What is sin?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
chansen said:
No, because evolution is not a conscious process. The "mistakes" made by evolution do not survive. If evolution learned from mistakes, it wouldn't make those mistakes again. But it does.
Click to expand...

Yes, the mistakes made by evolution do not survive. Will we survive our mistakes?

No, not in the long run. If what we do is detrimental to the whole, in the long run, then we will become extinct. Evolution, in the long run, maintains a balance between the wellbeing of the individual and that of the whole. If we, as a species, take more from the whole than we give to it, then we will eventually die out. Ego-, ethno- and anthropocentricity are the mistakes that will do us in.
 
I have always wondered if sin for one is not sin for another.

example" Spending money on Sunday -Sin

Spending money on Sunday -Not a sin.

These are very simple examples but what is sin for one is not sin for another.
 
crazyheart said:
I have always wondered if sin for one is not sin for another.

example" Spending money on Sunday -Sin

Spending money on Sunday -Not a sin.

These are very simple examples but what is sin for one is not sin for another.
Click to expand...

Sin can, indeed, be individual though I think there comes a point where things are clearer. Spending money on a Sunday could be a sin depending on how we spend the money, what attitude we bring to spending the money, and so on. When you get to things like violence, I think it is much clearer no matter how some might try to justify it not being a sin "if done in God's name".
 
For me "missing the mark" is a good definition of sin versus a set of rules found in a Holy book or Holy books.

"The Biblical terms that have been translated from Greek and Hebrew as “sin” or "syn" originate in archery and literally refer to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error. In archery, not hitting the target at all is referred to as a "miss"." (from Wikipedia).
 
crazyheart said:
I have always wondered if sin for one is not sin for another.

example" Spending money on Sunday -Sin

Spending money on Sunday -Not a sin.

These are very simple examples but what is sin for one is not sin for another.
Click to expand...

That would be true if sin is just subjective - and there in lies danger. You used as examples what seem to be gentle examples crazyheart - to shop or not to shop. Those who truly hold that morality must only be subjective have to allow for some to hold that things like murder - assault - theft - and slavery are moral under certain circumstances - and must allow them to act in accordance with those judgments. This is why I'm glad that we do have God as our source of objective morality.
 
No, I don't disregard holy books at all blackbelt. I like to read holy books. I have learned lots from them. They enhance my spiritual life and knowledge and understanding of God.

But many contain what some see as "lists" of "do's" and "don't's" . . . and use those lists to determine what is sin, for themselves and for others.

God uses a variety of ways to reveal intent to us . . . yes, through Holy books, but in other ways also.
 
Beloved said:
No, I don't disregard holy books at all blackbelt. I like to read holy books. I have learned lots from them. They enhance my spiritual life and knowledge and understanding of God.

But many contain what some see as "lists" of "do's" and "don't's" . . . and use those lists to determine what is sin, for themselves and for others.

God uses a variety of ways to reveal intent to us . . . yes, through Holy books, but in other ways also.
Click to expand...

ah ok , got it, thanks for the clarification , i miss read your earlier post sorry
 
Beloved said:
No, I don't disregard holy books at all blackbelt. I like to read holy books. I have learned lots from them. They enhance my spiritual life and knowledge and understanding of God.

But many contain what some see as "lists" of "do's" and "don't's" . . . and use those lists to determine what is sin, for themselves and for others.

God uses a variety of ways to reveal intent to us . . . yes, through Holy books, but in other ways also.
Click to expand...
Do you think any of those "Holy books" could be the work of scam artists? How would you tell the difference between a book written for the purposes of gaining influence and power, and a book sincerely written by people about a God to the best of their ability?
 
chansen said:
Do you think any of those "Holy books" could be the work of scam artists? How would you tell the difference between a book written for the purposes of gaining influence and power, and a book sincerely written by people about a God to the best of their ability?
Click to expand...

The Holy Bible is truth. Other books are truth to whatever extent they are in agreement with the Bible.
 
Azdgari said:
I still fail to see the relevance. Other conscious sources of morality, outside of humanity, would also be subjective. Moral values would be true relative to the points of view of those other sources, and thus be subjective as well.



Again, I just don't see the relevance. "God = objective morality" is a common trope, but I've yet to see an argument for it that holds water.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to the minimum qualification. I'm not suggesting that any morality that has a source outside the human condition would be objective, only that having a source outside humanity would be a requirement for objectivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top