The capability to sin

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

The capability to sin

Post #1

Post by Willum »

Are there any other applications of freewill other then to sin?
Without freewill, we would be living God’s will.

Making freewill a very dubious gift indeed.

So, in God granting freewill, was there any other opportunity or benefit to it, other then the capability and eventuality of sin?

If you could choose to live in God’s will, without freewill, would you?

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: The capability to sin

Post #61

Post by theophile »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:12 am
theophile wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:31 am
Willum wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:15 am Yes everyone, freewill is also the ability to do good.

But it doesn't exclude sin.

The problem is doing good is unrewarded, but sinning ONCE, according to the myth, sent the entire human race on a trajectory to Hell.
So, now that I have reiterated that dead horse, that should allow better comments and insight, I hope.
That is incorrect. Sin and doing good both follow the same extraordinary logic. See Romans 5 where Paul explains this. Verses 18-19 where it gets encapsulated:

"Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

You are misusing the concept of original sin.
What is the concept of original sin and how should it be used?
That feels like a whole other topic, frankly. But I find it helpful to look at it this way:

Let's say you have a basket of apples. They look okay but when you take a bite of one you find it is rotten on the inside. This original bite casts all the other apples in doubt. That's how original sin works: the sin of one casts all as sinners.

But the reverse is also true, as Paul says here. Let's say you bravely take a bite of another apple, and find it good. This justifies the remainder and casts them as good.

Nothing more to it, I don't think. But open to other ideas to explain Paul's words.

Addition: Consider Abraham's intervention at Sodom as an example. I'm pretty sure if he pushed God on whether the presence of just one good person in Sodom would justify the rest, God would have said yes, and spared them all should that one have been found. That's the kind of extraordinary logic that the concept of original sin (to which we should add original righteousness) is meant to express.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: The capability to sin

Post #62

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to theophile in post #61]

So you find one bad apple, then a good apple. Then what?
In other words, how much biting do you need to do to determine if all is good or bad? Or is that even necessary? If not, why not?
Original sin (A&E sinning thus all of humanity is sinners) is taught in many churches. Are we to say this 'original sin teaching' is wrong or correct?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: The capability to sin

Post #63

Post by theophile »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:54 am [Replying to theophile in post #61]

So you find one bad apple, then a good apple. Then what?
In other words, how much biting do you need to do to determine if all is good or bad? Or is that even necessary? If not, why not?
Original sin (A&E sinning thus all of humanity is sinners) is taught in many churches. Are we to say this 'original sin teaching' is wrong or correct?
To be clear, my point is that it's more a psychological effect than an actual change in who or what we are.

If Abraham found one good person in Sodom, that wouldn't all of a sudden make all the other Sodomites good. Rather, it would change the impression in Abraham's and God's mind towards them. And consequently, result in their salvation. (Since preserving that one is worth preserving the rest.)

So to answer your question, keep on biting until you find a good one. Otherwise you will eventually reach the end and know the whole batch is bad and can be put in the fire.

(As for various church teachings, I can only speak generally. (1) They may teach original sin but they don't teach the flip side of the coin, original righteousness, as Paul stresses in Romans 5. This was essentially Willum's misuse of the concept -- he left out the flip side to make a point. And (2), they tend to overdo the result. i.e., instead of teaching it as a psychological effect, they make it out to be an actual change in who or what we are.)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The capability to sin

Post #64

Post by William »

[Replying to theophile in post #59]
That is incorrect. Sin and doing good both follow the same extraordinary logic. See Romans 5 where Paul explains this. Verses 18-19 where it gets encapsulated:

"Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

You are misusing the concept of original sin.
On the subject of robots doing good works through being programmed to do so, it can be said that the programmer is the one responsible for the good works of the robots.

The same would apply the other way around.

Post#55 makes the claim that animals engage with acts of evil....I do not see this as being the case.

It is unclear to me that if we follow preset routines / rules with predetermined outcomes, why you would suggest that any good done by such a programmed being would be "coincidence and nothing more", and "insufficient to achieve any sort of ultimate good."

What is this supposed "ultimate state of good"?

You wrote;
I would say that while the system we are in has rules that govern it (e.g., laws of motion), it also has an element of chaos and unpredictability, which therefore necessitates freewill if we want to bring it to an ultimate state of good.
What if in fact both this supposed "element of chaos and unpredictability" and the "knowledge of good and evil" were simply misinterpreted information about ourselves and the environment we currently exist within?

This would not change what Paul had to say about sin and righteousness other than in the way we look at things.

One story [the garden] was created which tried to "explain" our human predicament, and further on, another story was created in order to change the way in which we had been lead to believe in the "explanation" of our human predicament.

In that, there was no 'sin' by one human [Adam] against any God, which condemned all humans, in the first place and that is why it is equally easy to 'forgive humanity' through the act of one man's 'non-sin', that the story might have the effect of changing the path of humanity from one based in the destructive wretchedness guilt induces, to a more productive path which forgiveness induces.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: The capability to sin

Post #65

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:59 pm [Replying to Miles in post #51]
Why couldn't we do good even if we lack free will?
The question you asked is still based in morality.

If we lacked will, we would not be a part of the life that exerts its will into the environment.

Since we are part of that life, our will is defined through the experience, just as our morals are.

How can we 'do good' if we don't know what 'doing good' means?
So you believe that we need evil in the world before we can have good? You do know, don't you, that in the beginning god had no intention of evil or any of its affiliated concepts being any part of human existence. That he intended A&E to live without sin, evil, wrong, badness, suffering, etc. etc.. That all would live in "absolute goodness" whether we recognized it or not.

How can we know what 'doing good' means, if we do not have will?
Like all concepts, it's imparted to us through deterministic processes.

The robot argument falls to this idea, because to be a programmed thing, one can be programmed to do good things, but one is not aware one is doing good and thus has no will to do anything differently 'just because'.
Programmed implies a programmer, which is not the case with determinism. "Fated" is a far better term, so I can 't go along with any comparison to a robot.

.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The capability to sin

Post #66

Post by Willum »

You know, I disagree.

We have all been making a poor assumption that robots, or anything, programmed or otherwise made a default to do good, isn’t really good.

This is wrong, a robot programmed to do good, is a good robot. It is poor reasoning to say otherwise.

We are, after all not programmed to fly, and so we could have been programmed to have freewill, but not to sin.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The capability to sin

Post #67

Post by William »

[Replying to Miles in post #65]
Why couldn't we do good even if we lack free will?
The question you asked is still based in morality.
If we lacked will, we would not be a part of the life that exerts its will into the environment.

Since we are part of that life, our will is defined through the experience, just as our morals are.

How can we 'do good' if we don't know what 'doing good' means?
So you believe that we need evil in the world before we can have good?
No. What I think is that there is no such thing as either 'good' or 'evil' except in what beliefs dictate to the contrary.
Beliefs are simply the misrepresentation of reality.
You do know, don't you, that in the beginning god had no intention of evil or any of its affiliated concepts being any part of human existence.
I neither know that, nor believe it. I simply view it as a story which may have its origins as completely benign, and only became problematic as the Children hearing the story, believed the story to be true.

The Creator had no intentions which were based upon ideas of 'good' or 'evil'. That is simply a story.
That he intended A&E to live without sin, evil, wrong, badness, suffering, etc. etc.. That all would live in "absolute goodness" whether we recognized it or not.
Wherein is this "sin, evil, wrong, badness" to be identified within the reality? Why have you placed "suffering" under that category?

The stories that Children believe to be true are simply ignorant attempts by the Parents to 'explain' the Childs predicament within the reality experience.

And 'how else' can we explain suffering without adding into the equation that we 'must have done something to deserve it' - thus myths are borne on the winds of the stories themselves.

It is the suffering which bears witness to this, and is seen to be - not just the result of 'evil' but 'evil' itself...which is why some can so easily proclaim that 'animals can be evil'...another way of saying that nature Herself is 'evil'.

Ironically, the knowledge of good and evil both helped and hindered.
viewtopic.php?p=1076182#p1076182

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: The capability to sin

Post #68

Post by theophile »

William wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 1:57 pm On the subject of robots doing good works through being programmed to do so, it can be said that the programmer is the one responsible for the good works of the robots.
Sure, but that still has freewill at bottom, right? i.e., the programmer's? In that scenario the robot is just an extension of the true moral being. A tool they use to effect the good.
William wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 1:57 pm It is unclear to me that if we follow preset routines / rules with predetermined outcomes, why you would suggest that any good done by such a programmed being would be "coincidence and nothing more", and "insufficient to achieve any sort of ultimate good."
I thought I had a whole post on that :)

Again, the system and path to good needs to be taken into account here. If perfect obedience of rules (biblical law for example) can execute that path, then robots are sufficient. However, if there is any chaos or indeterminacy in that system / path, then the execution of rules / routines will ultimately fail to deliver. And any good they do will be, as I said, coincidental. Unless the programmer keeps programming new rules / routines, that is :)
William wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 1:57 pm What is this supposed "ultimate state of good"?
There is no absolute answer, and it's probably a conversation we've had before. But to summarize, it's a world filled with life / where every kind of life can flourish and be. At least, that is what I would argue is God's ultimate state of good (and for anyone who is truly in the God camp). It is the continuation and culmination of God's benedictions in Genesis 1, and what we at last see transpiring at the end of Revelation.

To the previous point, I think that such a system (one filled with lifeforms of various kinds) skews chaotic. And the path to such an end is not something that can be achieved through perfect execution of preset rules. (To go back to the bible, the law is not the answer...)
You wrote;
I would say that while the system we are in has rules that govern it (e.g., laws of motion), it also has an element of chaos and unpredictability, which therefore necessitates freewill if we want to bring it to an ultimate state of good.
What if in fact both this supposed "element of chaos and unpredictability" and the "knowledge of good and evil" were simply misinterpreted information about ourselves and the environment we currently exist within?

This would not change what Paul had to say about sin and righteousness other than in the way we look at things.

One story [the garden] was created which tried to "explain" our human predicament, and further on, another story was created in order to change the way in which we had been lead to believe in the "explanation" of our human predicament.

In that, there was no 'sin' by one human [Adam] against any God, which condemned all humans, in the first place and that is why it is equally easy to 'forgive humanity' through the act of one man's 'non-sin', that the story might have the effect of changing the path of humanity from one based in the destructive wretchedness guilt induces, to a more productive path which forgiveness induces.
Maybe? Paul doesn't nullify Adam's original sin though or its effect so not sure it's an attempt to change the narrative...

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: The capability to sin

Post #69

Post by Miles »

bjs1 wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 11:39 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:22 pm
bjs1 wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:38 pm The “good” is the ability to do good. Without free will we can never do anything good.
This suggests that without free will everything we did would be bad. EVERYTHING! No good whatsoever.
Not at all. I stated that without free will nothing we do would be bad or good. No good whatsoever, but also no bad whatsoever. No credit and no blame.
Not in that post did you say such a thing.


The remainder of this post has me thoroughly confused. First you agreed with the concept that we could not do good without free will
Where? Please quote me with a source.

and even restated that same idea in your own words. You wrote:
Miles wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:22 pm
A stone can be used to build a hospital and it can be used to bash a man’s head in. The stone is has done nothing right or wrong in either case.
BINGO! Although the stone (person) should never be credited or blamed. Sounds about right to me.
Not the same idea at all.

Saying "Although the stone (person) should never be credited or blamed. Sounds about right to me." does not imply "we could not do good without free will."

But then you asked:
Miles wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:22 pm
If you don’t care about doing what is good then that’s fine. However, if morality matters then free will is a necessity.
But WHY? You keep making the claim but refusing to explain the why of it. Why couldn't we do good even if we lack free will?
You asked "WHY" after you agreed with and restated the "why." Please explain your meaning.
My error in thinking you meant we would only do "bad" if we lacked free will. Free will does indeed matter if morality is to have any meaning; however, recognizing that our universe is completely deterministic, distinguishing between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, making moral judgements, becomes a silly exercise. Good and bad events simply arise because they had to. I's like praising or blaming a rock for where it lies. In the deterministic universe in which we exist morality is a hollow concept. Not that good and bad things don't happen, but that it's ridiculous to assign praise or blame, the crux of morality.


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The capability to sin

Post #70

Post by William »

What if in fact both this supposed "element of chaos and unpredictability" and the "knowledge of good and evil" were simply misinterpreted information about ourselves and the environment we currently exist within?

This would not change what Paul had to say about sin and righteousness other than in the way we look at things.

One story [the garden] was created which tried to "explain" our human predicament, and further on, another story was created in order to change the way in which we had been lead to believe in the "explanation" of our human predicament.

In that, there was no 'sin' by one human [Adam] against any God, which condemned all humans, in the first place and that is why it is equally easy to 'forgive humanity' through the act of one man's 'non-sin', that the story might have the effect of changing the path of humanity from one based in the destructive wretchedness guilt induces, to a more productive path which forgiveness induces.
[Replying to theophile in post #68]
Maybe? Paul doesn't nullify Adam's original sin though or its effect so not sure it's an attempt to change the narrative...
I am not suggesting that Paul [or any other biblical author] were aware that the story of "one mans sin condemning all men" was simply made up to 'explain' the human situation.

I was suggesting that the antidote offered which cancelled out the sin, was to remedy the misconception - in that there was no God-creator judging 'His' Children in the first place because that was just a story made up, and made up based upon misconception.

Jesus became the manner in which the misconception could be addressed. No one follower need have understood it in that manner, in order for it to do its job.

viewtopic.php?p=1076182#p1076182

Post Reply