What is Sin?

[juvenissun]

Sin is anything not inthe Expressed Will of God.

Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin.

Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.

The wages of all sin (Evil or not) Is eternal death.

Have you elaborated it too much? What is an example of that?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Perhaps he means some sins are able to be forgiven without the person's contrition/repentance, because they commit them without being aware of the law in some sense. One might call it a distinction between venial and mortal sins, though I can't say I'm deeply versed in hamartiology

 

[david_x]

Problem with that is if free will in the truest sense is the capacity to go outside of what is right, as you put it, then it appears we weren't created with free will in mind to begin with, or if we were, it was a neutered form that had no real significance, since you'd only be able to choose from a limited set of possibilities based on the notions of God's idea of what is right.

We didn't willfully make the world 'unfair' by this alleged fall, because technically we couldn't have willed it. No more than a child wills for the house to burn down because they play with matches. The world is unfair by perspective, not in and of itself. The world in and of itself is benign.

Capacity does not necessitate an action. One might have the capacity to commit murder, but never actually do it. In the same way unfallen man had the capacity to sin, but never would have.

 

[david_x]

Go ask AV.

Anyway, if she is alone she needs no morality. The whole purpose of the morality is to be able to get along with beings who are like yourself.

What? Who is she?

 

[Upisoft]

So American morality is different from Egyptian morality?

Some of it, yes. Egyptians had no problems with having slaves. Americans however had a civil war to terminate that practice.

If you are talking about modern Egyptians, then they are different both than Americans and ancient Egyptians. They will find it immoral if you serve them pork for dinner.

 

[Upisoft]

What? Who is she?

I am agnostic. I don't know if God is He, She, It or even if It exists.

 

[david_x]

I am agnostic. I don't know if God is He, She, It or even if It exists.

....He.

 

[drich0150]

Have you elaborated it too much? What is an example of that?

I don't know what you mean by me elaborating it too much..

An example of Evil is premeditated murder.

An example of sin not being evil is a thief stealing to feed his family. The thief steals out of necessity not malicious intent. Never the less it is still a sin.

 

[jacks]

Sin is anything you do that separates you or others from God.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know what you mean by me elaborating it too much..

An example of Evil is premeditated murder.

An example of sin not being evil is a thief stealing to feed his family. The thief steals out of necessity not malicious intent. Never the less it is still a sin.

OK, thanks. It is interesting.

So a white lie is still a sin, but is not evil. Right?

Then what is evil? (evil + ??? = sin)

 

[juvenissun]

Some of it, yes. Egyptians had no problems with having slaves. Americans however had a civil war to terminate that practice.

If you are talking about modern Egyptians, then they are different both than Americans and ancient Egyptians. They will find it immoral if you serve them pork for dinner.

So if the True Morality = intersection (morality01, morality02 ... )
Then would the True Morality = 0 ?
How many local_morality needs to be tested? How about 10 (US, France, Trinidad, Lao, ...)?

Is "Thou should not murder" a true morality? How about "Thou should not steal"?

 

[drich0150]

OK, thanks. It is interesting.

So a white lie is still a sin, but is not evil. Right?

Then what is evil? (evil + ??? = sin)

Without a doubt gauging Evil in the Heart of another is a slippery slope, but as far as my definition of a white lie goes, it is not evil. But still a lie, which makes it still a sin. (Because it is outside of God's expressed will/The Written Law of God) And Again the wage for all sin is Death.

Evil= Malicious intent to be outside of God's expressed will/law.

Sin= anything not in the Expressed Will of God/law.

Sin + Malicious intent= Evil

 

[juvenissun]

Without a doubt gauging Evil in the Heart of another is a slippery slope, but as far as my definition of a white lie goes, it is not evil. But still a lie, which makes it still a sin. (Because it is outside of God's expressed will/The Written Law of God) And Again the wage for all sin is Death.

Evil= Malicious intent to be outside of God's expressed will/law.

Sin= anything not in the Expressed Will of God/law.

Sin + Malicious intent= Evil

Here is the problem.

Without referencing to God, there is no such thing called malicious. So, the definitions of evil and sin are essentially identical.

This is why I suggested that it is over elaborating by separating sin and evil.

Give me an example of malicious intention without having God in the background.

 

[drich0150]

Here is the problem.

Without referencing to God, there is no such thing called malicious. So, the definitions of evil and sin are essentially identical.

This is why I suggested that it is over elaborating by separating sin and evil.

Give me an example of malicious intention without having God in the background.

Why do you presuppose that having a malicious intent of being outside the expressed will of God does not have the standard or a reference of God in the background?

 

[LanceCohen]

We can have a better discussion if we first recognised the circularity in our thinking the moment we say that sin is bad, evil, malicious, etc etc for then it now begs the questions what is bad, evil, malicious etc. And it is bad discussion because we get nowhere.

On the other hand if you say sin is not measuring up to a standard or missing the mark, or breaking or disobeying a rule or a law, that will be fine, if you can say at the same time what these reference is, and specify how you can know whether you meet the requirements of this reference.

For example you may say everyone knows or can feel what is bad, evil, malicious etc, then you are making the whole thing subjective, ie what is sin to me may not be to you, but that is a sound concept - though not necessarily true - namely that sin is a relative thing. Then we can go on to discern if this is indeed the case, ie establish its truth.

But if we cannot even get beyond knowing what we are talking about, then how are we ever to even start to know if this thing is true or not.

 

[drich0150]

We can have a better discussion if we first recognized the circularity in our thinking the moment we say that sin is bad, evil, malicious, etc etc for then it now begs the questions what is bad, evil, malicious etc. And it is bad discussion because we get nowhere.

On the other hand if you say sin is not measuring up to a standard or missing the mark, or breaking or disobeying a rule or a law, that will be fine, if you can say at the same time what these reference is, and specify how you can know whether you meet the requirements of this reference.

For example you may say everyone knows or can feel what is bad, evil, malicious etc, then you are making the whole thing subjective, ie what is sin to me may not be to you, but that is a sound concept - though not necessarily true - namely that sin is a relative thing. Then we can go on to discern if this is indeed the case, ie establish its truth.

But if we cannot even get beyond knowing what we are talking about, then how are we ever to even start to know if this thing is true or not.

I am not sure, what you are looking for.

All that you have asked is included in the very simple definitions that I posted.

As Far as you pointing out that Evil by this definition can be subjective, it's because it is. Sin is the absolute standard, Evil is simply one's proximity or level of determination to be outside of that same standard.

For example There are some who Gossip as a means of communicating need or relaying news. For others Gossip is a way of climbing a social ladder or a way for them to hurting another. Gossip is the standard that is being broken. Both acts are to be considered sin. It is to the one looking to use Gossip as a weapon, that that classifies his actions or the desire to use gossip as a weapon, as malicious.

 

[Gracchus]

Here is the problem.

Without referencing to God, there is no such thing called malicious. So, the definitions of evil and sin are essentially identical.

If there is no malice without God, then maybe it is time to get rid of God.

But no, even atheists can be malicious.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you presuppose that having a malicious intent of being outside the expressed will of God does not have the standard or a reference of God in the background?

Because I do not know what malicious is. Example, please.

Whatever you will say, I might argue that it is simply a sin. So your evil will be equal to sin.

 

[juvenissun]

If there is no malice without God, then maybe it is time to get rid of God.

But no, even atheists can be malicious.

Example, please.

Malicious is not in the dictionary of an atheist. Like the example I gave: murder can easily be justified, if there were no God. (do you still want God go off your back?)

 

[juvenissun]

We can have a better discussion if we first recognised the circularity in our thinking the moment we say that sin is bad, evil, malicious, etc etc for then it now begs the questions what is bad, evil, malicious etc. And it is bad discussion because we get nowhere.

On the other hand if you say sin is not measuring up to a standard or missing the mark, or breaking or disobeying a rule or a law, that will be fine, if you can say at the same time what these reference is, and specify how you can know whether you meet the requirements of this reference.

For example you may say everyone knows or can feel what is bad, evil, malicious etc, then you are making the whole thing subjective, ie what is sin to me may not be to you, but that is a sound concept - though not necessarily true - namely that sin is a relative thing. Then we can go on to discern if this is indeed the case, ie establish its truth.

But if we cannot even get beyond knowing what we are talking about, then how are we ever to even start to know if this thing is true or not.

Knowing God is the beginning of wisdom.

I agree with you. We need to find a reference point to start. But there will be no such point unless we recognize an authority called God.

Without law, there is still sin (evil). Because there is God. A good example is Cain described in Gen 4:10.