-
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 the worst sin?
- Thread starter Green Gaia
- Start date
Hope
Princesinha
I think, first of all, we need to clarify what pride is. Pride, as I know it, is basically elevating oneself, putting oneself before others, glorifying oneself. It is, as I said, wanting to be one's own god. Now, the Bible doesn't spit out the word 'pride' in the Adam and Eve story, but it's still pretty clear that pride was the motivating force behind the eating of the apple. Why did they want to eat of the tree? Because the serpent said it would make them like God---meaning, elevating oneself, which, of course, is pride! Before the serpent came along and planted this insidious idea in their heads, they seemed pretty content to leave the tree alone as God commanded. So that is how I conclude that pride was the motivating factor. Yes, it says they wanted wisdom, and wanting wisdom in and of itself is definitely not wrong--just read Proverbs if you want to know God's opinion of wisdom. If we seek wisdom for wisdom's sake alone, then that is admirable. But this is not what Adam and Eve sought--they sought wisdom in order to elevate themselves to the level of God. And, that, my friend, is pride.....robtex said:
Hope
Princesinha
Exactly what I believe. If none of us had pride, and we were all humble and selfless, then this world would be free of every crime. No killing, no raping, no stealing...nothing. They all start with pride. Loving oneself more than others....we are all guilty of it.....Trinity said:
Well, I am bored as f**k, so I will try and concoct an answer. Be warned, though, it's 3am.
There is no WORST sins. IMO, a sin is a sin, regardless of "severity". All sins are seen and punishalized by the believer's appropriate religion/faith. A small example that some middle eastern countries have is for the females to cover their hair/skin etc (I'm not sure but it is some belief about not permitting males to see them before marriage, or similar).
Now, if one of these females were not to comply with these beliefs and walk out into the street in a mini, that would be a sin in their religion. However, most other people may not see this as a sin. They would go about their daily rituals.
By the way, I am not insulting Arabic cultures.
It is like crime, (but not to mix crime and sin). Some countries have the belief of cutting off a person's fingers for stealing. IMO that is a bit severe. They don't do that here, perhaps a fine,
community service work, or in the rare occasion, a short term jail sentence.
The point I am getting across is that each believer/follower/member/civilian, etc all have their
own ideas on what is sinful and what isn't. In my beliefs, lust is not a sin. But if you go and do something about that lust (i e stealing another's beloved one), now THAT is a sin.
Ok, I have said my piece. I won't annoy you guys anymore.
Life is cuca.
There is no WORST sins. IMO, a sin is a sin, regardless of "severity". All sins are seen and punishalized by the believer's appropriate religion/faith. A small example that some middle eastern countries have is for the females to cover their hair/skin etc (I'm not sure but it is some belief about not permitting males to see them before marriage, or similar).
Now, if one of these females were not to comply with these beliefs and walk out into the street in a mini, that would be a sin in their religion. However, most other people may not see this as a sin. They would go about their daily rituals.
By the way, I am not insulting Arabic cultures.
It is like crime, (but not to mix crime and sin). Some countries have the belief of cutting off a person's fingers for stealing. IMO that is a bit severe. They don't do that here, perhaps a fine,
community service work, or in the rare occasion, a short term jail sentence.
The point I am getting across is that each believer/follower/member/civilian, etc all have their
own ideas on what is sinful and what isn't. In my beliefs, lust is not a sin. But if you go and do something about that lust (i e stealing another's beloved one), now THAT is a sin.
Ok, I have said my piece. I won't annoy you guys anymore.
Life is cuca.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
But Rob, ignorance can be overcome through education and study. The Christian concept of sin can only be erased by the blood of Christ. In Chirstianity, the sinner has no hope of overcoming sin through his own actions, he is solely at the mercy of God.
robtex
Veteran Member
Maize that makes a lot of sense. I didn't factor in the meathod of salvation. Pat stockholm theory very interesting...while don't you make that a thread of its own.....good stuff good stuff!!!!
http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html
http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html
robtex
Veteran Member
Lets say we go on the idea that some sins are worse than others. And furthermore we say that sinning and the commitment of evil are the same general concept. Maybe we are all thinking one diminsional in our analysis. Maybe it is not a single trait but a weighted average of traits that once transferred to an action have varying degrees of sinfulness but that could be measured at least relativly as opposed to absolutly.
As a loose paradign I purpose as a rough draft aspects that could be used to evalute the degree of sin:
1) macro vs micro--the number of people directly affected by the action.
2) ripple effect-# of indirectly affected . the general sphere of influence of those not directly affected by the action.
3) intent--level non-accidentianess in the action and the appraised purpose of the action
4) governation by beliefs in dogma--through the exlcusion of enviromental factors the indoctrination of the act via dogma
5) recipication rate---the likelyhood and degree of an action as a result of the original action.
6) internal reactions by the propogator. How they are influenced by the action.
7) incongruence of bi-party gratification---how much of the total or sum of benefit goes to the instigator
8) long term impact---how long the affect will hold for parties involved directly and indirectly
9) reaccurance rate--the likleyhood of reaccurance of the action based on the affect of that action on the doer.
This is a really rough draft and I took some of my origninal notes out but I wanted others to chew on my raw idea for a while. I am going to take it through two examples to give it some substance.
senerio # 1 genocide of a small country. I am choosing genocide because most people see this as either a sin, evil or amoral so we won't get hung up on weather the example is really a bad thing or not.
genocide of a small country say population of 1 million people
1) 1 million people affected
2) relative outside that country affected those distraught by genocide affected
3) intent---level is high due to preplanning and stratgic execusion
4) dogma...unknown in this example but generally low
5) recipiation rate--very high ...self preservation will dicatate the need for resistance and retaliation by that country or other countries likley.
6) interal reactions by propogator---moderate to higher....unknown with this example
7) IOBPG---very high the exterminated party not able to recieve any benefit from the genocide
8) long term impact---high....policies shifted economies changed...lives not resurrectable.
9) reaccurance rate--high if the genocide is successful and if the desired affect was congruent with the needs of the propgators.
Senerio two child molestor. I used it again due to my belief that most people think child molestation is a sin, evil and/or amoral
In this example there are 30 victims
1) 30
2) high stats show that high perecent of victims are likely to be sex offenders
3) intent--high but not as high as the first senserio as it is based on an emotional feed as opposed to a long term plan
4) dogma-none
5) recipiation rate----low to non-existant..victim may fight back but that would fall under self-defense...victim unlikley to hunt down molester or his family
6) interal reactions--very high...gratification fuels further victims
7) IOBPG--very high...victim not willing
8) long term impact---high life long mental injury to victim
9) reaccurance rate--very very high..each one makes liklyhood of next more likly
Based on those two I would say # 1 is worse because of the #'s affected the intent, and long term impact (permanent death)...but I am not sure how much of what I got is valid, invalid..how to idex them...wanted to throw my mess up here and see if someone thought it was salvagable....What qualifies as pieces that make the whole and if it is a formula is the same formula applicable to what is the most good--or anti-sin?
As a loose paradign I purpose as a rough draft aspects that could be used to evalute the degree of sin:
1) macro vs micro--the number of people directly affected by the action.
2) ripple effect-# of indirectly affected . the general sphere of influence of those not directly affected by the action.
3) intent--level non-accidentianess in the action and the appraised purpose of the action
4) governation by beliefs in dogma--through the exlcusion of enviromental factors the indoctrination of the act via dogma
5) recipication rate---the likelyhood and degree of an action as a result of the original action.
6) internal reactions by the propogator. How they are influenced by the action.
7) incongruence of bi-party gratification---how much of the total or sum of benefit goes to the instigator
8) long term impact---how long the affect will hold for parties involved directly and indirectly
9) reaccurance rate--the likleyhood of reaccurance of the action based on the affect of that action on the doer.
This is a really rough draft and I took some of my origninal notes out but I wanted others to chew on my raw idea for a while. I am going to take it through two examples to give it some substance.
senerio # 1 genocide of a small country. I am choosing genocide because most people see this as either a sin, evil or amoral so we won't get hung up on weather the example is really a bad thing or not.
genocide of a small country say population of 1 million people
1) 1 million people affected
2) relative outside that country affected those distraught by genocide affected
3) intent---level is high due to preplanning and stratgic execusion
4) dogma...unknown in this example but generally low
5) recipiation rate--very high ...self preservation will dicatate the need for resistance and retaliation by that country or other countries likley.
6) interal reactions by propogator---moderate to higher....unknown with this example
7) IOBPG---very high the exterminated party not able to recieve any benefit from the genocide
8) long term impact---high....policies shifted economies changed...lives not resurrectable.
9) reaccurance rate--high if the genocide is successful and if the desired affect was congruent with the needs of the propgators.
Senerio two child molestor. I used it again due to my belief that most people think child molestation is a sin, evil and/or amoral
In this example there are 30 victims
1) 30
2) high stats show that high perecent of victims are likely to be sex offenders
3) intent--high but not as high as the first senserio as it is based on an emotional feed as opposed to a long term plan
4) dogma-none
5) recipiation rate----low to non-existant..victim may fight back but that would fall under self-defense...victim unlikley to hunt down molester or his family
6) interal reactions--very high...gratification fuels further victims
7) IOBPG--very high...victim not willing
8) long term impact---high life long mental injury to victim
9) reaccurance rate--very very high..each one makes liklyhood of next more likly
Based on those two I would say # 1 is worse because of the #'s affected the intent, and long term impact (permanent death)...but I am not sure how much of what I got is valid, invalid..how to idex them...wanted to throw my mess up here and see if someone thought it was salvagable....What qualifies as pieces that make the whole and if it is a formula is the same formula applicable to what is the most good--or anti-sin?
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Wow - Robtex - you have too much time on your hands.
Actually, I like your formula, and I'm sure many will have input on it. For me, any action that harms others (undeserving of the harm) is a sin. I also see some sins as worse than others, as I stated previously, regarding children.
TVOR
Actually, I like your formula, and I'm sure many will have input on it. For me, any action that harms others (undeserving of the harm) is a sin. I also see some sins as worse than others, as I stated previously, regarding children.
TVOR
robtex
Veteran Member
The Voice of Reason said:Wow - Robtex - you have too much time on your hands.
TVOR
talking about sin i wrote it up at work actually...you have one of the most critical minds on here....arrange them in order of imporance and delete and add aspects.....assess the paradign as valid or invalid....i didn't put age on here at all.....assess the relation between the degree of sin and age of the victim(s) .....
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Thanks - I think. I'll take the comment about "critical mind" as a compliment, and hope that that is the way you intended it.robtex said:
Are you asking me to do these things - as input? I'm just trying to ensure that I understand your post.
I would think that your formula should include some way of capturing the mental age of the perpetrator and the chronological age of the victim (up to a certain point). I'm sure that many would disagree with this, and they would certainly have that right. Perhaps that disagreement would lead to a debate that resulted in constructive input to the formula.
Thanks,
TVOR
robtex
Veteran Member
The Voice of Reason said:Thanks - I think. I'll take the comment about "critical mind" as a compliment, and hope that that is the way you intended it.
Are you asking me to do these things - as input? I'm just trying to ensure that I understand your post.
I would think that your formula should include some way of capturing the mental age of the perpetrator and the chronological age of the victim (up to a certain point). I'm sure that many would disagree with this, and they would certainly have that right. Perhaps that disagreement would lead to a debate that resulted in constructive input to the formula.
Thanks,
TVOR
it was a compliment...
lets make it our (the forums) formula instead of mine. Factor age in argue out things you oppose and add to it might strengthen this function, mathematically speaking, and if you have time present an example of it in use. --to qualify it.
This is actually a legalistic way to quantify sin, for instance in #3 the inability to form intent is considered in kind of punishment. We assume that hell is the ultimate death penalty for the worst sin. I agree with those who say the 10 Commandments are the basis of our legal system, though the whole thing ignores the "judge not" addendum. Honestly, we're all on death row and will eventually have to depend on the Court's mercy.