The Possibility of an Infinite Sin?

[Vixentrox]

Ok...which brand of Xtian perspective? Mormon? JW's, Catholics, Amish, Mennonites, Southern Babtist.......you get my drift.

[Caretaker]

Perhaps you might not need to dig real hard into Calculus.

 

Imagine a line segment. If you want, take out a piece of paper, and draw an arbitrary line segment.

 

Do you agree that this line segment has finite length?

 

Ok, now, how many points lie on this line?

 

If you have taken any Euclidean Geometry, you probably should know that each line segment has a unique midpoint. This midpoint splits the line segment into two smaller line segments, each of which have midpoints that split them in to even smaller line segments, and so on, ad infinitum...

 

It turns out there are uncountably infinite points on that line segment, yet we still say it has finite length. Why?

[Kryten]

A sin is supposedly an act of disobedience-- a choice. What does the length of time it takes to carry it out have anything to do with anything?

 

Scenario one: Let's say you are standing with Benny Hinn at the edge of a cliff, and in the blink of an eye you decide to push him off. That act plus the time it took to decide it only took one second.

 

Scenario two: Let's say you get mad at Benny Hinn for talking your very poor grandmother out of her SS check, so you spend days researching where he lives and drive there and cuss him out face to face. That decision plus the act takes a week.

 

What is the difference?? Who cares how long it took? Which is worse? In God's eyes? In the law's eyes??

 

But enough about good deeds-- suppose it was the same situation, only with someone innocent??

 

You cannot link a "sin" with the time it took unless you are trying to determine in a court of law whether the act was premeditated.

[Kryten]

Nice try attempting to justify eternal torment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And God's been planning eternal torture for how long? Oh, wait- I forgot, if HE tortures people then it's a GOOD THING!!

[Ouroboros]

A sin is supposedly an act of disobedience-- a choice.  What does the length of time it takes to carry it out have anything to do with anything? 

 

Scenario one: Let's say you are standing with Benny Hinn at the edge of a cliff, and in the blink of an eye you decide to push him off.  That act plus the time it took to decide it only took one second. 

 

Scenario two: Let's say you get mad at Benny Hinn for talking your very poor grandmother out of her SS check, so you spend days researching where he lives and drive there and cuss him out face to face.  That decision plus the act takes a week.

 

What is the difference??  Who cares how long it took?  Which is worse?  In God's eyes?  In the law's eyes??

 

But enough about good deeds-- suppose it was the same situation, only with someone innocent??

 

You cannot link a "sin" with the time it took unless you are trying to determine in a court of law whether the act was premeditated.

 

In the sin concept this makes it even more interesting:

 

God told you to push Benny Hinn off the cliff.

 

If you push him, you obey God and not sinning.

 

If you hesitate, you already entertain the idea to disobey God, and according to Jesus the thought is a sin, so already you are sinning.

 

And if you don't push Beeenny Hinn off the Hill then you definitely have sinned because you didn't obey.

[Fweethawt]

A person starved to death while you wrote this. - Why aren't you out feeding a starving person?

 

I don’t know if they were actually starving, but they were definitely homeless. I’ve done it before. I’ve made it my own activity when the thought or opportunity arises, and I will do it again in the future. I live with the desire to do more.

 

An elderly person broke into tears of lonliness while you wrote this. - Why aren't you out visiting an elderly person?

 

I have. The three people who I became quite fond of have since passed. If the opportunity arises again, I’ll do the same. A close relative of mine used to work in an assisted living apartment complex, and I would go there after hours to help with the patients, along with getting to know them. How long could you stick with doing something like that when you know that the person won’t be around much longer?

 

A child was abused while you wrote this. - Why aren't you out preventing child abuse?

I was abused. My two sons will grow under my care never knowing what abuse is. Also, I do not dedicate my mind and life to a religion that instructs people to beat or kill children that get a little out of line every once in a while. Can you say the same?

 

A woman was beaten or killed by her husband while you wrote this. - Why aren't you out fighting against woman abuse?

 

I’ve personally stopped two instances of this. One of those scenarios was non-violent.

 

A homosexual was beaten or killed while you wrote this. - Why aren't you out protecting a homosexual?

 

After leaving the hate-filled religion that is Christianity, my thoughts on homosexuality have changed quite a bit. Now, I will fight alongside a homosexual any day of the week if and when the opportunity arises. They deserve to live more than the people who hate them. Your God thinks they are an abomination. I think they’re human beings. While I may never get the opportunity to actually protect a homosexual, they have nothing to fear in my presence.

 

A white man killed a black man while you wrote this. - Why aren't you out working to do away with racism? A black man killed a white man while you wrote this. - Same thing as above, why aren't you forming groups against racism?

 

I was raised in such a way that made me racist against black folks. I hated them, and took every opportunity that I could to speak against them in an insulting manner. Once I got away from a religion that taught me to hate anyone who wasn’t like me, my views on racial matters changed quite a bit. My two sons are not prejudiced toward people of different races. So, yes, in a sense, I guess I am forming a small group against racism.

 

You are telling me that I am entirely in the wrong because I posted a thread trying to get some new insight on a philosophical idea. You posted this in this thread without any basis but to simply try and make me look like I don't care.

 

I’d say that you’re doing a fine job a making yourself look like you don’t care. You don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so offended that I mentioned those things. If you cared, you wouldn’t have bothered to argue those points. You would have got to work on them right away. Your religion won’t teach you how to care. So why wast your time trying to come up with a "NEW" and "EXCITING" way to validate it?

 

But wait a minute, you are asking me why I am trying to figure out how to fix these problems, but what are you doing? By your thinking, you shouldn't even be on this forum, you should be out fixing these problems at this very moment! There is a word for this...hmm...hypocrite?

 

I’m the hypocrite? I have a family to support. When I’m on this forum, I’m not here on my own time. Lucky me, huh? On the other hand, your lord and savior has given specific instructions to his followers to sell all that they own and give the money to the poor.

 

How’s your computer working out for you? Hypocrite.

I just a tad upset about the above.

 

I intended that. It’s good that you’re upset about it. At least now you’re slightly familiar with some of the problems that your religion doesn’t have any solutions for. So before you go and tell anyone that the bible has all of the answers to life’s most important questions, hopefully you’ll check yourself before you mistakenly lie to them.

 

Thank you to those who have shown me with respect and actually have considered my idea without going entirely off the topic at hand and trying to make me (and my God) look like the bad guys.

 

You are not a bad guy, but your worthless God (read – Bible) isn’t exactly a good guy. I was hoping that you’d realize that there are more important matters that need tending to other than attempting to prove something about time. You’re young. So young. You have the perfect opportunity to do something good with your life rather than getting your mind wrapped up in some illusive theology that has caused so much negativity.

 

 

 

Thank you for your response. You've exposed yourself exactly the way I had expected.

[Amanda]

Thank you for your response. You've exposed yourself exactly the way I had expected.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fweethawt... aren't we all accountable to contribute something to those issues you so eloquently raised? Could we all be doing something else if we were driven more to do so, instead of being on this site? You may be home tending to children, surely an honorable status... yet, I'm curious to know if there other contributions that could benefit those issues and extend our concern to do so beyond the time devoted to here?

 

I see our time here as emotional/mental growth that enables us to expand our boundaries of thought. This makes each of us more discerning of how we should be regulating our time. The benefits of each post on this site must never be underestimated. If this person wants to make this post... it addresses people where s/he is... and IF it does not seem like an area of growth for you or I, then we can simply choose to ignore it and go to one that does. But how about those that may glean something from it... should we deny them because that is not where we are?

 

Of course, each of our posts says something about each of us... if we dare post. I respect yours... at least you dared. Courage! Thank you!

[Amethyst]

Now, a sin is within a moment of time and that moment of time can infinitely get smaller. A sin always has the same strength, so within this infinite shrink of time it would remain the same.

 

No, a so-called sin is any human behavior that Christians want to use to judge other people in order to make them feel guilty so that they can be afraid of going to hell and convert (or stay converted) to Christianity.

 

In other words, there is no such thing. It is all a system to control human beings and make them be afraid.

[Karl-777]

The Possibility of an Infinite Sin?

Well, first you Xtians would have to have a valid authority from which to derive definitions of "sin". Errant, incongruous, and self-contradictory biblical myth and pseudepigraphy do not constitute such an authority. Neither do deranged fundie prelates who concoct their own home-made "commandments". (e.g. "thou shalt not do stem cell research", "thou shalt not use birth-control devices", "thou shalt not have a beer", etc....)

 

The answer is no. Physical human beings exist in time. This is why the idea of Xtian hell is absurd. Infinite "eternal" "punishment" for a finite crime is perfectly unjust by any standard. A line is finite, having a beginning and an end, regardless of how many pieces you slice it into. A circle is infinite, having no beginning and no end. This is why the PI calculation will never repeat, no matter how many decimal places they carry it to.

 

I'll give you my perspectives:

 

Sin/Evil is the unjust deprivation of an individual's Life, Liberty, Persuit of Happiness, Property, Reputation or Covenant of Trust.

 

"Hell" is the total absence of Love, Life and Light. It is not a "place", but a Vibratory condition of the soul.

 

There is however, one thing that we are reasonably sure is "infinite":.......

.............fundie bullshit.

 

K

[narcissist]

You could apply this line of though to anything. Happiness, chocolate cake, blessing, altruism... Why pick on sin? Perhaps becaus it betrays an underlying pessimism that lies below the surface of "awesome" christianity.

 

Personally, I'm applying this type of thinking to orgasm.

 

Mmmm... infinite orgasm....

[Mike D]

The main idea is that if one moment in time goes for all time, continuously getting shorter, but the sin does not get "better", then that sin lives on forever. Meaning, the person who committed this sin within one moment would actually be sinning for all eternity. (obviously excluding if the sinner is forgiven of the sin)

It seems the problem you might have with this concept is that if one sin goes on ad infinitum, then you could never be forgiven, no? In other words, you could never stop sinning long enough to ask for forgiveness. In that sense it would be better if sins did last forever. You could be having great sex for an infinite period of time and never stop long enough to die and be sent to hell

[Amanda]

I'll give you my perspectives:

 

Sin/Evil is the unjust deprivation of an individual's Life, Liberty, Persuit of Happiness, Property, Reputation or Covenant of Trust.

 

"Hell" is the total absence of Love, Life and Light. It is not a "place", but a Vibratory condition of the soul.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very articulately stated, and I agree.

[LloydDobler]

The main idea is that if one moment in time goes for all time, continuously getting shorter, but the sin does not get "better", then that sin lives on forever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think your main logical problem is right here. You seem to be saying 'infinitely small = infinite' or, you're viewing it as a proportion with the sin relative to the time. So if the time gets infinitely small, the sin goes infinitely big relative to it.

 

But since time isn't a fixed point, your argument leads to the idea that a sin is at its most potent the instant it is committed and gets diluted by time as it passes. Which is actually consistent with human emotion, as in 'time heals all wounds'.

 

So for that instant of time, it may be 'sinfinite' but as soon as you add the next moment to it, its potency is cut in half, etc etc. Besides, I thought all sins were a horrible abomination in the presence of a pure and good god? The idea of a sin's 'power' or 'span' is moot in light of grace and true love, isn't it?

 

None of this is relevant if the bible is false though. This is the wrong place to post a concept like this because to ask ex christians to only argue from a christian perspective is pretty silly.

[Guest Joseph]

Note from the start: This post is made from a Christian perspective.

 

Nobody's perfect.

 

(snip)

The first thing I am going to start this thread of with is: If you don't understand what this thread is about, then don't post in it! With that said, I shall move on:

 

Your argument is so ignorant in basis that I almost passed on the basis of it not making any sense therefore no one can comment, but I will comment nonetheless because I'm bored and Simpsons went off a while ago and I can't find anything good on TV.

 

(snip)

First I must place out the concept of an infinite time within time. As with physical objects within space, moments in time can continuously be broken down into smaller increments.

 

This does not create infinite time, this generates segmented time. You are practicing false labeling and violating the law of identity. You are attempting to take a finite length of time and generate an "infinite" label upon it by violating reason. Here is your first flaw: trying to denote segmented time as infinite time. Also, taking into account Planck time you can not divide time indefinitely like you could say a "segment" or "line." There is a base unit of time in existence so far as we know. But even if this base unit turns out to not exist (doubtful) you have still violated the law of identity by trying to label segmented time as infinite time.

 

A day can be broken down into hours, that into minutes, that into seconds, etc. This breakdown can go on for all eternity, far beyond the measurable capability of humans.

 

Actually, it is quite possible for humans to devide time to the smallest unit (planck time? I think it is called). So you are again demonstrated false in your claims.

 

Now, a sin is within a moment of time and that moment of time can infinitely get smaller.

 

Actually no.

A sin would progress from point A to point B in a time-line.

 

As you begin to reduce this to segmentations, the sin is in the beginning, middle, and end of happening. An action does not reduce like time does, nor does it divide as purely as you would seem to be trying to say. A person who attacks someone from 3:14pm est until 3:17pm est is not "sinning" the entire time. They would start by grabbing the person (not perhaps a sin, but the beginning of a bad action, the act of "reaching" for them might also be included if you are talking about premeditation, but you didn't say premed vs act of rage) and then the attack would begin in the "middle" segment" and then it would end. So while you would like to say you can segment the sin action indefinitely in order to draw some false idea that segmented time-lined sinful action would equate to infinite sin, you would be quite wrong and illogical to do so.

 

A sin always has the same strength, so within this infinite shrink of time it would remain the same.

 

This is really a non-statement. As you reduce the segment of time the over-all action is almost lost, in fact the more you attempt to segment time the less and less of the over-all picture you would have, almost like looking too close at a picture. However, you have yet again attempt to cloud the definition of terms in using "infinite shrink of time" which is a misapplication. You might have segmented time through reducing it repeatedly but it is not "infinite time," it is a finite segment of time which has been segmented repeatedly (not possible to do it infinitely)...not infinite by any standard of reasoning.

 

The main idea is that if one moment in time goes for all time,

 

One "moment of time" (segment of time) has a beginning and end.

By definition.

 

You are once again violating the law of identity to make your obtuse and illogical claim.

 

...continuously getting shorter, but the sin does not get "better",

 

I would say that this is also a value judgement entirely.

A person robs a bank and the feds pay the money back and the person goes to jail for their crime. The action/sin they have done has "gotten better" by all human reasoning. That you make an "absolute" claim that "a sin" (without any type of identity upon this action) does not get better in the vastness of time is a joke entirely. Even murder is a temporal act inwhich those that at one point knew the person that was killed will someday be dead, and by such the death of that single person is removed from time itself...out of all human memory entirely. Thus it is a non-existent act outright if no one knows of it.

 

So I think you have once again failed in your argument outright by trying to claim that "an action" (sin) does not "get better" which is nothing more than an arbitrary value judgement.

 

...then that sin lives on forever.

 

Nothing a human does will live on forever.

When our Sun goes SuperNova everything mankind has created or done will be gone unless we have moved out of our solar system. The idea that a finite action will exist for all time is a joke at best and a lie at worst.

 

Meaning, the person who committed this sin within one moment would actually be sinning for all eternity. (obviously excluding if the sinner is forgiven of the sin)

 

Yet again, a segment of time has a finite existence, and any action within a segment of time by definition is not eternal. Thus the person commits a finite action within a finite segment of time and by no means what-so-ever are they "sinning forever." Such would violate the law of identity outright and would make finite = infinite and by such would make your claim gibberish (it is by the way).

[Amethyst]

You could apply this line of though to anything. Happiness, chocolate cake, blessing, altruism... Why pick on sin?

 

Mmmm...infinite chocolate. Now only if it were zero-calorie infinite chocolate.

 

[duderonomy]

Wow all!

Refering to the origial post...

 

So many fallacies, so little time!

 

Has it been proven that material things can be broken down smaller and smaller for all of eternity?

 

Let's go from there.

 

Then we can deal with time, then sin (oh and to whomever said that the good things would also go on forever, you have to remember the Christian view that we humans can never do anything good), then etc.

 

One thing at a time! This thread is all over the place!