What is Sin?

[Upisoft]

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"?

"Thou should not murder" is a good rule in a society of trustworthy members. In a gangster world this falls apart. So, yes, no such thing as "True Morality" exists.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

I sort of get it.

Are you saying that sin, is against God, but
evil is against man?

So a white lie is not evil because it does not intent to harm anyone?

So, it would not be an evil act if I do it out of a good (according to my judgement) intention. Any problem with that?

--------

Now, I know what evil is.

Evil is something that follows satan's will.

Something which is evil may look perfect to man. It includes perfect advice or white lie. And that is why we have no ability to go against evil except abiding to God (e.g. don't tell white lie).

(if you have time, think about what Rahab said in Joshua 2: 4-5. Did she tell a lie or a white lie? Is it acceptable to God? Is it a sin? )

 

[juvenissun]

"Thou should not murder" is a good rule in a society of trustworthy members. In a gangster world this falls apart. So, yes, no such thing as "True Morality" exists.

So what is the statistical meaning of something called morality? Why does such a meaning exist?

 

[chris4243]

Sin is an action (or occasionally an inaction) formally acknowledged to be against the commands of God. Without God's commands, there is no sin. Compare to the common claim that without God there is no morality.

All sin is (usually considered to be) immoral, but it could be argued that some immoral things may not be sins. However, since the time of Christ and especially for those who accept Christ's teachings concerning the law, to the extent of thought-crime and also that all the laws can be summed up as the Golden Rule, then God's commands and morality are indistinguishable, because the Golden Rule leaves pretty much no moral question unanswered.

 

[drich0150]

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.

As I pointed out in my opening post all evil is indeed sin, but not all sin is evil.

Your making my point for me and yet somehow you do not seem to understand it, or I still do not understand what you are trying to say.

 

[drich0150]

I sort of get it.
Are you saying that sin, is against God, but
evil is against man?

Evil is a condition of the Heart. Evil is most often committed against man, but Evil can also be committed against God. It all depends on the heart that is committing the sin.

So a white lie is not evil because it does not intent to harm anyone?

More or less.

So, it would not be an evil act if I do it out of a good (according to my judgment) intention. Any problem with that?

No problem, that is why I said if a thief steals to feed his family this "sin" is not considered an evil act.

--------

Now, I know what evil is.

Evil is something that follows Satan's will.

Satan is not the father of evil. True Evil is simply the purest expression of free will.

If Sin is anything not in the Expressed Will of God, and Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin..

Then, Free will is the ability to choose a path outside of God's expressed will. In other words Freewill is the ability to sin.
The ability to be evil is the proof that true free will exists. Otherwise if we could not be evil to wards one another or if God buffered the consequences of evil or stopped it from happening altogether the "free will" would just be an illusion. Because truthfully we could never be fully in our own will, if God kept us from it.

Satan did not give us free will, God did. in that He allowed us to be evil if our hearts so choose. Satan is our representation of Evil because he is embodiment of one who wishes to be completely outside of the will of god to the point of all true malice. However this does not mean he is the god of evil. He at best is evil's spokes person, maybe a sponsor. It is our choice apart from the will of God or Satan to be evil. We are evil because it is in our hearts to be evil. What spawns evil in the Heart is our devotion to our own pride.

Something which is evil may look perfect to man. It includes perfect advice or white lie. And that is why we have no ability to go against evil except abiding to God (e.g. don't tell white lie).

Actually we have to part ways here. A man always knows when he is involved in an evil act. Sin on the other hand may be apart of our lives and we'd be none the wiser. This is why we are told that righteousness can not be obtained through our deeds, but only through the blood of the lamb.

(if you have time, think about what Rahab said in Joshua 2: 4-5. Did she tell a lie or a white lie? Is it acceptable to God? Is it a sin? )

[/quote]
She told a lie this is a sin, simply because we have in God expressed will "you shall not lie" There are no conditions to lying, so with out any doubt she sinned.

Now the question is: Was this an act of Evil. Only Christ can be her true judge, but according to what I have read in this story, No I personally do not think so.

That said, knowing the definitions for sin and evil are not intended as a new way to judge your neighbor. These definitions are tools to help you set your own house in order not tools to be used to tear down what your neighbor has built.

Also remember the wages for ALL Sin is Death. Not just evil sin.

 

[Upisoft]

So what is the statistical meaning of something called morality? Why does such a meaning exist?

Because we are social beings who have social communications. Morality describes our understanding how specific kind of social interaction is best done. Everybody has a set of moral rules associated with the preferable interaction they have. So, just take "money making" as an example. Some prefer to sell drugs, other prefer to make money by working hard and others prefer to pay them miserable wages and benefit as much as they can from their labor. Of course, that is only very limited list, but it can be food for thought.

 

[LanceCohen]

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.

Philosophically God is one possible reference point. As I alluded, your own self could be another. And then also society, as in the laws of a land, its traditions and customs, some codex written in stone, some Golden Rule, and so on. Or yet another person, like the Pope, or Dalai Lama, or Sai Baba or Gandhi or even the Devil.

For most who are vague or muddled about such a reference, usually they have in mind, knowingly or otherwise, themselves as the reference point, or they are just hiding and not trying to reveal their true reference point.

But, in this so-called discussion, we are not even getting past this point, namely to acknowledge this need for a reference to even start talking about sin. If we had, then we can debate which reference is valid and how do we measure whether we are on or off the mark. But instead we have lots of muddleness and circularity, introducing one muddle concept for yet another, eg evil. It is like me asking what is X, an unknown, and you tell me its Y, yet another unknown.

But then again perhaps there could be an alternative concept of sin or evil without resort to a reference, which will be very interesting. However I do not see that likely to happen in this thread.

 

[drich0150]

Philosophically God is one possible reference point. As I alluded, your own self could be another. And then also society, as in the laws of a land, its traditions and customs, some codex written in stone, some Golden Rule, and so on. Or yet another person, like the Pope, or Dalai Lama, or Sai Baba or Gandhi or even the Devil.

For most who are vague or muddled about such a reference, usually they have in mind, knowingly or otherwise, themselves as the reference point, or they are just hiding and not trying to reveal their true reference point.

But, in this so-called discussion, we are not even getting past this point, namely to acknowledge this need for a reference to even start talking about sin. If we had, then we can debate which reference is valid and how do we measure whether we are on or off the mark. But instead we have lots of muddleness and circularity, introducing one muddle concept for yet another, eg evil. It is like me asking what is X, an unknown, and you tell me its Y, yet another unknown.

But then again perhaps there could be an alternative concept of sin or evil without resort to a reference, which will be very interesting. However I do not see that likely to happen in this thread.

Perhaps the reason it all seems muddled to you is because your looking to assign the value of sin as an (x) or a (Y) so that you may argue down and further muddle the argument in a way that favors your personal brand of righteousness. Maybe it is for the best that your personal brand of righteousness will not allow you to confuse the topic any further.

However if you are truly looking for clarity rather than an opportunity take the discussion in your own direction, then simply ask a question.

 

[LanceCohen]

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.

OK I shall start at your first post in this thread.

What is the "expressed will" of "God"? How do you know it? And who or what is "God"?

Sin and Evil are two unknowns, at least from all that have been written in this thread yet. I suggest we just do one thing at a time, namely just arrive at some conceptually sound notion of sin. And "malicious intent" is too much to address yet, if at all possible, for who can know another's heart?

And BTW I have do not have any "brand of righteousness". You are presuming too much, which is another source of muddleness. You hardly know me, and I am but a few words in virtual cyberspace. So you just have to take my words at face value and not try to imagine any person behind them, if any at all. I might just as well be a spirit. (And there is such a thing as Socratic irony.)

And secondly I am approaching this with a cold, academic logic, with philosophical rigour and precision, and as Darwin puts it, with a "stone heart", and not into ad hominem, or appeals to emotions or feelings: X is X, Y is Y, right is right, wrong is wrong, logical is not fuzziness or muddleness and vice versa.

Of course, in reiteration, I am most eager to see some new arguments not in line with the traditional ideas of sin, namely that not requiring a reference, as the "expressed will of God". For perhaps there is no sin at all, as perhaps was alluded somewhere in this thread.

 

[drich0150]

OK I shall start at your first post in this thread.

What is the "expressed will" of "God"?

The written Law or "expressed Law" of God.

How do you know it?

It is recorded in the bible.

And who or what is "God"?

The Creator, The beginning and the end, The Alpha the Omega, God describes Himself as "I Am."

Sin and Evil are two unknowns, at least from all that have been written in this thread yet. I suggest we just do one thing at a time, namely just arrive at some conceptually sound notion of sin.

Anything not in the Expressed Will of God.

And "malicious intent" is too much to address yet, if at all possible, for who can know another's heart?

As I have point out several times. Discerning evil in the heart of another, is not the reason we have been given this definition. It is so that we may be able to discern evil in our own lives.

And BTW I have do not have any "brand of righteousness".

If you are looking to justify or define sin outside of the scriptural/biblical context of sin then you indeed have a personal brand of righteousness, whether you can openly admit it or not.

You are presuming too much, which is another source of muddiness. You hardly know me, and I am but a few words in virtual cyberspace. So you just have to take my words at face value and not try to imagine any person behind them, if any at all. I might just as well be a spirit. (And there is such a thing as Socratic irony.)

The same could be said here. Perhaps it is you who is speaking to a Spirit. ooooooo.

Despite your actual status and attachment to this mortal coil your work and words thus far have given me enough to accurately identify your efforts.
As you have pointed out I am not speaking to you, nor to who you actually are. I am writing to the work you leave behind to be judged or graded. If you wish to adopt your work as a direct and accurate reflection of your personality, then that is on you.

And secondly I am approaching this with a cold, academic logic, with philosophical rigor and precision, and as Darwin puts it, with a "stone heart", and not into ad homonym, or appeals to emotions or feelings: X is X, Y is Y, right is right, wrong is wrong, logical is not fuzziness or muddiness and vice versa.

As it is 'academia' has fail to identified God in so many ways and on so many levels to me, it would seem foolish to use a fail process of learning, when others are available. It's almost like someone has set the rule of academic to exclude God.

Of course, in reiteration, I am most eager to see some new arguments not in line with the traditional ideas of sin, namely that not requiring a reference, as the "expressed will of God".[/QUOTE]
If you had to ask what that was at the Top of our discussion then that would tell me this was what you claim to be looking for. However It seems as if you are looking for something else..

For perhaps there is no sin at all, as perhaps was alluded somewhere in this thread.

Or is this the something else you are looking for.

No accountability for your sins.

 

[juvenissun]

Because we are social beings who have social communications. Morality describes our understanding how specific kind of social interaction is best done. Everybody has a set of moral rules associated with the preferable interaction they have. So, just take "money making" as an example. Some prefer to sell drugs, other prefer to make money by working hard and others prefer to pay them miserable wages and benefit as much as they can from their labor. Of course, that is only very limited list, but it can be food for thought.

Let's say 85% of the world population agreed that murder is bad. What makes most of the people have the same thought or recognition? ("we are humans" is not the answer.)

Would it be wrong if we take the opinion agreed by 85% of world population over thousands of years, and label it as a moral standard? Does such a moral standard mean anything?

 

[juvenissun]

Philosophically God is one possible reference point. As I alluded, your own self could be another. And then also society, as in the laws of a land, its traditions and customs, some codex written in stone, some Golden Rule, and so on. Or yet another person, like the Pope, or Dalai Lama, or Sai Baba or Gandhi or even the Devil.

For most who are vague or muddled about such a reference, usually they have in mind, knowingly or otherwise, themselves as the reference point, or they are just hiding and not trying to reveal their true reference point.

But, in this so-called discussion, we are not even getting past this point, namely to acknowledge this need for a reference to even start talking about sin. If we had, then we can debate which reference is valid and how do we measure whether we are on or off the mark. But instead we have lots of muddleness and circularity, introducing one muddle concept for yet another, eg evil. It is like me asking what is X, an unknown, and you tell me its Y, yet another unknown.

But then again perhaps there could be an alternative concept of sin or evil without resort to a reference, which will be very interesting. However I do not see that likely to happen in this thread.

Agree. But ...

I don't like to talk about things deviated from the OP. I responded to the definition of evil because it is related to sin. Haven't you read that the one brought out evil, now introduced another amazing idea: free will? He said: Evil (and sin) is caused by the free will. Yes, but ...

Nevertheless, I benefit from the thinking. I have my definition of evil now, right or wrong. I start to think that a white lie may not be a lie ... (so telling a white lie may not be a sin)

 

[LanceCohen]

What is the "expressed will" of "God"?

The written Law or "expressed Law" of God.

How do you know it?

It is recorded in the bible.

And who or what is "God"?

The Creator, The beginning and the end, The Alpha the Omega, God describes Himself as "I Am."

I presume you mean the Torah in the OT, the books of Moses, such as the ten commandments and so on. But I do not see Christians making daily burn offerings at any temple. Nor is it a necessity to be circumcised to be Christian, or have I come across someone saying its sin for Christians to consume pork, etc etc

I presume, again, that you do not actually mean all of the laws, which are really just for the Jews, but only some laws. But then who or what decide what laws you pick and choose?

I do not think I read anywhere in the bible that God, or Jesus, says such and such laws are applicable to Christians and such and such are not. So apparently it was some men who did the picking and choosing, or perhaps I presumed too much.

 

[drich0150]

I presume you mean the Torah in the OT, the books of Moses, such as the ten commandments and so on.

It originally started with the Torah, but was completed with Christ.

But I do not see Christians making daily burn offerings at any temple. Nor is it a necessity to be circumcised to be Christian, or have I come across someone saying its sin for Christians to consume pork, etc etc

Because the Law found completion through Christ we are no longer bound to the Expressed will of God to obtain righteousness. Meaning we are not expected to live a sin free life.

I presume, again, that you do not actually mean all of the laws, which are really just for the Jews, but only some laws.

No again. I do mean all of the laws. All of the laws are there to help use see sin in every aspect of our lives. It is there to overwhelm us and convicts us to the point we give up and seek another way to find the righteousness we need to have eternal life. so rather than trying to live a perfect life we seek the atonement offered by Christ.

But then who or what decide what laws you pick and choose?

again we do not find righteousness through strictly adhering to the Law.

I do not think I read anywhere in the bible that God, or Jesus, says such and such laws are applicable to Christians and such and such are not. So apparently it was some men who did the picking and choosing, or perhaps I presumed too much.

Indeed you do. Your presumption is one based in legalism. The practice that has one earning righteousness through His works. Our salvation is not because of works. we are saved unto works.

Meaning doing "good deeds/trying to stay in the Expressed Will of God" is not what saves you. However one that is save will do good deeds or strive to be in the expressed will of God, because the love he has for God..

 

[drich0150]

Agree. But ...

I don't like to talk about things deviated from the OP. I responded to the definition of evil because it is related to sin. Haven't you read that the one brought out evil, now introduced another amazing idea: free will? He said: Evil (and sin) is caused by the free will. Yes, but ...

Nevertheless, I benefit from the thinking. I have my definition of evil now, right or wrong. I start to think that a white lie may not be a lie ... (so telling a white lie may not be a sin)

lying is a sin, but not all lying is evil...

Remember all evil is sin, but not sin is evil.

White lies are sin because at their core they are lies. we have God's Law that tells us a lie is a sin. there are no exceptions.

Now because there is no malice generally associated with what most of us would identify as a white lie we can determine that a white lie is not evil. (All Evil is sin, but all sin is not Evil)

Something can be a sin and not be evil. However that does not mean it is ok to sin just because it is not evil. We are told the wage for all sin (Evil or not) is death. This means we must find atonement, because we can sin or live in sin and not even know it.

The reason being is because we are trained to look for evil in our lives and in the lives of others. For the most part we assume that sin is evil and disregard the distinction. This leads to persecution of those we deem as open sinners or back sliders. When in fact we are all fall with in that definition. This means that the judgement we used to judge the gay "unrepentant sinner" or the "back slider" will be use against us and the sins we can not help ourselves from doing or don't even know we are doing..

This is not a message or way to absolve those in sin, for Christ does not teach a doctrine of acceptance, but repentance. We must learn to identify sin and evil in our own lives, and be forgiving with one another as we need forgiveness.

 

[juvenissun]

lying is a sin, but not all lying is evil...

Remember all evil is sin, but not sin is evil.

White lies are sin because at their core they are lies. we have God's Law that tells us a lie is a sin. there are no exceptions.

Now because there is no malice generally associated with what most of us would identify as a white lie we can determine that a white lie is not evil. (All Evil is sin, but all sin is not Evil)

Something can be a sin and not be evil. However that does not mean it is ok to sin just because it is not evil. We are told the wage for all sin (Evil or not) is death. This means we must find atonement, because we can sin or live in sin and not even know it.

The reason being is because we are trained to look for evil in our lives and in the lives of others. For the most part we assume that sin is evil and disregard the distinction. This leads to persecution of those we deem as open sinners or back sliders. When in fact we are all fall with in that definition. This means that the judgement we used to judge the gay "unrepentant sinner" or the "back slider" will be use against us and the sins we can not help ourselves from doing or don't even know we are doing..

This is not a message or way to absolve those in sin, for Christ does not teach a doctrine of acceptance, but repentance. We must learn to identify sin and evil in our own lives, and be forgiving with one another as we need forgiveness.

Again, I am not trying to deviate the talk away from the OP. But this is a necessary detail if we ever want to know what sin is.

Why is a white lie a lie? Could it be replaced by another term, may be something like disguise or misleading. If so, where is the lie? Is misleading also a sin?

Bother to define what a lie is?

 

[drich0150]

Why is a white lie a lie?

Because it is not Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.”

Could it be replaced by another term, may be something like disguise or misleading. If so, where is the lie? Is misleading also a sin?

A half truth is a whole lie. This is true because

If the intent in revealing a half-truth is to deceive, then the heart-issue is deception. If you look at Matthew 5, Jesus teaches that it is the thoughts and the will of someone that determines their heart. Jesus called pharisees, who "appeared" holy to others, whitewashed tombs. They appeared good to others, but inside they were rotten. a white lie is the Pharisees of lies. it is worse than an out and out lie. Because it is masquerading as something pure (The Truth.)

Just because something is not evil does not mean it is not a sin.

Remember that the Bible teaches that we have ALL sinned (regardless of what it is), and need God's grace and forgiveness through Jesus.

this means righteousness is not obtained by living a sin free life.

​

Bother to define what a lie is?

Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be true.”

A lie is not the truth.

 

[LanceCohen]

I think it is futile to continue a muddled discussion.

 

[drich0150]

I think it is futile to continue a muddled discussion.

Perhaps you have muddled this discussion because you believe it to be futile. Either way It's your thread.