seeking (perhaps in vain) to explain the truth of the justification of evidentially-supported premises.

Therefore, I urge psychoslice to persevere in the skills of philosophical reasoning, lest she continue to (perhaps innocently and unintentionally heretofore) persist in her acceptance of woefully unjustified assertions.

best wishes in your pursuit of truth...

 

[Thief]

you started to say ...forget about God.....for now....

and then you on with.....God

 

[psychoslice]

Ok....we've got a LOGICAL problem here (forget about God or religion or sin for now)....

There's a purely PHILOSOPHICAL and LOGICAL problem here. A philosophy 101 class is in order!

I asked: "How do you know that there has never been any proof that the Biblical God exists?"

You responded:
(a) because there hasn't,
(b) what you or anyone experiences isn't proof
(c) if you had 100% proof, you would be the first ever
(d) reading old scriptures and hearsay isn't proof


My response:

Here's the problem.

Consider premise H: The Biblical God exists

Now, (a) is NOT evidence that H is false, because psychoslice gave us no evidence that there hasn't been any proof that H is true. Proof by assertion is not proof. Psychoslice merely asserted that there hasn't been any proof of H. That's not proof...nor is it even evidence. It's merely a bald and unsupported assertion.

And (b) is NOT evidence that H is false, because it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that the Biblical God may have revealed to some people that H is true, and psychoslice gave us no proof that this logical possibility has not occurred. Furthermore, psychoslice most assuredly does NOT know what many other people throughout the world have experienced...therefore, psychoslice has failed to justify the claim that all experiences of all others are not proof of H.

And, (c) is not evidence that H is false, because psychoslice gave us no evidence that there exists no one anywhere with 100% proof that H is true. Again, psychoslice merely assumed (without any evidence) that I would be the first ever to provide 100% proof. Again, proof without evidence is no proof at all. Bald and unsupported assertions are more akin to wishful thinking....not evidence.

And, (d) is not evidence that H is false, because it is logically possible that some people know H is true (without appealing to old scriptures and hearsay), and psychoslice gave us no evidence that this logical possibility has not, in fact, occurred. Yet again, psychoslice merely assumed the premise she asserted, yet no supporting evidence was provided. We have yet another case of, in effect, her wishful thinking.

And, psychoslice showed no reasonable effort to engage the literature which purports to provide evidence for H, thereby revealing an inadequate amount of research behind psychoslice's viewpoint.

So, until we bring psychoslice to a better understanding of the relationship between evidence, theory, confirmation, proof, logical possibilities, and justification of premises, we will be seeking (perhaps in vain) to explain the truth of the justification of evidentially-supported premises.

Therefore, I urge psychoslice to persevere in the skills of philosophical reasoning, lest she continue to (perhaps innocently and unintentionally heretofore) persist in her acceptance of woefully unjustified assertions.

best wishes in your pursuit of truth...

I don't need or want to be a philosopher, playing with words, I'll say it again, there has been no proof!!, so there is no argument, show me your proof, I want to see it, not just hearing your word salad,