"Sin: The Path to Excellence"

Factfinder

@GnosticChristian

I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I see wisdom in the way ancient scribes wove this idea into their teachings.

I like your take on using sin as a means of benchmarking goals to strive for.

Yes what better way to convince an unsuspecting crowd with limited bronze aged knowledge they are guilty by their own imperfections? Guaranteed to miss the perfect mark of a posited god of some sort during ancient bronze aged times. Thus manipulating the masses to accept their guilt and pay tribute. I agree with you it was wise of those charlatans in a sinister way. "Sin" simply describes our natural behavior and isn't specific to crime as much as it is our existence.

Indeed I would take it a step further and say "sin" was a word contrived specifically for religious purposes and "missing the mark" was a later adaptation of the word by the Greeks. The adaptation made sense as famous scripture says "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of god" Romans 3:23 Which is descriptive of missing the mark.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin

a

: an offense against religious or moral law

b

: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible

it's a sin to waste food

c

: an often serious shortcoming : fault

And...

Word History

The word sin is, unsurprisingly, not one of the newer additions to our vocabulary; it has been in use for well over a thousand years. Our current form of the word comes from the Middle English sinne, which is itself from the Old English syn. The original meanings of sin were largely concerned with religious matters (“a transgression of religious law,” “an offense against God”).

When we compare sin with other short words that are long-standing in our vocabulary (such as set) it is somewhat striking just how little it has changed in meaning, and how few senses, relatively speaking, it has taken on. There are a few ways in which sin has taken on a weakened, or non-ecclesiastical meaning. We have, for instance, been using sin in a transferred sense for several hundred years, as evidenced by the splenetic letter written by John Hall to William Prynne, published in 1649:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/what-is-sin

marke

@Factfinder
God opposes sin because sin is hurtful to humans He loves.

Factfinder

@marke

God opposes sin because sin is hurtful to humans He loves.

God has killed more humans and left them dispersed with nothing more than any combination of humans put together. Grow up. Sins like picking up sticks on the wrong day.

marke

@Factfinder
God has killed more humans

I suppose you may be right in one strange respect.  God has given life to ever human that ever lived and He must be somehow responsible or involved with the deaths of everyone who has ever lived and died.

polytheistwitch

Sin is something that tends to exist in monotheist religions. Pagans didn't look at things as good and evil they tended to look at things as ordered or chaotic. Avoiding chaos tends to make us happier. And you certainly don't want to be responsible for bringing chaos to someone else's life. Mistakes are mistakes and everybody makes those. 

GnosticChristian

Factfinder said:

@GnosticChristian

I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I see wisdom in the way ancient scribes wove this idea into their teachings.

I like your take on using sin as a means of benchmarking goals to strive for.

Yes what better way to convince an unsuspecting crowd with limited bronze aged knowledge they are guilty by their own imperfections? Guaranteed to miss the perfect mark of a posited god of some sort during ancient bronze aged times. Thus manipulating the masses to accept their guilt and pay tribute. I agree with you it was wise of those charlatans in a sinister way. "Sin" simply describes our natural behavior and isn't specific to crime as much as it is our existence.

Indeed I would take it a step further and say "sin" was a word contrived specifically for religious purposes and "missing the mark" was a later adaptation of the word by the Greeks. The adaptation made sense as famous scripture says "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of god" Romans 3:23 Which is descriptive of missing the mark.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin

a

: an offense against religious or moral law

b

: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible

it's a sin to waste food

c

: an often serious shortcoming : fault

And...

Word History

The word sin is, unsurprisingly, not one of the newer additions to our vocabulary; it has been in use for well over a thousand years. Our current form of the word comes from the Middle English sinne, which is itself from the Old English syn. The original meanings of sin were largely concerned with religious matters (“a transgression of religious law,” “an offense against God”).

When we compare sin with other short words that are long-standing in our vocabulary (such as set) it is somewhat striking just how little it has changed in meaning, and how few senses, relatively speaking, it has taken on. There are a few ways in which sin has taken on a weakened, or non-ecclesiastical meaning. We have, for instance, been using sin in a transferred sense for several hundred years, as evidenced by the splenetic letter written by John Hall to William Prynne, published in 1649:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/what-is-sin

Guilty you say. 

Sure, of having a happy fault that keep God's plan on the rails.

Would you do otherwise and not take the shot, the happy fault of sin, and not know if you measure up?

If you are not going to accept the definitions I use, we cannot get to an end game as we will end in debating the meaning of words.

All debaters know this.

On the notion of us hurting a God by the sins we do; how drôle.

"they are guilty by their own imperfections? Think of missing the mark if you are in a race again other runners.

The mark is the distance or time of the leader and all the losers are made better by knowing they have more work to do. 

You see the mark and missing it as evil; forgetting that without it, there is no race.

No Human race either if you try to take competition out of our evolution.

We are close enough to, extinctionning ourselves already. 

Factfinder

@GnosticChristian

If you are not going to accept the definitions I use, we cannot get to an end game as we will end in debating the meaning of words.

All debaters know this.

I didn't think I rejected your definition. If I came across that way then I'm sorry for not articulating as well as I should. Let me be clear now, I see "missing the mark" as a good definition and only wanted to point out the religious context the word "sin" it was invented for, missing the mark on gods supposed glory. By default making us guilty simply because we exist. But turning it around and using it to achieve marks (goals) as you talk about is a great way of seeing it. Setting goals, driving progress, failing then trying to do better, all these things you brought up; I thought that was an insightful take on the whole concept. 

GnosticChristian

marke said:

@Factfinder
God opposes sin because sin is hurtful to humans He loves.

Why then do Christians sing of Adam's sin as being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?

Further, scriptures say we are all born sinners and in the image of God.

Yahweh admits to being a sinner in Job 2,3. 

What is the problem.

The Bible is quite clear that there is no greater sinner than Yahweh.

What Christian would break the first commandment and put a name other than Yahweh as the creator of all goods and evils?   

GnosticChristian

marke said:

@Factfinder
God has killed more humans

I suppose you may be right in one strange respect.  God has given life to ever human that ever lived and He must be somehow responsible or involved with the deaths of everyone who has ever lived and died.

We cannot prove that God killed anyone. To phrase it like it is above makes it an unqualified lie. 

Who do you give credit to for your initial creation and life?

I think only ungrateful children will give that kudos to anyone other than their parents. 

GnosticChristian

polytheistwitch said:

Sin is something that tends to exist in monotheist religions. Pagans didn't look at things as good and evil they tended to look at things as ordered or chaotic. Avoiding chaos tends to make us happier. And you certainly don't want to be responsible for bringing chaos to someone else's life. Mistakes are mistakes and everybody makes those. 

Yes. Hitting the mark of the ordered bull eye, or ending in the chaos. Same thing with different words.

Yes to your last, thank all the Gods.

That is why the overall moral of Eden is A & E graduating from school/childhood and now ready to reproduce.

That is why Jews use the term Original Virtue and Christians praise sin as necessary to God's plan.

I hate to give modern Christianity it's due at any time, but I have to say they got this right, thanks to the Jews.

If only they had not corrupted themselves with supernatural belief.

All religions have some kind of reciprocity rule and sin would be accepted as any breach of that in their definitions. 

Sin as defined is thus basically universally accepted.

In spiritual terms, I would give all I have to be responsible for creating chaos to many lives.

How else to have them miss my mark of excellence and grow spiritually. 

Factfinder

@GnosticChristian

As many times as I've expressed disgust over gods gambling problem in the book of Job in the bible, that one verse (job2:3) never made the impression it did  when you highlighted it. The god of the bible admits to being a sinner. Awesome GnosticChristian. You showed me something today.

GnosticChristian

Factfinder said:

@GnosticChristian

If you are not going to accept the definitions I use, we cannot get to an end game as we will end in debating the meaning of words.

All debaters know this.

I didn't think I rejected your definition. If I came across that way then I'm sorry for not articulating as well as I should. Let me be clear now, I see "missing the mark" as a good definition and only wanted to point out the religious context the word "sin" it was invented for, missing the mark on gods supposed glory. By default making us guilty simply because we exist. But turning it around and using it to achieve marks (goals) as you talk about is a great way of seeing it. Setting goals, driving progress, failing then trying to do better, all these things you brought up; I thought that was an insightful take on the whole concept. 

His supposed glory is miss-applied unless you, the royal you that is, also give glory to Hitler and Stalin.

I do not.

I am a Gnostic Christian. One of the good Christians and that is partially why.

I do tend to be a bit jumpy and I should have taken more time in my reading.

Apologies for my error in understanding.

GnosticChristian

Factfinder said:

@GnosticChristian

As many times as I've expressed disgust over gods gambling problem in the book of Job in the bible, that one verse (job2:3) never made the impression it did not when you highlighted it. The god of the bible admits to being a sinner. Awesome GnosticChristian. You showed me something today.

You should see my real good stuff.
I have been making Christians cringe and run away forever.
I can hardly get then to respond, Moral Cowards, and have had to start spending my time in Gnostic circles.

The Bible is so clear on this. I could quote but do not want to deflect. But. Search out how he puts lies in the mouths of prophets.

On the Bible. Why do you think the church murdered so many for reading the bible in the old days?

They did not want people to know the truth.

Nothing new there.

Factfinder

@GnosticChristian

The Bible is so clear on this. I could quote but do not want to deflect. But. Search out how he puts lies in the mouths of prophets.

On the Bible. Why do you think the church murdered so many for reading the bible in the old days?

Thanks, I intend on researching from these angles. 

MayCaesar

I think that there is something wrong with the general assumption of many ideologies: that humans have intrinsically bad traits that have to be kept in check by acting on their intrinsically good traits. A common example is sex: it is tabooed and vilified in some way by almost every ideology I have encountered, on account of certain destructive expressions of it. Everybody with some experience knows that sex can be a great act of love building strong bonds between people - but because its improper applications are so terribly destructive, it is frowned upon in general. It is as if people considered cars evil because they sometimes lead to deadly accidents.

One of the self-growth topics I currently focus on is acceptance of all parts of me, including those that are to be hidden in so-called civilized circles. If I feel lazy and act on it, it does not make me a bad person - it just makes me a human. Obviously I want to have some practices in place helping me minimize the negative consequences of giving in to my laziness, but the urge to be lazy itself and sometimes surrendering to them is just a normal part of human experience.

I do not see how one can be a whole and confident person while believing that there are unacceptable traits in them. Of course, people ashamed of their nature are very easy to control, so it is no surprise that all totalitarian ideologies have always relied on shaming people...

If you want to have sex for fun with someone you just met, there is nothing wrong with you: humans are reproductive machines, and this desire is natural. Now, you probably should not act on it as soon as you experience this desire: you do have a choice in how to act in most situations. But you certainly should not be ashamed of that desire. Acknowledge it and move on. And, if you are adventurous, try to create a situation in which you can act on it in a non-destructive way.

So yes, be bold, pursue your dreams, take risks and embark on wild adventures. Do not lose your head - think about the consequences of what you do - but do not let that inner voice telling you that you are a terrible human being because of X and Y affect how you see yourself. And certainly do not let any external voices do that.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Gnosto.

@GnosticChristian

Sin is all about repressed old men and penis vagina angst.

If a GODDO made the equipment, it meant it to be used.

Not a test of fecking will power.

marke

@Factfinder

Sin is the path to destruction and death.

marke

@GnosticChristian

The devil lies when he tells rubes that God is a sinner.

marke

@GnosticChristian

God created the universe and life on earth.

Phite

The people's belief in sacrifice was so great that they probably believed there would need to be a sacrifice spell to end all sacrifices. Sacrifice on the brain; hard to get rid of.

It is a fact that those who worship the written word are no more and no less than prisoners of symbols--symbols that form a chain-link fence around the mind. Such ones become willing captives, and once willing, they will not call into question those parts of the fence that are wholly unholy, such as the idea that an evolved being who would desire pain, blood, and suffering in order to forgive lesser beings--lesser beings of its own making to boot! To ones who have not agreed to become a willing captive to symbols, such ideas about an evolved being are spiritually untenable and distasteful. They need to stop and ask themselves what such an idea indicates about what their God ultimately hungers for when angered--when push comes to shove.

It's like this: If God knows the beginning to the end, and the end from the beginning, then yes, he did indeed set both himself and his creation up for failure. Why would an evolved being knowingly and willingly create something it knew would fail due to the deficiencies in its own character? A tree is known by its fruits. If we be the fruits of the god, and we be sinners, too, then what kind of tree does that make the god?

Why would the god go ahead with its creation plan when it knew full well that it would fail, and that its penchant for justice would consume even its mercy? If you want to define blasphemy, why don't you include the belief that a loving, holy being is influenced by anger? And while you're at it, why don't you define narcissism as the belief that you can influence a god--that you are in charge of its moods?

I like to use the analogy of a clay-master. What would you think of a clay-master who stood looking over his creations which he has placed on a table in front of him, and who then decides to smash them under his fist because they weren't pleasing to his eye? Would you conclude that he was unhappy with the level of his talent/abilities? Or, would you conclude that the clay-master's creation's must have betrayed him? It's a no-brainer when you don't allow mindless faith to short circuit your thinking.

And then you have the notion of a ransom needing to be paid in order to redeem all of the future, flawed creations of this clay-master. So the god reaches up to the top shelf in his shop and pulls down a figurine that he is pleased with--one that doesn't have any flaws which he deems perfect--and he tears it apart, and then claims that doing so will allow him to overlook the flaws in the rest of his creations. Then he informs all the the other creations that the perfect figurine was torn apart to save them from being torn apart, and that they should therefore believe in this figurine, and that those who fail to do so will suffer an even worse fate than his favorite figurine which he has just subjected to public destruction.

Even more untenable is that this clay-master has even mandated that all of his creations--both present and future ones--will love him with all their heart, mind, and soul. But the question immediately comes to mind: can you love what you fear, and fear what you love? The answer, of course, is no.

And ransoms are the tools of terrorists. But you already know that . . .

Factfinder

@marke

God created the universe and life on earth.

And how exactly, explain in detail how Zeus accomplished those feats? And was this before or after Santa got stuck in a fireplace?

GnosticChristian

marke said:

@Factfinder

Sin is the path to destruction and death.

So is life if you think of it.

How is missing a mark a path to destruction?

If one competes and missing, eventually he will hit the mark or know he is wrong by the consequences.

You opined without an argument.

Do you have one to show how your view works and why missing a mark means death?  

GnosticChristian

marke said:

@GnosticChristian

The devil lies when he tells rubes that God is a sinner.

For starters, Satan is female. Women are the source of all evil. They are who men compete for.

Check the Michelangelo painting in the Vatican collection.  Satan has great boobs and is obviously and logically a female. 

If you read Job2,3 , you will hear God admitting that Satan moved him to do evil without a just cause.

Yahweh is the god of good and evil. He is to be the greatest good and the greatest evil.

If not, whose name would you put above his and break the first commandment.

GnosticChristian

marke said:

@GnosticChristian

God created the universe and life on earth.

Ungrateful cad.
You credit God for the hard work of spawning an ungrateful child like you,, who will not give his parents the credit due for creating your ungrateful .

There is a small bug that only attacks human eyes.

Why did you God create those specifically for us?

Why did God create Hitler and Stalin and a genocidal, Armageddon bringing Jesus?

marke

@Factfinder
You have no clue how nothing created billions of planets across billions of miles of space and you want me to explain to you how God did it?  I cannot.

marke

@GnosticChristian
I do not understand what you are trying to say about life after death.

marke

@GnosticChristian
Ifyou are relying on ungodly men to teach you about God you are destined to remain ignorant.

marke

@GnosticChristian
You can read the Bible or you can remain in the dark about God.

Factfinder

marke said:

@Factfinder
You have no clue how nothing created billions of planets across billions of miles of space and you want me to explain to you how God did it?  I cannot.

Then how do you know ZEUS did it? Blind elf god faith?

MayCaesar

marke said:

@Factfinder
You have no clue how nothing created billions of planets across billions of miles of space and you want me to explain to you how God did it?  I cannot.

We have a pretty good idea and can even run computer simulations from first principles that largely reproduce the structure of the Universe we observe today.

What computer simulations cannot reproduce is the "divine hand". Computers are not as excitable as humans and tend to stick to facts.

marke

@MayCaesar
Fossils are proof the Bible is true but simulations, speculations, assumptions, conclusions and the like do not prove the universe was created by nobody from nothing.

GnosticChristian

marke said:

@GnosticChristian
I do not understand what you are trying to say about life after death.

The bottom line is that no one has ever returned from death to educate us.

I did an O.P. on this issue. Please critique it. 

Should all things be disclosed of the after life and God?

Suicide is shooting up due to lack of security in the self in our young. I do not see lies about Gods and an afterlife as helpful.

If I knew that the after life was better, and was believed, many more would choose death over life.

If I knew that the after life was worse, and was believed, many lives would be ruined due to worry about their pending after life.

My disclosure would cause a lot of death and misery in both camps.

Seems like the best end for the greater number of people would be to keep it all unknown and kill, as Buddha suggested, anyone who has a provable claim of some God or afterlife.

Like God, the afterlife is best kept in the mystery and secret file.

We collectively should not want to know, and not telling anyone the truth, in these cases, may be the right thing to do.

Life is too precious to waste thinking of death and some unverifiable and unknowable mysterious God and afterlife.

GnosticChristian

marke said:

@GnosticChristian
You can read the Bible or you can remain in the dark about God.

I am not in the dark. 

What do you know that I do not of the un-knowable?

MayCaesar

marke said:

@MayCaesar
Fossils are proof the Bible is true but simulations, speculations, assumptions, conclusions and the like do not prove the universe was created by nobody from nothing.

But if you do not understand the basics of related science, then what business do you have making claims like this? We already established that you do not know anything about how radiometric dating works. What do you know something about that is relevant?

marke

@polytheistwitch

Democrats who believe the democrat party and its officers cannot possibly commit sins are deluded.

Factfinder

@marke

Fossils are proof the Bible is true but simulations, speculations, assumptions, conclusions and the like do not prove the universe was created by nobody from nothing.

Fossils are proof evolution is true, and you have no idea what you're talking about in science or scripture, you're clueless. I understand you insecure types need a sky daddy elf god but I just don't believe in fairytales. That doesn't offend your blind belief in them does it?

marke

@Factfinder
Fossils are proof evolution is true,

Fossils are proof that massive land animals were buried quickly and completely by floodwater sediments before they could decay.  Slow sedimentation by shallow seas would not have done the trick.

Factfinder

@marke

Fossils are proof evolution is true, and you have no idea what you're talking about in science or scripture, you're clueless. I understand you insecure types need a sky daddy elf god but I just don't believe in fairytales. That doesn't offend your blind belief in them does it?

marke

@Factfinder

Fossils are proof evolution is true,

Fully preserved mammoth fossils with green herbs still in their mouths in frozen tundra of the north pole is not proof of slow sedimantation of shallow sea depositions.

Factfinder

@marke

Fossils are proof evolution is true, and you have no idea what you're talking about in science or scripture, you're clueless. I understand you insecure types need a sky daddy elf god but I just don't believe in fairytales. That doesn't offend your blind belief in them does it?

MayCaesar

Is it not interesting how our friend cites one study (that is not even apparently published anywhere: all of my attempts to find a paper that claims that the "bones are less than 50,000 years old" have failed, and the guy did not link one either), but ignores gazillions of studies that convincingly show that certain mineral deposits are hundreds of millions of years old?

That is the garbage you have to do when you want to maintain your belief in light of contradicting evidence: you pick the 0.001% of pieces of information that seem to align with your belief (and, upon closer examination, they do not) and attribute the remaining 99.999% to some grand conspiracy theory. And somehow the conspiracy theory does not prevent you from referring to the results of the alleged conspirators when you can twist them to agree with your beliefs. Like the Lying One around here cites one passage from a cosmologist and claims that that passage proves that god exists, but when the same cosmologist directly says that it does not prove such a thing, that is dismissed as dishonest.

Truly amazing. How are these chronic liars - liars to themselves! - not ashamed of looking in the mirror every morning?

marke

@Factfinder

Fully preserved frozen mammoths with dozens of various varieties of tropical vegetation still in their mouths and undigested in their stomachs in Siberia cannot be explained by shallow seas and slow deposition rates.

marke

@Factfinder

Frozen mammoths in Siberia with tropical vegetation in their mouths and stomachs testify of a massive flooding and rapidly plunging temperature event, not slow shallow sea sedimentation.

marke

@MayCaesar

What is interesting is the failure to test and prove dinosaur bones contain no remaining C-14 as secularists insist must be true.

Factfinder

marke said:

@Factfinder

Frozen mammoths in Siberia with tropical vegetation in their mouths and stomachs testify of a massive flooding and rapidly plunging temperature event, not slow shallow sea sedimentation.

So your point is your fairytale elf god exists because in kindergarten grandma told you so? Fossils are proof evolution is true, and you have no idea what you're talking about in science or scripture, you're clueless. I understand you insecure types need a sky daddy elf god but I just don't believe in fairytales. That doesn't offend your blind belief in them does it?

marke

@Factfinder

Fossils are proof of rapid massive flooding causing a major mass extinction event.

MayCaesar

@marke

That is not people who understand physics insist must be true. Which "secularists" are you referring to? Perhaps, the imaginary ones that your creationist influencers claim are partaking in some grand conspiracy?

I applaud the consequence with which you spout utter nonsense based on complete lack of understanding of the subject material, but that only has any effect in religion. In science you do not prove anything other than being ignorant - which does not surprise anyone: we have come to expect overly religious people to be so.

Factfinder

marke said:

@Factfinder

Fossils are proof of rapid massive flooding causing a major mass extinction event.

Fossils are proof evolution is true, and you have no idea what you're talking about in science or scripture, you're clueless. I understand you insecure types need a sky daddy elf god but I just don't believe in fairytales. That doesn't offend your blind belief in them does it?

marke

@Factfinder

What fossils prove whales evolved into some other creature or that rats evolved into some other creature?  Even Darwin admitted the fossil record is missing millions of missing link fossils that should be there if evolution is true.

MayCaesar

This guy still refers to Darwin's claims from two centuries ago as the most up-to-date scientific findings... Which is a significant progress, to be fair, compared to a two millennia-old fantasy story.