Sinning, as Jesus and the church say, is good. Turn or burn Christians.

[Sal]

One of the main reason I don't accept 'sin', is pragmatic consideration of the implications of it, and a similar way of phrasing something with an inherent assumption behind thinking that something, e.g. the crude "when did you stop beating your wife?" assumes that you've doing that action beforehand.

'Sin' seems, for events and purposes, to make an assumption of guilt & fault in a same manner in The Fall for every human after Adam & Eve. A very effective Sales Pitch for the theistic Product of Sin.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you probably do accept sin, you just use a different word for it.

We have to remember that our religious beliefs are attempts to explain things that are present in our very real lives. The explanations may be fanciful, but the item in question, not so much. Do you think that there may be some intrinsic or hereditary x that makes all human creatures fallible and compels us to wrong thought or wrong action?

GIA reckoned it was guys chasing girls..which is...well...meh, but we could include that in the list of things that are known to compromise human moral agency, at least. Competition for a limited (or perceived to be limited) resource. When a needful thing competes with a virtue making thing, does that have an effect on the virtue making thing, or are we..instead, consigned to choosing between a righteous suicide pact or a resignation to necessary evil? This choice is yet another play on the theme of felix culpa....and if it's starting to seem as though god and jesus are conceptual stand-ins acting out dramas of human agency....well..no shit, right?

[Greatest I am]

I gave example in the O.P.

It is clear that we are naturally inclined to sin, in the sense of creating victims when we compete and win. That is the only reason for the human to human evils we do.

If Jesus/Yahweh did not want us to sin, he would not have put Satan in Eden to insure we did and Christians could not call Adam's sin a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Simple logic and reason.

Are you a sinner, as described as a competitor in life,  and can you help it?

Use evil if you cannot use the word sin.

Regards
DL

No, you did not give an example where Jesus sinning is good. If you have one, trot it out.

Boru

There was no Jesus god man. I hold no supernatural beliefs.

From the Christian perspective, If Jesus was willing to die for my sins, I would not waste his death by not being born a sinner the way scriptures, and nature, say we are.


Jesus himself sinned, as well as Yahweh with his murder of so many. Remember they are just one god to the literalist thinkers, be it foolish or not.


Regards
DL

---

I think he's referring to felix culpa, not so much something jesus said as a thing that has found itself expressed in christian literature since, well..christianity.

It mirrors the alleged necessity of christs gruesome death as ransom.  That there are bad things which lead to, or are necessary to, gods good plan.  This, in sum, makes them good things.  The relationship between jesus and judas in new magic book is a play on this theme.

Insightful.

Jews just say Eden was a success for both man and god, while Christians see both man and god as losers who cannot get things right.

Jews brand Eden Original Virtue, while Christians brand it Original Sin.

Christians usurped the Jewish god but scrapped the ideology.

Regards
DL 

Regards
DL

---

GIA is a christian.  He's not looking to dismantle any of it's tenets.  More that he's imploring christians to fully explore and dive into them.  If sin is, as christians have long insisted, a happy fault, and if we gain a christ (or christian) consciousness by acknowledging our sin™ (and sin in such a hilariously christian way) this is not a rejection of christian belief - it's a full throated reaffirmation.

God damn I would like you in every post.

You partially get what I am into.

One thing though. 

Please do not call me a Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian.

Basically the opposite of Christianity's interpretations of the bible.

They end in the idol worship of a genocidal prick while we have consigned that Yahweh to hell where he belongs.

Not that there is a hell. We hold no supernatural beliefs.

Regards
DL

---

Í don't accept the premise of 'sin' as usually represented in Christian theology.

I don't either and use evil when speaking of what we are all born to do to each other thanks to being evolving creatures.

That harming or doing evil to the losers of those competitions is what the loser must suffer.

Not a lot of harm these days with our safety nets, --- but in the old days when they had none,  --- you or I winning when we compete could have the loser starve to death.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

Insightful.

Jews just say Eden was a success for both man and god, while Christians see both man and god as losers who cannot get things right.

Jews brand Eden Original Virtue, while Christians brand it Original Sin.

Christians usurped the Jewish god but scrapped the ideology.

It's not surprising to find that christians and jews disagree on the interpretations of their shared myths.  Christianity begins with the claim that the jews got it wrong.  

God damn I would like you in every post.

You partially get what I am into.

One thing though. 

Please do not call me a Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian.

Basically the opposite of Christianity's interpretations of the bible.

They end in the idol worship of a genocidal prick while we have consigned that Yahweh to hell where he belongs.

Not that there is a hell. We hold no supernatural beliefs.

Christian schisms concern how the jews got it wrong, and also other christians.

Maybe go deeper into sin. Sin isn't circumstance. It's something we do in any circumstance. Being born into a rough world wouldn't make us sinful any more than being born in a soft world has made us less so.

[Greatest I am]

Insightful.

Jews just say Eden was a success for both man and god, while Christians see both man and god as losers who cannot get things right.

Jews brand Eden Original Virtue, while Christians brand it Original Sin.

Christians usurped the Jewish god but scrapped the ideology.

It's not surprising to find that christians and jews disagree on the interpretations of their shared myths.  Christianity begins with the claim that the jews got it wrong.  

God damn I would like you in every post.

You partially get what I am into.

One thing though. 

Please do not call me a Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian.

Basically the opposite of Christianity's interpretations of the bible.

They end in the idol worship of a genocidal prick while we have consigned that Yahweh to hell where he belongs.

Not that there is a hell. We hold no supernatural beliefs.

Christian schisms concern how the jews got it wrong, and also other christians.

Maybe go deeper into sin.  Sin isn't circumstance.  It's something we do in any circumstance.  Being born into a rough world wouldn't make us sinful any more than being born in a soft world has made us less so.

I agree with your last. 

Not the second last because we do not sin or do evil to others if not competing. 

When we cooperate, there is no harm, lose, sin or evil.

You have seen that at work even in this place where guys who agree/cooperate kiss and hug, while when they disagree and compete for the supremacy of their thinking, the fur flies.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

Not the second last because we do not sin or do evil to others if not competing. 

When we cooperate, there is no harm, lose, sin or evil.

These two things sound like your beliefs, not facts.  We do evil to people that we're in no competition with, for anything.  We manage to do evil when we cooperate, and we manage to do the greatest evil -by- coopertion.....but...if this is the sort of thing that you're talking about with sin or evil let's just call it evil.

Sin is (supposed to be) the thing that compels us to evil, not the specific evil, or any given circumstance of evil.

[Sal]

Í don't accept the premise of 'sin' as usually represented in Christian theology.

I don't either and use evil when speaking of what we are all born to do to each other thanks to being evolving creatures.

That harming or doing evil to the losers of those competitions is what the loser must suffer.

Not a lot of harm these days with our safety nets, --- but in the old days when they had none,  --- you or I winning when we compete could have the loser starve to death.

Regards
DL

Interesting.

If sin is used in that manner, that is as divorced from Christian theology's 'sin' as to put it on another planet, orbiting a different star, in another galaxy, at the other end of the Cosmos.

I acknowledge the term 'sin' in Gnostic Christianity then.

I usually use an analog of a particular instance from the opposite of compassion. I.e. acts of harm where they aren't warranted, while distinct from malevolence. In essence, an immoral act.

However, 'sin' used in this way is still an anthropomorphism, IMO. A quite useful one, though.

[Greatest I am]

Not the second last because we do not sin or do evil to others if not competing. 

When we cooperate, there is no harm, lose, sin or evil.

1 These two things sound like your beliefs, not facts. 

2 We do evil to people that we're in no competition with, for anything. 

3 We manage to do evil when we cooperate, and we manage to do the greatest evil -by- coopertion.....but...if this is the sort of thing that you're talking about with sin or evil let's just call it evil.

4 Sin is (supposed to be) the thing that compels us to evil, not the specific evil, or any given circumstance of evil.

1 I see what I put as logical and reasoned facts.

2 Give a couple of examples. I might be able to deal with them. I say might because you are a bright guy. I hope you are not thinking theft or other things I can easily refute.

 3 What great evil do you see when we cooperate?

I see evil when we compete, including military competitions, as a loser will think evil has befallen him.

"Sin is (supposed to be) the thing that compels us to evil, not the specific evil, or any given circumstance of evil."

Jesus took that further and said to even just think of a sin was a sin. I have done a lot of sinning in my mind. Not nearly as much in reality.

I do not agree with him particularly on this thought sin or thought crime thing. It is handy to mentally "sin" to form proofs of concept.

Regards
DL

---

I don't either and use evil when speaking of what we are all born to do to each other thanks to being evolving creatures.

That harming or doing evil to the losers of those competitions is what the loser must suffer.

Not a lot of harm these days with our safety nets, --- but in the old days when they had none,  --- you or I winning when we compete could have the loser starve to death.

Regards
DL

Interesting.

If sin is used in that manner, that is as divorced from Christian theology's 'sin' as to put it on another planet, orbiting a different star, in another galaxy, at the other end of the Cosmos.

I acknowledge the term 'sin' in Gnostic Christianity then.

I usually use an analog of a particular instance from the opposite of compassion. I.e. acts of harm where they aren't warranted, while distinct from malevolence. In essence, an immoral act.

However, 'sin' used in this way is still an anthropomorphism, IMO. A quite useful one, though.

As an esoteric ecumenists, I have learned to keep my definitions wide as that makes it easier for me to see and use analogies. To sin or do evil is a rather clear analogy.

I do see why atheists do not use it though as religions call many normal actions sins.

Regards
DL

[Sal]

Interesting.

If sin is used in that manner, that is as divorced from Christian theology's 'sin' as to put it on another planet, orbiting a different star, in another galaxy, at the other end of the Cosmos.

I acknowledge the term 'sin' in Gnostic Christianity then.

I usually use an analog of a particular instance from the opposite of compassion. I.e. acts of harm where they aren't warranted, while distinct from malevolence. In essence, an immoral act.

However, 'sin' used in this way is still an anthropomorphism, IMO. A quite useful one, though.

As an esoteric ecumenists, I have learned to keep my definitions wide as that makes it easier for me to see and use analogies. To sin or do evil is a rather clear analogy.

I do see why atheists do not use it though as religions call many normal actions sins.

Regards
DL

As I see it, it's easy for day-to-day Christians who see an atheist use 'sin' in a sentence, as-if, being an admission of guilt in a hidden belief in their version of god (the tired old example used about atheists merely hate god yet still believe in god, is an instantiation of theists thinking this, because they can't imagine that someone else lacks belief).

I don't think a thought not acted upon in any way (and not even in writing that thought down) can be said to be sin, no matter the thought in question. Regardless how vile in graphic gore and imagined evil intentions & malice; but only if it is in the confines of their head. Although, I do admit, I'm agnostic if such evil thoughts can be considered sins or not, I'm atheist about "thought-sins".

[Greatest I am]

As an esoteric ecumenists, I have learned to keep my definitions wide as that makes it easier for me to see and use analogies. To sin or do evil is a rather clear analogy.

I do see why atheists do not use it though as religions call many normal actions sins.

Regards
DL

As I see it, it's easy for day-to-day Christians who see an atheist use 'sin' in a sentence, as-if, being an admission of guilt in a hidden belief in their version of god (the tired old example used about atheists merely hate god yet still believe in god, is an instantiation of theists thinking this, because they can't imagine that someone else lacks belief).

I don't think a thought not acted upon in any way (and not even in writing that thought down) can be said to be sin, no matter the thought in question. Regardless how vile in graphic gore and imagined evil intentions & malice; but only if it is in the confines of their head. Although, I do admit, I'm agnostic if such evil thoughts can be considered sins or not, I'm atheist about "thought-sins".

No argument on this for sure.

Minds and thoughts cannot sin or do evil.

They are handy as a teaching tool for morals and that is about it.

Regards
DL