Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
32 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,865 Year: 1,613/23,288 Month: 1,613/1,851 Week: 253/484 Day: 29/42 Hour: 3/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sin
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 1 of 185 (514797)
07-13-2009 12:08 AM


What is 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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phage0070, posted 07-13-2009 8:28 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 07-13-2009 9:08 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 6 by Woodsy, posted 07-13-2009 10:45 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 7 by Bailey, posted 07-13-2009 10:59 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 6:08 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Hill Billy, posted 07-13-2009 7:40 PM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2009 12:33 PM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 07-17-2009 8:08 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 185 by Raphael, posted 06-16-2018 5:57 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 9 of 185 (514866)
07-13-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phage0070
07-13-2009 8:28 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Phage

Phage writes:

The distinction is irrelevant...

And many would regard the distinction between a wasp and a bee as irrelevant. Yet, the distinction is real.

-----

Phage writes:

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...

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.

-----

Phage writes:

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.

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.

-----

Phage writes:

Sin is code for "if you don't do what I say, I really would prefer for you to die." Thats all.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phage0070, posted 07-13-2009 8:28 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 07-13-2009 4:12 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 15 of 185 (514975)
07-14-2009 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phage0070
07-13-2009 4:12 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Phage.

Phage writes:

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.

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.

-----

Phage writes:

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!

Once again, you don’t have to be a prick to get your point across. Here’s me being a prick back at you:

So let's see how they are different:

Abiogenesis requires life to have arisen from non-life
Spontaneous generation requires life to have arisen from non-life

Oh wait, it’s exactly the same thing!

Flying squirrels are arboreal mammmals with gliding membranes between their legs.
Sugar gliders are arboreal mammals with gliding membranes between their legs.

Oh wait, it’s exactly the same thing!

Overgeneralizations invariably blur the distinctions between similar things: this is why you should try to understand a little more about a topic before you offer up a commentary on it.

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 God

In 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 07-13-2009 4:12 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 2:51 PM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 19 by Perdition, posted 07-14-2009 3:07 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 16 of 185 (514976)
07-14-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hill Billy
07-13-2009 7:40 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Hill Billy.

This brings back memories: I was but a forum infant when you were last here (remember the "Evolutionary Superiority" thread: what a blast! Let's not do it again ).

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

Hill Billy writes:

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.

I guess I have been a bit unfair: I know that Protestants, at least, have a less rigid view of laws, and thus, of sin, than I've presented. But, it still seems that individual Christians still want everything to be about performances and stringent laws.

For instance, it always bothers me that people are still so attached to the Ten Commandments (which should have been done away with by Jesus' sacrifice, if the pauline doctrine of Atonement is correct): as if you get to heaven by not using God's name in vain and not stealing things.

I take it you see sin more as I do: as an impediment to progress, rather than systematic infractions to rigid guidelines?


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hill Billy, posted 07-13-2009 7:40 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Hill Billy, posted 07-15-2009 9:52 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 185 (515007)
07-14-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 2:51 PM


Re: What is sin?
Damn it, Phage!

I’m not talking about judgment or about consequences: I’m only talking about the basic concept of arbitrarily-defined versus inherently-existent sin.

This is getting needlessly complex because you are apparently completely incapable of working with a simple, abstract concept. You cannot view the concept without including your preconceptions about mainstream Christianity, despite your total lack of knowledge about Mormonism. Please try to absorb at least a little of what I’m writing.

Here is a simplified version of Mormon theology and discipline, on the off-chance that you might actually attempt to understand that it’s not the same as your preconceptions about mainstream Christianity (I’m not holding my breath, though):

God did not create sin.
God created the universe within a framework that already included sin as one of its foundational concepts.
God sets rules and laws as guidelines to help us find the path to Godhood.
Whether or not we even want Godhood, we still attain glory (i.e. heaven) in the next life. Everyone does.
We view Godhood as the highest attainable glory.
Judgment is metaphorical: the glory that we receive is not actually up to God, but is wholly contingent on our progress and dedication to the goal.
Because we will all inevitably fall short of the ultimate goal, the Atonement grants Jesus the authority to make up for the shortcomings of those who have dedicated all they can to the goal of Godhood.

If you still want to hold to your preconceptions all of this is arbitrary, and that God is thus evil for enforcing arbitrary rules, then go right ahead. But the bottom line is that, in the Mormon version, God is as bound by the laws as we are.

So, from the Mormon perspective, arguing that sin is tyrannical is exactly equivalent to arguing that gravity is tyrannical. This is not the same as having an actual entity who is consciously choosing, for some arbitrary reason, to define sin in a certain way.

Please tell me you see the difference.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 2:51 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 6:49 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 21 of 185 (515009)
07-14-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Perdition
07-14-2009 3:07 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Perdition.

Perdition writes:

Bluejay writes:

b) things that are wrong because they prevent you from achieving your goals.

Who decides our goals? If my goal is to live the best life I can using the evidence at hand as a measure of what that means, without any belief in a god whatsoever. Does god judge me based on those goals or on what he considers our goals should be?

What if someone's goal is to kill a string of people and go out in a hail of police gunfire? Does the fact that he sadly meets and exceeds his goals mean he gets a prime position in God's graces?

Yeah, that was bad wording on my part.

The only goal that our religion is involved in is the goal of achieving Godhood. Sin is then restricted to those things that prevent us from achieving the goal of Godhood.

Our religion doesn't teach us much about what other goals are available in the next life, but I personally don't see any reason why you can't make and keep some other goal. We regard Godhood as the highest glory, but the importance or desirability of it is ultimately a subjective matter. You still get to go to heaven if Godhood is not your goal.

Edited by Bluejay, : Addition.

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Perdition, posted 07-14-2009 3:07 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 23 of 185 (515043)
07-15-2009 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 6:49 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Phage.

Phage writes:

So suffering in Hell for 1000 years because one refuses to accept Jesus as their Savior is purely metaphorical? (Doctrine and Covenants 76:84, 105-106)

Yeah, that's where it gets really complicated. I think it's also where my personal views diverge from the views of mainstream Mormons, so I won't go there for now.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 6:49 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 24 of 185 (515044)
07-15-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
07-13-2009 9:08 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Coyote.

Note to all: sorry it's taking me so long to respond to everyone. I'm a slow poster, so please be patient.

Coyote writes:

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

Heinlein... who would have expected that from you?

I tend to agree on this point. The list of things traditionally viewed as sins seems to be arbitrary, which is probably why atheists tend to see religion as inconsistent and tyrannical.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 07-13-2009 9:08 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 25 of 185 (515046)
07-15-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Woodsy
07-13-2009 10:45 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Woodsy.

Woodsy writes:

In summary, "sin" is a con used by clerics to gain power.

Unfortunately, I agree with you. Even if you assume that it isn't the clerics, but God, who decided what sin is, you're still left with why God made sin what He did. Obviously, the logic doesn't change just because God's involved (despite what just about all Christians---including Mormons---will say), so it's only reasonable to conclude that God inventing sin is just like a cleric inventing sin.

To me, the only way to rationalize the concept of sin is to prove that it is actually a part of the function of the universe. But this raises a number of questions:

  1. What effects is sin supposed to have? And how can you show that these effects are happening?
  2. Doesn't this make God superfluous? If so, what does it say about God?

I'd like to put a little more thought into it before I try to post my own responses, but I thought I'd open it up for anyone else to comment on.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Woodsy, posted 07-13-2009 10:45 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 9:24 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 26 of 185 (515049)
07-15-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Bailey
07-13-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Crouching Tiger ... Hidden Dragon
Hi, Bailey.

Bailey writes:

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.

I don't think you quite said what about Cain's sacrifice you think was the sin. If you did, I missed it.

I think most Mormons think there was something wrong with Cain's attitude towards the sacrifice, but I still don't get it.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Bailey, posted 07-13-2009 10:59 AM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-15-2009 8:32 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 142 by Bailey, posted 08-09-2009 7:36 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 33 of 185 (515129)
07-15-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
07-15-2009 9:24 AM


Re: What is sin?
Hi Straggler.

Straggler writes:

Hi Bleujay

Look, I'm French!

-----

Straggler writes:

Bluejay writes:

To me, the only way to rationalize the concept of sin is to prove that it is actually a part of the function of the universe

Would this not require that whoever or whatever created the universe also created morality and the concept of sin as part of that universe? In which case are we not back to the arbitrary nature of sin as designed by some sort of universe creating god entity?

You know that I don't believe that God is omnipotent in the strictest sense. But, most other Mormons (who also do not believe in an omnipotent God, although most of them don’t actually realize this) view Creation as an orderly process that follows a system of preset guidelines. The obvious implication of permitting humans to achieve godhood is that there are many Gods, all of whom are Creating worlds and people. But, we only worship one God, and normal Mormons* wouldn’t even dare speculate about who or what preset the guidelines for Divine Creation in the first place.

Maybe it all began with a Big Bang, and, at T=1.0E-43 sec, the guidelines "just were," with no prior causation. If you ask a normal Mormon*, they will probably say, "We don't have the capacity to understand such things, and we apparently weren’t meant to spend our time and energy on it.”

*a "normal Mormon" = a not-Bluejay Mormon

-----

Straggler writes:

Well are the effects [of sin] empirically detectable in themselves?

Depends on who you ask. Some people think you can see a "glow" in the countenance of righteous people, and that there is a dark, dirty appearance to sinners, but, as for me, I only see a "load of crap" in the countenance of such mystically-minded people.

My personal experience suggests that guilt is the only thing that accompanies sin, and that is not always detectable even by trained psychologists.

The effects of sin are generally thought to be internal and subjective. Along the same lines as Perdition’s comments, if there were external, blatant consequences for sin, it might be too easy to pass the test.

Or, maybe we’re the control group in an experiment to test whether external, blatant consequences make it too easy to pass the test.

-----

Straggler writes:

I am not convinced that those who do believe in god would, or even should, feel the need to consider god wholly superfluous purely on the basis of it being shown that sin was a function of the natural universe.

I agree with you.

I tend to think of God as a recruiter (any other Mormons who read this will probably be squirming right about now). He’s looking to hire people to work in “Godhood Enterprises, Inc.,” and religion is His way of advertising the position for interested applicants. That’s why He doesn’t tell us all the details about heaven, about how the universe actually works (trade secrets, you know), and about the other things that might be going on in the next life for those who aren’t interested (plugging for a competitor is bad for business).

Maybe that’s a little lighthearted of me, but the analogy kind of fits, in my opinion. If my bishop ever finds out that I’m saying this kind of stuff, though, I might get asked in for a special interview.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 9:24 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 4:39 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 39 of 185 (515163)
07-15-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Michamus
07-15-2009 10:56 PM


Re: What is sin?
Hi, Michamus.

So, I'm addressing this post to you, but it's really for all readers, so don't take it as if I'm giving you a personal Sunday school lesson.

Michamus writes:

That is exactly what happens when you google search "mormon hell" in most search engines.

You'd have to have done this yourself in order to know this.

It is by the same means that I know exactly what will come up when you Google "Mormon pickle" (you could probably guess it right yourself, though).

-----

Michamus writes:

Phage0700 writes:

So suffering in Hell for 1000 years because one refuses to accept Jesus as their Savior is purely metaphorical?

This passage obviously is referring to the place that verse 84 is also referring to.

You know, that reference didn't even click in my mind when I read Phage's post. I saw "1000 years of torment" and thought he was talking about... something else.

What's difficult about D&C 76 is that a lot of complicated things are being discussed in a not-too-terribly-clear manner. Verses 105-106 (which Phage also quoted) do not refer to the Telestial Kingdom, but to the spirit world, which (for those who don't know) is the place where the dead must wait until Judgment.

The suffering described for these people is separation from God, and the inability to work or progress while they wait. This is the effect of sin (or, of those things that hold us back from achieving our highest goal), when it has not been properly dealt with.

-----

Michamus writes:

This is why so many "Mormons" have a deep respect for knowledge.

And why they memorize search engine results.

Edited by Bluejay, : Smiley.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Michamus, posted 07-15-2009 10:56 PM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Michamus, posted 07-17-2009 4:20 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 40 of 185 (515166)
07-16-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Phage0070
07-15-2009 11:30 PM


Telestial Kingdom
Hi, Phage.

Phage writes:

I was under the impression that the general consensus was that verse referred to somewhere other than the Telestial Kingdom.

I didn't see this post before I posted message #39, so I'll recap here: verse 84 refers to the Telestial Kingdom, as Michamus said.

Verses 105 and 106 do not: they refer to the spirit world (specifically, to the bad half of the spirit world), which predates the Resurrection and Judgment.

-----

Phage writes:

If you are correct, then apparently those in the Telestial Kingdom burn for eternity.

D&C 76:106 writes:

106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work

The suffering described in this verse will not last for eternity, but only until the "fulness of times," which happens at the end of Christ's Millennial reign on earth (that's where the 1000 years comes from), and just prior to Judgment. However, souls are not consigned to a degree of glory until after Judgment. So, this suffering is supposed to end before the Telestial Kingdom even begins.

So, clearly, this does not refer to the Telestial Kingdom.

Edited by Bluejay, : Minor edits


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Phage0070, posted 07-15-2009 11:30 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Phage0070, posted 07-16-2009 6:33 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 44 of 185 (515278)
07-16-2009 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Phage0070
07-16-2009 6:33 AM


Re: Telestial Kingdom
Hi, Phage.

Synthesis appears to not be your strong suit. It would certainly make debating easier if forgetting/ignoring everything that has been said previously in the discussion were a valid approach.

Having seen your posts elsewhere on this site, I find it hard to believe that you're actually that stupid, so I have to conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse.

Please, cut the crap, okay?

-----

Phage writes:

Right, so lets recap: Even Mormons have God toasting people based on arbitrary rules, despite initial denial.

It has already been explained to you (by two independent sources) that the "toasting" is not done by God, and is not done for breaking an arbitrary rule.

It has already been explained to you that the consequences of sin are an innate part of the function of the universe, and were not installed as such by God.

It has already been explained to you that the “toasting” is the natural consequence of sin.

-----

Patronization works better if you don’t make a fool of yourself while doing it.

So, let’s recap again: Mormons have people being toasted as a deterministic consequence of the way the universe works.

You’re free to argue that my beliefs are not scientific, and you’re free to comment on how stupid you think they are, but please don’t claim the right to tell me what my argument is, and please improve your synthesis skills before your next post.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Phage0070, posted 07-16-2009 6:33 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Phage0070, posted 07-16-2009 11:22 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1087 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020