The idea of "sin" is wrong.

[playhavock]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

[bluethread]

So, you believe voluntary artificial insemination is rape? I guess that follows the trend. The life of the child is in the mind of the mother.

Heh? How is immaculate conception voluntary insemination? Do you know what coveting another man's wife means? I see a lot of hypocrisy in this god.

I am sure you do. That is because you do not know the Scriptures. (Lk. 1:38) "And Mary said, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word'. And the angel departed from her." There is also no record of sex. Therefore, this is voluntary insemination. In fact, you do not even seem to be aware of RCC dogma. The "immaculate conception" does not refer to the conception of Yeshua(Jesus), but the conception of Miriam(Mary).

Ahh, but I do know your scriptures, and none of them were written by anyone else but man.
Immaculate conception is older than Christianity, the idea has been used and re-used over & over.

If god told your 14 yr old daughter/wife that he needs to impregnate her, would you be so accepting?

This is just another wild fantastic delusion written into an equally wild and fantastic fiction.

Be rational for god's sake

Ahh, but that was not your point. It appears that you were refering to the birth of Yeshua as the result of the "Immaculate Conception" and a rape. This is incorrect on two counts. The "Immaculate Conception" is RCC dogma resulting in the biirth of Miriam, not Yeshua, and the passage I quoted shows that the conception of Yeshua was agreed to by Miriam. You may not accept the accounts of the Apostles. However, that does not justify your misstatement of RCC dogma or the nature of Yeshua's conception. If you have any support for your claim of Yeshua being the product of rape, bring it forward. Otherwise, please stick to things regarding the OP that you can support.

Be accurate for your own sake.

[Serpent Oracle]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

I may stick my oar in here as well.

Objectively speaking morality is relative not absolute.
The moral obligations (like stoning Harlots and persecuting Gays) espoused by many Churches Mosques and other abrahamic temples upon this planet today are ultimately merely the codified summaries of bronze age Semite cultural social attitudes/contracts in the pre Roman Levant.
Some of these 'moral obligations' of course are somewhat out of date and positively offensive by today's secular standards.
Some are quite reasonable...such as a moral obligation not to kill people.
However you don't need a Bible to tell people that...any half arsed religion could make up any old set of moral codes that could be reasonably followed.

To control people and maintain order, to conserve a culture and to put religious authority at the epicentre of that culture, that is the only purpose of religious law...what better stick than Hell and what better Carrot than Heaven?

Threats and rewards that are equally imaginary.

The only 'sin' in my eyes is a failure to learn from error.
Something I am not immune to...

As for morality I let my concience guide me, and my distaste for incarceration.

[Malachi_Smith]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

Your definition of sin is the most commonly accepted, but is incorrect.
Sin is simply the condition of being incomplete. The theme of the Bible is:
"Wake up and grow up." We should help each other grow, rather than
criticize and condemn.

[Untraveled Trail]

To a point I would agree that sin is about being incomplete but I think it is broader and deeper that that. (I recognize that you kept your comment brief so my comment is not meant to be taken as a negative statement.) I think at a deeper level sin is about a disruption, stressed, or fractured relationship. Our actions or words, or in some cases our failure to speak or act, cause a strain in a relationship. From a theological perspective, relationships are sacred because human beings, being created in the image of God, have sacred worth. When our words or actions deny or are in conflict with another's sacred worth, we have sinned not only against them but against God.

With such a definition, most of us probably "sin" daily... we're human and our relationships are effected by the fact that we are finite beings. Evangelical Christianity's exaggerated focus on sin as actions damnable, needing repentance and salvation from God (alone) has probably done more harm than good in understanding the significance of mutual human dignity, love, and respect. If one says or does something that causes a problem with a spouse or co-worker, the comment or action need not be damnable but the relationship suffers nonetheless and is in need of reconciliation. Restoring oneself to wholeness (right relationship with others and God) demands mending (as we are able) the relationship with the other person. The idea that one can be reconciled with God while their human relationships are fraught with chaos and turmoil is missing the significance of sin's effect upon us. As 1 John recorded if one does not love his brother/friend whom he/she has seen, he/she cannot love God whom he/she has not seen. According to the Christian scriptures, our relationships with others directly affect our relationship with God.

If we accept that all human beings are created in the image of God and realize that our understanding of God is incomplete without recognizing and honoring that in others. The implications for this should have a profound impact upon how we treat others and for those who consider themselves people of faith, the relationship with the Eternal One is greatly affected by how we treat the ones created in that image.

[Untraveled Trail]

Oops... I'm still getting used to the functions on this forum and accidentally posted the same lengthy post twice... so I deleted the second.

My apologies.

An obvious sign of my fallen, sinful nature.

[thepandemicson]

I'm seeing a lot of interesting concepts here regarding sin and the nature of it. Being an agnostic has led me personally to some serious questions about the nature of God and Man (or Woman, depending on however you prefer viewing it.).

I consider the human species to be a product of evolution, but also the product of an intelligent plan. As such, though we may appear to be strictly biological, I still feel that there is a spiritual nature to us that extends beyond simple instinct and animal impulses.

I view sin not as the violation of tenets from a book, but as a darkening of one's soul, or self if you prefer something less religious-sounding. There are some very key ideas about morality, and what is right versus what is wrong. Currently, we live in a world where much of that is determined by authority and/or religion. I think the true nature of determining a concept such as morality lies in intention.

Is it wrong to steal? This is one of the lesser 'sins'. The question is, what was the degree of need? Was this for fun? For greed? For survival?

Is it wrong to kill someone? This is an act that will forever change a person, regardless of the intention. Was it in self-defense? Was it indiscriminate and simply necessary? Was it an act of rage, or passion? Was it an act of desperation or concern for others? Was it something enjoyable, an act of malice?

We consider these wrong by society's standards, and we punish transgressors accordingly to the best of our judgement, occasionally showing a modicum of leniency in the most trying of circumstances. If these laws were stripped, if it was something that we wouldn't have to answer for to any government or institution, could we still consider it wrong?

I feel that bringing harm to others (in any way) is a notion that has too many factors to simply fit into an easy spectrum of black and white. Is it wrong, or is it right? I think the true determination of the measure of sin here is the intention of the act. If one is acting out of desperation or selflessness, that one may be forgiven in part by whatever powers that be, assuming that he or she can forgive themselves. If the intention is selfish in nature, if that person(s) holds no ounce of regret for their actions, or if they took enjoyment from it, then I think that is when they open themselves up to the concept of evil and sin.

[Untraveled Trail]

I feel that bringing harm to others (in any way) is a notion that has too many factors to simply fit into an easy spectrum of black and white. Is it wrong, or is it right? I think the true determination of the measure of sin here is the intention of the act. If one is acting out of desperation or selflessness, that one may be forgiven in part by whatever powers that be, assuming that he or she can forgive themselves. If the intention is selfish in nature, if that person(s) holds no ounce of regret for their actions, or if they took enjoyment from it, then I think that is when they open themselves up to the concept of evil and sin.

I am substantially in agreement with what you have put forth.

I agree that intention plays a significant role in determining or understanding sin but I would go as far as to say there are occasions when a person acts (or may fail to act) with good intentions but what they do still causes a strain in the relationship. At its core, I believe sin is relational. I do not hold any belief that such acts are "damnable" but one ought to seek to repair or mend the relationship nonetheless.

[pmprcv]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

That you are imperfect and commit negative acts all the time is true whether you believe in God or not. The difference is, at least in christianity we have an all-loving and merciful God who can absolutely forgive our sins, whereas without God, you have to bear your imperfection and your failures on your own.

[thepandemicson]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

That you are imperfect and commit negative acts all the time is true whether you believe in God or not. The difference is, at least in christianity we have an all-loving and merciful God who can absolutely forgive our sins, whereas without God, you have to bear your imperfection and your failures on your own.

I disagree with the negative acts part. I understand there may be some teachings that preach this, but I've seen acts of wonder, mercy and grace put forth from people, both religious and non-religious. Not every act is an act of selfishness or negativity. Not every act is an act of self-interest.

Likewise, in contrast to the last sentence, I've also seen people who have managed to come to peace and forgive themselves without having to look to a deific icon, and people who prayed and prayed, but never quite found absolution for their guilty consciences.

I feel that bringing harm to others (in any way) is a notion that has too many factors to simply fit into an easy spectrum of black and white. Is it wrong, or is it right? I think the true determination of the measure of sin here is the intention of the act. If one is acting out of desperation or selflessness, that one may be forgiven in part by whatever powers that be, assuming that he or she can forgive themselves. If the intention is selfish in nature, if that person(s) holds no ounce of regret for their actions, or if they took enjoyment from it, then I think that is when they open themselves up to the concept of evil and sin.

I am substantially in agreement with what you have put forth.

I agree that intention plays a significant role in determining or understanding sin but I would go as far as to say there are occasions when a person acts (or may fail to act) with good intentions but what they do still causes a strain in the relationship. At its core, I believe sin is relational. I do not hold any belief that such acts are "damnable" but one ought to seek to repair or mend the relationship nonetheless.

Is this to say that you believe the interpretation of sin is based on how others view you for it? My thoughts were that sins and wrongdoings were non-subjective to the opinions of outside parties, but only to the one who is acting. I feel that a person would inherently know when they were acting out of selfishness, but the level of his or her moral character (and I believe both nature and nurture do affect this) would determine whether he or she chose to acknowledge when an action is wrong, and whether or not they would continue to go through with it. More bluntly, the placement of one's own self-interest before the well-being of others, and when a specific evident action would or wouldn't be appropriate.[/quote]

[pmprcv]

I disagree with the negative acts part. I understand there may be some teachings that preach this, but I've seen acts of wonder, mercy and grace put forth from people, both religious and non-religious. Not every act is an act of selfishness or negativity. Not every act is an act of self-interest.

I agree. But this doesn't contradict what I said. The fact that we are able to do good doesn't invalidate the fact that we also do bad. It's an observable fact. And because we do bad, we are flawed, imperfect.

Likewise, in contrast to the last sentence, I've also seen people who have managed to come to peace and forgive themselves without having to look to a deific icon, and people who prayed and prayed, but never quite found absolution for their guilty consciences.

And again that doesn't at all change what I've said. My argument was that "sin" exists on either the theist or atheist view as imperfections of the human being. The theist - at least the christian - has an all-loving all-forgiving God, who can absolve you if you truly regret and have the purpose to never do that sin again and the humility to beg mercy of our God. An atheist must resolve the issue by himself.