• 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!

In our view did God put the world under sin or did man or neither or both?

Who put the world under sin

  • It's not

    Votes: 12 57.1%
  • God did in order to display his mercy

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Man did

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • both did

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • it just happened

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Total voters
    21

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Dianadad, the person who damaged your cars broke the civil law, he was very irresponsible, and must pay for all damages and inconvenience he caused to you people and perhaps jailed for certain period if you would report him. But sin has different connotations. Sin, IMHO, is against the rules of the society of being humane, fit to be the member of that society. One may have his\her additional standards, but one has to confirm to the societys minimum.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Wow.
All that and you failed to answer the question...

Fact is, no one in this thread made the claim you are so passionately attacking.
Another strawman dead.
Congrats.

And for the record, yes, even atheists have to suffer the consequences for their actions.

Does it make it a sin?
Nope.
Sin is going against the will/wishes of your chosen deity.

I'm telling you that it doesn't matter whether your standards come from a 'chosen deity' or from some other philosophical source.

Going against those standards is 'sin,' and you have to suffer the consequences. Your choice to escape sin is the same; repent...which includes being sorry for your action, asking forgiveness, making reparation (if you can) and then not repeating whatever it was. To ME, part of that forgiveness asking is from Christ, who can help us through the process, but whether HE forgives us or not....

we still have to pay for the car we smash into.

You can, if you wish, tell me why an action taken by a theist AND an atheist who both know that action is against his/her own principles, and for which the consequences are exactly the same, is a 'sin' when the theist commits it and not a problem if an atheist does.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Dianadad, the person who damaged your cars broke the civil law, he was very irresponsible, and must pay for all damages and inconvenience he caused to you people and perhaps jailed for certain period if you would report. But sin has different connotations. Sin, IMHO, is against humanity, if you get my meaning.

Actually, all he did to US, my daughter and me, is cost us our deductible and some inconvenience. It was an accident; he didn't INTEND to wreck our cars. What he did to himself was the 'sin,' in that he's going to be hurt a lot worse than we will. I am sorry about that part.

If I COULD have repaired our cars and gotten him the help he needs, I would have. But I can't.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
You can, if you wish, tell me why an action taken by a theist AND an atheist who both know that action is against his/her own principles, and for which the consequences are exactly the same, is a 'sin' when the theist commits it and not a problem if an atheist does.
Never made that claim.
Nope.
Not once.
In fact, if you had actually read my posts with the intention of understanding what was posted, you would know I flat out stated that EVERYONE is responsible for their actions and have to pay for the consequences of their actions.

so it is my already STATED opinion that it is in fact a problem when an atheist does.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
In Scripture I find sin is either: on purpose or not, by accident or not, deliberate or not, intentional or not.
I suppose a good Judge will take into consideration the circumstances also. Eating an apple was not such a great sin. I think God, the Father, should have overlooked it. Dont we overlook small misdemeanors of our children! But then, you have a dictator for a God (I am your Lord God .., etc.).
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Never made that claim.
Nope.
Not once.
In fact, if you had actually read my posts with the intention of understanding what was posted, you would know I flat out stated that EVERYONE is responsible for their actions and have to pay for the consequences of their actions.

so it is my already STATED opinion that it is in fact a problem when an atheist does.
begging the question.

Why aren't the same wrong actions NOT 'sins' when an atheist commits them, but ARE sins when a theist does?

Is this another instance when equivocation reigns supreme? The word used to describe the action means that the action wasn't actually taken?

so...as far as I am concerned, 'sin' is when one does something one believes to be wrong, whatever those beliefs are, or are based upon. therefore, atheists can sin. They do sin.

In my belief system, however, nobody is going to be condemned by God for any action they do not KNOW is wrong, because 'sin' is very personal.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Why is there sin in the world? and what's the solution if there is?

"All the Word put under sin" from the Psalms

View attachment 35999


As per the Dharmic monotheistic sect, the Prajapita brahmakumaris all sins can be traced to body-consciousness which is distinct from soul-consciousness.

In body-consciousness one perceives oneself as a mere body, while in soul-consciousness, one perceives oneself as a soul in a body.There is a major difference in the perception from these two states.

Identifying oneself with the body is said to lead to the vices of lust, anger, greed, attachments and egoism. All crimes can be traced back to these vices.

The state of soul-consciousness, wherein one sees oneself as a soul in a temporary organic body, enables one to be free of vicious dispositions, and learn to master the bodily instrument rather than be enslaved by it.

As per the Prajapita Brahmakumaris , the soul is originally perfect and pure, and has intrinsic bliss and joy. Through repeated births or reincarnations, it adds layers of impressions or karmic impurities in its consciousness, through the influence of sensory desires in the form of cravings and aversions. This layer of psychological impressions blurs this state of pure consciousness.

This makes it unconscious or body-conscious resulting in vicious conduct. The desires in the form of cravings and aversions results in actions transcending virtuous conduct and behavior for temporal pleasures related to lust, greed, hatred, ego-gratification and attachments.

This unnatural state of impure consciousness results in temporary pleasures but suffering in the longer run. This perpetuates indiscriminate pleasure-seeking, as lack of joy within results in further pleasure-seeking, and this results in a vicious cycle of inordinate pleasure-seeking and suffering.

Through remembrance of God and meditation, one is able to destroy the impurities in the consciousness and purify it, and access its natural state of bliss, joy and peace again.

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris teach Raja Yoga meditation as part of seven day courses in their centers in almost every country around the world. This has enabled many people to experience bliss and joy of their pure state of consciousness, and get rid of addictions to pleasure-seeking and substance abuse like alcoholism, smoking . This has also enabled many to experience better health as most diseases are of a psychosomatic nature.

Brahma Kumaris - What is Raja Yoga Meditation?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Why aren't the same wrong actions NOT 'sins' when an atheist commits them, but ARE sins when a theist does?
Because the atheist is not going against the will/wishes of their chosen deity.

Is this another instance when equivocation reigns supreme? The word used to describe the action means that the action wasn't actually taken?
No, this is an instance where you are forcing your chosen deity into a box where no deity inhabits.

so...as far as I am concerned, 'sin' is when one does something one believes to be wrong, whatever those beliefs are, or are based upon. therefore, atheists can sin. They do sin.
This is nothing more than your need to force your chosen deity into boxes your chosen deity is not in

In my belief system, however, nobody is going to be condemned by God for any action they do not KNOW is wrong, because 'sin' is very personal.
You are free to believe what ever you like.

Sin is going against the will/wishes of your chosen deity.
Nothing more.
That you are unable to comprehend it is not a problem of mine.
It is a problem of yours.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Oh, don't be silly. Are you claiming that atheists don't ever make bad choices, or choices that violate their own personal ethics, or choices that are more harmful to themselves and others than different choices would have been?

Are you under the impression that we are all predestined to do the wrong thing sometimes?

Or are you making the claim that there is no such thing as a bad decision if an atheist makes it?

Because that's what 'sin' is...doing something against one's own personal ethical standards. It doesn't matter where you get those standards from.
"Sin" is specifically an act done in violation of a religious prescription of right/wrong. Unless you are using some other definition for the word it is NOT generally applicable to all moral misdealings.

And so, for myself, as an atheist, the entire concept of "sin" is completely meaningless. I have no "religious" prescription of morals that I believe should be answered to or upheld. I find the idea completely silly and all part of the make believe employed by the religious. My moral compass points where it points, and as all good systems should be, it is open to revision should new or contrasting information come to light that changes my thoughts surrounding a particular situation.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Because that's what 'sin' is...doing something against one's own personal ethical standards. It doesn't matter where you get those standards from.

I'm telling you that it doesn't matter whether your standards come from a 'chosen deity' or from some other philosophical source.
I found the OP unanswerable because the word "sin" has more than one meaning.
Yours is a relatively modern secular one. I'd go along with it, personally.
But not all religious folks do.

Especially when they want to condemn some belief or behavior without any rational reason for doing so. Nobody can give me a reason for condemning my near 30 year relationship with Doug without resorting to "God said..."

Sin is going against the will/wishes of your chosen deity.
Nothing more.
I was taught something very similar in my Christian school. Sin is a transgression against God's stated will.

Since there really isn't another equally clear word for this meaning, but there are other words for our more secular concept, I'm inclined to reserve "sin" for the religious meaning. We can use other words for behavior that's stupid, ignorant, destructive, irresponsible, or whatever.
Tom
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Because the atheist is not going against the will/wishes of their chosen deity.

They are going against the will/wishes of the philosophy they claim to live by. Seems like the same thing to me....and it certainly should mean the same thing to an atheist, who doesn't believe in a God Who can HAVE a will or wishes. If there is no such deity, then all people are living by their own chosen philosophies, just like the atheists. Same thing.


No, this is an instance where you are forcing your chosen deity into a box where no deity inhabits.

I am? Frankly, it seems to me that it is the atheists attempting to have things both ways; there is no God, but everything is still His fault.


This is nothing more than your need to force your chosen deity into boxes your chosen deity is not in

Well, since you do not believe as I do, and in fact don't seem to believe in any sort of deity, how in the world could you tell me that *I* am getting Him wrong? Since when did you get to decide for me Who He 'really' is?


You are free to believe what ever you like.

Sin is going against the will/wishes of your chosen deity.
Nothing more.
That you are unable to comprehend it is not a problem of mine.
It is a problem of yours.

I've made it clear that this is my opinion. It's the question under discussion. I claim that 'sin' is, for theists, going against the laws of God, and for atheists, its going against their personal ethical and moral standards. Since, for atheists, there IS no God to dictate such laws and will, then to them, theists too only go against their personal ethical/moral codes when they sin.

I can understand why a theist might see a difference between theistic 'sin' and atheistic wrong doing, since of course the theist believes in a deity Who dictates the laws according to which we should live, but I utterly fail to see how an atheist can make the distinction, since to him both theist and atheist are dealing with purely personal standards of behavior...there not being a God and all.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
They are going against the will/wishes of the philosophy they claim to live by. Seems like the same thing to me....and it certainly should mean the same thing to an atheist, who doesn't believe in a God Who can HAVE a will or wishes. If there is no such deity, then all people are living by their own chosen philosophies, just like the atheists. Same thing.
Why do you think atheists are Gods?

Yes, you are

Frankly, it seems to me that it is the atheists attempting to have things both ways; there is no God, but everything is still His fault.
Your transference is showing.

Well, since you do not believe as I do, and in fact don't seem to believe in any sort of deity, how in the world could you tell me that *I* am getting Him wrong? Since when did you get to decide for me Who He 'really' is?
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

I've made it clear that this is my opinion. It's the question under discussion. I claim that 'sin' is, for theists, going against the laws of God, and for atheists, its going against their personal ethical and moral standards. Since, for atheists, there IS no God to dictate such laws and will, then to them, theists too only go against their personal ethical/moral codes when they sin.
You can Humpty Dumpty the word to your hearts content.
Just stop being surprised and offended when you get called out on it.

I can understand why a theist might see a difference between theistic 'sin' and atheistic wrong doing, since of course the theist believes in a deity Who dictates the laws according to which we should live, but I utterly fail to see how an atheist can make the distinction, since to him both theist and atheist are dealing with purely personal standards of behavior...there not being a God and all.
I have as yet to see an atheist make any where near a big deal out of it as you have in this thread alone.

Of course, it would not even be a topic of discussion if theists like yourself would stop trying to force their God onto everyone.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Sin is going against the will/wishes of your chosen deity.

Good, except... it doesn't track with what's said in the New Testament.

We are told two seemingly contradictory things:
1."If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves..."
2. "The law is a curse..."

That is, despite sin being apparently real, and essentially being breaking the law, we are basically told that the law itself is just there to show us how much we need Jesus. This makes things profoundly different from the karma system of Hinduism, and we're basically dealing with a God that is, well, weird. Think about it, giving you a monstrous rule book because we want to measure up, and then basically being like "Well? How'd you do?" and laughing when we fail.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Good, except... it doesn't track with what's said in the New Testament.

We are told two seemingly contradictory things:
1."If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves..."
2. "The law is a curse..."

That is, despite sin being apparently real, and essentially being breaking the law, we are basically told that the law itself is just there to show us how much we need Jesus. This makes things profoundly different from the karma system of Hinduism, and we're basically dealing with a God that is, well, weird. Think about it, giving you a monstrous rule book because we want to measure up, and then basically being like "Well? How'd you do?" and laughing when we fail.
No idea what you are trying to point out.

Mans law and Gods law, even though the over lap some, are two different things.
But even where they overlap, if you do not have a chosen deity, you cannot sin.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I suppose a good Judge will take into consideration the circumstances also. Eating an apple was not such a great sin. I think God, the Father, should have overlooked it. Dont we overlook small misdemeanors of our children! But then, you have a dictator for a God (I am your Lord God .., etc.).
You're not alone in thinking that eating an apple was not such a great sin.
It was the deliberately breaking of God's Law, the Law of the Land of Eden that was broken.
Suppose you had a very generous neighbor who had lots of fruit trees and he told you that you can come over anything you wish and take as much fruit as you wish ' except ' do Not take the fruit from his one particular tree.
I would Not consider that neighbor to be unreasonable or a dictator.
By Adam in effect stealing God's fruit from God's tree, Adam was taking the Law out of God's hands, and placing the Law into man's hands.
Adam's actions set up People Rule as being superior to God's Rule.
So, the ' Issue of Sovereignty ' was now at hand. Who can govern better? man or God
Mankind's history has proven King Solomon's words to be true that man has dominated man to man's hurt, man's injury - Ecclesiastes 8:9.
As a Good Judge then God does take into consideration circumstance.
Since we are all innocent of what Satan and Adam did is why God sent pre-human sinless Jesus to Earth for us.
Since we can't stop sinning we die. We can't resurrect oneself or another, so we need someone who can resurrect us. According to Scripture Jesus can and will resurrect people - Revelation 1:18; Acts 24:15.
Thus, Jesus will undo all the harm that Satan and Adam brought upon us, and many will have the same opportunity to live forever on Earth as was originally given to Adam before his downfall.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
OK, URAVIP2ME. Will wish you a good-bye in the great hall before being condemned to eternal hell. :D
I am blind and hard of heart to see his glory.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Why is there sin in the world? and what's the solution if there is?

"All the Word put under sin" from the Psalms

View attachment 35999
God created a very complex situation -and placed inexperienced beings within it (the complex situation includes the design/state of the beings themselves) -who had to deal with it.
Law is based on the complexities and particulars of the overall situation.

"Sin is the transgression of the law"
Sin HAPPENS because there is a TEMPORARY difference between what we SHOULD do and what we ACTUALLY do.
That is because we are NEW -INEXPERIENCED -IMPERFECT.
God created the particular situation in which we exist -which allowed sin to exist. The concept of sin has always existed/applied -simply because situation has always existed -but God created our particular situation.

Rom 5:12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the Law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
(The above actually hints at a world which did not begin when Adam did, but...) Sin is said to have entered the world through Adam because Adam was given rules to follow -and did not follow them.
If he had not been given rules to follow -which also requires the ability to understand the concept and make conscious decisions, sin would technically exist if his actions were not correct based on the overall situation, but he would not have been held accountable (though if he saw his own actions to be less than good, his own conscience could hold him accountable).

LAW CAN ALSO BE BASED ON PLANS FOR CHANGES TO BE MADE TO THE OVERALL SITUATION.
Therefore, there is law based on the present overall situation -and specific law/orders based on intended changes.
The latter -living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God at any given time, and not only the ten commandments -is why judgments under the law (such as foods to be eaten and not eaten, the death penalty, etc.) have changed over time -though the law has not. For example... one commandment says to not kill -another says to not commit adultery -yet God had people kill others who were caught in the act of adultery. In that case, the first commandment superseded the others -and God was responsible because he gave the order.
One reason he gave that particular order was to literally remove sin/sinners from Israel while he prepared Israel for the new covenant -under which sin could be removed from the sinner in both letter and spirit -and under which people were not to carry out that death penalty.

God gave Adam a SPECIFIC order -not to eat perfectly good food from a particular tree. By eating it, he broke the first commandment.
That order -and the situation which surrounded it (allowing Satan to interact) -were based on God's plan to give "the creation over to futility" "in hope".
The purpose for that was to begin to eradicate sin forever -to make us all perfect, eventually.
There is a huge universe/creation out there -which we will inherit after initially inheriting the Earth -but, for now, we are limited to this one particular rock.
God is intentionally focusing on sin within a manageable and relatively closed environment.

Sin was a thing -it was always going to be a thing -until we learned to MASTER IT.
So -God created a situation which would allow us to master it as quickly as possible.
As horrific as history has been and will be for a little while longer, it is nothing compared to what could have been otherwise.
Each individual is generally given less than 120 years of personal experience -and mankind -since Adam -about 6,000 years.
Then -after a bit more following the next thousand years -it's DONE -FINISHED.

Gen 4:7If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you refuse to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; you are its object of desire, but you must master it.

Zeph 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
9For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Rev 21:4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I agree, God set Adam up to fail.
I find Adam had plenty to eat, so there was No need for Adam to break God's Law.
Even a child in a huge warehouse chock full of candy would Not be in want for one more peace of candy.
So, how could God set up Adam to fail________
Long before sinning Adam was told you eat from the forbidden tree and you will die at Genesis 2:17.
So, Adam knew the Law well in advance before breaking God's Law.
 
Top