NationStates Jolt Archive

In many debates and discussions I've had with people about Christianity, non-Christians have often said something to the effect of "I dont believe in sin" or "Everyone else does bad things, only Christians sin" basicly suggesting that because they do not subscribe to the concept of sin, they do not sin. But if I did not subscribe to the concept of property, would that make it impossible for me to steal something? Or if I did not believe in the concept of murder, yet stabbed someone in the back with a combat knife, would that not be murder because I dont believe in murder? Basicly whether or not you believe in something is irrelevent. By its defintion it is found as to whether or not you have done something or not. Not by your belief in the validity of a defintion.

The difference being that while both of your cited examples are punishable by law, sin is not.

Although sin and what is illegal often overlap, they are two different things. So yes, I can say I don't believe in murder, therefore I cannot commit murder, but I would be wrong, and I would be quickly brought to justice, and people would hear about it etc.

Whereas if I commited a sin, but did not believe it was wrong, I wouldn't find out until I died and either did or did not get punished for it.

That murder is murder can be proven. That sins are sins is more difficult.

Well, sin is a term referring to bad things in a religious sense. The only destinction between a sin and a "bad deed", IMHO, is that calling something a sin inferrs it will bring devine anger/retribution/whatever upon you.

The reasoning of the OP is on par with that of a twelve year old.

Sin is an abstract value judgement. For it to really mean anything to me, I would be required to believe in the religion behind it.

Since I don't, I may well "sin", but it doesn't mean anything to me. And since I don't believe in a god or other concept to punish me for it - I am, so to speak, "immune" from the bad effects of commiting a sin.

The reasoning of the OP is on par with that of a twelve year old.
I don't often agree with you but the comparisons are horrible

Comparing an abstract idea to that of writ law is ... naive at best.

By its defintion it is found as to whether or not you have done something or not. Not by your belief in the validity of a defintion.

What you fail to establish is why the definition you believe in is more valid than the definition anybody else believes in. Christianity isn't the only religion, or the only concept of sin.

In some religions, its a sin to receive a blood transfusion. Do you believe in that? By your own reasoning, you'd have to.

So drive careful...

But property is real.

The reasoning of the OP is on par with that of a twelve year old.

Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

But property is real.

That's an excellent point.

Funny thing, some Christians I know would say that the way Adriatica II is taking issue with the sins of others is, well...sinful.

But property is real.

Tell that to the Israelis and Palestinians. It's a concept of entitlement within our minds, meaning that it is subjective.

Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 18:3 (paraphrased) "Believe me, because if you surrender the diligent skepticism of an adult, you'll believe that you'll receive the reward I want you to believe in"

I don't often agree with you but the comparisons are horrible

Comparing an abstract idea to that of writ law is ... naive at best.

It basicly means that whether you believe something to be true is irrelevent to whether on not you do it. If you dont believe there is such thing as walking does that mean you cant walk?

It basicly means that whether you believe something to be true is irrelevent to whether on not you do it. If you dont believe there is such thing as walking does that mean you cant walk?
Depends if you have any legs.

Matthew 18:3 (paraphrased) "Believe me, because if you surrender the diligent skepticism of an adult, you'll believe that you'll receive the reward I want you to believe in"

A rather bad paraphrase. Have you never heard the expression "Look for the wisdom of old, through the eyes of a child"

It basicly means that whether you believe something to be true is irrelevent to whether on not you do it. If you dont believe there is such thing as walking does that mean you cant walk?

Can you recognize the difference between the collectively understood idea of "walking" and the religiously/culturally nebulous premise of sin?

But property is real.

Property is a concept invented by humans. We enforce it. Sin is a concept of God (IE Rebellio against him)

A rather bad paraphrase. Have you never heard the expression "Look for the wisdom of old, through the eyes of a child"
Yeah, but then everything is confusing and overly colourful.

It basicly means that whether you believe something to be true is irrelevent to whether on not you do it. If you dont believe there is such thing as walking does that mean you cant walk?
OK, here:

"Walking" has a universally agreed and accepted definition and meaning.

"Sin" has several competing definitions and meanings.

Can you not see the difference?

Property is a concept invented by humans. We enforce it. Sin is a concept of God (IE Rebellio against him)
But, but, but humans are real!

A rather bad paraphrase. Have you never heard the expression "Look for the wisdom of old, through the eyes of a child"

Sure, I just don't believe everything I hear.

So, in some religions, its sin to eat meat.

Hope you're a vegetarian, otherwise you're sinning, and by your logic, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not..

Can you recognize the difference between the collectively understood idea of "walking" and the religiously/culturally nebulous premise of sin?

Indeed there is a diffrence, but think like this. If you dont believe in walking and you then get up and put your left leg infront of your right one but paralell to it, and then do the same vice versa and continually, does the fact that you do not belive in walking have any impact on what you are doing. Belief that something is not true does not make it not ture, in the same way that believeing something is true makes it true.

Sure, I just don't believe everything I hear.

So, in some religions, its sin to eat meat.

Hope you're a vegetarian, otherwise you're sinning, and by your logic, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not..

Indeed. But it is that religion that I do not subscribe to. I am sinning, by their belief system. But just because I do not subscribe to their logic, does not mean that I do not sin by their logic. My belief does not eliviate me from their defintion.

Property is a concept invented by humans. We enforce it. Sin is a concept of God (IE Rebellio against him)

This is where your reliance on unproven axiom is most clearly evident.

There are several dozen (or more) religions, with all kinds of ideas about sin.

At most, one of them is right, meaning all the other religions have ideas of sin that were made up by humans.

You fail to establish that your religion isn't one of them, and until you do, your concept of sin is no more valid than anybody else's.

Indeed there is a diffrence, but think like this. If you dont believe in walking and you then get up and put your left leg infront of your right one but paralell to it, and then do the same vice versa and continually, does the fact that you do not belive in walking have any impact on what you are doing.
No, because that is walking, whether you believe in it or not.

Whereas something might be sin, depending on which religion (if any) you follow.

Indeed there is a diffrence, but think like this. If you dont believe in walking and you then get up and put your left leg infront of your right one but paralell to it, and then do the same vice versa and continually, does the fact that you do not belive in walking have any impact on what you are doing. Belief that something is not true does not make it not ture, in the same way that believeing something is true makes it true.

The last clause of your last sentence explains a lot about how you think.

Several people have explained to you why the walking comparison is flawed, yet you stick with it. Don't say "Indeed, there is a difference" if you really don't understand that there is.

Indeed. But it is that religion that I do not subscribe to. I am sinning, by their belief system. But just because I do not subscribe to their logic, does not mean that I do not sin by their logic. My belief does not eliviate me from their defintion.


So, you admit that when you "sin", you sin by THEIR logic. And when we sin in your definition, we sin only by YOUR logic.

So, in the end, your thesis is "People who sin by my defintion are sinning by my definition", which is true but meaningless.

And just so you know, my disbelief most certainly does alleviate me from your definition.

EDIT: I also think that attaching the word "logic" to "sin" is playing a bit loose.

Belief that something is not true does not make it not ture, in the same way that believeing something is true makes it true.

Just trying to clarify - is this what you meant to say?

whatever the arbitrary assumptions, and/or exercizes in mindfulness, of any belief, or abscence of belief, bennifit is still bennifit, and harm is still harm.

=^^=
.../\...

Indeed there is a diffrence, but think like this. If you dont believe in walking and you then get up and put your left leg infront of your right one but paralell to it, and then do the same vice versa and continually, does the fact that you do not belive in walking have any impact on what you are doing. Belief that something is not true does not make it not ture, in the same way that believeing something is true makes it true.

Walking has an concrete definition, if you move by propelling one leg in front of another, you are walking.

The definition of sin is dependant on your definition of god.

Do you eat pork? You're sinning. You see, both Muslims and Jews believe that eating pork is a sin. However, (I'm going to take a wild leaping of faith here and assume you're Christian) your religion doesn't call it a sin.

So if my "religion" is my morality, and my morality says it's not a sin, does that mean that it's not a sin? Or are you a sinner?

Take your pick. It's rather black and white from your side of the fence.

Edit:
on a side note: if believing something is true makes it true, then why is it that no matter how hard I try to believe that you are smart you stay dumb?

whatever the arbitrary assumptions, and/or exercizes in mindfulness, of any belief, or abscence of belief, bennifit is still bennifit, and harm is still harm.

=^^=
.../\...

There are philosophical systems wherein treating an arbitrary assumption as a truth in order to actualize some kind of "benefit" is, in fact, a harm.

In practice, you may find that these "benefits" realized through capricious belief are ultimately eclipsed by the price exacted for willfully allowing any falsehood.

Walking has an concrete definition, if you move by propelling one leg in front of another, you are walking.

The definition of sin is dependant on your definition of god.

"Walking" has a universally agreed and accepted definition and meaning.

"Sin" has several competing definitions and meanings.

No, because that is walking, whether you believe in it or not.

Whereas something might be sin, depending on which religion (if any) you follow.

:p

you have some horrible flaws of logic here. Please learn the difference between "concrete" and "abstract". Property rights are not abstract as they are defined as a concrete concept, and although a human construct, are still understood by all to be the same.

Between you and Blarg, I don't know who copies me the most.

On a side note, the post order in this thread seems to be messed up.

Bah, everybody knows that the universal definition of sin = opposite/hypotenuse :D

Bah, everybody knows that the universal definition of sin = opposite/hypotenuse :D
That joke made me laugh. Is that pathetic?

That joke made me laugh. Is that pathetic?
I had to think for a couple of minutes before I got it...

Bah, everybody knows that the universal definition of sin = opposite/hypotenuse :D
:rolleyes:


;)

That joke made me laugh. Is that pathetic?

Possibly. However, I laughed as well, so I'm just as badly off as you are.

Property is a concept invented by humans. We enforce it. Sin is a concept of God (IE Rebellio against him)

But 'god' is a concept invented by humans too. ;)

Bah, everybody knows that the universal definition of sin = opposite/hypotenuse :D

Hmm...may be something to this. Sin as a cyclical function, involving a lot of ups and downs, and once you've had pi twice, you're back where you started...

Yup. The joke is officially more insightful than the original post...

Hmm...may be something to this. Sin as a cyclical function, involving a lot of ups and downs, and once you've had pi twice, you're back where you started...

Yup. The joke is officially more insightful than the original post...
so is having pi once like a revelation/epiphany, and having pi twice would then be regression?

so is having pi once like a revelation/epiphany, and having pi twice would then be regression?

Sure, why not?

Or maybe having pi once is a sin, but if you have her again, that shows commitment...

Sure, why not?

Or maybe having pi once is a sin, but if you have her again, that shows commitment...
who's this pi and how do I get me a piece? (ha...see? like...piece of...pie? but pi instead of pie? get it? GET IT?!)

who's this pi and how do I get me a piece? (ha...see? like...piece of...pie? but pi instead of pie? get it? GET IT?!)

Don't bother, she's high maintenance. I asked for her number once, and she just went on and on and on...

But, but, but humans are real!
You fucking PWND him.

In many debates and discussions I've had with people about Christianity, non-Christians have often said something to the effect of "I dont believe in sin" or "Everyone else does bad things, only Christians sin" basicly suggesting that because they do not subscribe to the concept of sin, they do not sin. But if I did not subscribe to the concept of property, would that make it impossible for me to steal something? Or if I did not believe in the concept of murder, yet stabbed someone in the back with a combat knife, would that not be murder because I dont believe in murder? Basicly whether or not you believe in something is irrelevent. By its defintion it is found as to whether or not you have done something or not. Not by your belief in the validity of a defintion.
It's not the concept of sin but the concept of God that must be 'subscribed to' in order for sin to apply. Whether or not you believe in that is relevant.

If a person holds there is no god, then by common sense there can be no act which goes against the god, which is the definition of sin.

Just trying to clarify - is this what you meant to say?

Opps, no. It meant to say just as believing something does not make it true.

Opps, no. It meant to say just as believing something does not make it true.
Just like god

What a broken thread.

Do you eat pork? You're sinning. You see, both Muslims and Jews believe that eating pork is a sin. However, (I'm going to take a wild leaping of faith here and assume you're Christian) your religion doesn't call it a sin.

So if my "religion" is my morality, and my morality says it's not a sin, does that mean that it's not a sin? Or are you a sinner?

Take your pick. It's rather black and white from your side of the fence.

Edit:
on a side note: if believing something is true makes it true, then why is it that no matter how hard I try to believe that you are smart you stay dumb?

Indeed. You are correct. I am sinning by the Islamic and Jewish concepts. But the fact remains that since I do not subscribe to their beliefs. Thus it is not important to me. It is equally not important to Non-Christians that they sin, but they cannot accurately say that they have never sinned.

Indeed. You are correct. I am sinning by the Islamic and Jewish concepts. But the fact remains that since I do not subscribe to their beliefs. Thus it is not important to me. It is equally not important to Non-Christians that they sin, but they cannot accurately say that they have never sinned.

When you understand why you don't care that you you're sinning according to the Islamic/Jewish concept, you'll understand why most of us don't care that we're sinning according to your concept.

In my concept, only self-righteous hypocrites impose their notion of sin on the universe, so by your logic, you cannot accurately say that you aren't a self-righteous hyprocrite.

When you understand why you don't care that you you're sinning according to the Islamic/Jewish concept, you'll understand why most of us don't care that we're sinning according to your concept.

In my concept, only self-righteous hypocrites impose their notion of sin on the universe, so by your logic, you cannot accurately say that you aren't a self-righteous hyprocrite.

Well often times the definition of sin Biblically will agree with most people's consciences some of the time, such as murder, lying, stealing, etc, everyone's got to have a sense of right and wrong. And impose is such a tricky definition, does it mean Spanish Inquistion type stuff, or to propose one's ideas in a factual manner when you feel every reason to disagree?

In many debates and discussions I've had with people about Christianity, non-Christians have often said something to the effect of "I dont believe in sin" or "Everyone else does bad things, only Christians sin" basicly suggesting that because they do not subscribe to the concept of sin, they do not sin. But if I did not subscribe to the concept of property, would that make it impossible for me to steal something? Or if I did not believe in the concept of murder, yet stabbed someone in the back with a combat knife, would that not be murder because I dont believe in murder? Basicly whether or not you believe in something is irrelevent. By its defintion it is found as to whether or not you have done something or not. Not by your belief in the validity of a defintion.


I do not believe in sin, because I do not believe in God, prophets, or any aspects of organized religion, really. From what I understand, the definition of "sin" really requires you to be Christian, or at least follow some religion which includes sin.

To clarify, if I shoot someone, I consider it an act I did. Morally, I don't consider this a good thing to do, and I don't believe in moral justification for wrong-doings, so no matter what my reason, I still would consider it wrong, but I would not call it a sin. Any Christian who did not consider it justified would call it a sin.

It's all simply a matter of perspective and your beliefs.

And, if you murder someone, you still murdered them, the definition of murder doesn't require a religion.

Well often times the definition of sin Biblically will agree with most people's consciences some of the time, such as murder, lying, stealing, etc, everyone's got to have a sense of right and wrong. And impose is such a tricky definition, does it mean Spanish Inquistion type stuff, or to propose one's ideas in a factual manner when you feel every reason to disagree?

Good point. In this case, its the poster's use of the word "sin" in a definitive sense for his view, and dismissing that of other's as unimportant.

His whole thesis is that we are sinning, a priori. He applies his definition as axiomatic, and everyone else's as interpretational.

EDIT: Read his last post. It clearly claims that the only way to be "accurate" is to subscribe to his view. I, at least, admit that he is only a self-righteous hypocrite in my view (which, by his logic of "my view is the accurate one", means he is a self-rightous hypocrite and cannot accurately say otherwise).

or to propose one's ideas in a factual manner when you feel every reason to disagree?

Its precisely the presupposition that his "ideas" are "facts" that makes his reasoning specious.