What is Sin?

[Aštra’el]

Sin can be many things. Sin is commonly understood by various cultures as any combination of the following:

-Transgressions, or perceived transgressions, against God(s)
-Deliberately acting against the (perceived) Will of God(s)
-Transgressions against one's spiritual-religious code, or the spiritual-religious code of some particular culture
-Transgressions against one's moral code, or the moral code of some particular culture, especially through the lens of some particular spiritual-religious system
-Acting against one's True Will
-Actions that- according to some particular spiritual-religious system- bring shame and disgrace upon one's self, family, clan, or culture
-etc

Some spiritual-religious systems embrace some concept of sin, some embrace similar concepts with other terminology, and others have no concept of sin at all.

Personally, I find the concept of sin to be one of many beautiful and powerful methods of understanding and controlling individual or collective human Nature, and insituting Order over Chaos.

 

[idav]

shedding a word won't correct the problem. love covers all sins. because love does no wrong; which is what sin is. wrong thought, wrong action, et al.


But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.


love is two bodies being of ONE mind, friend.

I do like the Buddhist take of avoiding wrong thoughts wrong actions etc. I see you would just like to hijack the term sin and apply it to any wrong doing but wrong to whom? I think intentions have a bigger say on the wrongness of an action, people don't always know everything and may believe what they do is god n best interests of others. They could simply be wrong lol. That is why evil is really when you know the dastardly consequences but proceed anyway. Like comparing Jesus and the Devil, whether a myth or not just as example, both may know the full scope of things but choose a path of destruction vs creation.

 

[Fool]

I do like the Buddhist take of avoiding wrong thoughts wrong actions etc. I see you would just like to hijack the term sin and apply it to any wrong doing but wrong to whom? I think intentions have a bigger say on the wrongness of an action, people don't always know everything and may believe what they do is god n best interests of others. They could simply be wrong lol. That is why evil is really when you know the dastardly consequences but proceed anyway. Like comparing Jesus and the Devil, whether a myth or not just as example, both may know the full scope of things but choose a path of destruction vs creation.

you can't profit from what you can't exclusively define.

love can be a destructive thing; when you're creating and preserving something in another form.

transmutation requires all three for a change is going to come.

changing the mind catalyzes a change of involution and then comes evolution. it's all about perspective, or point of view in space/time and the conditional mind.


Robert Frobisher: Sixsmith. I climb the steps of the Scott Monument every morning and all becomes clear. Wish I could make you see this brightness. Don't worry, all is well. All is so perfectly, damnably well. I understand now that boundaries between noise and sound are conventions. All boundaries are conventions, waiting to be transcended. One may transcend any convention if only one can first conceive of doing so. Moments like this, I can feel your heart beating as clearly as I feel my own, and I know that separation is an illusion. My life extends far beyond the limitations of me. cloud atlas - david mitchell


see?

 

[Mr Perks]

Sin is all part of the guilt trip piled onto Christians and followers of similar religions of oppression.
The traditional seven deadly sins all have one thing in common - they are enjoyable as long as they are not overdone (much the same for anything), thus making it inevitable that everyone will be a sinner.
The concept of sin is typical of the prohibitive, thou shalt not type of religion, that glories in free will but does its damnedest stamp it out.
In other words, I do not think there any such thing as sin other than as a tool of control for the leaders of the revealed religions.

 

[idav]

you can't profit from what you can't exclusively define.

I believe morality can be objective without having to invoke a lawgiver.

 

[Fool]

I believe morality can be objective without having to invoke a lawgiver.

i agree the law is objective. but chaos, confusion ensues if everyone doesn't recognize the action is not exclusive to one form vs another denomination. the form is irrelevant, the actors are impermanent, but the action is obvious


a lawgiver, whether atheist or theist, can be a good representative, example of the Law. you are invoking the idea with your post. everyone can be within the LAW, or subject to it. But nothing is above the Law of Love, or ONE

 

[idav]

i agree the law is objective. but chaos, confusion ensues if everyone doesn't recognize the action is not exclusive to one form vs another denomination. the form is irrelevant, the actors are impermanent, but the action is obvious


a lawgiver, whether atheist or theist, is can be a representative of the Law. you are invoking the idea with your post. everyone can be within the LAW, or subject to it. But nothing is above the Law of Love, or ONE

More specifically I think morality can be by determined facts and science, the only subjectivity comes from limited knowledge.

 

[whirlingmerc]

What is a transgession?

Sin can be described several ways

- doing things not out of love for God or for God's glory
- any want of conformity to God's will
- crossing a boundary set by God
- falling short of the standards for the world set by God and His character
- falling short of the standards a person holds others too

to name a few

God's love includes love of His holiness and glory and God will act to protect it
this may look like discipline or mercy or may look like justice at times.

 

[dianaiad]

What is a transgession?

Sin...is when you do something that is against your own ethical and moral code.
So yeah, atheists can sin.

the difference between 'sin' and 'crime,' is who...or Who...'writes the rules,' so to speak.

For instance, it is not a crime to drink coffee. I won't get put in jail or anything for doing so.
For MOST people, drinking coffee is not a sin; doing so isn't against their own moral or ethical codes.
It is, however, against mine. Oh, COFFEE, as such, isn't, but I promised not to and breaking my promise is against my own moral code, so--it's a sin. For me.

Crimes are those things that violate official societal rules. Rosa Parks committed a crime when she refused to move. She did NOT, however, commit a sin, did she?

So...non-theists can most certainly sin, unless they are complete sociopaths who don't think that anything they do should be considered 'wrong' in any way. Most non-theists do have their own moral and ethical codes, though, and understand that somethings are 'right,' and some things are 'wrong,' and when they do the 'wrong' thing, they are sinning.

I admit that the above is my opinion, but it certainly simplifies things, doesn't it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More specifically I think morality can be by determined facts and science, the only subjectivity comes from limited knowledge.

I'm not sure if science can give us objective morality, because even with science so much of what is considered moral or unethical depends on subjective perspectives. Socialism and Libertarianism are two such examples, where with one it is moral to elevate society as a whole, but in the other such wealth redistribution is considered theft and unethical. Of course we can use science to support LBGT rights, and how it is unethical and immoral to deny these rights and view such groups as abominations, but abortion rights become tricky once we are beyond the wellbeing and life of the mother because their are no real scientific definitions of life and death. Afterall, it can be said that life begins when life began on Earth, and all we are is the result of an unbroken line of life stretching back billions of years. An organism dies, but the genes live on. Or life may begin at conception for some, and really the life of the individual organism is a series of biochemical reactions that last from conception until, for whatever reason, these biological functions cease. This could be 100 years after birth, it may only last a few days and end with a failure to implant along the uterine wall.

 

[Nakosis]

What is a transgession?

Breaking God's rules.
Of course folks are relying on other men to tell them what those rules are.

 

[Nakosis]

Sin...is when you do something that is against your own ethical and moral code.
So yeah, atheists can sin.

I have to wonder, if is truly one's one moral code. If my morals say it's ok to kill someone who keeps me awake by snoring and I do so, is it a sin? Not breaking my moral code.

I think more likely it'd be some rules you were taught as moral, by religion/parents. A person does what they feel is right at the time. They may regret it later or feel guilt because of outside social pressure.

the difference between 'sin' and 'crime,' is who...or Who...'writes the rules,' so to speak.

For instance, it is not a crime to drink coffee. I won't get put in jail or anything for doing so.
For MOST people, drinking coffee is not a sin; doing so isn't against their own moral or ethical codes.
It is, however, against mine. Oh, COFFEE, as such, isn't, but I promised not to and breaking my promise is against my own moral code, so--it's a sin. For me.

I don't like coffee, I don't drink it. Kind of weird, you don't drink coffee because you feel it's wrong to do so? Don't like it, don't drink it. Drink it if you do. Why does this become a moral issue?

Crimes are those things that violate official societal rules. Rosa Parks committed a crime when she refused to move. She did NOT, however, commit a sin, did she?

She did what she felt was right to do at the time. If someone convinced her to feel guilt about it later, she probably have seen it as sinful.

So...non-theists can most certainly sin, unless they are complete sociopaths who don't think that anything they do should be considered 'wrong' in any way. Most non-theists do have their own moral and ethical codes, though, and understand that somethings are 'right,' and some things are 'wrong,' and when they do the 'wrong' thing, they are sinning.

I don't consider anything I do as wrong in anyway. If I considered it wrong, I wouldn't do it. Of course I make mistakes but that due to a lack of knowledge at the time. From those mistakes I learn to make better choices next time. No need for guilt or feeling immoral.

I admit that the above is my opinion, but it certainly simplifies things, doesn't it?

As I see it, folks do whatever they see as right at the time. "Sin" is trying to impose your personal idea of right and wrong onto someone else or letting someone else impose there morals on you.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not sure if science can give us objective morality,

I agree, morality is subjective and personal. What's right for me may not be right for you. So we have a democracy and create civil laws agreed to by a majority of folks. It provides limitations on personal morality.

 

[Nakosis]

An act of disobedience not done in ignorance.

Watch your step!
Or you might end up in the rabbit hole.

Kind of like this picture for some reason...

Disobedience to who? Who are you going to let tell you what to do. Who are you going to assume knows better.

There's just other folks with their own ideas of right and wrong based on feelings. It's right because I feel it's right or it's wrong because that's how I feel. It is a rabbit hole thinking we can justify it beyond that imho.

 

[Fool]

Breaking God's rules.
Of course folks are relying on other men to tell them what those rules are.

God is Love. Love is the ruler, the golden rule. Man is capable of being the result of that rule. Jesus was just one form of infinite number. jesus was not the exception.

 

[Nakosis]

God is Love. Love is the ruler, the golden rule. Man is capable of being the result of that rule. Jesus was just one form of infinite number. jesus was not the exception.

Nice ideal, but I think not, otherwise love would be the rule.

Right? I mean if it were true it'd be true. No hate, no jealousy, no greed. We are what we are. God is an ideal that folks feel they should live up to. It however is not the reality.

I think you feel it should be the reality, but it's not so it's God, your idea of perfection.

My idea of perfection is, well, beer. Beer is my God.

The point being everyone has their own idea of perfection. It's just a fiction based on what they feel should be true.

 

[Fool]

Nice ideal, but I think not, otherwise love would be the rule.

Right? I mean if it were true it'd be true. No hate, no jealousy, no greed. We are what we are. God is an ideal that folks feel they should live up to. It however is not the reality.

I think you feel it should be the reality, but it's not so it's God, your idea of perfection.

My idea of perfection is, well, beer. Beer is my God.

The point being everyone has their own idea of perfection. It's just a fiction based on what they feel should be true.

the law of free will, or confusion, allows for jealousy, greed, hate. this is the veil. this is that which separates self from all other.


god's will or self's will. like jesus' said not mine but yours be done.


But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

 

[Nakosis]

the law of free will, or confusion, allows for jealousy, greed, hate. this is the veil. this is that which separates self from all other.


god's will or self's will. like jesus' said not mine but yours be done.


But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

How has that worked out really?
Are Christians without jealousy, greed, hate?

The proof is in the pudding. If it works, great. If it doesn't work then something is wrong with the recipe. You have to have a proven result. A promise to be made perfect after you die which can't be tested/verified doesn't cut it.

You can be promised anything. Believing that promise without any reason to just makes a person gullible not perfect.

 

[Fool]

How has that worked out really?
Are Christians without jealousy, greed, hate?

The proof is in the pudding. If it works, great. If it doesn't work then something is wrong with the recipe. You have to have a proven result. A promise to be made perfect after you die which can't be tested/verified doesn't cut it.

You can be promised anything. Believing that promise without any reason to just makes a person gullible not perfect.

to be perfected there must be a change in the environment; otherwise the entity becomes atrophic. with a confusion there is adaptation, or evolution.

thus the trickery in the garden of eden. behold i come like a thief, the king of thieves.

 

[Nakosis]

to be perfected there must be a change in the environment; otherwise the entity become atrophic. with a confusion there is adaptation, or evolution.

I'm not here to to say you are right or wrong, but without proof, this is just a theory. The environment is always changing and life adapts.

What change and how would you verify this change resulted in perfection?

If it hasn't already been tested and verified, you can't really know.