There is no Sin...

[Twilight Hue]

If that's all you thought it was.

That's pretty much all it is. A thought.

 

[Secret Chief]

I mean people around us should know that we are not soft and we are capable of being cruel against them or else we will be chosen as victims just as in nature weak animals are eliminated.This is passive defense. Also we have to be willing to disregard others in order to gain power. This is proactive defense because by gaining money and power we gain leverage on our future enemies.

OK thanks. From my perspective, I endeavour not to be cruel, but don't feel like a victim in any way. I try not to diregard others and don't seek to gain power, whatever that word may mean. I'm not money oriented and don't expect or seek future enemies. Apart from that, we're like two peas in a pod.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's pretty much all it is. A thought.

Just like the ideas of freedom and rights. They too have no evidence like sin or God.

You know, all of these irrational people, who believe in ideas without evidence. Well, I am one of them. Even you do that. You believe we are just animals in normative sense.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Just like the ideas of freedom and rights. They too have no evidence like sin or God.

You know, all of these irrational people, who believe in ideas without evidence. Well, I am one of them. Even you do that. You believe we are just animals in normative sense.

Maybe your right.

Still we undoubtedly are in fact animals. The planet of the apes.

 

[osgart]

Every time I hear the word sin it's in reference to the Abrahamic God. I don't consider that God as legitimate moral law.

God denotes a reality of authority over all in reality. So not regarding reality would be dangerous if God is the truth. I don't believe there is a God truth out there. I do believe there are moral laws that can transcend humanity beyond animal instinct. Moral laws are simply virtues/values vs. vices.

There's a consistent cause and effect expressed in moral laws that make life worthwhile and a lot less dangerous. Morality is a very real cause and effect. People are not pre programmed to do what they do. People have the option to regard moral laws, or totally disregard them. People can do more then that. They can embrace values/virtues in their hearts, or they can embrace a dangerous life in vices. That's where I think free will comes into play. Everyone has the option of making informed rational choices or totally disregard morality altogether to their own and others peril.

As for Gods, people can make Gods out of anything or anyone if they choose.

I think it's always best to have the truth of things. God or no God. As humans it's very likely that all humans miss the mark on moral perfection. Yet humans have the power to be moral creatures. No one would be alive today if morality wasn't a big part of being human.

There are motivations and actions that do damage to life. Moral laws are unavoidable.

So I disagree completely that there are no moral laws, and that morality is a figment of the imagination. People do get offended, and on the flip side people do enjoy morality. The more accurate the morality the better the quality of life. A person embracing vices would totally disagree with that entirely.

Humans have very real options and very real choices to make morally speaking. One who embraces the vices is totally wanton. They will do what they want whenever they want so long as they can get away with it. And what they want is never for the benefit of humanity. It casts a burden on society.

So whatever words one chooses to describe it, morality has great benefits and major consequences to everyone and everything in life.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Maybe your right.

Still we undoubtedly are in fact animals. The planet of the apes.

I am particularly weary of those of the hominin Tribe... Those 'intelligent intelligent' one's sure are full of themselves, amirite?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe your right.

Still we undoubtedly are in fact animals. The planet of the apes.

Well, the problem is here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science
In short that is the list of limits to evidence.
And that includes you, I and everybody else when we start debating how we ought to live. Animals or not.

 

[Nakosis]

Sin tends to be very specific to Abrahamic faiths. Most deities do not care nearly as much as Abrahams god.
And you have to remember sin isnt just violating Yahweh's rules, they are acts that allegedly eternally damn us, acts of the flesh that if given over to ensures our own destruction.

Sure, what happens when you disobey the Gods of other beliefs?

 

[Nakosis]

untrue. it's a word that simply means fault.

So, are you ever going to be free of your faults?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure, what happens when you disobey the Gods of other beliefs?

Depends on the religion and deity. Some are fickle and capricious. Some just are not interested in what humans do, while some are highly obsessed with us. Sometimes there are punishments, sometimes consequences far beyond predictability, and sometimes the gods just get bored with us.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Outside of religion.

If sin is breaking or disobeying God's rules. Then it depends on what God you follow as different Gods have different rules for their followers. Whereas one action maybe a sin for the follower of one God. It may not be a sin for one who follows a different God.

One cannot "sin" if the action is not breaking the rules of the God they follow.

So to be sinless, free of sin, one must simply not follow any God.

Unless the Creator God endowed religion-less people with a conscience, that says things like, "This is bad, maybe I shouldn't do this," making all persons without excuse.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

So to be sinless, free of sin, one must simply not follow any God.

Or, you could believe in a God that doesn't recognize sin. I'm sure there are plenty of theists on this forum who do so.

 

[Kenny]

Outside of religion.

If sin is breaking or disobeying God's rules. Then it depends on what God you follow as different Gods have different rules for their followers. Whereas one action maybe a sin for the follower of one God. It may not be a sin for one who follows a different God.

One cannot "sin" if the action is not breaking the rules of the God they follow.

So to be sinless, free of sin, one must simply not follow any God.

But if one doesn't follow any God, the one has become a god to himself/herself and will sin on the basis of his own laws.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

But if one doesn't follow any God, the one has become a god to himself/herself and will sin on the basis of his own laws.

Should he still give to Caesar what is Caesar's? The rest of his life... Is his, I suppose.

Edit: At least his mortal life. Supposing for arguments sake, the obverse exists.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Yes and I want to add that there is no good or evil. Life is a cruel war and in order to survive we have to be cruel too. It isn't a luxury it is a necessity.

Except that if you are of faith, [physical] survival is not the most important thing for Man. And, if you are unlucky enough to have [had to] truly “sin”, you will know why.

Some actions are so hard to live with, you will find yourself wishing that you had died instead. Then, you will know the meaning of having created your own “living hell”.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Kenny]

Should he still give to Caesar what is Caesar's? The rest of his life... Is his, I suppose.

Edit: At least his mortal life. Supposing for arguments sake, the obverse exists.

Not sure of this application to the context of my statement.

The point I was making, which was also penned by Paul,

(AMP "When Gentiles, who do not have the Law [since it was given only to Jews], do instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law." ) -

In other words, even if they don't believe in or serve God or gods, they have their own standard as their own god and thus, in fact, do sin!

 

[firedragon]

Whereas one action maybe a sin for the follower of one God. It may not be a sin for one who follows a different God.

Nakosis. Can you give a few examples?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Not sure of this application to the context of my statement.

they have their own standard as their own god and thus, in fact, do sin!

I see. Yes, agreed.

My point was that municipal laws could possibly (at least to a degree) fulfill the role which dogmatic laws represent.
The laws passed by political officials are derived outside of personal self and, at least some of them, are worthy of upholding and/or revering.

I was operating under the assumption there was a separation of the church and state, thus affording a second option of guidelines or framework which are outside of both the self/ego as well as any specific religious dogma. In a perfect world, these civil guidelines would be equivalently worthy of reverence or aspiration as any theistic approach. In a scenario where there is no separation of church and state, the atheist will be accused 'heretic' and may find themselves in danger or hard-pressed to survive without having to committing the epitome of 'sins'.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Outside of religion.

If sin is breaking or disobeying God's rules. Then it depends on what God you follow as different Gods have different rules for their followers. Whereas one action maybe a sin for the follower of one God. It may not be a sin for one who follows a different God.

One cannot "sin" if the action is not breaking the rules of the God they follow.

So to be sinless, free of sin, one must simply not follow any God.

Unfortunately for many, the Entire Message and God's Law are applicable in the age they are given.

There is a grace given though, if one has not heard of that Message. If one has, then it was a choice made.

Regards Tony

 

[Viker]

I'm devoid of sin but full of flaw. I do have character. All those notches and scars. They are badges, awards and certificates. Sin?

Okay.