Sin: a conscious act or missing the mark?

[nobspeople]

In The Ten Commandments thread, a poster motioned "Making a mistake, doing some wrong things, is not necessary a sin, if person doesn't reject God and righteousness."
The question was then asked as follows:
"Why would making a mistake ever be a sin?"
The response was as follows:
"Confession is good for you, so not a waste. Suppose you want to get good at tennis. You can try to play harder but sometimes you need to confess your weaknesses and get help to correct your game. This probably applies to all endeavours...One definition of sin is 'missing the mark'. So if you aim for the bullseye and miss then you sinned. So mistakes are sins."
To be fair, as of this posting, there is no response or rebuttal of the last underlined statement so there could be clarification forthcoming.

The questions for discussion now are as follows:

1) Is sin simply a 'mistake' when one aims for the bullseye and misses, or is it a more intentional act*?
2) Why would any god (even your God) punish someone (by punish meaning allow for eternal damnation by popular christian standard of hell) by trying for something and 'missing the mark'±?
3) How is #2 acceptable to any being that's loving, caring and concerned for its creation of humanity?
4) Why would anyone want to worship for anything (deity or otherwise) that punishes for 'missing the mark'?
5) Is this definition of sin underlined above wrong?


*This would also apply for those that think sin is just 'not being righteous'
± Missing the mark meaning an honest attempt at something, but failing to reach one's goal

[1213]

...
1) Is sin simply a 'mistake' when one aims for the bullseye and misses, or is it a more intentional act*?
2) Why would any god (even your God) punish someone (by punish meaning allow for eternal damnation by popular christian standard of hell) by trying for something and 'missing the mark'±?
3) How is #2 acceptable to any being that's loving, caring and concerned for its creation of humanity?
4) Why would anyone want to worship for anything (deity or otherwise) that punishes for 'missing the mark'?
5) Is this definition of sin underlined above wrong?


*This would also apply for those that think sin is just 'not being righteous'
± Missing the mark meaning an honest attempt at something, but failing to reach one's goal

Bible says about righteousness and sin:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. ....Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

I think that means, person who is born of God, is righteous and doesn't sin. This is why I see righteousness and sin as opposites and actually like states of mind. When one is righteous, his mind is set to same will as God's will. And if person is in sinful state, wicked, he is opposing God and His will. And when person is on either of those two states, it determines the actions, similarly as good tree produces good fruit...

By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
Matt. 7:16-20

But, what are the fruits of righteousness one may ask. One thing is that righteous person is loyal (faithful) to God.

But the righteous will live by faith. If he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
Hebrews 10:38

That I think is the key point in being righteous. Second I think comes from this:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: 'God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn't even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Luke 18:10-14

The person who was humble and sorry was considered righteous by that. And I think the story tells, he understood that he had not managed to do everything correctly, he was sorry about it. And I think that shows the righteous attitude, right understanding, which produced this fruit of being sorry and even in that moment loyal to God.

Because of this, I think sin is what unrighteous person does. And righteousness is what righteous person does. It may be that righteous doesn't do always the best things, but it is not sin for him, when it is not done in sinful state.

[Purple Knight]

1) Is sin simply a 'mistake' when one aims for the bullseye and misses, or is it a more intentional act*?

I also wonder if there are people in Heaven who tried to harm and it simply ended up that the results of their actions were good. For example, a sadistic baby-killer who happened to kill only babies who would grow up to do catastrophic evil deeds.

Baby-killer: "Wow I certainly didn't expect this. I'm literally in Heaven."
God: "I gave you your bloodlust for a purpose, my child. Rejoice, for all the babies you murdered were evil."
Baby-killer: "Cool."
Purple Knight: "And I'm in Hell. Did nothing but tried to do good."
God: "Yeah, and you failed. I hate your egomaniacal guts, so I limited your information and ability such that your choices would always produce evil, and they did. I win, you lose."

Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say this isn't a realistic scenario. It's not, if God is fair. But the whole "God's Plan" angle does make me wonder. According to that angle, the baby-killer actually is a part of God's Plan. So if the baby-killer understands that, does that make him good if he just keeps doing what he's doing?

2) Why would any god (even your God) punish someone (by punish meaning allow for eternal damnation by popular christian standard of hell) by trying for something and 'missing the mark'±?

That's like asking why only give trophies to the winners, even though everyone tried. It's right, it's just not fair.

3) How is #2 acceptable to any being that's loving, caring and concerned for its creation of humanity?

Many of us aren't human, Biblically speaking; we aren't Adamic man. There were humans around before Adam. Cain's wife from the Land of Nod had to be pre-Adamic. Noah's three sons each took a wife aboard the ark, and their bloodlines aren't (to my knowledge) indicated to be pure Adamic.

4) Why would anyone want to worship for anything (deity or otherwise) that punishes for 'missing the mark'?

Because some people do outright worship the idea, hold it as a mantra, that only winners should get trophies. This is probably what is most natural to humans. You get credit for doing, not trying.

[TRANSPONDER]

I get exactly what 1213 means. Even though it appears to be falling into the same error as Paul.

If you believe in God/Jesus, you will have a mindset that wants to not sin. And many Christians do indeed seem to have acquired a good nature, either because it was their nature to start with or they acquired it through being Christian. I have come across others who frankly seemed to have acquired a good many sins (pride, arrogance, and a few others) and regarded them as either excused because of their Faith or justified by it.

This is the Trap of Paul. Not the fallacy of saying that Righteousness is Faith in God (Romans 4.3) and then adroitly swaps Faith God to that for Faith in Jesus (so Godfaith is not enough to be Righteous - Romans 5.17). I'm not going to set out the string of non -sequiturs that Paul uses to lead where he wants to go (scrapping the Law), but to point to the problem he runs into. Never mind about being free from the Law (so one can be one of God's people without having to become a Jew - which is what he was always aiming at), but his Hellenistic converts, being free of sin seemed to think they could do what they liked.

Paul, of course, rather than admit that his cunning plan had failed, pleaded with his converts to not make him look bad with their Aunt -swapping parties by appealing to Works;- (1) that is, works will not gain you eternal life, but sinning can lose it for you. Now I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of repentance that discharges into the Ecclesiastial Effluvium of indulgences (forgiveness of sins for cash) nor even to note (sadly) that trying to prop up Faith makes good people act immorally, but to point to the problem of what is Sin and God's Morals. Now, if an apologist were to excuse God's bad actions in the Bible, not by blaming it on men, but biting the Bullet 'God has different moral' (effectively, He can do bad, and it's Good), then it is mere goose - step to doing what he thinks is God's will and that's Good, not Sin, even if those who are interpreting God's wishes though mere human morality see it as sin.

I needn't elaborate. But observe that such behaviour is by no means confined to Christians.

(1) reminder this punctuation ;- is copyrighted.

[Purple Knight]

being free of sin seemed to think they could do what they liked.

I think they can. 1213 sees sin as a mindset and I agree; I see evil as a mindset.

People pick up on this mindset, and the most evil person, doing nothing but actions previously deemed good, will turn those actions evil as he does them. When done by an evil person, the action becomes evil. When done by a good person, the same action is good. Good and evil have nothing to do with actions. If you're good, any action is permitted, and if evil, none is.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #3]

That's like asking why only give trophies to the winners, even though everyone tried. It's right, it's just not fair.

That would be apt only if the winners get a reward and the losers don't. But, by popular christian definition, the losers are punished in hell (some say for eternity).
I don't know of any game played where the losers get punished in hell for eternity, do you?

Many of us aren't human, Biblically speaking; we aren't Adamic man.

While that's debatable (how does god love adamic man vs humans?), the concept still applies: call us what you want, people are imperfect and make mistakes. Is there really a need to punish for an honest mistake? It makes little to no sense to punish for an honest mistake UNLESS the punisher is a terrible, unloving, vengeful, insecure thing.

Because some people do outright worship the idea, hold it as a mantra, that only winners should get trophies.

A good point. I wonder how many of these people won't get their sought after trophy?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #3]

That's like asking why only give trophies to the winners, even though everyone tried. It's right, it's just not fair.

That would be apt only if the winners get a reward and the losers don't. But, by popular christian definition, the losers are punished in hell (some say for eternity).
I don't know of any game played where the losers get punished in hell for eternity, do you?

Not literally but not winning can be pretty brutal torture on its own. Movies like Black Swan explore the figurative Hell of what the drive to achieve success in a sport like ballet dancing produces. I vaguely remember there being more movies about the drive to compete and win in sports, and the Hell of not winning, but I don't generally watch them. I was dragged to Black Swan.

It makes little to no sense to punish for an honest mistake UNLESS the punisher is a terrible, unloving, vengeful, insecure thing.

It depends on what you're going for. Many bosses take a harsher stance against honest mistakes than they do against deliberate sabotage of others because the nasty person can choose not to be nasty, but if you're making mistakes not because of anything you can control but because of genuine deficit of ability, you'll make more and there's nothing anybody can do about it. I have to admit I agree with those bosses, because it's just game theory. I want more efficiency, so I reward the vile person with potential not to make a mistake, and I fire the honest mistake-maker, because the former is redeemable and the latter is trash.

Whether I want to be playing this game is another story. But if I am, I go for the logical choice.

I definitely do blame God for foisting imperfection on us and then punishing us for it, though. I understand that the apple is supposed to explain that but why create people with a desire to disobey? That first mistake was a genuine one. Why create people who'd make it? If they'd already make a mistake then they were already imperfect.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #7]

Not literally but not winning can be pretty brutal torture on its own.

Depends on how one looks at it I suspect. Not winning, in the heaven/hell scenario means hell. Which, I'm told, is supposed to be pretty bad.
If, indeed, it is as modern christianity indicates.

Many bosses take a harsher stance against honest mistakes than they do against deliberate sabotage of others because the nasty person can choose not to be nasty, but if you're making mistakes not because of anything you can control but because of genuine deficit of ability, you'll make more and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

Never, in all my decades, have I had, been or seen such a boss. Never. I call BS on that statement.

I definitely do blame God for foisting imperfection on us and then punishing us for it, though.

As many do.

I understand that the apple is supposed to explain that but why create people with a desire to disobey?

A couple potential reasons:
1) god is inept
2) god is a 'jerk' (can't use the actual word I want here)
3) it's all made up by humanity

[Purple Knight]

Never, in all my decades, have I had, been or seen such a boss. Never. I call BS on that statement.

https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-decide-w ... re-someone
“You know it in your gut sooner than your head can catch up,” she says. To get your brain and intuition on the same page, she recommends reflecting on a series of questions about how this individual will contribute to your organization’s future success. “Imagine your perfect team. Is this person on it?”

Perfect teams don't make mistakes. I can probably find more literature on this.

I understand that the apple is supposed to explain that but why create people with a desire to disobey?

A couple potential reasons:
1) god is inept
2) god is a 'jerk' (can't use the actual word I want here)
3) it's all made up by humanity

I tend to go for 2, that is, if it's not made-up.

That, or we're some kind of castoffs, spiritual by-products of something that it was more important to create.

But if it's 2, we do have to ask, is it morally wrong for God to be a jerk? And okay, God is perfect, so he can't be wrong by definition.

That's fine, but I'm not perfect, so it is wrong for me to be a jerk, so God can't help me be moral. This is why I'm an atheist.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #9]

Perfect teams don't make mistakes.

With people involved there are no perfect teams if perfect means mistake free

“You know it in your gut sooner than your head can catch up,” she says.

I fail to see how this pertains to many bosses that taking more harsh stances against honest mistakes than they do against deliberate sabotage of others. I doubt I ever will see it. But there is water on Mars, so.....

I tend to go for 2, that is, if it's not made-up.

To (ironically?) each their own!

But if it's 2, we do have to ask, is it morally wrong for God to be a jerk?

Or we can ask if macaroni gets larger on the moon. In other words, if god is real, what we ask is pretty much irrelevant and makes little difference to god (assuming, that is, god's 'set in its ways', as it were).

And okay, God is perfect, so he can't be wrong by definition.

Some would say. This is probably why the 'free will' concept was created: as an excuse for god.
We've all seen people support god's decision to drown an entire planet (animals, babies, women in the middle of giving birth, et al) and defend such action without ever meeting anyone part of this equation. So no matter what definitions used or questions asked, god will ALWAYS be excused by its followers.

That's fine, but I'm not perfect, so it is wrong for me to be a jerk, so God can't help me be moral.

If that works for you, great! For me, it's slightly different. And that's OK, too!