Sin

Within the Mormon religion, sin is generally believed to be an actual part of the function of the universe. God’s laws do not define what constitutes sin, but were designed by God to reflect what actually prevents us from being pure and holy.For instance, committing adultery does not simply break an arbitrary rule that God set up, but it actually corrupts you and prevents you from achieving your purpose of becoming pure. Because it would prevent you from becoming pure, God forbade us from doing it.However, it has come to my attention that many atheists seem to view the Christian concept of sin as simply the contravention of an arbitrary set of rules that God established as pre-requisites for joining His exclusive club.I think they are actually right about the mainstream Christian views of sin. Logically, if God created all of reality, then He also determined what would cause us to be unworthy to enter Heaven. So, He set it up to match His specifications from the beginning.So, am I right? What is sin?Edited by Bluejay, : Sorry about that: I decided to change my title, and I pushed "enter," which caused me to submit the thread.Edited by Bluejay, : Tweaking.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Thread copied here from the Sin thread in the Faith and Belief forum.

The distinction is irrelevant, either way it comes down to violation of arbitrary rules. The Mormon version is just trying to get around the issue of violating arbitrary rules getting people damned; it isn't the rule violations that damn you, it is the tick marks at the end... cough... from.the.rule.violations...cough...The Mormon version also implies that there should be a material change in the world that can be measured to indicate the presence of sin. This would imply that if I were to curse God in my mind then I would be physically altered. This is wholly unsupported by evidence, which is why most denominations go for the unprovable "its all in the spirit/soul, wooo!" concept.It is all garbage: Sin is code for "if you don't do what I say, I really would prefer for you to die." Thats all.

And perhaps a contrary opinion...

Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Translation: "I think hurting other people unnecessarily is worthy of punishment, but I don't care about anything else. I refer to my opinion as "sin" because it is more likely to get people to obey me, as it implies material repercussions."

As far as I can make out, "sin", as opposed to "crime", is an invention intended to cause feelings of guilt. Since clerics claim to be able to relieve this guilt by arranging for remission of sin, and to provide for avoidance of sin by giving rules, it is clear that the invention of sin was meant to give clerics power over people.In summary, "sin" is a con used by clerics to gain power.

Thanks fof the exchange.
Hope things are well ... An interesting topic Bluejay, considering the wide range of opinions associated to the term.If I recall, Gen. 4:7 contains one of the first mentions of sin in the scriptures. Early on, as Cain and Able are preparing their individual offerings to the Father, the reader is given a depiction where Cain is admonished regarding the peculiar substance.

quote:

---

[The first born] became very angry, and his expression was downcast.

​

Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door.

​

It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.

---

Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine; yet, what is 'right'? In the passages preceding these, we find that the son who is born second has prepared his offering from the animal fats of the land, whilst the first born son offers up a portion of vegetables. Keeping in mind that this is one of the first of a series of passages frequently employed by various christian sects in an attempt to affirm that 'God desires sacrifice' - as opposed to mercy, we find many traditions relegating these events to the doctrine of a magical blood sacrifice.One may do well to note that a blood sacrifice is not mentioned in actuality, but rather projected through much later doctrines and dogmas. In this way, the passages have, most often, been glossed over as though that is all there is to learn: offering the Father vegetables is a sin. It is at this point that one may consider in what way an offering towards the Father of vegetables, as opposed to livestock offerings, may be sinful ... if at all. Perhaps the farmers reaction to what he has perceived as a less than desired divine response reflects his bewilderment.We're told that 'Cain was angry' and that he seems to have resented any supposition of this apparent injustice. One learns that his 'expression was downcast' or that 'his countenance fell', seeming to indicate that this regular ol' human, through an attempt to appease his Creator, eventually came to doubt his own self-worth. There is the sense that this po', hard workin' farmer has become confused now; considering one has no reason to suspect that the, soon to be, murderer regarded himself as less deserving than Abel before this event.Yet, why should he ... after all, the struggle put forth to produce the fruit from the earth was indeed more laborious than his younger brother's cultivation of sheep and livery, not to mention that, the aim of the ol' farmer's toil and hardwork was to yield necessary foods, rather than spinning the eternal yarn of the luxurious robes that the wool of the sheep, provided by Abel, produced. Perhaps Cain's opinion of himself revolves around the notion that his adoption of the simple farming life should have made him the more pious brother, meriting, more so, their Father's favor.Now, would Cain have been correct in any conviction that the hard life of a farmhand is more pleasing to the Almighty; after all, Life is not always fair in the sense that Cain, or many of our gripes, defines 'fairness'. It seems, in the end, both the hard-working farmer's frugal comfort and the shepherd's leisurely lavishness should both certainly be able to accommodate a righteousness worthy of being identified as a devotion and service towards the Father.By a mention of 'countenance', perhaps that depends heavily on the inner, emotional orientation of one's efforts at work and the manner in which the individual uses or abuses their non-laboring time. Imho, this is what the Father seeks to communicate when He tells Cain that 'if' he does well, his face will be lifted. Yet, instead, Cain the Robeless Farmhand remains with his envy and avenges himself on the object which he projects this disgust and insult ...The priestly caste.The thing is, the first murderer is not a one-dimensional figure, wicked from the womb. He is a regular ol' carbon based human being, very much like you and me, possessing what may seem to be a keen sense of exactly what is fair and what is not, and also quick to feel hurt and humiliation when his vision, and version, of himself and his position in relation to others, especially the Almighty Father, is confounded by challenge.When our expressions and our countenance are downcast, sin is crouching at the door ...What does this mean to you folks?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

That God once again causes trouble by having unfathomable preferences, questionable judgement, and an unwillingness to help his followers when in need? That a coward Lamech relied on superstition and lies to protect his life and manipulate those around him? This is simply more of the same.

Hi, Phage And many would regard the distinction between a wasp and a bee as irrelevant. Yet, the distinction is real.----- It is too much to ask for some neutrality in your writing? I’m not a fundy: you don’t have to resort to libel to show me that I’m wrong.Anyway, I disagree with you. The Mormon church doesn’t (usually) emphasize damnation and sin: the emphasis is placed on growth and progress. There really is very little damnation in the Mormon religion: we have lesser degrees of glory, rather than damnation, for those who fall short of purety.According to our theology, the intended destiny of mankind is to become like God, which is a process that requires lifelong practice and learning. To a Mormon, sin is defined as anything that impedes one’s ability to learn and mature spiritually. Our code of commandments is just a learning tool to help train the mind and body to seek the things that lead to spiritual growth.Now, I’d be willing to grant that the specific details of our code of ethics may very well be arbitrary, and may not actually represent the things that actually impede spiritual maturation, or that this definition may, in fact, render sin a subjective term, but that’s not the point of this thread, and I don’t intend to discuss it in depth (yet).The two concepts are clearly different: one defines sin as an infraction of an arbitrary law, and the other defines sin as a real obstacle to an obtainable goal.----- And, many would argue that such a material change exists. I don’t consider myself one of those, but that’s also not the point of this thread.----- That’s one vote for yes, I suppose.-----Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the comparison between sin and crime, as presented by Woodsy?I tend to think that the general Christian perspective is that sin is simply crime as defined by God’s laws.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

The distinction between a bee and a wasp is important; it is a big difference between the number of times you can be stung, for one. The distinction between being punished for your actions or punished for "impurity" acquired through actions is irrelevant because there is no other function of impurity other than as a stand-in for those actions. If the "impurity" was measurable or had other ill effects you would have a point, but you have not claimed any so I conclude that you don't. So lets see how they are different: The Mormon version has them as obstacles preventing becoming like God and being accepted into heaven, and the other version has them as deviations from being like god thus preventing being accepted into heaven.Oh wait, its exactly the same thing! If you consider "Yes" as equivalent to "Your distinction isn't particularly distinct or relevant." I would add to Woodsy's presentation the concept of inevitable accountability. If a criminal managed to escape the law, or was supported by the community and friends, they would be inclined to think that all possible repercussions were dodged. The cleric's version meant that even if the criminal could avoid the law and their friends approved then they were still going to suffer punishment in the end.It is a wonderful method of controlling people, as long as you can get them to believe.

Sin I suppose is the antithesis of God. If God is pure and holy, then what he decrees as righteous cannot, by its nature, be sin.I don't think you can refer to it as being arbitrary since forethought presumably went in to it.I don't know for sure and I'm not sure I care either way. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Many folks view God as a hostile other apart from a commonsense being such as ourselves. This ability to see ourselves as unlike God is one characteristic of sin.If we try and give God credit for having every ones collective best interests at heart rather than being an autocratic despot, we can envision the desire for a communion amongst all living things in synthesis with their Creator.As to why God foreknew that we would somehow choose to think otherwise is indeed a mystery. Its almost as if humanity is still at the rebellious teenager stage where we surely know more than our parent and want to have the right to choose to do things our way as a sign of our maturity.

Well done. This could lead to a cool discussion. I think lots of "Christians" view sin the same way.
I don't.
I see sin as a verb. To sin is to actively, knowingly, make a choice you should not.
That simple, and that abstract.
Perhaps thats why the law shall be written on their hearts.To use sin as a noun can be hazardous. Can you commit a sin if you don't know the sin is a sin or you don't know you sinned the sin?
Would a loving GOD forgive an unintentionally, unknowingly broken law? If so, how could a law be a law if one is forgiven and one is not?No, I think sin is not the breaking of arbitrary law but the breaking of the human spirit and it's connection to GOD.Knowingly choosing what one should not choose is a major cause of distress worldwide. It can cause physiolocical changes in the bodies of both the chooser and the choosee that can be quite unpleasant (emotions). It seems to be contagious. Many choices that should not have been made were made in response to other choices that should not have been made. This process can become quite destructive.A real problem, as I see it, is that there seems to be no evidence to suggest that humans are capable of never knowingly choosing what should not be chosen.
It seems no one is excluded from this process.A solution?Forgiveness.Where you gonna find that?As a "Christian" I believe I find forgiveness in Christ.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

I don't really see it that way, as I shared with you in a previous message that I'm now too lazy to find the number for. If God created mankind the way he wanted, then surely he is responsible for the outcome. Who else could be? Adam? Eve? What about the whole "sins of the father?" He must have made us rebellious. If God gave mankind a strong sexual desire, why then does he punish us for acting upon the very instinct he imparted?!?! How is that rebellious and how is that a fair expectation, especially when he's left us dumb and blind to his presence?A series of books [bible], that often conflct with one another, written by man but claimed to be God-breathed, should not be a definer for how we should act. If God wanted us to act like God, then perhaps in his infinite wisdom he could have made sure that would have happened. Instead he hangs the threat of eternal damnation over our heads daring us not to fall into the very temptations he's allowed for us.Merciful?How about, sadistic??? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Hi, Phage. And, I just got done telling you that there is very little "punishment" in the Mormon system. Everyone attains "glory" at the end of this life. Greater purity* results in greater glory, just like better work results in higher pay and promotions. *I'm avoiding deeper discussion of the concept of "purity" for the time being, because I think it would detract from the conceptual discussion.----- Once again, you don’t have to be a prick to get your point across. Here’s me being a prick back at you: Now, here’s me back in normal mode:That you can find a general similarity between the two concepts does not make them the same thing.
There is a mechanistic distinction between (a) things that are wrong because God says they are and (b) things that are wrong because they prevent you from achieving your goals.In the second case, there need not even be a God involved. In Mormon theology, God did not decide what constitutes sin. That, in and of itself, is enough to absolve God of any accusations of tyranny. God’s work is to help us see for ourselves what is holding us back: obedience to a code of laws is just an exercise in self-mastery, not an initiation ceremony.The law doesn’t define sin: sin defines the law. But, the law is an oversimplification of the real path to exaltation*. As such, it may forbid some things that are not actually sins, and it may not forbid some things that could be sins.*exaltation, of course, means becoming like GodIn the end, we’ll be Judged according to our progress and dedication to the goal, not according to the final tally of good and bad deeds we did in our lifetime.-----This has gotten a little deeper into my personal take on Mormon theology than I intended, but I hope I’ve made it clear by now what I am distinguishing.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.