What Is Sin?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

This is a spin-off of another thread, where Darth Rotor came in saying that we all are sinners. I'd like to expand on this discussion, which is off-topic in that thread.

I want to start at the beginning: What is the definition of "sin"? Personally, I'd like to get definitions from various fields (religion, any philosophy that includes a similar concept, etc), but if it facilitates this discussion to narrow it down, that's fine too.

My reason for asking for a definition is twofold. First, I don't want to make strawmen. I grew up in the RCC, so I know their view--but I want it spelled out, along with any other view, preferably by people who advocate that religion, so that we can all be sure we're looking at what the believers actually believe. Second, I want to examine if the concept of sin is applicable to an atheistic worldview. Certain concepts are not, as they require some sort of god. And my point here isn't to tell theists "Haha, you believe in gods!" Rather, I want to examine the reasons why telling a group of atheists "you're all sinners" is typically met with ridicule and mockery.

So, anyone care to define "sin"?

The placing of self, concerns and desires of self, ahead of all else is probably the the best definition of "sin" I have ever encountered.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

The placing of self, concerns and desires of self, ahead of all else is probably the the best definition of "sin" I have ever encountered.

You mean the desire to save your soul above all else?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

You mean the desire to save your soul above all else?

If a person is focussed on trying to "save their soul" rather than the care, concern and love for others, then yes, they are probably guilty of a selfish sin. Motivation is the ultimate decider of sin/no-sin.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Trakar

If a person is focussed on trying to "save their soul" rather than the care, concern and love for others, then yes, they are probably guilty of a selfish sin. Motivation is the ultimate decider of sin/no-sin.

That's not a bad perspective, but let's make a small allowance for those who must be selfish and focused on themselves due to the dysfunction of others.

I've got some well-beloved soul-sucking vampires in my family, and I have to be selfish around them, or they bleed my heart and mind dry. That kind of selfish is survival, not sin.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Peterson

Hope this isn't too off topic but I never understood this viewpoint. The Bible itself is based on tradition in that it was transmitted orally until someone wrote it down.

That's not what we believe.

Quote:

It was the Catholic Church, using unwritten traditions, that decided which books go into the Bible. So the Bible itself doesn't have good Biblical support.

That's not a very good view of what happened historically.
The canon was pretty much universally established by the third century, using straightforward priciples we can still understand and apply today.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by slingblade

That's not a bad perspective, but let's make a small allowance for those who must be selfish and focused on themselves due to the dysfunction of others.

I've got some well-beloved soul-sucking vampires in my family, and I have to be selfish around them, or they bleed my heart and mind dry. That kind of selfish is survival, not sin.

I understand and can relate to the perspective. But for me, a sin is a sin, and I don't make self-allowances for my sins (then I would tend to quit thinking of them as sins). I acknowledge them, try to minimize them, keep them in mind and always overcompensate for them.

Personally, I try not to blame others for my own choices, but I am human and all-too-frequently sinful in my own selfish preferences. I atone when and as I can, not out of fear or shame, but because I really do care about others and do not wish to impose the hardship of others having to deal with me at my worst any more than I can help.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

If a person is focussed on trying to "save their soul" rather than the care, concern and love for others, then yes, they are probably guilty of a selfish sin. Motivation is the ultimate decider of sin/no-sin.

So if I thought that suffering is good for the soul I would be justified in inflicting suffering to purge the soul of sin?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's not what we believe.


That's not a very good view of what happened historically.
The canon was pretty much universally established by the third century, using straightforward priciples we can still understand and apply today.

What are those principles?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I understand and can relate to the perspective. But for me, a sin is a sin, and I don't make self-allowances for my sins (then I would tend to quit thinking of them as sins). I acknowledge them, try to minimize them, keep them in mind and always overcompensate for them.

Personally, I try not to blame others for my own choices, but I am human and all-too-frequently sinful in my own selfish preferences. I atone when and as I can, not out of fear or shame, but because I really do care about others and do not wish to impose the hardship of others having to deal with me at my worst any more than I can help.

Would you do any of that different if god didn't tell you to do it?

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

"Originally Posted by Peterson :
Hope this isn't too off topic but I never understood this viewpoint. The Bible itself is based on tradition in that it was transmitted orally until someone wrote it down."
That's not what we believe.

How can it be otherwise, Avalon?
Neither the old nor the new testaments were written by the eye witnesses to the events they protray, at least as far as I know.
I'd be interested in knowing how you see the evolution of the bible as we know it today.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I understand and can relate to the perspective. But for me, a sin is a sin, and I don't make self-allowances for my sins (then I would tend to quit thinking of them as sins). I acknowledge them, try to minimize them, keep them in mind and always overcompensate for them.

Personally, I try not to blame others for my own choices, but I am human and all-too-frequently sinful in my own selfish preferences. I atone when and as I can, not out of fear or shame, but because I really do care about others and do not wish to impose the hardship of others having to deal with me at my worst any more than I can help.

Oh, okay, we don't agree on this at all, and won't do so.

This is why sin is a useless, ********** up, guilt-mongering, cruel, barbaric, backwards, ignorant, stone-age concept that has no place in a rational person's life.

Not allowing the vampires in my family to hurt me, so that I can continue to love them but not bleed while I do so, is not a sin. I've no respect for anyone who tries to say that it is.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Trakar

If a person is focussed on trying to "save their soul" rather than the care, concern and love for others, then yes, they are probably guilty of a selfish sin. Motivation is the ultimate decider of sin/no-sin.

Are you aware that you can care and concern and love someone into an early grave of their own making?

Got any alcoholics in your family?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by pakeha

How can it be otherwise, Avalon?
Neither the old nor the new testaments were written by the eye witnesses to the events they protray, at least as far as I know.
I'd be interested in knowing how you see the evolution of the bible as we know it today.

God did it they wrote it I believe it/biblebabbleroff

[Pup]

Originally Posted by pakeha

I'd be interested in knowing how you see the evolution of the bible as we know it today.

Me too. To take a really simple example: the Apocrypha in the original King James Bible--scripture or not?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Are you aware that you can care and concern and love someone into an early grave of their own making?

Got any alcoholics in your family?

I did not say "give others what they want and think they need," but perhaps we are using the terms "care, concern and love" in different manners.

Oh, and yes, I have had a few family members, friends and colleagues with addictive personality issues, learning to deal with such issues is complicated and conflicting on many levels, I have nothing but respect and admiration for any who have struggled through such problems in themselves or those they care about. It is easy for me to understand how some came to believe that such individuals were possessed by demons.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakar
I understand and can relate to the perspective. But for me, a sin is a sin, and I don't make self-allowances for my sins (then I would tend to quit thinking of them as sins). I acknowledge them, try to minimize them, keep them in mind and always overcompensate for them.

Personally, I try not to blame others for my own choices, but I am human and all-too-frequently sinful in my own selfish preferences. I atone when and as I can, not out of fear or shame, but because I really do care about others and do not wish to impose the hardship of others having to deal with me at my worst any more than I can help.

Oh, okay, we don't agree on this at all, and won't do so.

This is why sin is a useless, ********** up, guilt-mongering, cruel, barbaric, backwards, ignorant, stone-age concept that has no place in a rational person's life.

Not allowing the vampires in my family to hurt me, so that I can continue to love them but not bleed while I do so, is not a sin. I've no respect for anyone who tries to say that it is.

I don't see how or where you are getting this understanding from anything I said in the post you are responding to, please clarify and explain?

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I did not say "give others what they want and think they need," but perhaps we are using the terms "care, concern and love" in different manners.

We must be.

Quote:

Oh, and yes, I have had a few family members, friends and colleagues with addictive personality issues, learning to deal with such issues is complicated and conflicting on many levels, I have nothing but respect and admiration for any who have struggled through such problems in themselves or those they care about. It is easy for me to understand how some came to believe that such individuals were possessed by demons.

Indeed. So this is what I meant about protecting myself first from their predations, while continuing to love them. This is no sin, but it is putting myself first. And that's all I meant.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

So if I thought that suffering is good for the soul I would be justified in inflicting suffering to purge the soul of sin?

Imposing our wills upon others is a selfish act and thus a sin, believing that we know better how others should live their lives is a selfish act and a sin. Sins are internal, not external events. Selfless acts are their own grace, selfish acts only turn the focus evermore inward and away from the helping and assisting of others.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by pakeha

How can it be otherwise, Avalon?
Neither the old nor the new testaments were written by the eye witnesses to the events they protray, at least as far as I know.

I believe the Bible was written by the people it says it was written by, which means in many cases we are talking about eye witnesses to the events, or at least to some of the events.
I also believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so I disagree with the idea that it was an oral tradition that was recorded after many centuries.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

Would you do any of that different if god didn't tell you to do it?

God has not told me anything, that I am unequivocally aware of. As the Creator of all that is, I am of the impression that the spirit of His design is infused into His creation. If I had no understanding or belief in God or religion, I'd like to think that my beliefs and actions would be the same or similar, but I am incapable of giving a much better answer than "I would hope that my actions would be the same."

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I believe the Bible was written by the people it says it was written by, which means in many cases we are talking about eye witnesses to the events, or at least to some of the events.
I also believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so I disagree with the idea that it was an oral tradition that was recorded after many centuries.

Because the bible says so. And we know the bible is right because the bible is infallible. Because the bible is the word of god. How do we know the bible is the (inspired) word of god? Because it says so right in the bible!

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by slingblade

...Indeed. So this is what I meant about protecting myself first from their predations, while continuing to love them. This is no sin, but it is putting myself first. And that's all I meant.

I believe there is a difference between actions motivated by "I am suffering with you now, because giving you what you want will cause you more intense pain and suffering," and "I am not giving you what you want because I am tired of you taking advantage of my help and assistance." It may seem a small distinction, and an all-too-easy leap in thinking to make, but it is a cross-over line of reasoning that shifts the focus from a mutual struggle to one of self-centered concerns. As I said, I'm all-too-often guilty of such myself, but it is only in acknowledging the nature of my own selfish considerations that I can put them into a proper perspective and try to limit them in the future, without this focus, I tend to gradually become more callous, cynical and uncaring of, or for, others.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I believe the Bible was written by the people it says it was written by, which means in many cases we are talking about eye witnesses to the events, or at least to some of the events.
I also believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so I disagree with the idea that it was an oral tradition that was recorded after many centuries.

Even if this is true (and your belief has an almost pristine lack of evidence--the oldest known texts relating to the Bible are, as I recall, the Dead Sea Scrolls, written some decades or centuries after Christ's alleged death), it doesn't hold true that the version of the Bible you're reading is necessarily correct. Unless you're looking at the original texts themselves, you know there was at least one person who copied the text--which can introduce a lot of errors (ever try to copy something the size of the Bible? Your mind wonders pretty quick). Odds are there were a few dozen, if not a few hundred, copyists. And unless you're reading the text in the original language, you have the translation to contend with. The King James Version is the most blatant example of erroneous translation, but more subtle translation errors can occur. When I translate French, for example, I tend towards more formal and frankly melancholy language (I honestly don't know why; French seems a perfect language for old-style Gothic and Dark Romantic literature). Others translate things in more upbeat and informal tones. Neither of us is wrong, per say--but the author may have intended something else entirely. And part of the reason we're not wrong is because nothing we translated was considered The One True Word of The One True God.

Originally Posted by Trakar

I have nothing but respect and admiration for any who have struggled through such problems in themselves or those they care about.

Depends on the person. Some of them, sure--they hit rock bottom and are struggling to fix themselves. It's not the struggle I admire, but the forward motion. Others? Well, let's just say it's a good thing they're smart enough to stay a few states away from me. Addiction doesn't make you a good person, any more than it makes you a bad person.

Quote:

I believe there is a difference between actions motivated by "I am suffering with you now, because giving you what you want will cause you more intense pain and suffering,"

Seems a tad arrogant. You're suffering because you're not giving something up? You're equating your "pain" from not giving in to them with the often real pain they're going through. No amount of empathy can equal the symptoms of withdraw.

Quote:

without this focus, I tend to gradually become more callous, cynical and uncaring of, or for, others.

I haven't found that to be true. I'm a selfish person. If I help you, it's because I'm getting something out of it. That said, a remarkable number of people come to me for help, and I'm more than willing to help them. See, *I'M* getting something out of it if you succeed--thus, it's in my own best interest to help you in any way I can. It's nothing to do with empathy, or compassion, or anything that a Christian would relate to as a virtue; it's pure, cold arithmetic.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I believe there is a difference between actions motivated by "I am suffering with you now, because giving you what you want will cause you more intense pain and suffering," and "I am not giving you what you want because I am tired of you taking advantage of my help and assistance." It may seem a small distinction, and an all-too-easy leap in thinking to make, but it is a cross-over line of reasoning that shifts the focus from a mutual struggle to one of self-centered concerns. As I said, I'm all-too-often guilty of such myself, but it is only in acknowledging the nature of my own selfish considerations that I can put them into a proper perspective and try to limit them in the future, without this focus, I tend to gradually become more callous, cynical and uncaring of, or for, others.

Well, I thought you understood, but I now don't think you do.

I refuse to share their suffering. I didn't cause it. They're causing it. They've no right to make me suffer for their mistakes; mistakes I did not make.

You don't seem to understand the concept of enabling. Suffering with them keeps them from getting better, from recovering, from becoming healthy again. They don't have anything to fight for when I "share" their suffering. I simply feed their addictions when I do that.

"I am not giving you what you want because I am tired of you taking advantage of my help and assistance," is EXACTLY what I MUST say to them.
I won't make myself a willing victim of their illness.

That's what I meant by "loving them into an early grave of their own making."

I do love them. And that's why I allow them to suffer for their own mistakes. If they know I'm going to tolerate their drinking and drugging and keep them from the consequences, they have no reason to get better or seek help. I love them far too much to enable them to drink themselves to death.

NO ONE ELSE should ever suffer for your mistakes. Sometimes, there's no way to avoid it. But I'm certainly not going to walk up to my own sons and ASK them for a heaping plate of pain.

How stupid.

No, we do not agree. I think you are so wrong as to be skirting close to addiction--addiction to suffering--yourself. Keep that sickness away from me.

I won't own it.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

If a person is focussed on trying to "save their soul" rather than the care, concern and love for others, then yes, they are probably guilty of a selfish sin. Motivation is the ultimate decider of sin/no-sin.

Originally Posted by Trakar

Imposing our wills upon others is a selfish act and thus a sin, believing that we know better how others should live their lives is a selfish act and a sin. Sins are internal, not external events. Selfless acts are their own grace, selfish acts only turn the focus evermore inward and away from the helping and assisting of others.

So motivation is not the ultimate decider imposing ones will is always evil?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I believe the Bible was written by the people it says it was written by, which means in many cases we are talking about eye witnesses to the events, or at least to some of the events.
I also believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so I disagree with the idea that it was an oral tradition that was recorded after many centuries.

So when its says that in the beginning god created heaven and earth Moses was there?

[Johnny Brant]

A definition of 'sin' might be- "any type of bad behaviour that disrupts the natural harmony of the universe"

[slingblade]

MY definition of sin is:

Worthless, guilt-inducing BULL that solves nothing, advances nothing, and keeps people tied to strangling dogma.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

God has not told me anything, that I am unequivocally aware of. As the Creator of all that is, I am of the impression that the spirit of His design is infused into His creation. If I had no understanding or belief in God or religion, I'd like to think that my beliefs and actions would be the same or similar, but I am incapable of giving a much better answer than "I would hope that my actions would be the same."

I don't see any spirit of design in nature.

Then why god?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I believe the Bible was written by the people it says it was written by, which means in many cases we are talking about eye witnesses to the events, or at least to some of the events.
I also believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so I disagree with the idea that it was an oral tradition that was recorded after many centuries.

I believe the Book of Mormon was written by the people it says it was written by, which means in many cases we are talking about eye witnesses to the events, or at least to some of the events.


Sounds the same.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakar
If a person is focussed on trying to "save their soul" rather than the care, concern and love for others, then yes, they are probably guilty of a selfish sin. Motivation is the ultimate decider of sin/no-sin.
Originally Posted by Trakar
Imposing our wills upon others is a selfish act and thus a sin, believing that we know better how others should live their lives is a selfish act and a sin. Sins are internal, not external events. Selfless acts are their own grace, selfish acts only turn the focus evermore inward and away from the helping and assisting of others.

So motivation is not the ultimate decider imposing ones will is always evil?

My statements are complimentary. Selfish motivations result in sins, selfless motivations generally are not sins. Believing that your understanding is superior to all others and that you therefor must impose your understanding and will upon others is the ultimate in self-centered, selfish motivation. I do not understand what you find confusing or contradictory in this situation?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

I don't see any spirit of design in nature.
Then why god?

I cannot speak to your perceptions. "God" is the word I use to characterize the Creator of all that is.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

My statements are complimentary. Selfish motivations result in sins, selfless motivations generally are not sins. Believing that your understanding is superior to all others and that you therefor must impose your understanding and will upon others is the ultimate in self-centered, selfish motivation. I do not understand what you find confusing or contradictory in this situation?

Just that first you say the motivations are the deciding factor in sin then you say that some things are always sin.

Now in the hilited you are saying that all proselytizing religions are sin.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

Just that first you say the motivations are the deciding factor in sin then you say that some things are always sin.

Selfish motivations always result in sinful actions.

Quote:

Now in the hilited you are saying that all proselytizing religions are sin.

None of these are in contradiction, though I did not say as you assert, and it would be the individual who attempts to force their will upon others that is guilty of sin. Things are not sinful, people are.

[Johnny Brant]

Einstein allegedly said "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one", and some eastern mystics tell us the same thing.
So if we regard our 'reality' as an illusion or a 'dream', it's possible that the bad vibes of negative mindsets (sin) can disrupt that fragile dream.

"You can be in my dream if i can be in your dream" -Bob Dylan
"We are such stuff as dreams are made on" -The Tempest
"Strawberry Fields...nothing is real" - The Beatles
"Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?"-Morpheus in The Matrix

[Johnny Brant]

Originally Posted by tsig

..16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I haven't been ritually ducked under water so i guess i'm hellbound (sniffle).

On the other hand true baptism comes from above via a download-
"Jesus said...For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” -Acts 1:5

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Johnny Brant

I haven't been ritually ducked under water so i guess i'm hellbound (sniffle).

I wouldn't fret about hell. It isn't real.

Quote:

On the other hand true baptism comes from above via a download-
"Jesus said...For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” -Acts 1:5

The holy spirit doesn't exist.

What you quoted doesn't contradict what Tsig quoted. Did you have a point?

[Beerina]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I believe the Bible was written by the people it says it was written by, which means in many cases we are talking about eye witnesses to the events, or at least to some of the events.
I also believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so I disagree with the idea that it was an oral tradition that was recorded after many centuries.

And the key word is, of course, "believe". One of my revelations on the road to atheism was the realization that other people believed just as strongly in their beliefs as I as a Christian did in mine.

Eventually, a pox on all the silly, foolish, unjustifiable and unprovable nonsense.

You have been provide on numerous occasions with many of the blatant contradictions in the Bible. Christian apologists have been twisting and turning in the wind since the Second Century with their contrived explanations. They have convinced no one but themselves and certainly not each other.

If God existed, a literal Bible proves that he is a silly, foolish, misogynistic, uncaring, malevolent idiot. As the Creator of the Universe, he should at least be able to give a coherent explanation of himself instead of ridiculous stories that should not fool a six-year old.




IMHO of course.

[Ausmerican]

Remember team, Jesus died for your sins.
Know what that means?!
It means if you dont sin Jesus died for nothing!!
Are we gonna let that happen? Hell no!
Now get out there, get busy sinning for all that you are worth and make his death MEAN something!! [/coach]














ETA: Ausmericans tenure as a life coach ended when all of his clients ended up in prison from following this advice. S'okay though, his new career as a parole officer is doing great!