Jump to content

What Is Sin


thomas
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been wondering abouit a question, and I hope you will take time to give me your answer.

As I haveleft Christianity (SCC) I have reached the conclusion, that sin is a concept that some peopoe use to control others. If you can make people believe, that they are sinners, you can control them.

 

Therefore, I would like to know how you look at the concept of "sin". And I would also very much like to know how you look at the weird idea that Jesus had to die on a cross to pay for sin.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I haveleft Christianity (SCC) I have reached the conclusion, that sin is a concept that some peopoe use to control others. If you can make people believe, that they are sinners, you can control them.

 

Exactly. Make people beleive that they are sinners, and they'll go to church to confess and give their money. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand...why are you guys asking Ssel all these questions as if he's some wise teacher?

Ditto! (Plus I thought we weren't supposed to be directing thread topics to specific people. I could be wrong.)

 

But, I agree with Asimov. Why direct all these questions to Ssel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, I would like to know how you look at the concept of "sin". And I would also very much like to know how you look at the weird idea that Jesus had to die on a cross to pay for sin.
Sin is analogous to the Taoist concept of Yin. Sin and Yin represent the concept of dispersion/chaos as opposed to order.

 

Life requires order (as well as anything which has a structure to it). Thus "sin" is that which causes the dispersion of the structure and thus death.

 

All of the sins spoken of in the Bible are directly related to that which leads to dispersion of the spirit. This causes intelligence to be lost and death to be the price. The "seven deadly sins" are a list of emotional temptations which disperse rational thinking.

 

The death of Jesus has several ties to this concept.

 

The death of Jesus was the result of such lusting for power by "the world in general". He displayed that no matter how innocent you might be, as long as people are lusting for power and doing whatever they happen to wish to do, then you will die anyway. He "paid the price" of Man being too wanty.

 

Perhaps more importantly, He gave a message as to how to fix the problem (accurate or not) as a result He was exposed as a danger to those many who preferred that people stay confused and over emotional. In this respect, He did what had to be done even though it cost Him His life. Again, He "paid the price that was required to 'save' Man from his sins of wantiness".

 

In addition, people are guided by their sympathies and their angers (love and hate). These 2 opposing forces push and pull people in whatever direction they happen to balance out toward. The sympathy and love factor toward the man who tried so desperately to simply calm the sea and make life easier for everyone was a price to be paid toward gaining enough devotion from people to actually have an effect rather than merely stating a message which would soon be forgotten. Thus the act, in a since, had to be done.

 

In short, He did what had to be done.

 

This is not offered as a preaching, but to directly answer why those things are said about sin and Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand...why are you guys asking Ssel all these questions as if he's some wise teacher?

Honestly I hadn't even noticed that the question was directed to me until I saw this post.

 

But I think it is being directed to me because I am, in a sense, representing the "other side" and thomas and the others are not asking the membership directly what their answers would be perhaps because they have already heard it many times, but instead asking the "other side" what justifications there might be for the issue.

 

In short, it is merely because I'm the "other side". When Kevin was here, they said similar things "A Question for Kevin"

 

But please understand, that I do not consider myself as "the other side" and certainly not an enemy. If I were on a Christian sight, I would be on "the other side" from them as well. They would consider me as the heretic void of faith and condemned to damnation.

 

As I have stated several times, I can not stand squarely within ANY group either for nor against these religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand...why are you guys asking Ssel all these questions as if he's some wise teacher?

Ditto! (Plus I thought we weren't supposed to be directing thread topics to specific people. I could be wrong.)

 

But, I agree with Asimov. Why direct all these questions to Ssel?

 

Sorry if I have broken the forum guidelines, it wasn't my intention. But the questions is not directed to Ssel because I think he is an oracle, but because I want a better understanding of the religion/philosophy he represents.

 

If I instead wanted a better understanding of - lets say - desim, I would not have directed it to a specific person, but I would have written something like "question for deists".

 

Take this tread in the same way, a possibility to debate some of the concepts involved in a certain religion/philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the sins spoken of in the Bible are directly related to that which leads to dispersion of the spirit. This causes intelligence to be lost and death to be the price. The "seven deadly sins" are a list of emotional temptations which disperse rational thinking.

 

Thanks for the explanation. In your view, rational thinking is a spiritual discipline.

 

I find it interesting that many churches of the charismatic kind see things just the opposite way. They are generally very emotional in their preaching, and they tend to see rational thinking as a problem for receiving spiritual enlightment.

 

According to your concepts, such churches most be very sinful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to your concepts, such churches most be very sinful.
You are exactly correct.

 

They are using what they have seen as an effective principle. They accept these principles as being God or God's voice. Almost all extremes are not of God/(The balance of all Reality).

 

But on the other hand, often extremes are required to "spearhead" an effort to compensate the mainstream. Activists do this all of the time. The feminist proclaims extreme superiority so as to get a flow going toward that direction.

 

Hate is often used to attempt to cause a stronger persuasion. The "Hell and Damnation" preacher is doing the same kind of thing with fear.

 

All of these spearhead behaviors might help the upper picture look more gray, but it sacrifices the lower social levels into a miserable existence.

 

My philosophy is that if you simply bother to stick to serious logic without presumptions or favorites, then you will begin to see all of the answers and who was really right about which parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand...why are you guys asking Ssel all these questions as if he's some wise teacher?

Cause I believe forum respects all views.

 

Sure, one could say some of his views are extreme from our POV, nevertheless we can still learn from one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:)Hi Ssel! I don't agree entirely with you... but we are in the same book. :grin:

 

I thought the only sin that brought death is condemnation. All the rest were just missing the mark. If not... why such verses as these below?

 

1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the only sin that brought death is condemnation. All the rest were just missing the mark. If not... why such verses as these below?

 

1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Unfortunately, my view of the apostles is that they communicate even worse than I.

 

What John is trying to say is that there is one sin which can not be forgiven. The other sins would be to death but they are possible to forgive and thus are "no longer" sins unto death.

 

If any man see his brother (a fellow Christian) sin a forgivable sin (not a mortal sin), and he ask, then Jesus will see to it that God ensures his life (which would have otherwise been forfeit).

 

If you take out the Jesus factor, as in the OT, or in the non-Jesus world, then the sins can not be forgiven and thus lead to death.

 

All of this is about spiritual death, btw. Spiritual death leads to mortal death but can be intervened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been wondering abouit a question, and I hope you will take time to give me your answer.

As I haveleft Christianity (SCC) I have reached the conclusion, that sin is a concept that some peopoe use to control others. If you can make people believe, that they are sinners, you can control them.

 

Therefore, I would like to know how you look at the concept of "sin". And I would also very much like to know how you look at the weird idea that Jesus had to die on a cross to pay for sin.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Sin is nothing more than a superstitious/primitive myth for the purpose of religious indoctrination and mind control.

 

In a word, it's pure bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin is nothing more than a superstitious/primitive myth for the purpose of religious indoctrination and mind control.
Pure speculative supposition - absolutely no different than the SCC's speculative proofs of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is sin, then? What does it look like? How does it make you feel? Does it smell like shit or roses? Is it green, yellow, blue, or red? Does it talk? Does it eat? Does it need light to grow? How much does sin weigh?

 

In other words, what is sin to someone who does not believe in absolutes?

 

What is sin to someone who doesn't believe in good or evil? :shrug:

 

Without challenge there can be no growth nor perfecting. Evil and Sin are concerns only to those who are in a growth stage. They are the challenge to either learn how to properly deal or fade away for not trying. - Why the world is not more perfect.

 

So, by your estimation, I'm an enlightened being because I'm not concerned about sin or evil, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin is nothing more than a superstitious/primitive myth for the purpose of religious indoctrination and mind control.
Pure speculative supposition - absolutely no different than the SCC's speculative proofs of God.

 

In other words sin is still pure bullshit, it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words sin is still pure bullshit, it doesn't exist.

 

:)Hi Edward Abbey!

 

I don't really like the word "sin". Yet, I'm just curious if you have any regards to any behaviors as being objectionable, and what might some of them be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree; I don't like the word "sin" either, as much of what are considered sins are really just parts of human nature that religionists have some sort of neurosis about.

 

Normally, I say "sin" doesn't exist. Sin is after defiance of the will of Biblegodzilla, whom we know is only a myth. Hence, there cannot be defiance of Biblegodzilla's will if Biblegodzilla never existed to establish its will in the first place.

 

I can agree to a revamped definition of "sin", ie, a heinous crime against humanity. Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others and serve to harm other people without cause. These can be considered "sinful", but not according to any religion so much as according to basic human nature. We know it's wrong to hurt others, murder others, take their things or force ourselves on them - human nature tells us what is truly "sinful".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others"

 

So what? Such behaviour is the driving force behind the survival of the fittest. Repugnance to these things cannot really be accounted for from a natural rationale.

 

 

 

"We know it's wrong to hurt others, murder others, take their things or force ourselves on them - human nature tells us what is truly "sinful"."

 

I would propose that there is no shortage of people who do not seem to "know" about things like this at all. Their "nature" is more in accordance with what is observable in nature.

 

This highlights one of the peculiarities of Christian doctrine; Natural is not the same as normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others"

 

So what? Such behaviour is the driving force behind the survival of the fittest. Repugnance to these things cannot really be accounted for from a natural rationale.

 

 

 

actually yes they can, we our repugnace to these things is based on the fact that we don't want them to happen to us. As society develops laws are created to limit these things, the fact that humans are social animals explains why we follow these laws. to break them would cause us to be cast from society.

 

"We know it's wrong to hurt others, murder others, take their things or force ourselves on them - human nature tells us what is truly "sinful"."

 

I would propose that there is no shortage of people who do not seem to "know" about things like this at all. Their "nature" is more in accordance with what is observable in nature.

 

This highlights one of the peculiarities of Christian doctrine; Natural is not the same as normal.

 

So explain why the bible justifies genocide, murder, rape, incest, and polgamy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others"

 

So what? Such behaviour is the driving force behind the survival of the fittest. Repugnance to these things cannot really be accounted for from a natural rationale.

 

 

No it isn't.

 

Animals that live in a social environment naturally develop behaviours that cause an abhorrent reaction to such negative actions, the reason being that such actions would be counterproductive to the survival of the population.

 

Just because SOME animals in the population do these things does not deem it the DRIVING FORCE behind survival of the fittest, which isn't even a scientific term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, I would like to know how you look at the concept of "sin". And I would also very much like to know how you look at the weird idea that Jesus had to die on a cross to pay for sin.
Sin is analogous to the Taoist concept of Yin. Sin and Yin represent the concept of dispersion/chaos as opposed to order.

 

 

 

As someone who is somewhat of a Taoist I have to say that sin and Yin are not even close to the same thing. In Taoism Yin and Yang are both nessary elements in the world, it is not creation=good and distruction=evil. Both are nessary and useful. Chaos is opposed to order but both are needed.

 

Sin is not a nessary force in christian theology, someday when christ returns sin is supposed to be destoryed in the christian mythology, But Yin and Yang are both parts of the Tao both nessarry, both eternal.

 

 

Also I should point out that good and evil are meaninlgess concepts in Taoism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree to a revamped definition of "sin", ie, a heinous crime against humanity. Murder, rape, aggravated assualt, theft - such things infringe on the freedom of others and serve to harm other people without cause. These can be considered "sinful", but not according to any religion so much as according to basic human nature. We know it's wrong to hurt others, murder others, take their things or force ourselves on them - human nature tells us what is truly "sinful".

 

:)Hi Wolfheart! I agree with you here! It seems to me, to be summarized in the concept of disrespecting another or self really. It seems to be more appropriate, to discern for ourself what is the correct way of dealing with others, than to blindly adhere to some writing.... to actually THINK about it! If everyone could just consider each other on equal respectful terms and consideration, it seems things would be a lot better. Sure, we can have differing opinions, that is what makes life interesting... :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So TxViper, you're saying that the idea of not killing each other is given by God and does not exist in nature?

 

Animals don't kill family members, even though it's natural for them to kill, but are you saying they have been given moral values from God?

 

How come bees, snakes, bears and all the rest of the animals don't just go and kill each other, since they could only avoid it by having a moral code implanted into their soul by God?

 

Are you saying the animals have the 10 commandments, given by Mooses on the mountan of Muckimuck, and they read a Holy Book too?

 

Hence, by that logic, animals have a soul, have morals from God, and have a choice to believe in Jesus or not too, and you should start preaching to them.

 

-edit-

 

The survival of the fittest means that a family of animals that kill each other, will die out!!! The guide in our brains to avoid killing each other is a natural evolved function. Without it, humans would have died out already. The reason why we are here, right now, is because that function is naturally and genetically built in. We care for ourself, our family and for our close social group. Has nothing to do with morals, it's a built-in function.

 

Unfortunately some people don't have that function. Some people have damaged frontal lobes, and have difficulties understanding and following this. It's known that a frontal-lobe disorder can (not have to), but can cause people to become violent and dangerous, and even become killers. So if there is a moral code that God put into us, then he put it into biological nerves in the frontal lobe, and not in the soul.

 

Good luck getting him to answer, he's avoided answering mine along similiar lines as well. Apparently TX, thinks it's okay for the bible heroes to do these things as well as the god defined by them.

You're right.

 

He's been trolling and sniping quite a bit. I'll give him this last chance to answer, if he doesn't I'll give him a warning or a hold.

 

Therefore, I would like to know how you look at the concept of "sin". And I would also very much like to know how you look at the weird idea that Jesus had to die on a cross to pay for sin.
Sin is analogous to the Taoist concept of Yin. Sin and Yin represent the concept of dispersion/chaos as opposed to order.

 

 

 

As someone who is somewhat of a Taoist I have to say that sin and Yin are not even close to the same thing. In Taoism Yin and Yang are both nessary elements in the world, it is not creation=good and distruction=evil. Both are nessary and useful. Chaos is opposed to order but both are needed.

 

Sin is not a nessary force in christian theology, someday when christ returns sin is supposed to be destoryed in the christian mythology, But Yin and Yang are both parts of the Tao both nessarry, both eternal.

 

 

Also I should point out that good and evil are meaninlgess concepts in Taoism

Unless Ssel tried to redefine the word sin to mean a necessary opposite to not-sin (or whatever).

 

But I agree, in traditional context and understanding, yin is not sin. Far from it.

 

Yang is the sunny side of the mountain, the hard and supporting muscle in Tai Chi, the man in a marriage.

 

Yin is the shadowy side of the mountain, the soft and relaxed muscle in a Tai Chi stance, the woman in a marriage.

 

My understanding is that the Yin/Yang is about balance and being centered and not being concerned about light and dark, hard and soft or positivie and negative.

 

And the symbol only means that you shouldn't focus on the difference between the black and white, but focus on the center where there is calm and peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.