Are we prisoners of sin

There seems to be a contradiction in your thought process. "You cannot deny, but you will deny again?"The concept of "sin" as you propose it (where "sin" is defined exclusively as "disobedience to God's will") is the most primitive form of ethics imaginable. Literally, it means "this is good and that is bad because I say so, and I know better." There's no ethical reasoning used at all beyond blanket appeal to an authority figure. There is no way to examine the morality of a given act beyond checking to see if the act is in the "bad list."But as others have mentioned, if you don't accept that the authority figure you're appealing to ("god") actually exists, then by definition there can be no "sin." How can one obey or disobey an imaginary entity?Christians also like to compare their concept of "sin" (or rather the list of items in the "bad" list, not the actual ethical system itself) with the moral standards of other societies in the search for similarities to prove that "sin" is actually an independant and universal concept. Much like the way you have insisted that we all know "deep down" that "sin" exists. Unfortunately for you, the ethical systems of different cultures do tend to be very different. Remember, to the Aztecs, daily human sacrifice was right and good; various tribes in South America even now practice cannibalism and regard the practice as right and good. In some cultures the concept of "property" is communal and so the "sin" of theft is impossible. The only objective fact about ethics and morality is that these concepts themselves are inherently subjective, and therefore not universal at all.In other words, not everyone agrees with the items on your "bad list," even "deep down." This means that "sin" cannot be any sort of universal moral guideline. Even without talking about the existence or nonexistence of your favorite deity, "sin" cannot possibly exist in the way you represent it to.

Cedre, we do all decide for ourselves what "good" is. "Good" and "bad" are subjective. That's why some cultures find human sacrifice or cannibalism to be "good," while we find such things to be reprehensible.I can use an example more close to home for you with Christianity, as well.Christians "pick and choose" for themselves just as everyone else does. Various Christian sects choose different texts to include in their canon. While the majority of Christians view the Jewish dietary rules and other parts of the Old Testament Law to not apply to gentiles, other Christians do still follow the dietary laws. Both Christians and Jews nowadays ignore the Law's requirements to execute disobedient children or homosexuals or cheaters or other sinners (and obviously the Christian "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story doesn't apply to Jews - and isn't an authentic part of the Bible, either).The fact is, morality is determined by the individual and (usually to a much greater degree) the society the individual belongs to. There are many ethical systems for determining whether a given act is "good" or "bad," ranging from authoritarian "because I said so" examples like you're using (and an argument that societies laws define "good" and "bad" is similar) to utilitarian systems that judge based on total harm to society, to "human rights" based systems that judge morality based on a basic set of "human rights" (which are of necessity defined by human beings in the first place), to simple empathy-based "would I want you to treat me this way" systems, and still more.Not everyone agrees on morality and ethics on all points. In your case, the Bible doesn't even cover half of the possible ethical concerns faced by modern society, because it was a system of ethics devised by a stone/bronze-age society. There are no Biblical rules regarding possession of weapons. There are no Biblical rules concerning conflicts of interest. There are no Biblical laws concerning copyrights.Morality is not and never was universally dictated by some supernatural entity. Morality is a human invention, driven by the formation of civilization - because civilization cannot function without some ethical system. Because society cannot function otherwise, and you want to be a part of society. Civilizations fall apart when people are allowed to go on murderous rampages. Economies cease to function without some sort of property rights, and society doesn't fare well without trade. "Punishment" is not worthwhile as a form of vengeance, but is effective as a deterrent and for rehabilitation, if the punishment is moderated to fit the crime. Because you choose to be a part of society, Cedre. If you want to live apart from the rules of society, feel free to build yourself a cabin somewhere in the Australian Outback, or somewhere else far away. You could feel free to follow whatever rules you make for yourself - but you also forfeit all of the benefits society gives you. Benefits like healthcare, fire protection, property rights (beyond what you have the strength to personally enforce), defense against trespassers, or even protection against people who want to force you to comply with their rules. In the absence of social morality, the only real system of ethics is "whoever is more able to force compliance is the one who is right."Because you want to take advantage of the benefits of civilization, Cedre, you have implicitly agreed to obey the laws of that civilization. Now, you can usually still behave in ways most people will consider "immoral," as I'm not aware of any society with a law against being an asshole. You have some significant leeway to determine your own ethical system (you can choose whether eating shellfish is "good" or "bad," for example) so long as you comply with the rules of society, and with the understanding that some people will choose not to associate with you based on some of your possible moral choices. That would in fact be the extent of morality in the absence of society. Ethical systems would be limited by the individual's ability to enforce their own arbitrarily decided rules. But it doesn't allow any of the benefits gained by forming a civilization.Each and every day you do decide to follow the rules of society so that you can remain a part of it. Why don't you steal from a bank? Because you'll be kicked out of society and put in prison if you do. Why don't you kill people who annoy you? Because you could be executed or permanently removed from society and all of its benefits if you do. Why don't you move out into the wilderness far away from any law enforcement, where you can make your own rules? Because you would lose all of the benefits of society. Why don't you act like an asshole in your general life? Because you want people to like you, at least to the point of being willing to associate with you, or because you empathize with others and wouldn't wish them to treat you poorly either. Why don't you cheat on your wife? Because you don't want her to cheat on you, and because you don't want her to leave you.It's a social contract, Cedre. We all need to agree on some basic rules to be able to form a civilization and reap the benefits of shared efforts, because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Morality isn't universal. There are simply some rules that are similar across most societies because no society functions well without them. Morality is decided by your culture, and all values of "good" and "evil" are subjective. Concepts of universal moral law and objective "good" and "evil" are fantasy. Useful for sociopaths who are unable to behave in a socially acceptable manner by themselves, but otherwise unnecessary and untrue.

It's a good thing it's all just mythology and not actually real, then. just like all of the other afterlife fantasies human beings have imagined and believed in over the ages.

The flaw in empathy-based ethics (and by extension the "golden rule" of Christianity) is that not all people have the same desires and fears. For example, I may find that shaking hands is a positive experience, and so would wish to shake hands with any new people I meet. A person from a different culture may be offended by such a custom - for example, a Saudi Arabian would be offended if I offered him my left hand.This can be applied to other scenarios as well. A person from a culture where "property rights" do not exist and resources are shared communally by the group would not identify "theft" as "bad."Empathy-based ethics work well only within the same cultural background. Just like morality in general, empathy is subjective.

By that standard, Homer's Odyssey provides "physical proof" of the existence of the Cyclops and Poseidon.Don't be an idiot. Utter nonsense.And of course, since you are unable to support the assertion that your deity exists, sin (defined as disobedience to your deity) cannot possibly exist either. This might have relevance if your concept of "sin" actually existed out here in the real world. Predator-prey relationships imply that animals are malicious?! You must certainly be insane. I jsut ate a chicken panini for lunch - does that mean that I held "malice" towards the chicken I ate? Did I commit a "sin?" If you beleive that punishing those who had nothing to do with the commission fo a crime is ethical, then you have no ability to reason.Let's follow your "god's" example - murders happen all the time in the world, so let's put Cedre in prison and punish him for them, for the "terrible thing {the actual murderer} has done {to the victim}." Then, to continue following your "god's" example, we'll put all of Cedre's children in prison for the same crime, and his grandchildren, and so on until the end of his line.Yes, such a "good" deity you worship. Why, then, do different cultures have identify "good"a nd "evil" differently? Why isn't there a consistent absolute, if all of mankind is supposed to be able to tell the difference thanks to the Magic Tree? Why did the Aztecs think it was "good" to make human sacrifices daily? Why do some societies even now view cannibalism as "good?" Why does roughly half of the US think that gay marriage is "good," and the other half think that it's "evil?"The reason is obvious - "good" and "evil" are subjective concepts. There is no objective morality.Sin, defined as disobedience to "god," does not exist. Your fairytales are simple nonsense.

Any time someone says "don't think about it, just accept it," I know that person is either lying or a gullible fool.Unfortunately Cedre, I have confidence in your honesty.You just advocated blind acceptance, relying on "spiritual" guidance (ie, subjective "gut" understanding, relying on human internal rationalization) and discouraged critical analysis. The only thing you can possibly be selling wioth such a mindset is snake oil.

Well, determining that the Bible is nothing more than mythology is a reasonable conclusion...

The Book of Mormon contains parts that were copied directly from the Bible.Mormons also consider the Bible as a part of their canon. Consider that the Book of Mormon is an additional book in their Bible, just as not all other Christian denominations recognize the same canon.Mormon missionaries tend to carry the Book of Mormon, I would suppose, because the majority of potential converts have already heard of and believe the Bible. Only the Book of Mormon would be new information, and so carrying a Bible as well would be a bit redundant - they don't need to convert to Christianity, simply an offshoot branch of Christianity. In many ways, they're preaching to the choir.But if you think that Mormons do not recognize the Bible as having just as much authority as you do, then you are misinformed.

I think you miss the implications of identifying the Bible as mythology.Why would you want to "know" or "have a relationship" with a fictional entity?Do you have a desire to "know" or "have a relationship" with Zeus? Thor? Bob, little Jimmy's imaginary friend? Certainly. The same purpose all other mythological texts and oral traditions have had.Of course, if you're referring primarily to the moral teachings of the Bible, I'd suggest you find a better guide than the book that tells us to kill unruly children, stone adulterers, and considers wiping out all life on Earth to be a "morally just" action. If the Bible is nothing more than mythology, that's all we ever had in the first place, Phat.The assertions of the Bible, being completely unsupported by objective evidence, are nothing more than human speculation given weight by human gullibility, fear, and wishful thinking.And to tie this back to the topic, this means that of course we are not "prisoners of sin, because sin (as the concept spoken of in the Bible and defined as "disobedience to God") does not exist.All that actually exists (in the context of sin) is human ethics and morality. Sometimes we dress them up in superstition, or use pre-existing superstitions to pretend that our moral judgments have weight without any real rational basis (like the judgment that homosexuality is "evil" or "harmful," as Peg asserted but then refused to discuss). There is no objective reality to any moral construct, including "sin."

It does?Why?

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the comment I was responding to: You asserted that God alone has the authority to set up standards of right and wrong. This has nothing to do with the ability to "evict tenants," and everything to do with the actual topic of this thread: sin.Why, Peg, does God and God alone have the authority to set standards of good and evil, as you have asserted?

You're trying to answer in a single sentence, as if the answer is self-evident. If it was self-evident, I wouldn't be asking the question.Why does God and God alone have the authority to set standards of right and wrong? Why are humans not able to make that determination?Your quote from Revelation is irrelevant - I don't care what the Bible says, I want to hear your explanation of why this entity you call God is the only being with the authority to set down standards of right and wrong.

Power is a valid backing for moral authority?Are you certain?That line of reasoning means that anyone who is more pwoerful than you is able to dictate morality to you.Or does God get a special exception because he's really powerful? That would be special pleading.In any case, I thought humanity had moved beyond simple might-makes-right ethics.Silly me. They do? What is the intended goal of his standards? It seems to me that resetting all of creation via a giant Flood followed by human sacrifice to atone for what a long-dead pair of individuals did doesn't qualify as "working."It also seems to me that setting unattainable standards (like restricting even thoughts of sexual immorality) does not "work" unless your intended goal is to induce guilt and shame and severe psychoses surrounding sex. I dunno. The whole "hardening Pharaoh's heart" thing, the plagues, the Flood, Isaac's near-sacrifice, and sending people to eternal suffering sure seem like abuses of power to me. ...riiiight. See above. So, to paraphrase the late an great George Carlin, there's an invisible man in the sky watching everythign you do, who has a special list of things you can never do, and if you do one of them even once he has a special place to send you that's filled with smoke and fire and burning and pain and torture and fear and screaming forever and ever...but he loves you.Right. In what way? When I stopped believing in God, I didn't die. I don't see any medical evidence that suggests there is a magical deity keeping our lungs breathing and our hearts beating. In fact, I rather think you're full of shit.

Apparently you're still a prisoner of the sin of run-on sentences.