What is your view of "sin"

Bushadi,

I agree that from a human perspective there can only be one reality. Since reality only works one way it should be a simple matter to get everyone into agreement about what is good and bad. In reality it is very difficult to do this. I've already posted my opinion about it, but why do you think it is so difficult? Do you think it was divinely made difficult for us to agree, or do you not? Why?
 
I agree that from a human perspective there can only be one reality. Since reality only works one way it should be a simple matter to get everyone into agreement about what is good and bad. In reality it is very difficult to do this.
Click to expand...
Yes in a certain perspective, (like mine), but no in the sense that for the knowledge to begin, it now exists and the truth is absolute which means, as soon as others begin to observe how all branches of knowledge (philosophy, science and theology) perform, then the final truth will eventually be universal.

I've already posted my opinion about it, but why do you think it is so difficult?
Click to expand...
Many have learned predeterminations.
Do you think it was divinely made difficult for us to agree, or do you not? Why?
Click to expand...
 Not at all. Because learning, takes time. Many of the sciences are in pursuit of business opportunities, not pursuing the universal truths. Most of the real contributors stepped outside of the bounds of accepted knowledge. That is how paradigm shifts occur; these contributors stayed with what made sense with the data they have and remained true to their instincts and personal honesty rather than accept specific material as fact without question.

The universal truth stands firm to existence and not opinion. Any man can create an opinion, just as man created words but existence and life is where the truth exists. Meaning the reexamination of how life exists is what revealed the truth.

So it took a long time of our existence (life/mankind) for knowledge to be assembled in a fashion that allows it to be observed simply by choice; the internet. By this, now many opinions can be observed which describe the universal truth and the combination of opinions, sciences and integrity simply shares how it works.

Light is life. (which is not an accepted frame in the sciences; Planck is wrong)

Energy is em (light) upon mass. Time entangles all mass by energy; the perfected trinity.

When mass associates if the combination is ‘good’ the life of the system continues. In contrast, adverse associations go extinct.

A universal truth.

But then a consciousness was born, and each can observe and impose to existence by choice and what is considered ‘good’ to one may not be preferred by another.

A man can actually misrepresent what is true and that single self-preserving existence (a lie) caused by a choice, can lead to an enormous amount of bad.

Oooch! As man is the only thing in existence that can create a lie (loss to the common).

Yet, to return to the reality of nature and the rules of mass and energy associating, then the rules stand firm. It is why so many of the old theology was based on the personalities of nature.

Did this help?
 
ooops!

A reoccuring issue; often words get in the way.

'Sins' can only occur by a person.

So any sins ever recorded, known or experienced is caused by a person choosing to impose an action that is based on a 'loss to the common.'

Any imposition that causes an adversisty to existence.

Lie
Kill
Steal
dishonor of life

Should cover just about every possible adverse action a human can make.

Hope this helps. :eek:
 
You are going to seek a universal set of sins? That will lead down an argumentative road. Such as "kill" which some will jump on to include wars, and others to include all life, eating meat, etc. I have seen some fairly fanatical people on those subjects even in these forums.
 

You are going to seek a universal set of sins?
Click to expand...
Never has there been a goal to share good and bad but to share what life is and how it works in a pure form.

Funny part is to understand how life (mass and energy) associate in a pure form, then good and bad simply represent themselves.

That will lead down an argumentative road.
Click to expand...
Neither is this the goal, but if the new generations have something to stand firm too that does represent nature, the sciences, philosophies and theologies, then the evolution is reached in which the young can begin to teach the old as then the old prophecies will be vindicated.

Existence only operates in one fashion, and it is not me or I that began or made up or created the truth but that life reveals what is true, in fact.

Such as "kill" which some will jump on to include wars, and others to include all life, eating meat, etc. I have seen some fairly fanatical people on those subjects even in these forums.
Click to expand...

Fair!

Wars have never been sanctioned but to consume meat for sustenance is pretty natural in most all of nature. To kill for other than sustenance is a ‘loss to the common.’ That is unless that death will reduce further loss; then a choice must be measured.

But to illustrate good and bad in the form of’ Good: supports life, Bad: Loss to the common, not only is this perfected in the religions, philosophies and sciences, the only difference is the perspective when compared to each opinion.

Please, I ask, share an example in which the form suggested is incorrect.
 
Bushadi said:
Good: supports life, Bad: Loss to the common, not only is this perfected in the religions, philosophies and sciences, the only difference is the perspective when compared to each opinion.
Click to expand...
Bushadi said:
.
Please, I ask, share an example in which the form suggested is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll provide a couple of weak arguments, just to illustrate your idea.
  • A joke is considered neither good nor bad until its ultimate effect is tallied. It is a butterfly in the wind. Some consider it evil and others good.
  • Is talking to ghosts good or bad? All the religions explain weird occurrences, like reports of ghosts, ufo's, deja-vu, and especially precognition. It is sometimes considered a common loss, sometimes a plus for life, depending on whether the living benefit. It is never a forgotten topic, because there's always spooky stuff happening.

  • Snoring. People have been shot in the USA's Old West for this seemingly unimportant atrocity.
 
greymare said:
so, um who exactly sets the sins and or the punishment,Bashadi??? YOU??
Click to expand...


Why would you say that?

If nature and reality share them rules... 'good and bad'..... then who is to say each and every person cannot know what good and bad are equally?

I say when each know the truth, then each become their own judge but in the same context, then each can know an atrocity equally were a set tone of policing is not by a paid for entity, but by us all equally.

WE THE PEOPLE......... equal to existence are who are each capable of judging.

Just watch every thread.......... lot's of judgments each moment.

But in each case many have only the opinions of previous information rather than each being capable of knowing exactly how life and existence works and then the rules are then equal, universal and as permanent as the truth actually is.
 
greymare said:
ummm because some people are REAlly, really bad
Click to expand...


and each will get what is coming to them....... as nothing in existence but a human will ever forgive; even when old women impose adversely affecting good......

compassion must first honor the quality of the representation as the liar is not of the total but isolating itself for the self; a loss to the common.

to be returned to mother earth, where that choice no longer exists.
 
My view of sin would be the one described by the Urantia Book as is my view of evil and iniquity. The terms "evil", "sin" and "iniquity" are frequently thrown around as if they were equivalent, but there are definite distinctions between the use of the terms. I would sum them up as follows.

evil: Mistaken or bad judgment, even if the intention was for good. (Bad judgment according to whom? God, of course.)

sin: Deliberate choosing to do evil or go against the will of God.

iniquity: Wholehearted and persistent devotion to sin.

The following are some quotes from the Urantia Book regarding these three terms. There are many more which help further define the terms, but I chose some which I felt were most clear and succinct.

**********
3:5.15 The possibility of mistaken judgment (evil) becomes sin only when the human will consciously endorses and knowingly embraces a deliberate immoral judgment.
**********
130:1.5 Jesus' last visit with Gadiah had to do with a discussion of good and evil. This young Philistine was much troubled by a feeling of injustice because of the presence of evil in the world alongside the good. He said: "How can God, if he is infinitely good, permit us to suffer the sorrows of evil; after all, who creates evil?" It was still believed by many in those days that God creates both good and evil, but Jesus never taught such error. In answering this question, Jesus said: "My brother, God is love; therefore he must be good, and his goodness is so great and real that it cannot contain the small and unreal things of evil. God is so positively good that there is absolutely no place in him for negative evil. Evil is the immature choosing and the unthinking misstep of those who are resistant to goodness, rejectful of beauty, and disloyal to truth. Evil is only the misadaptation of immaturity or the disruptive and distorting influence of ignorance. Evil is the inevitable darkness which follows upon the heels of the unwise rejection of light. Evil is that which is dark and untrue, and which, when consciously embraced and willfully endorsed, becomes sin.
**********
75:4.3 Good is the carrying out of the divine plans; sin is a deliberate transgression of the divine will; evil is the misadaptation of plans and the maladjustment of techniques resulting in universe disharmony and planetary confusion.
**********
89:10.2 Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals.

89:10.3 The sense or feeling of guilt is the consciousness of the violation of the mores; it is not necessarily sin. There is no real sin in the absence of conscious disloyalty to Deity.
*********
148:4.6 "By nature, before the rebirth of the spirit, mortal man is subject to inherent evil tendencies, but such natural imperfections of behavior are neither sin nor iniquity. Mortal man is just beginning his long ascent to the perfection of the Father in Paradise. To be imperfect or partial in natural endowment is not sinful. Man is indeed subject to evil, but he is in no sense the child of the evil one unless he has knowingly and deliberately chosen the paths of sin and the life of iniquity. Evil is inherent in the natural order of this world, but sin is an attitude of conscious rebellion which was brought to this world by those who fell from spiritual light into gross darkness.
**********
67:1.4 There are many ways of looking at sin, but from the universe philosophic viewpoint sin is the attitude of a personality who is knowingly resisting cosmic reality. Error might be regarded as a misconception or distortion of reality. Evil is a partial realization of, or maladjustment to, universe realities. But sin is a purposeful resistance to divine reality -- a conscious choosing to oppose spiritual progress -- while iniquity consists in an open and persistent defiance of recognized reality and signifies such a degree of personality disintegration as to border on cosmic insanity.

67:1.5 Error suggests lack of intellectual keenness; evil, deficiency of wisdom; sin, abject spiritual poverty; but iniquity is indicative of vanishing personality control.

67:1.6 And when sin has so many times been chosen and so often been repeated, it may become habitual. Habitual sinners can easily become iniquitous, become wholehearted rebels against the universe and all of its divine realities.
 
The terms "evil", "sin" and "iniquity" are frequently thrown around as if they were equivalent, but there are definite distinctions between the use of the terms.
Click to expand...

Hey, good point. I never noticed it. Welcome to the forum.
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but my guess has always been that any concept of sin we have is generated from evolution, and whether that civilizing aspect of evolution comes from God or is generated in some other way is the big question. This is all pretty much a paraphrase of something I jotted down a short while back, and I don't pretend that it's anything infallible, just one man speculating.

Anyway, the newest scientific thinking from Stephen Jay Gould and others has helped spur some serious accredited research -- and serious reevaluation -- of what precisely goes into the so-called survival of the fittest. The old notion that only those species can survive whose individual members go strictly for self-centered patterns of behavior is being seriously questioned today -- if indeed such a notion isn't itself a crude simplification of the original constructs from Wallace and Darwin.

There have been notable recent studies of altruism as a significant governing force determining which species survive longterm and which ones don't. Individual selfishness among members of any species is now emerging under close research as a distinct disadvantage for any species as a whole! Particularly for any species dependent on socialization, the occasional but atypical lack of any pattern of shared caring for those temporarily too weak or temporarily too helpless to help themselves now emerges as an ultimate threat to a species as a whole if this heartless lack should obtain on too wide a scale! Thus, in caring and in altruism lies true long-term survival and successful evolution. These are exciting findings.

It seems that nature itself -- stern nature? -- is actually an enforcer of morality and therefore of ultimately greater contentment and social harmony. Behave responsibly and lovingly with one's neighbor, and you yourself survive and even flourish along with everyone around you; behave brutally and thoughtlessly, and everyone around you is in peril including -- ultimately -- you yourself. The dynamics of what makes an evolutionarily successful species thrive in nature's garden may be ultimately identical with what we term morality. Translated simply, this would mean "Love thy neighbor as thyself". And when we adopt that practice, we put a smile on not just God's face (if s/he exists) but on the faces of most of humanity. This would seem to be at the back of all morality and ethics.

Best,

Operacast
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but my guess has always been that any concept of sin we have is generated from evolution, and whether that civilizing aspect of evolution comes from God or is generated in some other way is the big question. This is all pretty much a paraphrase of something I jotted down a short while back, and I don't pretend that it's anything infallible, just one man speculating.
Click to expand...

I have some more speculation to add. This reminds me of an episode I watched on the Naked Archeologist this week. He was discussing a verse in the bible.

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" (Gen 6:4).
Click to expand...

They were saying the King James version was a mistranslation. When going back to read the Dead Sea Scrolls, they discovered that the texts has different measurements for Goliath, which were supposedly more closer to the original. It meant something else. The NIV says something different. . .

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (Gen. 6:4).
Click to expand...

It could be just speculation, but they came to the conclusion that the "Nephilim" in this verse are Neanderthrals. After showing the bone evidence that they existed at the same time in the Middle East, they said that Humans and Neanderthrals mated together to create the "fallen ones." However, I couldn't find any strong evidence for that online.

Even if this is not true, would God hold a Neanderthral accountable for his or her sin?
 
Bishadi said:
NO!

quote] yes ,you are correct, the original sin wasnt about sexual relations , after all the most high God said to multiply.:) and it was very good;)


Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” Genesis 1;28
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top