Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 6:40 AM
17 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Tangle (3 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,658 Year: 3,695/19,786 Month: 690/1,087 Week: 59/221 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Sin
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 46 of 185 (515285)
07-16-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hill Billy
07-15-2009 9:52 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Hill Billy.

Hill Billy writes:

Bluejay writes:

It's good to see (read?) you back.

Yer likely the only one that feels this way..

I'm just trying to think positively.

-----

Hill Billy writes:

Thing is, you left out a third option
(c) things that are wrong cause they are wrong.
Them things are sins.

Classical Christian one-liner proverbs are not really helpful in this discussion (or, really, in any other, for that matter).

Why bother saying something that's going to force me to ask you what you mean by it? Why not just tell me, from the start, what you mean? Wouldn't that be more efficient?

-----

Incidentally, you'll also notice that I didn't leave out that option: my hope with this thread is to determine what, in the mainstream Christian thinking, makes something wrong?

"Wrong because it is wrong" is exactly equivalent to my argument that sins are the deterministic consequences of natural laws.

Do you agree with this assessment? Can I mark you down for "sin is part of the deterministic universe"?

-----

Running score:

Sin defined by God: 0
Deterministic Sin: 1

Edited by Bluejay, : Running score categories


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hill Billy, posted 07-15-2009 9:52 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Hill Billy, posted 07-17-2009 12:11 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 47 of 185 (515286)
07-17-2009 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phage0070
07-16-2009 11:22 PM


Re: Telestial Kingdom
Hi, Phage.

Phage writes:

1) It says they are burned with "eternal fire".

Yet it juxtaposes it with a clear statement of the chronological constraint (an "until" clause): it can't be forever, yet have an end.

"Eternal" is not taken to mean "it won't end": it is taken to mean "from God" (D&C:6-12).

-----

Phage writes:

2) It says this burning is "vengeance", like punishment.

This is anthropomorphization of nature.

-----

Phage writes:

3) It says they are put in this "Hell" by Almighty God.

No, it doesn't: read it again.

It says, "will be thrust down to hell," in passive tense: it says nothing about who or what will do the thrusting. You're reading into it what you want to see.

-----

Phage writes:

4) It says that they are put there specifically to "suffer the wrath... until the fulness of times"

Well, you're right there. One point for you.

-----

Phage writes:

5) This "fulness of times" is defined as "when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work" which is to say it is directly under the control of Christ.

-----

Also, given that Christ is almighty there isn't any reason why this should take 1000 years, so the best we can conclude is that he does not care at all about the suffering and is just taking his time.

Mormons do not believe "almighty" to mean "unlimited."

D&C 138: 28-30 explains that Christ is unable to visit the people suffering in the spirit prison in person, so He sends others (from the good side of the spirit world, where He can go) to do the work for Him. This is why it will take 1000 years: because Christ is not the limiting factor (how could He be when we have free will?).

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phage0070, posted 07-16-2009 11:22 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phage0070, posted 07-17-2009 12:26 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 185 (515288)
07-17-2009 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
07-15-2009 12:33 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

Sin is an offence.

Disobedience to God's command was the offence that separated all mankind from fellowship with God.

So, in your opinion, sin is disobeying God's commandments.

Why did God make these commandments?
Because He wanted to?
Or, because He was required to do so by the laws of the universe?

-----

Running score:

Sin defined by God: 1
Deterministic Sin: 1


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2009 12:33 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 07-17-2009 12:53 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 49 of 185 (515290)
07-17-2009 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
07-15-2009 8:32 AM


Re: On Topic Joke
Hi, Phat.

Phat writes:

...this whole idea that we don't need a God because we would rather do it ourselves is part of what makes sin sin.

What does this have to do with Cain's sacrifice?

And, how are "wanting to do it ourselves" and "sin" correlated? I don't understand what you're saying.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 07-15-2009 8:32 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 12-21-2015 3:37 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 185 (515291)
07-17-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Blue Jay
07-17-2009 12:12 AM


Re: Telestial Kingdom
Bluejay writes:

This is anthropomorphization of nature.


quote:
...and suffer the wrath of Almighty God...

It does not really seem like an anthropomorphization, it seems like it is the wrath of Almighty God. This is me telling you that it reads quite simply; but hey, don't mind that, it really is just an anthropomorphization of nature telling you that you are wrong.

Heck, if we are going to conclude that when it says "this is the wrath of God!" that what it *really* means is "this is totally not the wrath of God, it isn't under his control at all" then we might as well just start making the entire thing up as we go along.

Bluejay writes:

It says, "will be thrust down to hell," in passive tense: it says nothing about who or what will do the thrusting.


Right, he isn't throwing them down and curb-stomping them, he just happens to be stomping at a curb and they just happened to fall under his foot.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 12:12 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 9:22 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 51 of 185 (515293)
07-17-2009 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Perdition
07-16-2009 12:11 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Perdition.

Perdition writes:

ex. "Without a God, you could do anything you want because there would be no Hell for you to be worried about." This is a fallacious argument, but it is made with regularity, so I felt the need to mention it here.

As kind of an aside, I'm rather surprised at how common this viewpoint is among Christians. I feel it myself sometimes. There's something really scary about always being reared with something else telling you what's right and what's wrong, but you only realize it when you stop blindly following and try to figure out what's right and what's wrong for yourself.

Life-long Christians who lose their religion almost invariably go through a phase where they are not responsible atheists, but callous nihilists. I go through this periodically myself as I'm dealing with my current confusion over religion, and it can get frightening.

When a long-trusted moral compass is lost, it feels like there is no hope of ever having a direction; just like, when you lose your girlfriend, it feels like there is no hope of ever finding love again. You almost have to go relive all your mistakes and regrets in order to callibrate your new compass.

It's very scary.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Perdition, posted 07-16-2009 12:11 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 07-17-2009 10:52 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 52 of 185 (515295)
07-17-2009 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
07-17-2009 12:18 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi jay,

Bluejay writes:

So, in your opinion, sin is disobeying God's commandments.

I did not say anything about commandments.

God made man and placed him in a garden. God told the man not to eat the fruit of a certain tree, If he did he would die.

God did not command the man not to eat. He gave man a choice. Don't eat and live. Eat and die.

Just as man has a choice today.
Spend eternity in the lake of fire as he is already condemned. John 3:18.

Or

Accept the free full pardon offered by God to spend eternity with Him.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 12:18 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 9:25 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3394
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 53 of 185 (515314)
07-17-2009 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
07-13-2009 12:08 AM


Must it be a property of the whole universe?
Bluejay writes:

So, am I right? What is sin?

I'm just looking to get your thoughts on a slight variation of the Mormon definition you gave.

Original Mormon definition:

quote:
sin is generally believed to be an actual part of the function of the universe. Godís laws do not define what constitutes sin, but were designed by God to reflect what actually prevents us from being pure and holy.

Modified version:

I believe "sin" (ie "doing wrong") is an actual part of the function of humans within the universe. God's laws (or anyone elses) do not define what constitues sin.

By this, I mean that it is a function of being human to feel happiness and sadness. Sin (as defined by me) would be those actions which cause other humans to feel sadness. I can see how this would correlate with "disrupting the cohesivness of society" as you also talked about.

So, I'm not saying that sin is a basic or inherent function of the universe so much as it is a basic or inherent function of being human. Even though being human requires the universe
Such a concept is still "beyond God" in the sense that arbitrary rules (from anyone) are irrelevent. It's the objective consequences of your actions that determine if what you're doing is "sinful" or not.

How does this sort of thought compare with the Mormon theology? Does attaching sin to the existence of humanity reduce it in someway in Morman-eyes? Since it's no longer a property "of the universe" itself?

So, am I right? What is sin?

From the two options you provided (sin is God's laws or a fundamental aspect of the universe), I would say that the answer is closer to being a fundamental aspect of the universe before it's God's arbitrary laws. I just don't think that's the final answer, I think sin is a fundamental aspect that arises from human interaction, not the actual universe in and of itself.

But, if you're trying to focus on the difference between Mormon and Christian theology regarding sin... perhaps my thoughts are off-topic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 07-13-2009 12:08 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Phage0070, posted 07-17-2009 8:32 AM Stile has responded
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 9:34 AM Stile has responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 185 (515316)
07-17-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
07-17-2009 8:08 AM


Re: Must it be a property of the whole universe?
Stile writes:

I believe "sin" (ie "doing wrong") is an actual part of the function of humans within the universe. ... By this, I mean that it is a function of being human to feel happiness and sadness.


So what does this mean for sinners? Does God still punish people arbitrarily based on the production of sadness? Does getting sad from a chemical imbalance make your glands sinners? How about getting sad when your significant other goes away on a trip; are they now sinners?

If there is no spiritual or physical interaction with this inherent quality of "sin" then what use is such a definition?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 07-17-2009 8:08 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Stile, posted 07-17-2009 9:03 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3394
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 55 of 185 (515318)
07-17-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phage0070
07-17-2009 8:32 AM


Not here
This is just for clarification, I don't want to get too far from Bluejay's topic.

So what does this mean for sinners? Does God still punish people arbitrarily based on the production of sadness?

I'm not sure what this means for sinners, that's why I asked Bluejay.
I don't believe in God, or sin. I'm just using Bluejay's terminology because this is his thread. That's why I originally put 'sin' in quotation marks, and also followed it with (ie "doing wrong").

Does getting sad from a chemical imbalance make your glands sinners?

Of course not. That's why I talked about interaction between humans. Interactions between you and your glands alone are not interactions between humans.

How about getting sad when your significant other goes away on a trip; are they now sinners?

Yes. I wouldn't consider it a particularly grevious wrong-doing. But yeah, under my thoughts this certainly would still be "doing wrong." It can seem a bit frivolous, but such things are necessary to create a functioning, objective moral system. It should also be noted that no one is expected to please everyone at all times or be "completely perfect" in their lives. We should only be expected to try our best and do what we can with the situations and options presented to us.
In this specific situation, I would expect my significant other to be empathetic about my feelings and communicate with me about them before they left (perhaps as simple as a hug/kiss good-bye). Such actions would greatly reduce any sadness I may feel.

If there is no spiritual or physical interaction with this inherent quality of "sin" then what use is such a definition?

The use is obvious: to objectively identify "good" vs. "bad" in a way that can be used by all people to (hopefully) form a universally acceptable moral system. If you have a better idea for such a thing, I'm all ears. But, since this is getting very off-topic here, if you'd like to discuss my views, we should do so in one of my topics. Like one of these two:

Message 1 (Thread Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy in Forum Social Issues and Creation/Evolution)
Message 1 (Thread Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others in Forum Social Issues and Creation/Evolution)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phage0070, posted 07-17-2009 8:32 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 56 of 185 (515320)
07-17-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phage0070
07-17-2009 12:26 AM


Re: Telestial Kingdom
Hi, Phage.

Phage writes:

Bluejay writes:

This is anthropomorphization of nature.

quote:
...and suffer the wrath of Almighty God...

It does not really seem like an anthropomorphization, it seems like it is the wrath of Almighty God.

As much as it hurts me to do so, I have to admit that religion is not in the business of helping people understand the reality of things, but is only in the business of getting a point across.

Let me try another approach (which I still have mixed feelings about, but which I have been taught by other Mormons before):

It's like having a child: I don't really want my 2-year-old to understand the pain of being zapped by an electrical outlet, and he wouldn't understand it if I tried anyway, so the only thing I can teach him is, "I will slap your fingers if you touch that." And that (generally) helps to prevent electrical shock.

It's the same with God: He doesn't want us to have to suffer the real torment of spirit prison, so He threatens us with His own punishment (which we can understand) to get the point across that we're not supposed to do it.

We understand wrath, we understand fire and we understand vengeance: so, these are the terms that God uses to explain it to us.

There are a few inconsistencies I see with this viewpoint, but I would be a bit remiss if I only shared the interpretation of Mormon doctrine that I personally subscribe to (especially since my brand has been less than convincing to you).


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phage0070, posted 07-17-2009 12:26 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phage0070, posted 07-17-2009 11:27 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 57 of 185 (515321)
07-17-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
07-17-2009 12:53 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

God did not command the man not to eat. He gave man a choice. Don't eat and live. Eat and die.

Just as man has a choice today.
Spend eternity in the lake of fire as he is already condemned. John 3:18.

Or

Accept the free full pardon offered by God to spend eternity with Him.

You're still just dabbling on the surface and not contributing to the discussion.

Why does the choice exist?
Is it because God made it exist?
Or is it because it exists inherently?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 07-17-2009 12:53 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 58 of 185 (515322)
07-17-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
07-17-2009 8:08 AM


Re: Must it be a property of the whole universe?
Hi, Stile.

Stile writes:

So, I'm not saying that sin is a basic or inherent function of the universe so much as it is a basic or inherent function of being human.

It's probably a useful distinction you're making.

It's probably a pretty silly idea to think that rocks can sin because sin is a natural part of the universe (although some Mormon scripture seems to anthropomorphize the earth ).

Animals and plants are not held to the same concept of sin as humans are, so sin is clearly not a universal, uniform phenomenon.

When I talked about it being an innate part of the universe, I was thinking more along the lines of God being unable to design a universe where sin doesn't exist. Maybe, as you say, it would be better for me to characterize sin as an innate part of intelligence, human nature or spirituality, than as an innate part of the universe itself.

-----

This is at least the third time I've posted three or more messages in quick succession on this thread: I had to double-check to make sure my screen name hadn't changed to "Rrhain.:


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 07-17-2009 8:08 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Stile, posted 07-17-2009 9:55 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Perdition, posted 07-17-2009 11:00 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3394
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 59 of 185 (515325)
07-17-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Blue Jay
07-17-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Must it be a property of the whole universe?
Maybe, as you say, it would be better for me to characterize sin as an innate part of intelligence, human nature or spirituality, than as an innate part of the universe itself.

Ooooo... I like that. "Intelligence" is a much better characterization than "humans."

This Mormon view is kind of similar to how I think of things. Although I don't have a God included who enforces/encourages behaviour at all. However, if a God did exist, I would hope that He existed in a way more similar to how you're describing regarding morality than any "arbitrary rule set-er." I would find it much more honourable and therefore respectable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 9:34 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 60 of 185 (515332)
07-17-2009 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blue Jay
07-17-2009 12:34 AM


Re: What is sin?
Life-long Christians who lose their religion almost invariably go through a phase where they are not responsible atheists, but callous nihilists. I go through this periodically myself as I'm dealing with my current confusion over religion, and it can get frightening.

I never used a God as my moral compass (though when I was younger I believed in one vaguely) but in an intro to philosophy class that really opened my eyes (in more ways than one) the prof showed us what she called the Two Pronged Argument regarding God-given morality:

Prong 1) God says "I'm good, thus everything I do/say is good." In this prong, things are good only because God says they are, so he's stacking the deck as it were and defining himself as good. He could just as easily have told us rape and murder is good, so it's all arbitrary.

Prong 2) God says "This is good, so I will command it." This takes morality out of God's hands, and makes it something objective, and thus, we can find it for ourselves without God.

Both of these are the only logical possibilities when a God gives moral commands, and neither of them are scenario actual believers want. They want a sort of middle ground where God is objectively good, but we need him to tell us what to do.

The fact that believers of different religions and nonbelievers alike can behave morally or immorally in generally equal number, it seems to be human controlled more than God controlled. My compass has always been myself and the people I know rather than some book or a vague being I couldn't even see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 07-17-2009 12:34 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019