• 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!

If you believe in God, why do you sin?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So this video showed up in my Facebook feed today:

[youtube]iJXxmwLj2Os[/youtube]
TESTING for Faith in God (Proof you do NOT believe) - YouTube

I have some issues with it, both in terms of its tone and its conclusion (because of compartmentalization, I disagree with their inherent assumption that a person's belief system is consistent with itself), but I think it raises an interesting question:

If you really do believe in God, why do you sin?

As the video points out, many (most?) people won't commit "shameful" acts in the presence of loved ones when the loved ones are aware of what's going on. In many cases, they'll be physically incapable of doing it because of a reflexive reaction to the idea. However, these same people often don't feel the same reflexive reaction about committing the same act in front of God.

The example given was masturbation: people who claim to believe in an all-seeing or omnipresent God - and claim to believe that this God disapproves of masturbation - would never think of masturbating in front of their parents or even strangers, but they will still masturbate "in front of God" when they're by themselves.

So... why is this? Why will people who claim to put God first often hold themselves to a higher standard when they're around other people than they will when they're only in the presence of God?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Urgh.

I apologize, but I would have had a lot more respect for this video if it dropped the condescending, overdramatic tone and stated up front that anyone who isn't a classical monotheist need not bother listening. His little thought experiment wasn't applicable to my theology, which would be charmingly quaint to me if I didn't find it so nauseatingly predictable. Even if I was a classical monotheist, he's presenting a one-dimensional treatment of relationships. He acts as if relationships hinge solely on self-centered questions of "does this person like me" or "does this person think I'm good/moral." If I worshiped the one-god, it would be because I wish to express my gratitude towards it, not because I expect favors in return!
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I watched the video and I can't say I'm impressed by the blatant attempt to try and impose a belief system on other people. It is little different from the kind of religious proselytism one is wont to find on a fundamentalist website where so-called irrefutable 'proofs' for the existence of God are touted...Why not live and let live? What is this desire to make everyone think alike and conform to one's own beliefs?

That unfortunate circumstance aside, I think that the thought-experiment exhibits a very patronising and condescending "big cloud daddy" approach to theism, that is an anthropomorphic one.

God is not a human being and does not judge according to human standards. According to traditional Christian teaching God is "impassible" and does not have emotions.

He is beyond all understanding or conception of the human mind, "deity above all essence", unknowable as He is in Himself to all except Himself.

An invisible, formless, incomprehensible and illimitable being without emotions cannot even be compared to human people in any way.

Of course a person is not going to treat such an entity, if they believe in it, as they would a visible human being right in front of their eyes who will judge them according to human standards and whom they have to regularly interact with in an everyday human manner.

God is completely transcendent and alien to human conceptions.

A few words of guidance from Catholic theologians:


“...For God is really not lovable, since he is above all love and lovableness. How then should one love God? You should love God mindlessly, this is, so that your soul is without mind and free from all mental activities, for as long as your soul is operating like a mind, so long does it have images and representations. But as long as it has images, it has intermediaries, and as long as it has intermediaries, it has neither oneness nor simplicity. And therefore your soul should be bare of all mind and should stay there without mind. For if you love God as he is God or mind or person or picture, all that must be dropped. How then shall you love him? You should love him as he is, a not-God, not-mind, not-person, not-image – even more, as he is a pure, clear One, separate from all twoness. And we should sink eternally from something to nothing into this One. May God help us to do this. Amen...”

- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – 1328) from Breakthrough, pg 180


"...Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty...

Nor is it a body, nor has it form or shape, quality, quantity or weight; nor has it any localized, visible or tangible existence; it is not sensible or perceptible; nor is it subject to any disorder or inordination nor influenced by any earthly passion; neither is it rendered impotent through the effects of material causes and events; it needs no light; it suffers no change, corruption, division, privation or flux; none of these things can either be identified with or attributed unto it.

Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all..."

- Pseudo-Dionysius (fifth century AD)

Or as the Bible puts it:

Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
 
Last edited:

Thana

Lady
I can't understand why people expect believers to be perfect, Or at the very least, Better than the average person.
It makes no sense! We're human, just like you, just like everybody else.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Different religions have different answers. I'm not a Christian but I think this verse from the Bible, Luke 18, expresses the concept well:

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I can't understand why people expect believers to be perfect, Or at the very least, Better than the average person.
It makes no sense! We're human, just like you, just like everybody else.

It's not a matter of expecting believers to be perfect; it's a matter of expecting believers to maintain the sort of standard as when they think their parents or friends are watching when they think that God is watching.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not a matter of expecting believers to be perfect; it's a matter of expecting believers to maintain the sort of standard as when they think their parents or friends are watching when they think that God is watching.

Which assumes, wrongly, that theists would of necessity regard God as being like their parents or friends. I can assure you that my "relationship" with God is not like talking to my mum nor is my conception of God equivalent to a human being.
 
Last edited:

DeviChaaya

Jai Ambe Gauri
Premium Member
Simple; I am atman, I am inherently incapable of sin. All this that goes on is the play of Maya Devi and the flow of karma. I do believe that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient but I also believe that I am a part of God. All this is a journey towards that realization.
 

Thana

Lady
It's not a matter of expecting believers to be perfect; it's a matter of expecting believers to maintain the sort of standard as when they think their parents or friends are watching when they think that God is watching.

His analogy doesn't work simply because we're never standing before God, A better analogy would be if there were camera's you couldn't see following you, And someone you cared about was watching you with them, Could you sin knowing they're watching you? The answer is yes, Considering how many people do bad things while being recorded.

It's because you can pretend that you're alone, Or you can pretend there are no camera's, Or you can pretend they just don't work, Or you can pretend it's not a big deal because they're not standing in front of you judging you.

I don't see why thats so hard to understand, It's basic psychology.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Simple; I am atman, I am inherently incapable of sin. All this that goes on is the play of Maya Devi and the flow of karma. I do believe that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient but I also believe that I am a part of God. All this is a journey towards that realization.

A great illustration of how diverse theistic perspectives can be :bow:
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
His analogy doesn't work simply because we're never standing before God.

That is something Eckhart also stressed:

"...Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge..."

- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic mystic, theologian & priest
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I watched the video and I can't say I'm impressed by the blatant attempt to try and impose a belief system on other people. It is little different from the kind of religious proselytism one is wont to find on a fundamentalist website where so-called irrefutable 'proofs' for the existence of God are touted...Why not live and let live? What is this desire to make everyone think alike and conform to one's own beliefs?

That unfortunate circumstance aside, I think that the thought-experiment exhibits a very patronising and condescending "big cloud daddy" approach to theism, that is an anthropomorphic one.

God is not a human being and does not judge according to human standards. According to traditional Christian teaching God is "impassible" and does not have emotions.

This is the same God that's described in the Bible as being at different times "angry", "jealous", "loving", and "regretful", and who is described as "our father"?

Sure sounds emotional and anthropomorphic to me... though as I said in the OP, I don't assume that a person's belief system can't contradict itself, so maybe you really do believe what you're saying.

Regardless, you do agree that he does judge according to his own standards, and that he's given these standards to humanity, right?

He is beyond all understanding or conception of the human mind, "deity above all essence", unknowable as He is in Himself to all except Himself.

An invisible, formless, incomprehensible and illimitable being without emotions cannot even be compared to human people in any way.
Hmm. Sounds like it would be pointless to try to build a religion around a being like this.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
His analogy doesn't work simply because we're never standing before God, A better analogy would be if there were camera's you couldn't see following you, And someone you cared about was watching you with them, Could you sin knowing they're watching you? The answer is yes, Considering how many people do bad things while being recorded.

It's because you can pretend that you're alone, Or you can pretend there are no camera's, Or you can pretend they just don't work, Or you can pretend it's not a big deal because they're not standing in front of you judging you.

I don't see why thats so hard to understand, It's basic psychology.

If I knew there was a video camera point at me and that my mother or my friend was watching me on a monitor, this would affect my behaviour. Wouldn't it affect yours?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
This is the same God that's described in the Bible as being at different times "angry", "jealous", "loving", and "regretful", and who is described as "our father"? Sure sounds emotional and anthropomorphic to me... though as I said in the OP, I don't assume that a person's belief system can't contradict itself, so maybe you really do believe what you're saying.

Yeah and look what the Church Fathers and St. Thomas said about that God:

Saint Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles I.LXXXIX.12

"...Sorrow or pain, for its subject is the already present evil, just as the object of joy is the good present and possessed. Sorrow and pain, therefore, of their very nature cannot be found in God...God cannot repent (change His mind) or be angry or sorrowful..."

Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540 - 604)

God is called jealous, angered, repentant, merciful, and foreknowing. These simply mean that, because He guards the chastity of every soul, He can, in human fashion, be called jealous, although He is not subject to any mental torment. Because He moves against faults, He is said to be angered, although He is moved by no disturbance of equanimity. And because He that is immutable changes what He willed, He is said to repent, although what changes is a thing and not His counsel.

(Moral Teachings From Job, 20, 32, 63; in JUR-3, 317)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215)

Here again arise the cavillers, who say that joy and pain are passions of the soul: for they define joy as a rational elevation and exultation, as rejoicing on account of what is good; and pity as pain for one who suffers undeservedly; and that such affections are moods and passions of the soul. But we, as would appear, do not cease in such matters to understand the Scriptures carnally; and starting from our own affections, interpret the will of the impassible Deity similarly to our perturbations; and as we are capable of hearing; so, supposing the same to be the case with the Omnipotent, err impiously. For the Divine Being cannot be declared as it exists: but as we who are fettered in the flesh were able to listen, so the prophets spake to us; the Lord savingly accommodating Himself to the weakness of men.

Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)

"...When we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of. And on these points, when expounding the verse in the second Psalm, ‘Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,’ we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood...But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view, ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that, as we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim at exerting our own power of eloquence, but, adapting ourselves to the weakness of our charge, both say and do those things which may appear to us useful for the correction and improvement of the children as children, so the word of God appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of the appropriateness of its announcements (regarding Him). And, generally, with regard to such a style of speaking about God, we find in the book of Deuteronomy the following: “The Lord thy God bare with your manners, as a man would bear with the manners of his son.” It is, as it were, assuming the manners of a man in order to secure the advantage of men that the Scripture makes use of such expressions; for it would not have been suitable to the condition of the multitude, that what God had to say to them should be spoken by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of His own person. And yet he who is anxious to attain a true understanding of holy Scripture, will discover the spiritual truths which are spoken by it to those who are called “spiritual,” by comparing the meaning of what is addressed to those of weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of acuter understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same passage by him who is capable of comprehending it..."


;)

We do not interpret, and have never did so, those biblical passages in a literal fashion but recognize them as accommodations to human weakness.

I can assure you I am sincere in my beliefs, as were the Early Church Fathers and St. Thomas.

Regardless, you do agree that he does judge according to his own standards, and that he's given these standards to humanity, right?

Hmm. Sounds like it would be pointless to try to build a religion around a being like this.

I don't think we can apply human notions of judgement to God. The Bible uses images, they mustn't be misinterpreted to make God condescend to our level.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
If I was to take your representations of Catholic doctrine seriously, I'd have to infer that the Catholic Church has no concept of sin.

I think you must have misinterpreted what I am saying. All I am suggesting is that we cannot tie God into any corner or mould. It is important that we properly conceive of God and do not apply erroneous human images to Him.

Yes, I of course believe that He has given us a conscience with access to a natural law through which we can discern what is right and wrong, however He is not bound by this although we are bound to follow his "law" as much as we are possible.

I'm thinking of this statement in the Catechism:

"God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism, no. 1257

All things are possible to God, according to Jesus. I would rather not place limits on a timeless, inconceivable, unknowable Being.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
.
It's because you can pretend that you're alone, Or you can pretend there are no camera's, Or you can pretend they just don't work, Or you can pretend it's not a big deal because they're not standing in front of you judging you.

I don't see why thats so hard to understand, It's basic psychology.
This is like saying that people who believe in "God" can pretend that "God" does not exist. At least long enough to get their rocks off.
 
Top