the nature of sin

[Sal]

Prove to me that 'sin' has an ontological existence.

Ontology:

noun

1. 1.
   the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
   
   
   
2. 2.
   a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.
   "what's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets"
   

google dictionary

so we can proof existence as you can with a being. rather the second definition would take hold which only has us compare sin and it nearest accepted relitive morality.

I've already done this with palophyte

here:

---

 

I think that you may be missing the point that there is no sin.

You: there are no toe-maugh-toes, only toe-mate-toes. Do you people really fool yourselves with this bs?
Is it still wrong to steal in your snowflaklandia? would it be wrong for me to openly lust after your wife? would it be wrong to rape her? would it be wrong to hate you and set your house of fire because i wanted but could not have all you do? is it wrong to blaspheme what you have been taught to be holy? can i say global warming is a hoax, that's like taking the lords name in vain right??? what about LGBT people really suffer from mental disorders. That's the big one right that's the blaspheming the holy spirit. what about having no other god than science? isn't that why you debate religious?

You douche bags are mirror images of everything you hate. You are what you hate in us. only to the opposite ninth degree. Rather than sin it is morality I instead of being a sinner you can call me immoral, but i do not bow down to your god so would you like to make me concede would you not like to make me accept lgbtqrstuvs? again sin morality it's the same on;y sin has 2 more dimensions to it. one includes a way to find forgiveness.

Discussing the nature of sin is thus similar to trying to figure out unicorn genetics.

as just demonstrated if sin is such a mystery, this topic is to sophisticated for you or you force a needless complexity onto this subject so you do not feel obligated to discuss it..

Which means can say homosexuals all share a mental disorder. as there is not genetic reason for their choices. and not offend any one because there is no cross correlation between sin and morality. gotcha

there is not
That's one of the main reasons that your Youtube videos are so tiresome. They all elaborate on the fine details of a Deity that you've failed to demonstrate exists in the first place. It's like a treatise on plausible mechanisms for dragon fire that fails to establish the existence of dragons.

over 1/3 of the people on this planet can manifest enough evidence for them to believe what they experienced to be true about not only God but the bible itself.

if you are broken or missing a sense or a specific mental aqueity how is it that i am to proove something you can not see or hear? If you eye were broken how can i proove the color blue? if your ears were broken how could i convey the deafening silence being broken by a pin drop? You right now are incomplete. and the only thing that can fix you is God but you must seek him on his terms. if you do It is him who will show you the color blue or you will hear that pin drop. the more you know going into this experience the more than can be shared.

or remain deaf dumb and blind to the world. you 4%ers think you all have it figured out anyway, who am i to say this is not enough

---

'Sin' is a superfluous concept. That's what makes it without ontology. If you had read further about ontology and what it means metaphysically, then you'd discover that it deals with nature of being, as set in reality. 'Sin' has no relation with reality, it's an invented concept that is about tying down morality around blaming people for thought "crimes" for the most part.

Case in point: You don't need the concept of sin to describe morals or define an ethical framework, because it's simply superfluous nonsense.