the nature of sin

[Drich]

If your position on an issue has nothing to do with anything that you've said or argued about it, then maybe you should work on your delivery?

what makes you think that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe you should think about it for awhile. See if you can figure it out.

[Gwaithmir]

remember the story of UZZah who steadied the ark and kept it from breaking on the rocks below? he broke no moral laws. what he did was morally good. he broke a ceremonial law. he still sinned even though he did what was morally right.

Yes, I remember that tale from my Catholic school Bible study. It proved just how fucked up and unreasonable biblical morality is. Uzzah didn't commit an immoral act. God did. 

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no distinction between ceremonial and moral law in theocratic systems. FWIW, failure to satisfy divine requirements was believed to bring harm and misery.

[Drich]

Maybe you should think about it for awhile.  See if you can figure it out.

if you can elaborate your own position then why would i waist time on it?

---

remember the story of UZZah who steadied the ark and kept it from breaking on the rocks below? he broke no moral laws. what he did was morally good. he broke a ceremonial law. he still sinned even though he did what was morally right.

Yes, I remember that tale from my Catholic school Bible study. It proved just how fucked up and unreasonable biblical morality is. Uzzah didn't commit an immoral act. God did. 

again uzzah is an example sin is not about moral and imorality only. as uzzah's sin was not a matter of morality. this makes sin something bigger than a failure in morality. sin is like a virus, and if you do something to catch it back then you had to die which was the only way to contain it. now we have the vaccine.

---

There is no distinction between ceremonial and moral law in theocratic systems.  FWIW, failure to satisfy divine requirements was believed to bring harm and misery.

which make sin something more than adherence to morality right?

if a breaking a moral act in the ot was the same as not offering God first fruits, then sin is not about who is good or who is bad it's deeper than that.

[The Grand Nudger]

We're back to wondering what makes a sin sinful, apart from what makes a wrong wrong. The notion of failure in this context is, itself, normative. You simply cannot stop using the semantics of morality while declaring this something other-than, huh? It's nonsense.

This bit about vaccines is an attempt at topical apologism, but it isn't what you believe. A vaccine prevents a disease. You, as a christian, do not believe that what you have prevents sin. You, for example, are not free of sin, just free from it's asserted consequence. Namely, death. Conveniently, this is the very thing that you fear most..and unless you're a complete piece of shit who believes in nothing that you've said over the years, you must also believe...deep down, that you deserve these consequences - yet another example of how the moral field is inextricable from your beliefs.

As I already noted. You do believe that "sin" is a normative construct, and you do believe that people can and will fail with respect to the normative construct and that there is a price to pay for this failure. You do not believe that you will be held accountable for those failures, to your own normative construct, which you believe was gifted to you by a god.

That's christian moral character at work.

---

---

There is no distinction between ceremonial and moral law in theocratic systems.  FWIW, failure to satisfy divine requirements was believed to bring harm and misery.

which make sin something more than adherence to morality right?

if a breaking a moral act in the ot was the same as not offering God first fruits, then sin is not about who is good or who is bad it's deeper than that.

The above makes sin directly equivalent to morality - which it always has been.  Not offering god first fruits, is bad.

[downbeatplumb]

sin is god of the moon in mesopotamian mythology

And Sin the verb is an act that misses God's righteous standard.

Sin begins when you see people as things to abuse.

[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.

[Belacqua]

'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.

Does morality have an "ontological existence"?

It seems to me that it's something made up by people. Yet it does exist in some way. Do laws have "ontological existence," or guidelines for safe driving?

If sin is also made up by people, then wouldn't it "exist ontologically" in the same way as morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

How a person answers that question depends on what they think about morality. You, for example, think people made it up. Stories about made up things can exist even when the subject of the story doesn't. Vampires are thin on the ground.

Do you think that vampires, sin, and morality are equivalent in this regard?