So What is Sin?

[Mykola]

What would you do if someone claiming to be an infallible prophet told you that a certain act (X) was a sin according to God, yet upon analysis, you realized that to call X a sin went against reason? Could you rationalize that God created a reasoning creature only to tell that creature not to use his or her reason? Would this present a conflict to you?

Sunstone, I believe that you have an example of such a God's will vs. reason contradiction in the Bible. Let's move to the real issue, it would be much more profitable.

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone, I believe that you have an example of such a God's will vs. reason contradiction in the Bible. Let's move to the real issue, it would be much more profitable.

What do you suppose the real issue is, Mykola?

 

[Mykola]

What do you suppose the real issue is, Mykola?

Some real case of the contradiction you have mentioned.
I suppose to hear something like that: "Jeremiah (or any other prophet) was told by God that idolatry (or whatever) was a sin (reference here), but the reason tells us that idolatry (or whatever) is very beneficient (reasonable arguments to back the position)".
That would be something we can analyse...

 

[Sunstone]

How about Leviticus was told by God that eating shellfish is a sin, but eating shellfish is nutritious.

Or, Leviticus was told by God that wear fabric of two cloths is a sin, but fabric of two cloths often has superior qualities of wearability, comfort, washability, etc than fabric of one cloth.

Will those do for a discussion?

 

[roli]

What would you do if someone claiming to be an infallible prophet told you that a certain act (X) was a sin according to God, yet upon analysis, you realized that to call X a sin went against reason? Could you rationalize that God created a reasoning creature only to tell that creature not to use his or her reason? Would this present a conflict to you?

It's not about what God verbally said to man, as it is what He has written upon the heart of man, sin ,disobedience ,rebellion,defiance, whatever you choose to call it ,Sin has been written on evry man 's heart.
Your parents never set the standard of reightousness/ goodness or right or wrong it was naturally and inherently set upon the heart/conscience of every man by God. Parents only build upon that standard and reinforced what the conscience already spoke aloud, then as it does even today when we violate that moral law upon our heart.
The ten commandments were placed in every man's heart, and the consequences of the violation of these lawscalled (SIN) may be evaded today but be sure our sin will find US out,for what we sow that will we also reap.
Those consequences will have eternal ramifications ,but Jesus came to justify those who trust ,believe and receive the perfect sacrifice.It is then and only then that the guilt will be lifted and the soul aquitted

 

[Mykola]

How about Leviticus was told by God that eating shellfish is a sin, but eating shellfish is nutritious.

Or, Leviticus was told by God that wear fabric of two cloths is a sin, but fabric of two cloths often has superior qualities of wearability, comfort, washability, etc than fabric of one cloth.

Will those do for a discussion?

Not very The law of Moses had been abolished long ago and these limitations are not applicable now - but there are still some points we can use.

Eating shellfish. It was a question of ritual purity, besides the Jews had enough food to feed themselves. As I have said, it is not applicable now, but let us imagine we are Jews and now it is 600 BC. Would I personally eat shellfish, knowing that this is nutritious?
No, and that is why: God created very many nutritious things (e.g., grain, grape, calves, cows... humans) but for some reason He decided to limit or prohibit consumption of some of them. The people of Israel should be clean, because it is chosen people to deliver the Savior once, and being member of this chosen nation I would better obey the Creator of the Universe, in confidence that He knows better.

Mixed fabrics. The reason for that was, again, purity and separation from the nations which done abominable things. Mixing fabrics could be a part of some pagan ritual, for example. Again, being a God-fearer at the time of the Mosaic covenant, I'd rather obey this limitation.

And the last point: an answer in the form of a question.

The reason tells me that God is ultimate reality. Disobeying Him can result in death - instant or delayed, but imminent; waging war against Him is utter insanity.
Would the reason drive me to insist on nutritiousness or washability as a really reliable criteria on how to act?

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

How about Leviticus was told by God that eating shellfish is a sin, but eating shellfish is nutritious.

Actually, I a saw a show about this recently. Shellfish (which I love, by the way) are the filters of the oceans. This show was talking about the biblical diet. And they explained that if you put a dozen shrimp in a bucket of nasty water, within a few days, the water would be drinkable because the shrimp would filter out all the toxic material. So, if the shellfish are the filters, and collect all this yucky stuff, then we eat the shellfish, then we get all the toxic stuff.

Scientists also discovered a few decades back that pork that is not prepared properly can make you sick. I believe these guidelines were but in place to tell us how we could live to be the ages of Noah, and his family. Of course, we can choose to eat whatever we want, we can choose to shorten our lifespan by eating things that decay our bodies at a faster rate than God intended, the sin in this is that you are "missing the mark". God wants us to have a long and fruitfull life on earth, not a life of struggling health. I do not know about the mixed fabrics, but I'm sure science will eventually catch up the reason behind that as well. I do not know how many fabrics there were to choose from back then. Maybe I'll look into that one.

 

[Opethian]

Sin is when you see this post and don't frubal it.

Seriously!

 

[Sunstone]

And the last point: an answer in the form of a question.

The reason tells me that God is ultimate reality. Disobeying Him can result in death - instant or delayed, but imminent; waging war against Him is utter insanity.
Would the reason drive me to insist on nutritiousness or washability as a really reliable criteria on how to act?

Living one's life as best as one can according to reason does not seem to me like waging war against God. Rather, it would seem to me like living according to the nature God is asserted to have given us. Most humans are not, after all, as reasonless as turnips (despite that politicians surely are). Our nature is to reason.

 

[Mykola]

Living one's life as best as one can according to reason does not seem to me like waging war against God.

Neither it does to me.

Rather, it would seem to me like living according to the nature God is asserted to have given us. Most humans are not, after all, as reasonless as turnips (despite that politicians surely are). Our nature is to reason.

Generally agree.
I cannot read your mind to see the implications, so I agree with your statement - our nature is partly reason (partly it is emotions, at least).

Now can you please answer the question: What do you base your reasoning on? What is the starting point (points) for the process of reasoning?

 

[Sunstone]

Now can you please answer the question: What do you base your reasoning on? What is the starting point (points) for the process of reasoning?

Unless I've misunderstood your questions, I believe I've already answered them in post 64. I think your response to my answer indicates that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

then what ARE seperate identity neurosis and secondary independant notions? Instead of defining each word independantly (which is why I was getting on about the words you used) why not tell me what you think those phrases mean in and of themselves without secondary definitions. To me they are made up nonsense... one sounds like you think someone who doesn't believe in God is sick... the other makes it sound like having a thought that wasn't force fed to you is a sin... how do you define those phrases without individually defining the words you used?

Now can you please answer the question: What do you base your reasoning on? What is the starting point (points) for the process of reasoning?

At infinite levels of thinking, the elements of good and evil are like a binary language of infinite abstractions. When speaking of spiritual things, one can only really understand it by using an infinite point of view. If you illustrate your thinking with human analogies, you find none that will completely make sense.

In considering the infinite, we may use familiar words, but at levels of infinite abstractions some words have whole new meanings. When I am trying to get a new idea about something, I try to reach beyond my old idea and beyond its name to some new word or string of words.

We are not talking about the material world, but I only have the words we use to describe our material world. I also grew up poor, still am, in terms of society. But I do not have the "false notion" that I am a lower class, and neither did you, if you had this false notion, you would have been inclined to steal. That is the false notion, a limit put on you by man's definition of wealth and success. I am a single mother with two kids, my income is well below poverty, but I am not on any state assistance. I know that I am wealthy and successfull. I have a car that is paid for, I have a home and food for my children, I have a computer, and 3 TV's, and no debt except for my monthly bills, so in US standards I may be a second class, but in world standards I am very wealthy. A millionaire here in the US would be considered poor in a country that defines wealth by the number of goats one owns. A millionaire might get a false notion that they are seperate from others, this agains is separation neurosis, the middle class is the majority, then being rich is a minority, and have the false notion that they are secondary, separate to the middle class will lead a rich person to steal, even though they have all the money in the world.

The info I have been giving you about the stealing parent is straight from the phsycological reasons why people steal. Based on a retail theft class. Did you know that more that 60% of the people who are busted for stealing are elderly who have lost a spouse. It's not poor people, it's not drug addicts, it's old people looking for attention, old people who have the false notion that they are separated and isolated. The next highest number is rich people who embezzle from their companies. There are a lot of poor people, why do some of them steal and some of them do not?

The ones who DO NOT steal, DO NOT have the false notion that they are second class, they do not have the false notion that they are separated and isolated. You say a mother does not steal out of fear, but out of love for their child, does that mean I do not love my child because I would not steal food for them? My son is 9, he did not like that I kept telling him I didn't have money for him to buy candy at the store. So he found a way to make money. He breaks down boxes for the billiard supply store, he helps the lady next door carry in her groceries. He is always trying to come up with new ways to make money.

Anyway, I feel like I am rambling and maybe going off topic a little bit. So I will stop now.

 

[Mykola]

Unless I've misunderstood your questions, I believe I've already answered them in post 64. I think your response to my answer indicates that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, you haven't. I mean you seem to have understood me correctly.

Then, only one (obvious) thing to add before I close on that: I think that God's will revealed to us people in the Bible is the most vital information to base our further reasoning on.

 

[Sunstone]

No, you haven't. I mean you seem to have understood me correctly.

Then, only one (obvious) thing to add before I close on that: I think that God's will revealed to us people in the Bible is the most vital information to base our further reasoning on.

Thank you! I was worried I had misunderstood your questions.

It is precisely on the point of whether the Bible is a valid source of information on sin that we most disagree, I suspect. But I also suspect this is a matter of faith, and I respect your faith. Who is to say it is not rightly placed?

 

[Mykola]

It is precisely on the point of whether the Bible is a valid source of information on sin that we most disagree, I suspect.

Correct.

But I also suspect this is a matter of faith,

Not solely...

and I respect your faith. Who is to say it is not rightly placed?

Thank you

-

I tell you what - regarding faith and reason.

I think that any religions or sacred writings that are based on or contain self-stultifying statements are not to be considered at all.

Let's look at the Bible.
The Bible encourages people to do what? To believe blindly, yeah?
Let's see: Luke praises the careful and thorough Bereans in Acts 17:11: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Praises not for their faith, but for desire to examine. Why, if what is required is utter gullibilty and blind faith?

Paul challenges us in I Thessalonians 5:21: "Test everything. Hold on to the good."
What's that? Test? Perhaps it would be better to accept everything blindly, brother Paul? No? Okay...

Paul encourages fellow-Christians in 2 Corinthians 13:5: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"
Prove ourselves? But why? Since the Bible demands merely blind faith...
Or perhaps it doesn't?

Are all those verses above about faith only? Blind faith?

 

[Sunstone]

Are all those verses above about faith only? Blind faith?

It certainly would not seem so.

It would be off topic to go into this subject in this thread much more than we have, though. But perhaps you might want to begin a thread on this subject, for I don't think anyone has previously brought up precisely those passages in the context of faith before.

 

[bunny1ohio]

At infinite levels of thinking, the elements of good and evil are like a binary language of infinite abstractions. When speaking of spiritual things, one can only really understand it by using an infinite point of view. If you illustrate your thinking with human analogies, you find none that will completely make sense.

In considering the infinite, we may use familiar words, but at levels of infinite abstractions some words have whole new meanings. When I am trying to get a new idea about something, I try to reach beyond my old idea and beyond its name to some new word or string of words.

Make em up as you go along eh? *cheeky grin*... I do that on occasion, but wasn't sure if they were real terms or made up LOL

We are not talking about the material world, but I only have the words we use to describe our material world. I also grew up poor, still am, in terms of society. But I do not have the "false notion" that I am a lower class, and neither did you, if you had this false notion, you would have been inclined to steal. That is the false notion, a limit put on you by man's definition of wealth and success. I am a single mother with two kids, my income is well below poverty, but I am not on any state assistance. I know that I am wealthy and successfull. I have a car that is paid for, I have a home and food for my children, I have a computer, and 3 TV's, and no debt except for my monthly bills, so in US standards I may be a second class, but in world standards I am very wealthy.

I don't think I am lower class (was lower class) I know it... because I am defining it in the socio-economic use of the term... under that definition yes, we are both "lower-class" but if you mean do I feel than anyone is inherently better than me because of wealth, title, or social standing?.... Absolutely not, so in that respect I can see where you were coming from. But I have never been nor will I ever become a thief... not because of anything to do with thinking someone better than me or not, just because I was raised with better morals than that and stealing is wrong... I would sell everything I owned to feed my kids if that was necessary, but I cannot say I would "never" do something of the sort depending upon how desperate I became and how much danger I thought my children were in.

The info I have been giving you about the stealing parent is straight from the phsycological reasons why people steal. Based on a retail theft class. Did you know that more that 60% of the people who are busted for stealing are elderly who have lost a spouse. It's not poor people, it's not drug addicts, it's old people looking for attention, old people who have the false notion that they are separated and isolated. The next highest number is rich people who embezzle from their companies. There are a lot of poor people, why do some of them steal and some of them do not?

The ones who DO NOT steal, DO NOT have the false notion that they are second class, they do not have the false notion that they are separated and isolated. You say a mother does not steal out of fear, but out of love for their child, does that mean I do not love my child because I would not steal food for them? My son is 9, he did not like that I kept telling him I didn't have money for him to buy candy at the store. So he found a way to make money. He breaks down boxes for the billiard supply store, he helps the lady next door carry in her groceries. He is always trying to come up with new ways to make money.

I was speaking of stealing food out of desperation to feed a starving child... you were talking about retail theft... two totally seperate issues involved there, which is probably why I was having so much trouble getting around what you were saying.

The only thing I would ask is would you steal food if it meant life or death for your child and you had no other way to save them? That is the level of desperation I was talking about... not something as petty as stealing a coat to get attention because I'm lonely :angel2: And I feel really bad when I can't give my kdis more to eat for a week than ramen noodles... I know where you're coming from, but the point of that is there was another way... he earns it... I was saying I personally would not steal unless it was a matter of do or die... then yes, I would do anything I had to do to save my child.

Thanks for clarifying Enhanced