Sin

[desiresjab]

The Ten Commandments made an early attempt at listing some sins.

It is a strange observation, but nothing we call a sin is universally recognized as such in all cultures or religions. It was religiously fine with their Gods if Cheyenne stole ponys from Crow. Child marriage is acceptable in various branches of several major religions. Murder is acceptable many places as honor killing.

Is there one thing that is or has ever been universally recognized as a sin by our species??

[YALASH]

...

Is there one thing that is or has ever been universally recognized as a sin by our species??

Injustice.

[Anna Komnena]

same sex marriage i guess

[YesNo]

Until we are saints or gurus or whatever we become when we are perfect, we will probably always feel inadequate in some way and that inadequacy could be considered sin. Our understandings of what it is might change just as our views of perfection might change. As we flip between sin and perfection we express our views of each a little as we go. At the moment I'm in the mood where I don't want to take things "literally" and so I'll say we shouldn't take these expressions too literally either. Just because the expressions we come up with are not universal doesn't mean we aren't talking about something real when we use those expressions. Our expressions, not reality, are the problem.

It is sort of like a number, say 6. It can mean a lot of things although we think it is a rock solid idea of something. However, unlike rocks, we can't find 6 anywhere in the universe, at least, not like a rock. So, where is it? In Plato's cave? Outside the cave? It could be the number of things in our shopping cart. It could be an element in a mathematical ring of integers. It could be a label for an equivalence class in a finite field. It could represent "harmony". It could represent the Lover's card in the Tarot. It could be the number of the third eye chakra.

[bounty]

rather than just looking at external/observable actions, id also suggest that sin is an inner spiritual state indicating a separation from god.

[Ecurb]

All human societies about which we know have incest taboos (in anthropology this is the sole universal human rule). The precise nature of the rule varies, although we know of no societies in which parents are permitted to have sex with their own children. Brother and sister incest has been allowed only in rare cases, usually among royalty (Egyptian pharoahs sometimes married siblings, their only divine equals).

There have been many "explanations" of the universality of these rules, including psychological, biological, political and economic theories. The most common, biological explanation (greater likelihood of recessive traits leading to deformity) is highly dubious, mainly because it is falsified by the very common marriage rule that although one cannot marry one's "parallel cousin", one must marry one's "cross cousin". A cross cousin is one's mother's brother's or father's sister's child; a parallel cousin is one's father's brother's or mother's sister's child. Although in English we call all these relative's "cousins", in many languages they are referred to by distinct kinship terms. Also, in small, tribal societies, everyone is a relative to everyone else, so you must marry some sort of relative.

Freud was fascinated by the incest taboo, and wrote a book about it ("Totem and Taboo"). It's an entertaining book, although anthropologists pooh-pooh the ethnography and the wild speculations. "Exogamy" ("marrying out") certainly has economic and political advantages. After all, if you married your sister, your child would have only two grandparents to help him out, instead of four. In general, "cross cousins" are members of different clans, so marrying them builds economic and political alliances that would not exist if someone married a "parallel cousin" (who would generally be in the same clan). It may also be he case that sexual rivalries, disputes, and jealousies within a family (or clan) are disruptive and societies that allow them have not lasted.

[desiresjab]

All human societies about which we know have incest taboos (in anthropology this is the sole universal human rule). The precise nature of the rule varies, although we know of no societies in which parents are permitted to have sex with their own children. Brother and sister incest has been allowed only in rare cases, usually among royalty (Egyptian pharoahs sometimes married siblings, their only divine equals).

There have been many "explanations" of the universality of these rules, including psychological, biological, political and economic theories. The most common, biological explanation (greater likelihood of recessive traits leading to deformity) is highly dubious, mainly because it is falsified by the very common marriage rule that although one cannot marry one's "parallel cousin", one must marry one's "cross cousin". A cross cousin is one's mother's brother's or father's sister's child; a parallel cousin is one's father's brother's or mother's sister's child. Although in English we call all these relative's "cousins", in many languages they are referred to by distinct kinship terms. Also, in small, tribal societies, everyone is a relative to everyone else, so you must marry some sort of relative.

Freud was fascinated by the incest taboo, and wrote a book about it ("Totem and Taboo"). It's an entertaining book, although anthropologists pooh-pooh the ethnography and the wild speculations. "Exogamy" ("marrying out") certainly has economic and political advantages. After all, if you married your sister, your child would have only two grandparents to help him out, instead of four. In general, "cross cousins" are members of different clans, so marrying them builds economic and political alliances that would not exist if someone married a "parallel cousin" (who would generally be in the same clan). It may also be he case that sexual rivalries, disputes, and jealousies within a family (or clan) are disruptive and societies that allow them have not lasted.

You made some imformative points. But the taboo is not universal if a number of societies existed and exist where you could marry a cousin as long as it ws a cross cousin. The biological relationship is the same. That is a first cousin anyway you cut it.

I know the taboo is very widespread. The taboo against theft is too, but it was a virtue in plains Indian tribes, so we find an exception.

How widespread was this cross cousin marrying? Wasn't this stuff done all over Europe, for starters? You may have found our closest to a universal taboo. I suppose the most taboo brand of incest would be the Electra and Oedipus taboos.

[Ecurb]

When I studied anthropology, the incest taboo was considered to be the one universal human rule (the rule about parents and children is universal,and the taboo against sex with siblings is almost universal, the only exceptions being divine royalty, as far as we know). Europeans didn't differentiate between cross and parallel cousins;they did not prohibit (and sometimes encouraged) marriage between cousins (I'm not sure if that is true in, say, Scotland where clans were important). The cross cousin marriage rule is very common in simple societies (Australia, Africa, and the Americas). It's often a little more complicated than it seems, because kinship terms are "classificatory" in some societies. In other words, you might call your fellow clan members "brother" or "sister" when they are parallel cousins biologically, and the term for "cross cousins" might apply to both first cousins and slightly more distant relatives. Obviously, cross and parallel cousins are equally closely related to someone biologically , which is why the biological explanation of the incest taboo doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. However, socially, politically, and economically they might be more "distant', because they belong to different political and economic groups (clans).

[Ecurb]

By the way, "theft" refers to taking something illegally. By definition it is universally prohibited, but many societies have notions of property and usufruct rights that are very different from ours. Whatever word the Cheyenne used for taking Crow ponies would not properly be translated as "theft" or "stealing". The ancient Greeks considered trading with non-Greeks wimpy. Why not just take the stuff they wanted by main force? But they did not consider this "theft" -- a translation might be "raiding". In general, property rights are necessary for "theft" to be a meaningful term, and many smaller societies have definitions of "property" so different from ours that "theft" is often not an applicable term (or translation of a word in their language).

[desiresjab]

However, socially, politically, and economically they might be more "distant', because they belong to different political and economic groups (clans).

On of the best reasons for marrying out of the family or clan is the additional knowledge and experience brought to the table (Flintstone table) by the new party.

[desiresjab]

When I studied anthropology, the incest taboo was considered to be the one universal human rule.

And there it is. I was not far wrong. I missed it by one rule.

The only thing the human race can get together on universally is don't f*ck your own kids. Sweet.

Sentimental bunch, aren't they?

[Ecurb]

Is there one thing that is or has ever been universally recognized as a sin by our species??

Are there "laws" (or moral rules) in heaven? It seems self evident that there is no need to recognize behaviors as sinful, evil, or unlawful unless we humans have a proclivity for them. We might consider it wicked to eat pork (Muslims and Jews) or cows (Hindus), but there is no reason to deem it wicked to eat mud pies.

Laws - by their nature -- restrict freedom. If freedom is of value, utopia must be an anarchy. Perhaps rather than seeing the scarcity of universally acknowledged mores as evidence of human immorality, we could see it as evidence that, in some cultures, "stealing" or "adultery", or "murder" are not temptations, and need not be forbidden. We forbid pork or beef.

I'm not sure what this theory says about the incest taboo -- but I'm pretty sure Freud would figure it out. My point is that the paucity of universal human moral codes may be the result of our generosity and social decorum, instead of our fallen natures (acc. the Bible).

By the way, I've often wondered how Christians view heaven. God is "King", but he allows Lucifer and his angels to leave. Do the angels obey God as a "ruler"? If so, can heaven be a utopia, when its inhabitants are not "free"? I'm sure Christians have some answer to these questions, but I don't know what it is.

[desiresjab]

Are there "laws" (or moral rules) in heaven?

By the way, I've often wondered how Christians view heaven. I'm sure Christians have some answer to these questions, but I don't know what it is.

If you mean Christian theologians, even they differ widely. If you mean just folks, that really varies.

My mother was a Christian and spent a lot of time thinking about what heaven was like. She believed it was a place of immense learning and exploration.

To me, If there is no danger in heaven, how interesting could it be? Heaven's danger must be another perspective of that which goes under the name of evil here. Evil appears to keep things interesting.

What would God do without evil to combat? He'd have his finger up his butt and his mind in South America, is what. Evil is God's creation, too. If the fellow created everything, then he created evil too. I see two possible reasons.

1 Evil was an ineluctable by product of creation, like two is the successor of one, even God could not avoid it.

2 God created evil to keep things interesting.

Perhaps evil is one those infinitely enfolded emergent properties that just. had to express itself. That would fall under 1 above.

[desiresjab]

I do not think God created the universe and then took a 13 billion year nap while he waited for man and evil to show up.

If I were God maybe I would have made everything happen at once from my perspective. I would not imprison myself in a tiny, travelling mono-rail of time with them. I don't know why I put them in that cage. Perhaps to give them something asymptotically close to free will, so close they could never know the difference, though they might spot its possibility philosophically and have suspicions.

Most of all, I made them like I am--curious, combative, jealous, creative, loving, vengeful.

I created this universe all right, but I did not create existence.

[YALASH]

Peace be on all.
According to my understanding*, God has been Maker since ever to ever.
Our universe is part of all Making.
God made universe through
1-Creation
2-Guided-at-each-step evolution.
Human are here for purpose. They are born pure, without any internal sin.
They are born with raw faculties. They have to shine them. A true religion [a true religion is the one which is not tempered by corruption latter] provides them ways to shine these raw capacities to get connection with God with worship, a worship which must lead to good works for ALL humanity. They have to grow their soul.

When they die, soul reaches to heavens for full bounties. But those who chose to follow bad ways and accepted calls of satan [whispers of evil forces, sunk self] God will judge them with justice, see their environment and fix responsibility why they did so, then they shall be cured and they shall start from first rung of blessings in heavens.


* Ahmadiyya-Muslim

[Ecurb]

To me, If there is no danger in heaven, how interesting could it be? Heaven's danger must be another perspective of that which goes under the name of evil here. Evil appears to keep things interesting.
.

The Christian virtues of fortitude (courage), justice, temperance and prudence would be impossible were it not for danger, evil, temptation and rashness. That's also true of the theological virtues: faith can be a virtue only when there is doubt; hope can be a virtue only when there is despair. I've always thought that the "problem of suffering" (its incompatibility with an all powerful and all-good God) ignored these obvious and logically necessary truths.

[bounty]

ecurb, your response above is making me think of a paraphrase from viktor frankl---that suffering without meaning creates despair.

[desiresjab]

How many think the devil is as real as God?

[Jackson Richardson]

How many think the devil is as real as God?

Not me. The devil is a metaphor for how evil has its own momentum.

[desiresjab]

Not me. The devil is a metaphor for how evil has its own momentum.

Do you believe God is more real than the devil, then?

[YesNo]

How many think the devil is as real as God?

There are some humans who act devilish, so I would be willing to give the devil his (or her) due.

One of the problems with imagining a devil, let alone a God, is our reductionistic cultural blind spot. We think the universe is reducible to tiny, unconscious stuff that can be explained using determinism or chance. We think the universe is a bottom-up machine. Just switch that perspective to a top-down organism where determinism and chance is replaced with choices. That change in perspective opens things up nicely.

[Danik 2016]

Just to fuel the discussion.
In his Faust, Goethe offers a very curious definition of the devil:
"Faust. The being of such gentlemen as you, indeed,
In general, from your titles one can read.
It shows itself but all too plainly when men dub
You Liar or Destroyer or Beelzebub.
Well now, who are you then?
Mephistopheles. Part of that Power which would
The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good.
Faust. A riddle! Say what it implies!
Mephistopheles. I am the Spirit that denies!
And rightly too; for all that doth begin
Should rightly to destruction run;
'Twere better then that nothing were begun.
Thus everything that you call Sin,
Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent-
That is my own, real element.
Faust. You call yourself a part, yet whole you're standing there.
Mephistopheles. A modest truth do I declare.
A man, the microcosmic fool, down in his soul
Is wont to think himself a whole,
But I'm part of the Part which at the first was all,
Part of the Darkness that gave birth to Light,
The haughty Light that now with Mother Night
Disputes her ancient rank and space withal,
And yet 'twill not succeed, since, strive as strive it may,
Fettered to bodies will Light stay.
It streams from bodies, it makes bodies fair,
A body hinders it upon its way,
And so, I hope, it has not long to stay
And will with bodies their destruction share.
Faust. Now I perceive your worthy occupation!
You can't achieve wholesale annihilation
And now a retail business you've begun."
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/faustidx.html

[desiresjab]

I like that Goethe.

[YesNo]

Faust. Now I perceive your worthy occupation!
You can't achieve wholesale annihilation
And now a retail business you've begun."
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/faustidx.html

The retail/wholesale annihilation is interesting. I might be reading more into it than is there, but I suspect the retail annihilation is the reduction of subjectivity to unconsciousness which is ultimately unsuccessful implying the impossibility of wholesale annihilation.

[Danik 2016]

For me the unusual aspect of Mephistopheles in the play is that he presents himself as a rather unwilling instrument of Good (and therefore, of God).
As he is a subordinate agent, his power of destruction can be at its most only partial, I think.
It is certainly an irreverent and optimistic conception!

[YesNo]

Since change occurs something can be viewed as destroying the past so the present can manifest. That destruction could be viewed as evil, but it is only partial. Change doesn't destroy the process of changing.

[August Guelfen]

Well, satan is a priori a weak nothing by himself. The fall of sin was only a quest for
Adam and Eve, but also for this little working class screamer guarding angel, who refused to love god,
because being just the littlest light in the lowest hierachy of the lowest of three angelchorus, he was even more
offended, when he was asked the first time in his decadent worthless existence to work as the guardian angel, he was created for. God saw, what decadence by privileges can cause, so he created the tree of evil out of this deases, we would call today braindead by stupid tv and culture degeneration. God knew, that the little tricster lazy angel will break in Eden, he relaxed and let it happened, because he wanted to see, if his prognosis will be right. The rest is told in the bible. The fall of sin is even today the worst problem ever. Because even saints and prophets are pested with the heritage of sin. It is in their blood and in there dna, like in nearly every blind siner. But there are exeptions. The most noble bloodlines were free from that kind of sin and blindness. That is the meaning of the holy grail. The descendents of Jesus Christ are still alive and on earth. For unchosen stupid blinds they are spooky by their emotional impact, they let them feel out of themselves. The Zen Buddhism calls that waves of energy, or karma, or to see auras like energetic fields around them. The scientists try to
call it synaesthesia by the mutations of some areas of the x chromosom. There more women with that kind of God's grace in them, like my mother, she is comperable to saints, my father is also a synaesthic saint, but not an "angel". He is stupid and mental instabil, because he knows nothing about everything and fears open combats, he has at least a strong intuitive knowing about how he can make people make, what he want and everyone calls him the dearest treasure, but, like me, we, my parents and me hate this world of man, because we know exactly, what nearly every human, even the pope, are. They are evilness a priori, because they are blind, stupid liars and not able to love the real way. I know, my parents and I,
we are perfect, but you all evil bad lovers of the antichrist make this world a lot more horrible than the worst hell can be.
Human souldeads can not live and are dead the day they are born. they are the real walking deads. Being alive never means your beloved heart muscle beats and you can walk. That means nothing. If I the incarneted highest Angel of the 9 hierachies, called Seraphiel, can not feel life in nearly all of you out there, my godfather sees even less life in you. Being a Seraphin incarneted to my two holy parents, means, that I was born the normal biologic way in hospital. My biologic father is my father in this world in terms of my dna. Nobody, even not God himself, is perfect. The word perfect should be again a
synonym for harmonic at the moment and not an aquivalent for I am someone, because everyone says I am perfect every day the same stupid way. Definitions are evil, when they try to catch life in bottles for sell it like worthless monetarian things.

[Jackson Richardson]

Do you believe God is more real than the devil, then?

Yes. In particular in the human person of Jesus of Nazareth.

There has been a sense on this thread that Christianity is all about keeping laws, morals or commandments. Paul, particularly in his letters to the Romans and Galatians, is at great pains to say that God accepts us as a free gift (as shown in the person of Jesus crucified and risen) and that keeping the Law is of no account by comparison, indeed positively misleading as it leads to self righteousness.

[El Viejo]

So it seems that the only universal sin is sex between parent and child, and maybe between siblings. Everything else varies with context. Is that about right?

[Jackson Richardson]

I'm totally confused. How can cruelty and selfishness not be unacceptable? Or to give specific examples, murder or rape, lying?

[Danik 2016]

For me in a very general way sin is everything that is harmful to others.

[Jackson Richardson]

Yes and although cultures may differ in the details of what constitutes harm, there will always be individuals and societies that can be harmed.

And the harm is not necessarily direct. Lying in bed too long when you should be taking the kids to school is harming them. Getting used to lying in bed can be encouraging a lack of self discipline, which will harm others in the long run. The virtuous thing is to know when it is OK to lie in bed.

[Jackson Richardson]

There's a very interesting take on sin in Francis Spufford's book Unapologetic where is calls it the Human Propensity to F**k things Up (or HPtFtF). I wouldn't normally recommed the Daily Telegraph (liberal shudder) but their review is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9617809/Unapologetic-by-Francis-Spufford-review.html

Spufford bases his apologetic for Christianity on the experience of HPtFtU. He wrote the book in a branch of Costa Coffee and it is a breezy riposte to the New Atheism of Richard Dawkins. Spufford finds all the traditional arguments for reconciling a good God and a cruel universe inadequate, other than God as revealed in Jesus and his death.

I strongly recommend it.

[Danik 2016]

I think humanity in general has a rare talent for HPtFtF which is being very much used of late. But I didn´t know there was a theory about it.

[August Guelfen]

some read the 120 days of sodum by Donetien, Marquis de Sade. "The worst book" of literature, right ? Guess what no. It is
the greatest book of emanzipation ever ! The best way of marriage of humans and nature powered by father Mithras the holy sunwheel of eternal life given by real life. so, why having sex and having fun by doing it should be evil ? the church never beleaved in that kind of pleberian false moral rules. the said them like a joke to public for entertain the stupid ones with their "who survives longer without having sex this month ?" something like, "employee of the month" today. It was only a show entertainment for stupid weak "beleavers", for being occupied their whole life through, without nagging the elite group of society with their neurotic blindness. The real big Churchmen, here in Europa, never raped little boys, they never had to ignore their instincts, so there wasn't the "necessary" to become pedophile. if you want to have sex with your beloved sister, why not, if she let it be in love ? That is the message of Pope Alexander 6, Rodrigo Borja, one of my favorite ancestors on the side of my spanish mother consuelo de borja de Urueña de Osuna etc. We the legetim heirs of god himself the blood line of Jesus Christ himself. We are all like Cesare Borgia, haleluja !

[Jackson Richardson]

I think humanity in general has a rare talent for HPtFtF which is being very much used of late. But I didn´t know there was a theory about it.

The theory of HPtFtU is called the doctrine of Original Sin and it is a specifically Christian idea. Buddhism and Hinduism as far as I can make out are worried about delusion not sin. Judaism, Islam and, as far as I can see, Chinese religion are concerned about right conduct: in so far as humans do not behave rightly there is a problem, but people can follow the alternative.

For Christianity, sin is not just failing to do what is right: it is an endemic condition together with mortality, a Propensity to F**k Things Up. That can be a very repressive and pessimistic mindset but it is potentially far more liberating: we are always going to make a mess but God still loves us. We don’t rely on our good behaviour first and there are no grounds for self righteousness.

[Danik 2016]

I have read the Bible, but never concerned myself more profoundly with religious dogmas, J., so I can only give a general answer. What frightens me is the general loss of positive values, like respect for the life and integrity of other people. In the whole world, independent of country or religion, people comit barbarous crimes against inocents without any reason.

[YesNo]

The Hindus have karma. I suspect the Buddhists do as well. They probably have some interest in sin.

[August Guelfen]

Yeah, YesNo, or, why should anyone else imagine my best friends on my farm ?
Yes, I mean Bremens best symbols of supernatural animal power. Die Bremer Stadtmusikanten.
I live only 45 miles away from Bremen in Oldenburg in Oldenburg, the only ex archdukedom of the independent
German nations with that kind of napoleon complex, perhabs because their duke flet his mini country so scared by mini napoleon's army behind the talls guy around, Zar Alexander first of Russia. that's history, but it's true, too !

[togre]

Some observations from my study of the Bible:

God is completely good. In fact, attempting to define sin apart from him is impossible. Sin is separations from God, from his goodness and from his way of thinking, feeling, speaking and acting.


bounty suggested "sin is an inner spiritual state indicating a separation from god." I find that a keen observation. Sin is what we are, when we are living and thinking apart from God. As Jesus said, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." What we are leads us to do and say things that are recognized as bad. In fact in worship our congregation (conservative Lutheran) confesses that we are sinful and that we sin in thought, word and deed. Stopping doing bad things doesn't solve the problem (and is in fact impossible).


The Bible does treat the devil as a literal and historic figure (and so, for the record, I believe he is). To allow service that was unforced or coerce, God gave his creatures free will. Yes, God knew what would happen. That doesn't mean he caused it. He also knew what he would do about sin before h formed the world--he would give his own Son as the sacrifice that would pay for the sins of the world.

Christianity isn't about being good. It's about the One who was a Substitute--good in our place but gave us the credit, given credit for our sins and punished instead of us. This is done by God freely. A gift of love that can't be earned. Yes, we seek to thank God by living for him (not sinning), but this 1) is a response to his free gift, 2) could never pay for what was given us and 3) remains a dreadfully flawed endeavor for our entire lives.


Regarding the search for some action universally recognized as sinful, the Bible says God has inscribed his law on our hearts. By nature we have a sense of right and wrong. Is there a culture that does not have these concepts? Sure, there is disagreement about what is right and wrong, but the concepts exist. Further more the Bible acknowledges that the law written on the heart is marred by sin--marred by the inherited sin that corrupts all our abilities and marred by repeated sinful actions and thoughts. Like hands that regularly use a shovel will develop calluses, so that heart that regularly thinks of sin, engages in sinful actions or is surrounded by them, will become hardened to them--less shocked, less hurt, less aware of their sinfulness.


Well, there's a perspective for y'all to chew on. Hope it helps. I'll try to pop back in if you'd like me to clarify point.

[August Guelfen]

you are right togre, my parents define them selves to date and competly
correct as "of God's Grace" leaders of the Guelphen Bloodline, but unfotunately, till
today, heirs like me, born 1991, must pay for one evil and mad emperor, Wilhelm 2, because
he wanted to be like "God of the Gods". I hate him entirely, because he started whole WW1.
He paid Lenin his secret invasion of Russia, because he wanted Lenin to start the october revolution.
He killed his cousin and his family. He murdered my greatgranddaddy, because he, Wilhelm 2, thought
every Monarchy is changing too strong to modern humanism, away with their stupid military uniforms, was to much for
him. the unique woman, who tried to love this bastard was his grandmother, Queen Victoria, because she saw the extrem danger for every country in Europa by this evil and angry crownprince of prussia.

[desiresjab]

Let's not be too wimpy about our sins. I say that if ten events in your life could be viewed by anyone, you would not be liked or trusted by anyone again, unless your mother is still alive. She might trust you and she might not.

It would only take ten of your "sins" to convince any strangers that you are worthless and not to be trusted and the world would truly be better off without your kind, though you have committed far more than ten despicable acts, my cheerful friends. We only need the ten most despicable of your deeds. Then we are willing to put the farm up against you, whoever and wherever you are.

Somewhere there is an aging preacher man who followed the teachings of the wise one faithfully. From the thousands he counseled, helped and guided, yet ten events can surely be found which gnaw at him as hard as the memories of a murderer. When those that view his events also share his mind during those events, he will be condenmed. He may be given token foregiveness as proscribed by the church, but that is not the same as trusting and believing in him.

Ten events, and no one in their right minds would trust you again, they would only act like they did because they had to. That which is crooked cannot be made straight. Did the bible just make a reference to original sin?

[tblue818]

John Wesley's mother:

"Take this rule: whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes off your relish of spiritual things; in short, whatever increases the strength and authority of your body over your mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may be in itself."
— Susanna Wesley (Letter, June 8, 1725)

[YesNo]

John Wesley's mother:

"Take this rule: whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes off your relish of spiritual things; in short, whatever increases the strength and authority of your body over your mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may be in itself."
— Susanna Wesley (Letter, June 8, 1725)

That makes sense. It makes me wonder how real sin is.

[desiresjab]

That makes sense. It makes me wonder how real sin is.

You wonder if the guy shooting people at random or buggering little boys is really sinning, eh?

[togre]

Somewhere there is an aging preacher man who followed the teachings of the wise one faithfully. From the thousands he counseled, helped and guided, yet ten events can surely be found which gnaw at him as hard as the memories of a murderer. When those that view his events also share his mind during those events, he will be condenmed. He may be given token foregiveness as proscribed by the church, but that is not the same as trusting and believing in him.


I agree. Which shows how otherworldly God's forgiveness is. He does know those ten things--and yet he forgives. From the heart loving without reservation. Taking away the guilt (responsibility or culpability as well as feelings of guilt) of our sins. Wow! But I'm straying from the topic at hand...

[desiresjab]

I agree. Which shows how otherworldly God's forgiveness is. He does know those ten things--and yet he forgives. From the heart loving without reservation. Taking away the guilt (responsibility or culpability as well as feelings of guilt) of our sins. Wow! But I'm straying from the topic at hand...

I do not worry about straying from topics. Here is a stray. Would the creator of an advanced simulation love his creations like his own children, or would this creator have the detached mentality of a scientist preparing a lab monkey for surgery?

No matter how one cuts it, we are simulations. We are only not simulations if reductionism is right and everything came about through random chance. In that case, we were not created and we are not simulations. As soon as one accepts creationism and that we were created from scratch, a logical person who has truly thought it over, accepts that we are simulations. We are simulations of the creator. Our very lives are simulated lives, which feel very real. No one could prove they are not real. The creator did not make copies of itself, it made simulations, which is what is meant by "image" in the Bible. Yes, we are alive, but we are not as much alive as the creator, who is probably a finite being itself. What does that make us? That makes us the creations of a finite being.

Maybe this finite God does love its diluted creations. Perhaps it identifies with us heavily for some reason. It can watch every move and know every thought with tools we could not dream of now. It would be nice if this creator has indeed prepared an afterlife for his simulations, identifying with us that strongly. Would this creator have done the same for dogs or mosquitos?