What is sin (or evil)?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't get what that means since nobody has a good definition of what sin is.

[/ QUOTE ]

sin is defined in the bible as transgression of the law (of god). new testament. google it.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll hazard a guess and say that sin is anything one person does that retards another persons abilities to pass on their genes. I'm thinking of it in the most meta-frame, that we are all gene machines, ala Dawkins "Selfish Gene".

I've just realised that killing a 60yr old woman isn't a sin




I'd say that the retardation of another or oneself enters into the realm of sin. But in order to affect oneself or even another the natural movement of the human being must have time to grow. One lifetime isn't enough in order to bring balance to the "sin(i.e. retardation)". Multiple lifetimes allow for the proper balance of atonement and enrichment of the human soul spiritual being. Man grows through the works he performs on the earth.


If looked at via the "gene" approach it would appear that "passing on genes" to your offspring would mean nothing to the "passer" as he would be gone when this happens. the scientific approach of today loses a heartbeat because of its lack of moral comprehension as the tools of this science only understand weight and measure.

In the understanding of reincarnation and karma the "sin" or "retardation" comes back to oneself (most likely in another form) and in this one can work to improve but it is of course possible to fall short. The "retardation" can be one's effect upon another or upon oneself in which one works.

The difficulty that I have is understanding that Man works within an area of "moral imagination" in which he intuits his moral compass freely without external coercion. No commandments, conscience, state, religion. etc. can in the last straw tell the "free spirit" what to do for then he would not be free. So, in truth, we are all part free and part under coercion in events of our life. If I follow the commandment "Thou Shall not Kill" without thought then I am acting unfreely. If I reason/think may way into this commandment and agree the I am acting in freedom for then I become a "knowing doer". Great men bring their thoughts to us and we respond to each. Moses, Buddha, Zarathustra, Aristotle,Plato,political philosophers, etc. bring their works in freedom and we respond likewise. The end is a community of "free spirits"-read human beings- who have worked their way through time within Cosmic and Earthly Love.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

It's simple, really. I'll help NR out:

1) God created Adam & Eve as spiritually alive.

2) Adam & Eve sinned, died spiritually ("the wages of sin is (spiritual) death").

3) Their offspring (us) were born spiritually dead.

4) Anything not of faith, not in accordance with God's will, not of the spirit, is sin.

5) Spiritually dead people cannot do Good. They can only Sin.

6) Blood atonement is required for sin to be absolved ("without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness").

7) Jesus was the perfect atonement, absolving all sin for all time (possibly only if you believe in him).

8) The Holy Spirit was given to bring the spiritually dead back to spiritual life.

9) If you confess/repent, and believe in Jesus, then you will be "saved" (made spiritually alive).

10) Spiritually alive people can do Good (God's will, by faith), and go to Heaven.

11) Only God knows who truly repents & believes (he judges the heart) and is therefore saved.

12) We can know them (the saved) "by their fruits" (actions), but we can't know what's in their hearts, so can't know for sure if they are truly saved or not.

Simple, see?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the only path to God though? Because if it is, that's where all the retarded aborigine hypotheticals come in.

Also, does this mean that we can't label any actions as sinful or evil?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

It means they can't please God. It means whatever they do is colored by bad motives - "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough".

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that mean all actions of a nonbeliever are sinful? I'm interested in how this gets translated into labeling specific acts sins or good deeds.

[ QUOTE ]

Salvation is by faith, a genuine act of repentance and trust in Christ. That's the how. But I can't know if someone else has exercised genuine faith. That's not inconsistent. And I don't think that's why Sklansky keeps repeating the same hypothet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's inconsistent if you say that you don't know the fate of a person who has never heard the Gospel and Jesus Christ.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Does that mean all actions of a nonbeliever are sinful? I'm interested in how this gets translated into labeling specific acts sins or good deeds.


[/ QUOTE ]

All their actions are sinful but we can still distinguish what theologians call "civil good" for practical, not soteriological, purposes. I would vote for Clinton over Hitler because I can make the judgment that Clinton is better at the worldly or temporal level even if I might doubt his salvation.

[ QUOTE ]

It's inconsistent if you say that you don't know the fate of a person who has never heard the Gospel and Jesus Christ.


[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]


All their actions are sinful

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the part I wasn't sure about.

[ QUOTE ]
but we can still distinguish what theologians call "civil good" for practical, not soteriological, purposes. I would vote for Clinton over Hitler because I can make the judgment that Clinton is better at the worldly or temporal level even if I might doubt his salvation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally. Even if someone's actions are motivated by sin they could still be pragmatic.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's inconsistent if you say that you don't know the fate of a person who has never heard the Gospel and Jesus Christ.


[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is if you claim that the only way to salvation is through Christ. If there is no other way and you haven't heard of him, how else could you get salvation?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It is if you claim that the only way to salvation is through Christ. If there is no other way and you haven't heard of him, how else could you get salvation?


[/ QUOTE ]

Many were saved before Christ was born, it's therefore obviously possible to be saved without specifically going through the normal method given by the New Testament - but they were saved by and through Christ, and by faith in Him. "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness".

Also, Romans 1 indicates all know God and most reject Him. Beyond that there is some controversy about people born after Christ but who haven't heard - nevertheless, most theologians I know believe infants are saved and many believe those who never hear can be saved - again, it would be because of Christ's atonement and it would be through faith. What is clear is that if you reject Him you can't be saved.

[Taraz]

We're kind of going off on a tangent, but I still don't understand the logic.

[ QUOTE ]

Many were saved before Christ was born, it's therefore obviously possible to be saved without specifically going through the normal method given by the New Testament - but they were saved by and through Christ, and by faith in Him. "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness".

[/ QUOTE ]

The ancient Egyptians who were saved were saved by having faith in Christ? Were they just in limbo until Christ came to Earth or was their some test after death? I know I'm being difficult on these points, but I legitimately don't understand the logic of it. I'm sure it must make some internal sense to you, so I must be misunderstanding something.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, Romans 1 indicates all know God and most reject Him. Beyond that there is some controversy about people born after Christ but who haven't heard - nevertheless, most theologians I know believe infants are saved and many believe those who never hear can be saved - again, it would be because of Christ's atonement and it would be through faith. What is clear is that if you reject Him you can't be saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it clear that if you aren't a Christian in the U.S. today that you've rejected Christ? Maybe God has different standards for everybody. Perhaps an atheist will be saved because God sees that he has given it an honest effort. I just don't see why it's necessary to make the proclamation that the only way to be saved is through Christ if the majority of people get exceptions. I realize that you say that there are other ways to have faith in Christ, but it's fairly obvious that those in ancient times, those who've never heard the message, and a select few others are practicing this 'faith' in a different way than your traditional Christian.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

We're kind of going off on a tangent, but I still don't understand the logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's lots of this stuff on the web. I can't think of any better way to say it. I can't give you precise details on exactly who will be saved. If you hear the Gospel and reject Christ the Bible says you can't be saved. What happens with those who don't hear is uncertain. But God is just and I can't see past that.

[Peter666]

"It means they can't please God. It means whatever they do is colored by bad motives - "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough".


"Salvation is by faith, a genuine act of repentance and trust in Christ."


How can an unbeliever genuinely repent if they had no choice but to do bad actions until they were given the Faith?