• 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!

What is sin?

McBell

Unbound
So when you say that raping women is wrong, are you suggesting that it is wrong for you, or are you saying that it should be wrong for everyone?
I am saying that I believe it is wrong for everyone.
However, I do not hold to any delusions that what I believe to be right or wrong is to be held as the absolute God appointed morals that all mankind are to succumb to in order to avoid a one way ticket to hell.

Here is a good thread for you to looksie at concerning your questions about rape:Seems that there is a society that thinks rape is not immoral.
I just happen to disagree with societies take on rape.


It also helps to show just how subjective morality actually is.
 

Danmac

Well-Known Member
I am saying that I believe it is wrong for everyone.
However, I do not hold to any delusions that what I believe to be right or wrong is to be held as the absolute God appointed morals that all mankind are to succumb to in order to avoid a one way ticket to hell.

Here is a good thread for you to looksie at concerning your questions about rape:Seems that there is a society that thinks rape is not immoral.
I just happen to disagree with societies take on rape.


It also helps to show just how subjective morality actually is.

So this is not just your opinion it is a belief that you say merits every ones adherence to it, correct? In finding fault with their beliefs and laws, are you not comparing your belief with theirs and saying yours is right and theirs is wrong? Are you not saying that there is an objective moral standard and your belief happens to come a little closer to that standard than theirs does?
 

McBell

Unbound
So this is not just your opinion it is a belief that you say merits every ones adherence to it, correct?
What is the difference between a belief and an opinion?
I mean, if you are going to split this hair, you really should define the difference.

In finding fault with their beliefs and laws, are you not comparing your belief with theirs and saying yours is right and theirs is wrong?
Ah yes, the ever popular "black or white" argument.

When did I ever claim that my belief was right?
Even if I did make such an egotistical claim, how does that mean that an opposing belief is by default wrong?

Your assumptions are just that...your assumptions.

Are you not saying that there is an objective moral standard and your belief happens to come a little closer to that standard than theirs does?
Again, your assumptions are just that...your assumptions.
 
:facepalm:

The assumptions you have to make in order to hold the beliefs that you present as your premise are truly amazing.

Do not get me wrong.
I do not automatically dismiss the possibility of a creator.
But I need something other than your mixture of assumptions and beliefs to convince me.

Mestemia

I again understand your reason for wishing for more informational details, details that can assist in making a sound decision as to whether or not there is a Supreme Being. For example, within our Milky Way galaxy, the average distance between stars is about 6 light years or 35 trillion miles, with the distance across the Milky Way galaxy some 600 quadrillion (600,000,000,000,000,000) miles !

It is almost impossible for the human mind to comprehend such size and distance. And yet, that is just the Milky Way galaxy, being just the beginning of what is “out there.” Even more staggering is this fact: so many galaxies have now been detected that it is said they ‘are as common as blades of grass in a meadow.’(Dr. William Blair, an astrophysicist and research professor at Johns Hopkins University) What accounts for all the precision motion for, not just the stars within the Milky Way galaxy, but for the billions of galaxies and their orbits of stars within each galaxy ? Try juggling two balls and then keep adding balls and see how long before one of the balls is dropped.

If there were only one billion stars in each of possibly one hundred billion galaxies, then the juggler would have to juggle 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars! How can this be done unless someone of such power that boggles the mind, is controlling them ?

A current estimate of their number of galaxies is one hundred billion, with each one of them containing, not just one billion, but billions of heavenly bodies. This is almost an unfathomable number. Yet, many feel that this came about by accident as a result of the "big bang." Is this reasonable ? What luxury car, or any car for that matter, assembled it's assorted parts and now functions as a single unit by itself without a designer ?

A businessman, when asked why he believed in an intelligent Creator, gave this thoughtful reply: "It takes a girl in our factory about two days to learn how to put the 17 parts of a meat chopper together. It may be that these millions of worlds each with its separate orbit, all balanced so wonderfully in space—it may be that they just happened. It may be that by a billion years of tumbling about they finally arranged themselves. I don’t know, I am merely a plain manufacturer of cutlery. But this I do know, that you can shake the 17 parts of a meat chopper around in a washtub for the next 17 billion years and you’ll never have a meat chopper.” What about the far more complex galactic arrangements ?

Because we know that galaxies are as common as "blades of grass in a meadow", what accounts for such exact orderliness without a Supreme Designer ? The Hubble Space Telescope completed a particularly deep census of a tiny "pencil beam", in 1995, extending far out into the Universe. This survey, called the "Hubble Deep Field," was targeted on a region of the sky that was nearly devoid of known objects, so as to be (hopefully) representative of conditions in the distant Universe. The resulting images are truly amazing.

Strewn across this tiny piece of the sky are perhaps 1500 or more galaxies of all shapes, sizes, and colors ! Because this survey pertains to such a small piece of the sky, the implications are staggering: if the region of sky demarked by the "bowl" of the Big Dipper were surveyed to the same depth, it would contain about 32 million galaxies ! It needs to be recognized that these galaxies are not just haphazardly moving, but in a very precise motion, at an exact speed. Is it reasonable to consider this as accidental or a product of design ?

Sir Bernard Lovell (1913-present), British physicist and astronomer said: “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.” Hence, what is the reason that the universe has not collapsed within itself, and is not only standing but is expanding with precise accuracy if there is no one "at the controls" ?
 

McBell

Unbound
I am not impressed with a "God of the Gaps" presentation.

And that is pretty much all you have done.
 

Ozzie

Well-Known Member
What does sinning mean to you? Can people really sin? Is it wrong to sin if it helps someone else or helps the world in general?
Definitions of sin are arbitrary. Just commit any act and someone is bound to find something wrong with it.
 

Danmac

Well-Known Member
When did I ever claim that my belief was right?
Even if I did make such an egotistical claim, how does that mean that an opposing belief is by default wrong?

What I am suggesting is the fact that while you and I may disagree, we will both assume that our belief is somehow closer to the right standard that the other belief. If that isn't true, then we would have to assume that neither one of us is right, and neither is wrong.
 

McBell

Unbound
What I am suggesting is the fact that while you and I may disagree, we will both assume that our belief is somehow closer to the right standard that the other belief. If that isn't true, then we would have to assume that neither one of us is right, and neither is wrong.
You assume there is some sort of "standard" with which to compare our beliefs.
There isn't.
At least not one we would both agree upon.

So, why can't both of us be right?

Is killing ok?
In some circumstances I believe it is.

Lieing?
Stealing?
Again, in some circumstances they can be justified.


So it is clear to see that they are not absolutes.
Thus adding to the subjectivity of morals.
 

Danmac

Well-Known Member
You assume there is some sort of "standard" with which to compare our beliefs.
There isn't.
At least not one we would both agree upon.

So, why can't both of us be right?

Is killing ok?
In some circumstances I believe it is.

Lieing?
Stealing?
Again, in some circumstances they can be justified.


So it is clear to see that they are not absolutes.
Thus adding to the subjectivity of morals.

Are you saying that there are ABSOLUTELY no absolutes?

An objective standard is the rule by which all other rules are measured by. For example, If you and I drew a picture of New York, how would we know which one was more accurate, unless there was a real picture of New York to compare them to? When you and I disagree on anything we are simply saying that our belief is closer to the objective standard then the other guys.

As far as morals being subjective let me put it this way: If a man runs a red light while rushing his friend to the hospital the police probably would, and should give him a free pass. I suppose this is what you mean by subjectivity. In this instance I believe an objective standard is still at work, because the one law is giving way to a more important one. In this instance we are merely using an objective standard to make our decision.That it is more important to save a life then to obey a light.
 

McBell

Unbound
Are you saying that there are ABSOLUTELY no absolutes?
That would be rather asinine, now wouldn't it?

An objective standard is the rule by which all other rules are measured by. For example, If you and I drew a picture of New York, how would we know which one was more accurate, unless there was a real picture of New York to compare them to? When you and I disagree on anything we are simply saying that our belief is closer to the objective standard then the other guys.
The point that you seem to want to ignore is that there is no absolute moral standard.
So how can my belief (or your belief for that matter) be closer to a non-existent standard?

As far as morals being subjective let me put it this way: If a man runs a red light while rushing his friend to the hospital the police probably would, and should give him a free pass. I suppose this is what you mean by subjectivity. In this instance I believe an objective standard is still at work, because the one law is giving way to a more important one. In this instance we are merely using an objective standard to make our decision.That it is more important to save a life then to obey a light.
I am not talking about exceptions to the rule.
I am talking about issues like abortion and same sex marriage.
 
I am not impressed with a "God of the Gaps" presentation.

And that is pretty much all you have done.

Mestemia,

The claim that the Designer of the universe becomes the "God-of-the-gaps,"as if "God" were a magic word to use whenever men cannot figure things out, asserting that God is arbitrarily inserted "as an explanatory fix" whenever there is not provable explanation, is not a valid one.

If someone were to park in your frontyard, a 2010 Corvette ZR1, with it's sleek design, valued at $106,880, how would you feel ? When finding out that it has 638 hp 6.2 Liter supercharged engine, would you perhaps feel in awe ? And upon learning that it has a top track test speed of 205 mph, would this add to your excitement ? If asked who made it, you might reply that Chevrolet designed and manufactured it. When seeing a car, everyone will acknowledge that an automotive company designed and created it.

Yet, when individuals are asked as to who made the universe, the response maybe that it just came about by accident. A Corvette ZR1 has a maker, but the far grander universe is just an "accident." Is this reasonable ? To the contrary, everything that is organized did not happen by accident. Is not even the simple fork and spoon products of a person's mind that was turned into reality.

For example, it takes a man and a woman to have a child, a sperm cell united with the woman's ovum or egg. Why is it that the sperm cell contains 23 chromosomes and the woman's egg 23 chromosomes to make up the exact number of 46 chromosomes to form the "blueprint" for every child ever born and thus forming a family ? Is it reasonable that this is an accidental arrangement ?

In the field of biomimetics, consider the boxfish. To produce a car that is sturdier, more energy-efficient, and environmentally friendly, designers looked to an unlikely place for inspiration—under the sea ! The boxfish, found near coral reefs in tropical waters, provides an excellent model for a vehicle with lightweight construction and astounding aerodynamics.

The boxfish can swim fast—covering a distance of up to six times its body length each second. But this speed is more than a feat of strength. Contrary to expectations, the cubelike shape of the fish actually enhances its aerodynamic qualities. In fact, engineers who constructed a model of the boxfish and tested it in a wind tunnel found this design to slip through the air far more efficiently than compact cars do.

The boxfish has a bony outer skin that gives it maximum strength with minimal weight. Tiny vortices form in the water surrounding the fish, stabilizing the creature when it encounters turbulence. Thus, the boxfish has outstanding maneuverability and protection from injury.

Engineers believe that the boxfish provides the secret to producing a safer, more fuel-efficient, yet lightweight, vehicle. “Quite frankly,” says research and development chief Dr. Thomas Weber, “we were surprised when this clumsy-looking fish, of all things, became our model for designing an aerodynamic and fuel-efficient car.” Did the energy-efficient boxfish come about by chance ? Or was it designed ?

The Bibles states that God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."(Rom 1:20) The qualities of the designers of the Corvette ZR1 are seen by examining it's sleekness and acceleration, but of the visible things around us, these somehow came into existence by themselves. Does this not go contrary to reason ?

Another example is the compound eye of many insects. Professor Luke Lee of the University of California, U.S.A., describes the compound eye of many insects, saying: "Layer upon layer of perfectly ordered structures."

Consider: The compound eye of certain insects, such as the honeybee and the dragonfly, is made up of multiple optical units, each of which points in a different direction. The images produced by the individual lenses combine to create a wide mosaic view that is superb at detecting movement. Scientists are exploring ways to mimic the compound eye of insects in order to make high-speed motion detectors and ultrathin multidirectional cameras. These could have a variety of applications. One use would be medical—for example, to peer inside the stomach. This proposed medical device is described as a “tiny system” that can be swallowed by the patient. Once inside the stomach, the device would gather information through its compound eye and then communicate it wirelessly.

A team of bioengineers has already developed an artificial compound eye with more than 8,500 lenses that fit into a space no larger than a pinhead. This technology, however, pales in significance when compared with the compound eye found in the insect world. The dragonfly, for instance, has about 30,000 optical units in each eye !

Did this optical marvel, the multifaceted eye of insects, come about by chance ? Or is it more reasonable that it was designed ?
 

McBell

Unbound
Mestemia,

The claim that the Designer of the universe becomes the "God-of-the-gaps,"as if "God" were a magic word to use whenever men cannot figure things out, asserting that God is arbitrarily inserted "as an explanatory fix" whenever there is not provable explanation, is not a valid one.

If someone were to park in your frontyard, a 2010 Corvette ZR1, with it's sleek design, valued at $106,880, how would you feel ? When finding out that it has 638 hp 6.2 Liter supercharged engine, would you perhaps feel in awe ? And upon learning that it has a top track test speed of 205 mph, would this add to your excitement ? If asked who made it, you might reply that Chevrolet designed and manufactured it. When seeing a car, everyone will acknowledge that an automotive company designed and created it.

Yet, when individuals are asked as to who made the universe, the response maybe that it just came about by accident. A Corvette ZR1 has a maker, but the far grander universe is just an "accident." Is this reasonable ? To the contrary, everything that is organized did not happen by accident. Is not even the simple fork and spoon products of a person's mind that was turned into reality.

For example, it takes a man and a woman to have a child, a sperm cell united with the woman's ovum or egg. Why is it that the sperm cell contains 23 chromosomes and the woman's egg 23 chromosomes to make up the exact number of 46 chromosomes to form the "blueprint" for every child ever born and thus forming a family ? Is it reasonable that this is an accidental arrangement ?

In the field of biomimetics, consider the boxfish. To produce a car that is sturdier, more energy-efficient, and environmentally friendly, designers looked to an unlikely place for inspiration—under the sea ! The boxfish, found near coral reefs in tropical waters, provides an excellent model for a vehicle with lightweight construction and astounding aerodynamics.

The boxfish can swim fast—covering a distance of up to six times its body length each second. But this speed is more than a feat of strength. Contrary to expectations, the cubelike shape of the fish actually enhances its aerodynamic qualities. In fact, engineers who constructed a model of the boxfish and tested it in a wind tunnel found this design to slip through the air far more efficiently than compact cars do.

The boxfish has a bony outer skin that gives it maximum strength with minimal weight. Tiny vortices form in the water surrounding the fish, stabilizing the creature when it encounters turbulence. Thus, the boxfish has outstanding maneuverability and protection from injury.

Engineers believe that the boxfish provides the secret to producing a safer, more fuel-efficient, yet lightweight, vehicle. “Quite frankly,” says research and development chief Dr. Thomas Weber, “we were surprised when this clumsy-looking fish, of all things, became our model for designing an aerodynamic and fuel-efficient car.” Did the energy-efficient boxfish come about by chance ? Or was it designed ?

The Bibles states that God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."(Rom 1:20) The qualities of the designers of the Corvette ZR1 are seen by examining it's sleekness and acceleration, but of the visible things around us, these somehow came into existence by themselves. Does this not go contrary to reason ?

Another example is the compound eye of many insects. Professor Luke Lee of the University of California, U.S.A., describes the compound eye of many insects, saying: "Layer upon layer of perfectly ordered structures."

Consider: The compound eye of certain insects, such as the honeybee and the dragonfly, is made up of multiple optical units, each of which points in a different direction. The images produced by the individual lenses combine to create a wide mosaic view that is superb at detecting movement. Scientists are exploring ways to mimic the compound eye of insects in order to make high-speed motion detectors and ultrathin multidirectional cameras. These could have a variety of applications. One use would be medical—for example, to peer inside the stomach. This proposed medical device is described as a “tiny system” that can be swallowed by the patient. Once inside the stomach, the device would gather information through its compound eye and then communicate it wirelessly.

A team of bioengineers has already developed an artificial compound eye with more than 8,500 lenses that fit into a space no larger than a pinhead. This technology, however, pales in significance when compared with the compound eye found in the insect world. The dragonfly, for instance, has about 30,000 optical units in each eye !

Did this optical marvel, the multifaceted eye of insects, come about by chance ? Or is it more reasonable that it was designed ?
Yet again, once you remove all the flowery language, all the bells and whistles, all the window dressing, all you have done is try to fill in the gaps with god.

I have already told you that that particular argument is not going to work for me.
 

Danmac

Well-Known Member
I am not absolutely anything.

If there are ABSOLUTELY no absolutes, then there is at least one absolute. The fact that there are ABSOLUTELY no absolutes. You see, to say that there are no absolutes is a contradiction in terms.
 

Heneni

Miss Independent
"Sin is the dare of God's justice, rape of His mercy, jeer of His patience, slight of His power, and the contempt of His love" -John Bunyan
 

McBell

Unbound
If there are ABSOLUTELY no absolutes, then there is at least one absolute. The fact that there are ABSOLUTELY no absolutes. You see, to say that there are no absolutes is a contradiction in terms.
Again you show your lack of reading comprehension.

I have not said that there are absolutely no absolutes.
In fact. I flat out said that I am not absolutely anything.
Sorry if my reply did not follow your prepared script.
 
Top