The definition of sin

gadar perets · Dec 10, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
To be clear, do you defend the OT law and its stance on rape, slavery, racism, and sexism?

I defend Torah. I do not defend the misunderstandings of Torah.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 10, 2017

YouAreAwesome said:
How does this relate to free-will?

I don't think you bring anything to the discussion on this matter.

First, please show a biblical rule that is in direct opposition to a primitive desire.

If you lust after a woman, you are an adulterer.

Second, God gave laws that were keepable.

Then why was there not a single man who ever kept the law?

For example in Phillipians 3:6 Paul says of himself "as for righteousness based on the law, faultless." So God didn't say jump 10 metres high and then punish them for not being able to do it, He said to jump 1 metre high but they oftentimes didn't want to.

And he also said you can beat your slave as long as you don't kill him.

Ummm... free-will is a philosophical concept... so...

Right, incoherent drivel is all philolsophy has to offer.

Because I could have done otherwise.

Prove it.

Just because there is one reality we experience, doesn't mean it is the only possible reality that could have eventuated. Here is a summarised article regarding free will: Quantum mechanics implies that physical reality has an irreducibly probabilistic nature -- not a deterministic nature. Even in classical physics, according to chaos theory, any of an incalculably huge number of tiny differences in initial conditions can lead to radically different outcomes. Professor Bruce Waller argues that animals evolved the capacities we associate with free will in order to survive—capacities like generating options for themselves, deliberating over which is the best option, and having the will to then stick to their choice. We humans, with our massive brains, have all of these capacities in abundance. We already have tests that assess people’s reasoning skills, creativity, self-control and the likes, all of which are essential components of psychological free will. It is possible there are quantum interactions in the brain relating to free-will. (By the way, I disagree with this article, but I think it makes a reasonable case for free-will).

Quantum randomness could negate mechanical determinism, but it does nothing to imply that an agent is making a free choice. I don't think you know how to make an argument and defend it.

Yes, a good analysis.

A good argument. But if we have evolved into quantum-thinking, that is probabilistic and not inanimate, then is there not still scope for free-will?

Correct.

Also, from a theistic perspective, spirit is the launch-pad of free-will.

Again, that just pushes the question back. You've done absolutely nothing to explain primitive desires; in fact you just pretend that it is irrelevant.

I'll try and re-phrase your argument:

1. Anything created can not have free-will
2. Mankind was created
3. Therefore mankind can not have free-will

My contention is with (1). Why can't something be created with free-will?

I have explained in excruciating detail why free will cannot exist.

But my question is, were Adam and Eve created with desires to do sinful things? Because I don't believe they were. But I see you have replied "They had no awareness of good or evil (despite being punished for doing evil) so they obviously had no good or evil desires (at least none that they were aware of)." So then, you can't accuse God of creating with bias, because here you argue against yourself. Second, if they were neutral, then why did they choose evil?

I never brought up Adam and Eve. You did, and then you say I contradict myself. All of their descendants were born with sinful desires. When you're done beating up the straw man, let me know.

Debatable,

No it isn't.

but I would say there are infinite points,

There simply are not.

because I don't see the universe as digital, but analog.

The universe doesn't care how you see it. The universe will do what it does.

With this argument, I'm not trying to show free will is true, I'm trying to show that the universe is indeterminate. But to show an indeterminate universe all we need is QM.

Ok, so indeterminate but no free will.

The outcome of a choice is irrelevant? How else do we know a choice was even made?

In a thought experiment - which is all philolsophy has to offer - we can be omniscient. We know the thoughts of a person who exists only in a thought experiment. This question of yours ends all doubt: you have no clue what's going on in this conversation.

Is it a "desire-competition" or do we dictate which desire wins the competition with reason and will? Are will and desire equivalent ideas? I would think we can will a desire to win the "desire-competition" rather than the other way around. It seems to me like a which came first the chicken or the egg kind of thing.

Again, it seems we have different conceptual understandings of free-will. For a being to have free-will, all they need is the ability to choose in such a way that they could have chosen otherwise. Just because advertising nudges someone in a particular direction, it in no way negates free-will.

Discussion over. I'm using my free will to not discuss free will with you.

The Old Covenant wasn't changed. It was rendered obsolete

...?

because a New Covenant was made between the two parties.

I never saw Israel agree to anything.

Jesus, as King and High Priest of Israel,

This never was the case.

created a New Covenant. This is one reason why He had to come as a man on to the earth, to end the tragic system the people had requested back in Moses' day.

?

2 Peter 2:5 "...Noah, a preacher of righteousness...", I would think to preach is to warn of the impending flood. But you are right, the Bible isn't clear on the matter -- I thought it was clearer than it actually is.

It's unclear.

Yes. It's called speculation.

Ok.

Are you really arguing that there can not be a wooden boat/ship/ark? Maybe you haven't thought it through, or I am misunderstanding you? Metal ships began in the 1830's. Before that, every ship was wooden. So what exactly is the problem? Ok well rather than the paper itself, here's another link.

A wooden boat as large as depicted in Genesis is impossible. Either show me one, or explain why no one has made one, or concede the point.

Also, a local flood still has obvious plot holes. You can say that Noah preached and that is why he never left. But why would God supernaturally force the animals onto the ark instead of supernaturally forcing them out of the region? How do you hold that many animals that long? How could a local flood remain for a year above the mountains?

Romans 4:15 says the law brings wrath. On agreeing to the covenant the people would have said "May our God punish us if we don't keep this covenant" because this was part of the tradition of the day. Whether the law was good or not, the people wanted it and God agreed to it. But then He was bound to punish them if they broke it. This is why it is called the "law of sin and death" in Romans 8:2 and a curse in Galatians 3:13. God is angry because He has to punish them.

I'm not expecting you to answer me anymore.

God's mercy is seen in Genesis 18:16-33.

I've always imagined their wanting to return to Egypt to be for a combination of reasons: manna and quail as the only food (Exodus 16:3; Numbers 11:4-6), living in a desert, heat and thirst (Exodus 17:3), walking around in circles, fear of the Caananites (Numbers 14:1-3). But you bring up an interesting point that argues in the favour of slavery; the people wanted to return to Egypt so they could eat all they wanted and be full including meat and bread. If the slavery offered by Moses was even better, then that is in favour of Moses and not the other way around.

Unbelievable. You make a totally unsubstantiated "if" wild speculation, and then drop the mic thinking you've shown that slavery isn't actually all that bad.

At this point I'd gain more from drinking sand than discussing anything anything with you.

My point is to show how initially I was giving a definition, but now I am giving a deductive proof using definitions.

I asked what you're proving.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 10, 2017

gadar perets said:
I defend Torah. I do not defend the misunderstandings of Torah.

Is it a good thing to own a slave and have the right to beat them as long as they don't die?

YouAreAwesome · Dec 11, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
I don't think you bring anything to the discussion on this matter.

Do you equate primitive desire with subconscious mind? I'm sorry I should have asked earlier, I assumed I knew what you meant, but what do you mean by primitive desire? If you do equate these, then how do you respond to the time when first learning to play a musical instrument where the subconscious mind cannot know ahead of time what to do? Is not the learning of an instrument freely willed?

If you lust after a woman, you are an adulterer.

Good point. I'll have to think about that...

Then why was there not a single man who ever kept the law?

Why did you reject the answer, Jesus did? But nevertheless, Paul says he kept it perfectly as I showed in the last post (Philippians 3:6).

And he also said you can beat your slave as long as you don't kill him.

We are talking about the ability to keep the law and God not expecting too much of the Israelites. You are changing the topic rather than addressing it.

Right, incoherent drivel is all philolsophy has to offer.

Why do you think that?

Prove it.

A proof of free will showing that determinism is self-refuting.

Quantum randomness could negate mechanical determinism, but it does nothing to imply that an agent is making a free choice. I don't think you know how to make an argument and defend it.

The surrender of hard determinism is the first step towards accepting the credibility of free will.

Correct.

Ok, so you accept that free will is a viable option.

I never brought up Adam and Eve. You did, and then you say I contradict myself. All of their descendants were born with sinful desires. When you're done beating up the straw man, let me know.

I suppose I'll have to be a bit clearer rather than assuming you will follow the conversation. First, you said God creates humans with inclination to do evil, so how can humans be judged? I responded that Adam and Eve were not created with an inclination to do evil. Then you agreed with this. Now the reason I brought this up was because I don't believe we are born with the inclination to do evil. I believe we are born like Adam and Eve and get to choose for ourselves if we want to do evil or not (for more on this view see, Precious in His Sight by Harold Eberle). So my argument was against you blaming God for judging us even though we have a bent to do evil.

No it isn't.

Can you explain further?

There simply are not.

Why?

The universe doesn't care how you see it. The universe will do what it does.

The point remains either way, even if there are not infinitely many points (though it is still possible there are, in the same way there are infinitely many unique real numbers between 0 and 1) on a wall, there are enough to make choosing a point something that is out of the control of our past. And just so you know, this.

Ok, so indeterminate but no free will.

Indeterminate, yes.

In a thought experiment - which is all philolsophy has to offer - we can be omniscient. We know the thoughts of a person who exists only in a thought experiment. This question of yours ends all doubt: you have no clue what's going on in this conversation.

Nope, I forget, and I give up on this tangent.

Discussion over. I'm using my free will to not discuss free will with you.

Ok.

...?

If I am married to someone, but decide to divorce and marry someone else, I am not changing the first covenant. I am making it obsolete, ending it, and then starting a new one. This is what occurred when Jesus brought in the New Covenant. It rendered the first obsolete.

I never saw Israel agree to anything.

Jesus, as King and High Priest of Israel, made the New Covenant with God, in the same way Moses made the covenant with God.

This never was the case.

Jesus King of the Jews, Christ the King, Jesus the Great High Priest

?

I've explained this already. If you have a specific question I'll try to answer.

A wooden boat as large as depicted in Genesis is impossible. Either show me one, or explain why no one has made one, or concede the point.

Also, a local flood still has obvious plot holes. You can say that Noah preached and that is why he never left. But why would God supernaturally force the animals onto the ark instead of supernaturally forcing them out of the region? How do you hold that many animals that long? How could a local flood remain for a year above the mountains?

I speculate that Noah was a real person who did as God told him and made a boat large enough for family and a few animals and when the flood came he was saved. I'm of the opinion that Noah thought the flood was worldwide and that he had every animal that he thought existed with him. I'm not confident in my view, but it is what it is for now.

I'm not expecting you to answer me anymore.

Ok.

Unbelievable. You make a totally unsubstantiated "if" wild speculation, and then drop the mic thinking you've shown that slavery isn't actually all that bad.

I've shown that living in the desert was so bad they cried out for slavery in Egypt, and that this says nothing about the slavery laws in the bible.

At this point I'd gain more from drinking sand than discussing anything anything with you.

Good luck with that.

I asked what you're proving.

Everybodyknows · Dec 11, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Except there isn't any way to determine what is moral apart from our subjective emotional experiences.

Nihilist Virus said:
No one can demonstrate a single moral claim by any means whatsoever.

Nihilist Virus said:
Ultimately, morality does not exist.

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm a nihilist.

Nihilist Virus said:
There is ultimately no truth to any morality claim.

All these comments suggest you are a Moral Nihilist:

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.

Nihilist Virus said:
It's obviously wrong to me because I have empathy.

Nihilist Virus said:
If you do have empathy for them, then it is obvious why it is wrong to eat flesh.

Nihilist Virus said:
But if we rise above tribalism and no longer negate our empathy would everyone necessarily conclude that eating meat is wrong?

Click to expand...

Yes.

But then these comments suggest you are a Moral Universalist:

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.[2] Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism.

Nihilist Virus said:
I absolutely can have it both ways because morality is subjective. That's what subjectivity entails. I couldn't have it both ways if morality was objective.

So no, you cant have it both ways, because you are subscribing to two contradictory moral views. If morality is subjective you can only say what you find moral, you cannot impose that morality on others. Subjectivity entails a morality that is based on individual value judgements and that moral claims have no truth value. You are claiming a moral truth.

Nihilist Virus said:
Definition: killing is wrong.

How's that?

Do you say that as a nihilist or a moral universalist?

a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.

Nihilist Virus said:
I'd choose the one that does not need to resist urges, obviously.

But with whom would you more likely trust your life: with a person whom you know resists evil because he prefers to do good, or with someone about whom you know nothing?

This thought experiment demonstrates that we take into account peoples character and motives apart from their actions when making moral judgements. Your second sentence is irrelevant, it doesn't make them a bad person nor negate any of their other positive qualities.

Nihilist Virus said:
Hmm, you surprise me with this. I thought Jesus made it abundantly clear that thought crimes exist within Christianity.

Do you look upon women lustfully? Is your wife OK with this?

Actions start as thoughts, evil begins in the mind.

Matthew 15:18-19 18But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

This is what I've been saying all along about Jesus shifting the view of what is right and wrong away from the external rules to what is inside us and proceeds from the heart. This is what is meant by Jeremiah 31:33

"This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

I don't believe the thought in isolation is a crime, but Jesus is teaching that there is an inherent connection between thought and action.

gadar perets · Dec 11, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Is it a good thing to own a slave and have the right to beat them as long as they don't die?

Since you have not provided a verse, I will assume you mean Exodus 21:20-21;

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

This passage does NOT give such a person the "right" to beat their "slave". It is telling us whether or not the guilty party should be punished or not based on the circumstances. Do the laws of the USA give us the "right" to kill people because it has laws that say murderers can be put to death? Does USA law give us the "right" to steal from others because it has laws telling us what the punishment is for stealing? The Bible does not give anyone the right to beat slaves. It actually teaches us how to righteously treat our servants. You would do well to stop parroting those who deceive you into thinking all manner of evil against your Creator and seek to know and understand your Creator for yourself.

DogmaHunter · Dec 11, 2017

Tree of Life said:
Sin is any transgression of or lack of conformity to the Law of God.

So, it's a sin to be against slavery?
Since the Law of God in the OT clearly has no issues with it.

DogmaHunter · Dec 11, 2017

RaymondG said:
I had a typo in there that I corrected, although I expect your response to be the same. The truth is known, not understood or learned. If any man lack wisdom...let him ask of God who will give it freely.

Maybe ask God how to reconcile special relativity with quantum mechanics?
It's been baffling physicists for decades now.

DogmaHunter · Dec 11, 2017

RaymondG said:
I can show you. Every prayer you pray will be answered. The obstacle I foresee however, is the requirement of belief.

I'll go ahead and assume that you are a believer and don't have that obstacle blocking you.
So here's an opportunity for you to demonstrate your claims...

How about you pray to your God and ask him to open a swiss bank account in my name and put 10 million dollars on it. No need to share my real name, I'll go ahead and assume that this all-knowing God you'll pray to, knows who I am. He'll also know how to contact me by mail or text message or whatever to inform me that there is a swiss bank account on my name with 10 million bucks on it.

I'll promise to give 5 million to a charity of your own choosing. Or God's own choosing. Doesn't matter to me. I'll also become a christian instantly.

I'ld like to have this done before new years. That way, I have an awesome budget for family gifts this year.

Can't cook an egg without the heat of the fire.

I gave you the egg. Now you can apply your fire to cook it.

RaymondG · Dec 11, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
Maybe ask God how to reconcile special relativity with quantum mechanics?
It's been baffling physicists for decades now.

I can ask, and He will tell me. But when I give you the answer, would you believe me, or would the answer have to come from someone whose knowledge you respect?

RaymondG · Dec 11, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
I'll go ahead and assume that you are a believer and don't have that obstacle blocking you.
So here's an opportunity for you to demonstrate your claims...

How about you pray to your God and ask him to open a swiss bank account in my name and put 10 million dollars on it. No need to share my real name, I'll go ahead and assume that this all-knowing God you'll pray to, knows who I am. He'll also know how to contact me by mail or text message or whatever to inform me that there is a swiss bank account on my name with 10 million bucks on it.

I'll promise to give 5 million to a charity of your own choosing. Or God's own choosing. Doesn't matter to me. I'll also become a christian instantly.

I'ld like to have this done before new years. That way, I have an awesome budget for family gifts this year.

I gave you the egg. Now you can apply your fire to cook it.

You are only a believer until you know..then you can stop believing.

You have already prayed a prayer against what you asked me to pray for. You told me to drive to your house and then installed a high security fence to stop me from getting in. While I know I can break in anyway, I and not one to pray against someone's own desires.....

If you don't understand how you have prayed this, then you fine understand prayer and it would not be wise to ask others to do this for you until you do understand it.

DogmaHunter · Dec 11, 2017

RaymondG said:
I can ask, and He will tell me. But when I give you the answer, would you believe me, or would the answer have to come from someone whose knowledge you respect?

That's the thing, now is it...

In this case, I wouldn't need to "just believe" it.
It's accuracy would be apparant, because it would give rise to a serious injection of knowledge and new technological applications.

I could know it to be accurate, just like we can know that atomic theory is quite accurate, cause nukes actually explode.

There would be no need for mere "beliefs".

DogmaHunter · Dec 11, 2017

RaymondG said:
You are only a believer until you know..then you can stop believing.

You have already prayed a prayer against what you asked me to pray for. You told me to drive to your house and then installed a high security fence to stop me from getting in. While I know I can break in anyway, I and not one to pray against someone's own desires.....

If you don't understand how you have prayed this, then you fine understand prayer and it would not be wise to ask others to do this for you until you do understand it.

What an elaborate way to avoid the obvious.

RaymondG · Dec 11, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
That's the thing, now is it...

In this case, I wouldn't need to "just believe" it.
It's accuracy would be apparant, because it would give rise to a serious injection of knowledge and new technological applications.

I could know it to be accurate, just like we can know that atomic theory is quite accurate, cause nukes actually explode.

There would be no need for mere "beliefs".

So you don't only want me to tell you the truth, you want me to demonstrate it correct? I can't just explain the inner workings and actions of the nuclear bomb...You want me to explode it as well, right? You need to see it. Not a bad quality, and one day you will. But blessed see they who, yet without seeing, belief.

RaymondG · Dec 11, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
What an elaborate way to avoid the obvious.

What a typical way to use ones own unbelief to dissolve oneself of their own responsibility for results.

DogmaHunter · Dec 11, 2017

RaymondG said:
So you don't only want me to tell you the truth, you want me to demonstrate it correct?

No. As I said, the demonstration would follow automatically, IF your model is accurate.
You wouldn't have to do anything... You wouldn't even need to actually understand the model.

All you would have to do is hand it over to a physicist, who will work out the model mathematically and set up experiments to test its predictions. Those results would then validate the model and then, those same predictions could be used to build new technologies that would likely blow our minds.

See, that's the thing about actual knowledge about reality: it is actually usefull and it actually enables all kinds of things. Just like how atomic theory enables the ability to build nukes and nuclear power stations. Practical applications, in short.

I can't just explain the inner workings and actions of the nuclear bomb...You want me to explode it as well, right? You need to see it. Not a bad quality, and one day you will.

I wouldn't be able to explain atomic theory if my life depended on it.
That is not a problem. I have a basic understanding of the general concept and see it validated in nuclear power stations and exploding nukes.

In short: physicists can put their money where their mouth is, when it comes to atomic theory.

Theists generally don't seem to be able to do the same, when it comes to their religious beliefs. Which, unsurprisingly, also goes for fortune tellers, faith healers, those claiming paranormal abilities, etc.

But blessed see they who, yet without seeing, belief.

I don't consider gullibility to be a "blessing".

DogmaHunter · Dec 11, 2017

RaymondG said:
What a typical way to use ones own unbelief to dissolve oneself of their own responsibility for results.

You made a claim, I challenged your claim based on the wording you yourself used.
You could also just retract your statement and reformulate, instead of trying to bath the point in a labyrinth of obfuscation, just so you can avoid to admitting you were incorrect or over the top.

Tree of Life · Dec 11, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
So, it's a sin to be against slavery?
Since the Law of God in the OT clearly has no issues with it.

God's Law regulated the ANE practice of slavery a great deal. But it nowhere positively commands slavery as a moral norm. So I don't see why it would be a sin to be against slavery.

DogmaHunter · Dec 11, 2017

Tree of Life said:
God's Law regulated the ANE practice of slavery a great deal. But it nowhere positively commands slavery as a moral norm.

It does command slaves to obbey their masters do.

So I don't see why it would be a sin to be against slavery.

If God says that there is no problem with it, and you then say that that is incorrect and that there is a LOT wrong with it and even call it unethical and immoral....

How is that not going against God's Law?
It's saying that God's Law is immoral, isn't it?

Or am I mistaken and don't you actually consider slavery to be immoral?

Hawkins · Dec 11, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
Or am I mistaken and don't you actually consider slavery to be immoral?

It's yes and no. Ancient Jewish slavery system is to help out the poor. It's moral for God to demand obedience to masters as it merits the obedient behavior which is crucially required in the future Heaven.

The definition of sin

Messianic Hebrew

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

☝✌

The good guys lost

Messianic Hebrew

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Hide The Pain

Code Monkey

Member

Similar threads