What is Sin?

[Ben Avraham]

Science has the answer for that, just google it.

Oh, you don't know! Sorry to have put that question to you.

 

[psychoslice]

Oh, you don't know! Sorry to have put that question to you.

I am not a scientist, and I am not going to pretend I am, if you want science facts, then do your own homework, there is plenty of it out there, and it all makes more sense than you and your beliefs could ever.

 

[Bible Guy]

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,

Hi psychoslice...

That's the problem...

You misunderstand philosophy (thinking it is characteristic of someone who is "playing with words").

You don't realize that good philosophy helps us think clearly, with detail and precision, leading us to discover additional truth.

That's not playing with words...quite the contrary! That's the intelligent and wise use of arguments and evidence to seek truth.

Some people are willing to seek truth diligently....others are not.

And Jesus warned that you will find His truth ONLY if you are truly willing to seek it and properly respond to it (Lk. 11:10; Jn. 7:17).

So if you are serious about testing the "Jesus exists as described in the Bible" hypothesis, then you first must prove you are truly willing to seek that truth (if it turned out to be true). And, you must prove you are willing to properly respond to that truth (if it turned out to be true).

But at this point, you're not even showing clear indications that you are willing to seek truth and properly respond to it.

For example:

You wrote: "I'll say it again, there has been no proof!!"

My response: I'll say it again! You gave us no proof that there is no proof!

Until you understand basic issues in philosophy (e.g., burden of proof), you won't even realize that you are setting forth unjustified claims.

You see, if YOU are allowed to prove something by merely asserting it without proof, then let's be fair!

I should be able to do the same thing!

Therefore, I should be able to say that THERE IS PROOF that the Biblical God exists (even though I provide no proof).

AND, I should not need to provide evidence...because hey! You don't provide evidence either!

You merely assert things and then insist they are true.

So why can't I do the same?

Why can't I merely assert (without proof) that there is proof that the Biblical God exists?

And then why can't I subsequently insist that you accept the truth of this Biblical God?

I can actually give you evidence for the existence of the Biblical God (as you've requested)....but this won't be a productive dialogue until we first establish good ground rules for HOW we evaluate evidence, HOW we determine whether a claim is justified, HOW we determine the meaning of "proof", etc.

Do you see, yet, how you have failed to shoulder your burden of proof?

Do you see, yet, how you have failed to prove that there is no proof of the Biblical god?

And do you see how ineffective and unproductive our dialogue will be unless we first do the hard foundational work needed to clarify our thinking?

And do you see how you have not clearly exhibited the truth-seeking character required to honestly test the "Jesus exists as described in the Bible" hypothesis?

After all, if you wouldn't respond to Jesus if He revealed Himself to you, then why should He reveal Himself to you?

It would be better (for your sake) to leave you in the state of wrongly believing He doesn't exist as the Bible describes.

Right?

 

[psychoslice]

Hi psychoslice...

That's the problem...

You misunderstand philosophy (thinking it is characteristic of someone who is "playing with words").

You don't realize that good philosophy helps us think clearly, with detail and precision, leading us to discover additional truth.

That's not playing with words...quite the contrary! That's the intelligent and wise use of arguments and evidence to seek truth.

Some people are willing to seek truth diligently....others are not.

And Jesus warned that you will find His truth ONLY if you are truly willing to seek it and properly respond to it (Lk. 11:10; Jn. 7:17).

So if you are serious about testing the "Jesus exists as described in the Bible" hypothesis, then you first must prove you are truly willing to seek that truth (if it turned out to be true). And, you must prove you are willing to properly respond to that truth (if it turned out to be true).

But at this point, you're not even showing clear indications that you are willing to seek truth and properly respond to it.

For example:

You wrote: "I'll say it again, there has been no proof!!"

My response: I'll say it again! You gave us no proof that there is no proof!

Until you understand basic issues in philosophy (e.g., burden of proof), you won't even realize that you are setting forth unjustified claims.

You see, if YOU are allowed to prove something by merely asserting it without proof, then let's be fair!

I should be able to do the same thing!

Therefore, I should be able to say that THERE IS PROOF that the Biblical God exists (even though I provide no proof).

AND, I should not need to provide evidence...because hey! You don't provide evidence either!

You merely assert things and then insist they are true.

So why can't I do the same?

Why can't I merely assert (without proof) that there is proof that the Biblical God exists?

And then why can't I subsequently insist that you accept the truth of this Biblical God?

I can actually give you evidence for the existence of the Biblical God (as you've requested)....but this won't be a productive dialogue until we first establish good ground rules for HOW we evaluate evidence, HOW we determine whether a claim is justified, HOW we determine the meaning of "proof", etc.

Do you see, yet, how you have failed to shoulder your burden of proof?

Do you see, yet, how you have failed to prove that there is no proof of the Biblical god?

And do you see how ineffective and unproductive our dialogue will be unless we first do the hard foundational work needed to clarify our thinking?

And do you see how you have not clearly exhibited the truth-seeking character required to honestly test the "Jesus exists as described in the Bible" hypothesis?

After all, if you wouldn't respond to Jesus if He revealed Himself to you, then why should He reveal Himself to you?

It would be better (for your sake) to leave you in the state of wrongly believing He doesn't exist as the Bible describes.

Right?

Actually the burden of proof is on your shoulders, your the one who believes in a god, so your the one who needs to prove your god, I don't need to prove anything, so if you cannot prove god, then we have nothing to talk about.

 

[Thief]

Actually the burden of proof is on your shoulders, your the one who believes in a god, so your the one who needs to prove your god, I don't need to prove anything, so if you cannot prove god, then we have nothing to talk about.

surely you have seen my rendition of logic?

that regression to Someone being First

being First would make that Person .....God
the next step is deciding if dead substance created Him

I think not

Spirit First

 

[Thrillobyte]

In deism we have no such concept of sin. In deism God does not intervene in human affairs. Consequently He never gave us any laws; man created a moral code upon which to live and each culture/religion has their own code of ethics. In BC Greek culture there was nothing wrong with homosexuality. In BC Jewish culture it was punishable by death. Fortunately, most cultures realized the harm done by allowing one person to kill another, so killing another person got worked into the universal code of ethics early on in man's sociological development.

 

[Thief]

In deism we have no such concept of sin. In deism God does not intervene in human affairs. Consequently He never gave us any laws; man created a moral code upon which to live and each culture/religion has their own code of ethics. In BC Greek culture there was nothing wrong with homosexuality. In BC Jewish culture it was punishable by death. Fortunately, most cultures realized the harm done by allowing one person to kill another, so killing another person got worked into the universal code of ethics early on in man's sociological development.

so in deism....there is a God?
but He doesn't interact with His creation?

 

[Bible Guy]

Actually the burden of proof is on your shoulders, your the one who believes in a god, so your the one who needs to prove your god, I don't need to prove anything, so if you cannot prove god, then we have nothing to talk about.

Again....that's the problem.

YOU initiated the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof.

YOU have already claimed that the Biblical God does NOT exist.

I asked for proof, but you won't give us any.

Therefore, it is YOU who have made an unjustified assertion.

YOU have given us no proof that there is no proof that God exists.

Thus, YOU have failed to show proper understanding of burden of proof.

This is why you do not have ears to hear the truths confirmed by evidential considerations....because you do not even understand the very basics of evidence, theory, confirmation, proof, burden of proof, truth, knowledge, justification, rationality, warrant, etc.

So any evidence I give you is prone to being discarded by your contorted and confused conception of epistemological issues which, in fact, you know virtually nothing about.

See the problem here?

You are guilty of failing to justify your unjustified claim....and you don't even realize it.

Hey...you are GUILTY....

That SHOULD bother you....

Why?

Because sloppy thinking leads to careless conclusions.

Careless conclusions could EASILY be wrong...and surely you do NOT want to be wrong....right?

This guilt SHOULD bother you, therefore.

Intellectual honesty requires that you make reasonable efforts to minimize the probability that your anti-god conclusions are wrong. But we see no good evidence that you've made such reasonable efforts.

If you want to disbelieve in gods of all kinds...then great!

But you darn well better make SURE you've done your homework as DILIGENTLY as possible (lest you find yourself suffering an eternal dismal suffering fate of your own choosing....)

And, it's FAR from clear that you've done your due diligence in demonstrating intellectual honesty....

Such honesty REQUIRES honest evaluation of opposing claims....

You've given us nearly ZERO evidence that you've bothered to evaluate the claims of informed and well-credentialed proponents of the existence of the Biblical God. (and there are HUNDREDS of such proponents in the English-speaking world....thus you appear to have no excuse for not testing their claims.)

So your position looks quite dishonest at this point...

I continue to plant seeds of light and truth in your mind, designed to point you in the direction of better thinking, better reasoning, better truth-seeking capability...but you show no interest.

If that doesn't bother you....then you've already made your choice.

You have CHOSEN to exhibit intellectually dishonesty.

If you suffer the consequences of this choice...then your suffering is self-imposed....don't blame any god.

Why should a god reveal himself to someone who doesn't want to find out the truth?

 

[psychoslice]

surely you have seen my rendition of logic?

that regression to Someone being First

being First would make that Person .....God
the next step is deciding if dead substance created Him

I think not

Spirit First

Sorry that means nothing to me ?.

 

[Thief]

Sorry that means nothing to me ?.

you can do this.....

in the scheme of things we know very well
you have a couple....then four
four becomes eight
eight becomes more.....and more.....and more

there are now 7billion+ humans loose on this earth

before I die.....12billion living
as many as 6billion will have died during my life time

in regression.....
there was a moment when there was only ONE

most likely in Spirit
I believe Him to be the Creator
Spirit first
substance as creation

 

[Reggie Miller]

In deism we have no such concept of sin. In deism God does not intervene in human affairs. Consequently He never gave us any laws; man created a moral code upon which to live and each culture/religion has their own code of ethics. In BC Greek culture there was nothing wrong with homosexuality. In BC Jewish culture it was punishable by death. Fortunately, most cultures realized the harm done by allowing one person to kill another, so killing another person got worked into the universal code of ethics early on in man's sociological development.

So what good does it do you to have a god who literally doesn't care?

 

[psychoslice]

Again....that's the problem.

YOU initiated the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof.

YOU have already claimed that the Biblical God does NOT exist.

I asked for proof, but you won't give us any.

Therefore, it is YOU who have made an unjustified assertion.

YOU have given us no proof that there is no proof that God exists.

Thus, YOU have failed to show proper understanding of burden of proof.

This is why you do not have ears to hear the truths confirmed by evidential considerations....because you do not even understand the very basics of evidence, theory, confirmation, proof, burden of proof, truth, knowledge, justification, rationality, warrant, etc.

So any evidence I give you is prone to being discarded by your contorted and confused conception of epistemological issues which, in fact, you know virtually nothing about.

See the problem here?

You are guilty of failing to justify your unjustified claim....and you don't even realize it.

Hey...you are GUILTY....

That SHOULD bother you....

Why?

Because sloppy thinking leads to careless conclusions.

Careless conclusions could EASILY be wrong...and surely you do NOT want to be wrong....right?

This guilt SHOULD bother you, therefore.

Intellectual honesty requires that you make reasonable efforts to minimize the probability that your anti-god conclusions are wrong. But we see no good evidence that you've made such reasonable efforts.

If you want to disbelieve in gods of all kinds...then great!

But you darn well better make SURE you've done your homework as DILIGENTLY as possible (lest you find yourself suffering an eternal dismal suffering fate of your own choosing....)

And, it's FAR from clear that you've done your due diligence in demonstrating intellectual honesty....

Such honesty REQUIRES honest evaluation of opposing claims....

You've given us nearly ZERO evidence that you've bothered to evaluate the claims of informed and well-credentialed proponents of the existence of the Biblical God. (and there are HUNDREDS of such proponents in the English-speaking world....thus you appear to have no excuse for not testing their claims.)

So your position looks quite dishonest at this point...

I continue to plant seeds of light and truth in your mind, designed to point you in the direction of better thinking, better reasoning, better truth-seeking capability...but you show no interest.

If that doesn't bother you....then you've already made your choice.

You have CHOSEN to exhibit intellectually dishonesty.

If you suffer the consequences of this choice...then your suffering is self-imposed....don't blame any god.

Why should a god reveal himself to someone who doesn't want to find out the truth?

Look, if you cannot prove your wonderful god then please dont, don't make up a big song and dance about it, its either you can or you can't It is also known that many other things are dumbing us up, such as mobile phones, even the enternet

you can do this.....

in the scheme of things we know very well
you have a couple....then four
four becomes eight
eight becomes more.....and more.....and more

there are now 7billion+ humans loose on this earth

before I die.....12billion living
as many as 6billion will have died during my life time

in regression.....
there was a moment when there was only ONE

most likely in Spirit
I believe Him to be the Creator
Spirit first
substance as creation

With all respect I can't agree, but you certainly have a good imagination.

 

[Ben Avraham]

In deism we have no such concept of sin. In deism God does not intervene in human affairs. Consequently He never gave us any laws; man created a moral code upon which to live and each culture/religion has their own code of ethics. In BC Greek culture there was nothing wrong with homosexuality. In BC Jewish culture it was punishable by death. Fortunately, most cultures realized the harm done by allowing one person to kill another, so killing another person got worked into the universal code of ethics early on in man's sociological development.

Once, someone asked me if I knew what was the thorn on the flesh of Paul. Now, that I have read your little post above, I suddenly have the answer to that question. It's when you say above that "In BC Greek culture there was nothing wrong with homosexuality." I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia that Paul was a Hellenist born to a well-to-do Hellenist couple from the city of Tarsus in the Cilicia. It happens that when Paul got in contact with Jewish law , probably about Homosexuality, he started struggling against repressed homosexual feelings that brought him so much spiritual distress that he wrote the whole chapter 7 of Romans to explain why he could not get rid of that thorn on his flesh. The end result was that he decided to honor the Law only in his mind while serving sin in his flesh. (Romans 7:25) The first thing he did was to proclaim about himself that he got released from the Law and no longer under the obligation to obey it. (Romans 7:6) That's how he finally could enjoy some peace for charging Greek culture for his condition.

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

1 john 3:4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The law consists of the ten commandments -which are unchanging -and various statutes and judgments which apply the commandments to various situations -some of which have changed at various times according to the stage of God's overall plan (such as when Christ changed the judgment concerning the stoning of one caught in the act of adultery -and God changing the judgments concerning food over time).

The first few commandments are a basis for dealing with God -and the latter are a basis for dealing with each other.

 

[metis]

The law consists of the ten commandments....

There are 613 Commandments as found in Torah whereas it also states they are from God: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

 

[Etritonakin]

There are 613 Commandments as found in Torah whereas it also states they are from God: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

If you mean various "instructions", then there are more than ten -but only ten were 'written in stone' -literally and figuratively.
For example.... Obeying God -generally under the first commandment -once meant not eating any animal flesh -then all was allowed -then only some, etc.
Once it meant stoning one caught in the act of adultery -but no longer, etc., etc.
The ten were summed up with love God and neighbor -and all else are built upon the ten -or fall under the ten.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Look, if you cannot prove your wonderful god then please dont, don't make up a big song and dance about it, its either you can or you can't It is also known that many other things are dumbing us up, such as mobile phones, even the enternet

I'm amused at people that claim there is no god, but have no proof, just opinion! They will always throw the burden of proof on the ones who do believe, like we 'have to prove' there is a God, but they 'don't' have to prove there is no god. It makes me laugh! They have NO proof there is no god, but claim it anyway and expect those who believe 'prove' there is a God! Kind of a double standard!!

 

[psychoslice]

I'm amused at people that claim there is no god, but have no proof, just opinion! They will always throw the burden of proof on the ones who do believe, like we 'have to prove' there is a God, but they 'don't' have to prove there is no god. It makes me laugh! They have NO proof there is no god, but claim it anyway and expect those who believe 'prove' there is a God! Kind of a double standard!!

Ok, if there is a god, then you prove that to me now, but not quoting from scripture as that cannot be taken too seriously.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Ok, if there is a god, then you prove that to me now, but not quoting from scripture as that cannot be taken too seriously.

Ok. if there is NO god, then prove that to me right now, how ever you want to 'prove' it. You must have tangible proof, not just your opinion.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I claim and believe there is a God, you claim there is not, the burden of proof lies with you!