the nature of sin

[Drich]

Me: I was using the dialectal differences in the pronunciation of the word tomato to describe the difference between sin and your word morality. as they mean the same thing, just held to a different standard.

And I was extending that analogy to reflect the fact that I don't believe in the concept regardless of the accent one pronounces it with.

And i was demonstrating your morality your right and wrong is another pronunciation for sin. then i gave a list of thing which would be considered immoral by all western standards. then i attacked or challenged 'holy subjects like lgbt people being not geneticially dispositioned but simply mentally ill to illustrate morality's version of blaspheme.

Different words same meaning is the point.

I know you believe in some sort of morality even if you like to pretend sin is not real. i am demonstrating you hold the same value to morality as i do to sin which makes that value system whatever defines it or want to call it the same.

me: see point made you do understand what sin is

Yah, it's nonexistant.

despite you feigning ignorance

Stating that something does not exist is hardly feigning ignorance.

(Which btw is your version of acting like a raging jackass which detracts fro your points.) can't you see the cycle?

Is this the bit where you blame me for your bigoted ravings?

I make a middle of the road point you do not want to acknowledge

You made a point that I disagreed with.

then i must step up the scenario to force your compliance.

You don't have to do any such thing. Attempting to "force compliance" during a conversation is a red flag for a closed mind and an inability to hold a civil discussion.

and all you remember is forced compliance, you never remember your own selective passive aggressive ignorance.

Yup, this is the bit where you blame me for your inability to not fly off the handle. I'd call it victim blaming if you weren't so obviously the victim.

no one has it figured out dummy it is an ever changing standard. in 10 years your morality will be seen as high crimes against humanity if we go further left or go back right. either way it will not remain static.

God forfend that our morals change and grow. Clearly we should base our morality on the mistranslated, selectively edited, heavily corrupted ravings of bronze-age goat herders.

perfect response. exactly what i was looking for.
as you judged my question as being out of step with the standard you have in your mind.

Yes? And? It's curious to me that a group who cherry-picks scripture to fit their prejudices and agendas has such a difficult time understanding the moral relativity that you so clearly practice.

Now, how is sin DIFFERENT. not asking you to define anything as that is the lazy minds easy out. i ask a very specific and direct question please provide that answer and not some ad hom.

It's rich that you're asking me to avoid the ad hominem but I suppose that is literally your middle name.

Unlike sin, morality evolves and changes with circumstance. The moral precepts that governed 7th century BC Judea and 1st century AD Israel aren't what you want to use to govern global civilization 2020. Most of us have gotten past stoning people.

Unlike sin, morality requires no higher power. It's all about how you interact with society.

Unlike sin, we can demonstrate that morality actually exists.

I trust this answers your question.

this is all one liners/trollish zingers. nothing of substance that i saw let me know if you have a legit question in there i missed.

[Nay_Sayer]

I'd get a warning for a wall of text if I listed everything you've missed drich

[Gwaithmir]

Sin is nothing more than a priestly construct designed to control people through fear and guilt. 

ah, no. Sin link to morality only represents 1/3 of what sin is. when look at as a whole sin is a completely different construct. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYJ5Io59gU&t=256s watch the video. is has very little to do with what you think.

When you are prepared to prove that:

1. God exists;
2. That Jesus was the son of God;
3. That the Bible tales of Jesus are true;

....THEN, and only then, can you discuss your befuddled hypothesis of how sin should be defined.  Good luck with that. 

[Jehanne]

ah, no. Sin link to morality only represents 1/3 of what sin is. when look at as a whole sin is a completely different construct. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYJ5Io59gU&t=256s watch the video. is has very little to do with what you think.

When you are prepared to prove that:

1. God exists;
2. That Jesus was the son of God;
3. That the Bible tales of Jesus are true;

....THEN, and only then, can you discuss your befuddled hypothesis of how sin should be defined.  Good luck with that. 

Maybe the above are all true, but Jesus, is a son of God, but mischievous and evil, and came to Earth to deceive we humans; whereas, the true Son of God was born on another world in a galaxy far, far away long, long ago...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sin in a religious (as opposed to a secular) context seems to largely consist of disapproving of things other people do while secretly wishing you could get away with doing them yourself.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not possible to remove the secular context of sin. Sin is crime. Over and over and over this legalism is expressed in old and new magic book. Sin is to transgress against the law, or to miss the mark. Sin asserts that there is a law to transgress, and a mark to miss.

John tells us that whoever commits sin transgresses against the law.
In romans we read that the law is holy, that the commandments are holy, righteous, and good.
Duet, Matthew, and John (again) go to great lengths to explain that sin is a violation of the laws of love that god has bestowed upon us so that we might live in peace and harmony with god and with each other - further clarifying the transgression.

John (again, again) tells us that all unrighteousness is sin. This particular quip is translated so many different ways in various editions that there isn't much bad stuff™ left out of what sin entails. They're trying to translate the term adikia - the greek goddess of injustice and wrongdoing, taken to mean "actions which cause visible harm to other persons in violation of divine standards". Magic book goes further, yet - asserting that bad attitudes lead to harmful outcomes and on the basis of this, that thought-crime is also sin. Jesus Himeslf™ lays this out in explicit detail.

Insomuch as we can crack jokes about sin being a list of things we want to do that we disapprove of in others - it works as a primarily because of that same relationship between law and human compulsion. The same relationship, in fact, that christians refer to as our fallen nature. Sin as a product of who and what we are. Inescapable to us. We will do harm, we will have bad thoughts, we will transgress, etc etc etc. These things will cause suffering, and the only way to deal with it is by making restitution or proper supplication. Pay the court or plead for mercy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's not possible to remove the secular context of sin.  Sin is crime.  Over and over and over this legalism is expressed in old and new magic book.  Sin is to transgress against the law, or to miss the mark.  Sin asserts that there is a law to transgress, and a mark to miss.  

John tells us that whoever commits sin transgresses against the law.
In romans we read that the law is holy, that the commandments are holy, righteous, and good.
Duet, Matthew, and John (again) go to great lengths to explain that sin is a violation of the laws of love that god has bestowed upon us so that we might live in peace and harmony with god and with each other - further clarifying the transgression.

John (again, again) tells us that all unrighteousness is sin.  This particular quip is translated so many different ways in various editions that there isn't much bad stuff™ left out of what sin entails.  They're trying to translate the term adikia - the greek goddess of injustice and wrongdoing, taken to mean "actions which cause visible harm to other persons in violation of divine standards".  Magic book goes further, yet - asserting that bad attitudes lead to harmful outcomes and on the basis of this, that thought-crime is also sin.  Jesus Himeslf™ lays this out in explicit detail.

Insomuch as we can crack jokes about sin being a list of things we want to do that we disapprove of in others - it works as a primarily because of that same relationship between law and human compulsion.  The same relationship, in fact, that christians refer to as our fallen nature.  Sin as a product of who and what we are.  Inescapable to us.  We will do harm, we will have bad thoughts, we will transgress, etc etc etc.  These things will cause suffering, and the only way to deal with it is by making restitution or proper supplication.  Pay the court or plead for mercy.

Suppose I carve a graven image, bow down before it, chant to it, and burn incense to honour it. This is a religious sin under the Second Commandment. How it is a crime, or a secular transgression?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Because the religious believe that it will bring harm.

Ask yourself the same question with regards to our very recent laws in the us, circling that same drain, around same sex marriage.

[tackattack]

I'm fairly certain I stopped following this thread a long time ago, but a waft of fresh air just knocked down the door. Nothing more to add but appreciation.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't clap too soon - it's all downhill from there when it comes to christianity and sin.