Do you sin against God or man?

786 said:
I think I'll give the same answer.

In layman terms:
God owns everyone- you sinning against his property is a sin against Him (as well as the person whom you directly sinned against)

Peace be unto you ;)
Click to expand...

Hurray hurray. God the slave owner. Let us all praise slave owners.
Let us all be happy in our slavery.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
...apotheosis...
Click to expand...
For those who may not know,
Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθεόων, apotheoun "to deify", in Latin deificatio, and later inItalian gióvino, "to be made divine"), refers to the exaltation of a subject to divine level. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
 
Yazata said:
I don't believe that I've ever committed a sin. That's because the category of 'sin' doesn't really enter into my thinking or worldview.

That's not to say that I haven't done many things that I'm ashamed of and think are morally wrong. I've probably done even more things that I consider 'unskillful' in a religious sense. I've even done a few things that might be judged crimes and torts in criminal and civil law.



I think that historically, in ancient Hebrew tradition, a 'sin' was a transgression against God. In general, the ancients tried to subsume their conventional human ethics under the heading of God's will and commands, making God/the gods the originator and guarantor of ethics. So they would interpret crimes and injustices against other people as if they were simulaneously (and more importantly) crimes against the divine will and ordinances.

And in its Hebrew variant, the idea of 'sin' extended far beyond what we think of today as ethics. It included ritual law that was intended to maintain the Hebrews' supposed ritual purity and separation from all other peoples. Violation of all sorts of seemingly arbitrary customs (defining things such as which foods to eat or how menstruating women were to be treated) were seen as transgression against God's desire that the Hebrews maintain themselves holy and apart.

The Hebrews' odd religious laws may have been derived from the customs traditionally practiced by priests in surrounding cultures, making those heirophants ritually pure enough to be able to perform the solemn rituals in the temples. The Hebrews seem to have imagined themselves as a nation of priests, occupying the priestly role of interceding with God and performing his sacrifices for the entire human race.
Click to expand...

Yes. Strange how their beliefs took of on a tangent from where they originally picked up their God. In Egypt.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84m5k_2007doc-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
Hurray hurray. God the slave owner. Let us all praise slave owners.
Let us all be happy in our slavery.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

Was this news to you? I now understand why you create all these threads because you practically know nothing about God and religious beliefs.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Greatest I am said:
Not sure what specific arguments you are offering to suggest that God does act like a proprietor. Show any of the things he does. No imagination here. Facts please.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
The notion of god being a proprietor is certainly not an alien concept.

In fact you could say it is the dominant concept, even if one is hell bent on presenting the antithesis of it.

That's why I ask you what your specific arguments are.
:shrug:
 
I can't believe that in the year 2011 people still believe in magical sky-daddies. There's no such thing as SIN so I don't commit sin against anyone.
 
Seems pretty clear that sinning against "man" - all of humanity - would be more serious than sinning against the small, somewhat childish, and curiously self-serving philosophical or theological enthusiasms of a subset of people. These gods people invent would be the things to sin against, given a choice.

Still greater, in its damnation, would be sinning against the way of the world, the Tao or however one names it: larger than humanity, and not as capricious in its taking of offense. But perhaps that is not possible.

The question of the the entity sinned against in the postulation and enforced inculcation of, say, the common forms of the Abrahamic god(s), might inform the approach. I would say man - the Way flows on more or less unimpeded, truth and beauty and wisdom not necessarily betrayed. I was going to say woman, but in light of Ed Abbey's trenchant observation (that there can be no free men without free women) amended the post.
 
iceaura said:
Seems pretty clear that sinning against "man" - all of humanity - would be more serious than sinning against the small, somewhat childish, and curiously self-serving philosophical or theological enthusiasms of a subset of people. These gods people invent would be the things to sin against, given a choice.

Still greater, in its damnation, would be sinning against the way of the world, the Tao or however one names it: larger than humanity, and not as capricious in its taking of offense. But perhaps that is not possible.

The question of the the entity sinned against in the postulation and enforced inculcation of, say, the common forms of the Abrahamic god(s), might inform the approach. I would say man - the Way flows on more or less unimpeded, truth and beauty and wisdom not necessarily betrayed. I was going to say woman, but in light of Ed Abbey's trenchant observation (that there can be no free men without free women) amended the post.
Click to expand...
just because the path of truth and beauty remains unimpeded in no way means that all (or even many) individuals are progressing unimpeded on the path of truth and beauty
 
Michael said:
I can't believe that in the year 2011 people still believe in magical sky-daddies.
Click to expand...

me neither. so why do you believe that then? :confused:

oh yeah, here's the answer...

There's no such thing as SIN so I don't commit sin against anyone.
Click to expand...

that's right michael, there's no such thing as greed, lust, pride, vanity, gluttony, sloth, or wrath.

now go back to sleep.
 
lightgigantic said:
You mean you can't conceive of ownership (or being owned) operating in any other context other than slavery?
Click to expand...

Formally, I am one of the owners of our cats.

Practically, they own us, especially me.

If they wouldn't be so cute and amiable (well, when they are so), I would think I am a slave.
 
lightgigantic said:
That's why I ask you what your specific arguments are.
Click to expand...

One line of arguments comes from experiences with theists (whom we, the run-of-the-mill people, are supposed to see as bona fide representatives of God).

Namely, one can readily make the striking experience that theists often primarily relate to God in matters where other people are involved.
For example, instead of thanking or apologizing to the other person, they thank or apologize only to God.

It leads to relationships where one has the impression that the relationship could take place just the same even without one, that it is all between the theist and God and we are just worthless puppets in it.

It's as if the theist would think that there is no need to apologize to me if they let me down, but that they only need to talk to God - and I, as the lesser being am supposed to be happy with it and continue the relationship as if the apology was made to me.
 
light said:
just because the path of truth and beauty remains unimpeded in no way means that all (or even many) individuals are progressing unimpeded on the path of truth and beauty
Click to expand...
So merely avoiding the obvious sins against the way of truth and beauty

avoiding, say, adopting the obfuscations of Abrahamic theology to conceal from oneself the perversion and ugliness of one's oppression of others and one's destruction of the world,

is no guarantee of absence if sin in general? Agreed.
 
Greatest I am said:
Do you sin against God or man?

I saw this video and did not agree with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKwWZ2no8tk&feature=channel_page

If I sin, I think I sin against another human. Not against God. Against his law of course, or to be more specific, against the laws that men have attributed to God, but not against God.

This clip ignores the human victim altogether as if the victim has no right to feel offended and also have no responsibility to forgive the offender.

I find it rather droll that we are supposed to see God as the victim of all our sins.

If you were to visualize, for instance, God being the victim of all Gay sins, well you see what I mean.
Rather a startling picture right?

Sin also brings up the topic of forgiveness.

If you or I forgive a sin done against us, is there any reason for the sinner to kowtow to God for more forgiveness?
The sin, once forgiven by you or I is, well, forgiven. What exactly is God forgiving. The sin has been annulled by our forgiveness so God forgiving it is rather superfluous and in reality, if at the pearly gates, God were to seek to punish a forgiven sin then one could make a case that God is unjust.

Is God sticking his nose where it is not required in the case of saying we sin against him and in our seeking forgiveness for a forgiven sin?

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

there are a lot of religious people like this. i would say they are a lot like the pharisees even the bible describes. it says they "bow before the letter of the law but violate the heart of the law" and are hypocrites.

the simple truth is when people are coming from a sincerity and caring at the root of themselves, it all falls into place as far as the right thing to do in the context of the situation. even the quotes and parables were stressing the 'blind' (though not literal) but if you can see and you keep doing evil, jesus told the pharisees their sin remains. that's what makes one guilty.

but just using rules or morals as a tool can create corruption and perversity.

of course one doesn't just sin against a creator, it would sin against the creation. the bible even says man was created in god's image which would signify that life is an extension. i'll bet anyone that if you offend those who think they only sin against god but not people would feel offended personally. morals are for a reason, it's not just a scheme to get into heaven or get off from responsiblity as some people will use it as unfortunately. people who identify with one in power and that people are inconsequential have an elitest complex and are sociopathic and it has nothing to do with what jesus was teaching in the new testament. they are the antithesis of it even though they may use religion.
 
Last edited:
Signal said:
One line of arguments comes from experiences with theists (whom we, the run-of-the-mill people, are supposed to see as bona fide representatives of God).

Namely, one can readily make the striking experience that theists often primarily relate to God in matters where other people are involved.
For example, instead of thanking or apologizing to the other person, they thank or apologize only to God.
Click to expand...
hardly high grade personalism ... especially if one is working out of the context that god's mercy is achievable to the degree that one can recognize and interact with his parts and parcels.

It leads to relationships where one has the impression that the relationship could take place just the same even without one, that it is all between the theist and God and we are just worthless puppets in it.

It's as if the theist would think that there is no need to apologize to me if they let me down, but that they only need to talk to God - and I, as the lesser being am supposed to be happy with it and continue the relationship as if the apology was made to me.
Click to expand...
There are even incidents of extremely advanced personalities (like rupa gosvami) suffering set backs in their spiritual life to the unintentional and accidental offense of run of the mill personalities ... although his quick recognition of the problem has led to him being glorified as a person to whom even the ruffians, as well as the sadhus, hold as dear.
 
iceaura said:
So merely avoiding the obvious sins against the way of truth and beauty

avoiding, say, adopting the obfuscations of Abrahamic theology to conceal from oneself the perversion and ugliness of one's oppression of others and one's destruction of the world,

is no guarantee of absence if sin in general? Agreed.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the obfuscations of oppressing others, you are talking about the obfuscations of politics (which does a wonderful job of potentially running parallel with any notable ideology ... even taoism) so it doesn't seem particularly fair to designate abrahamic theology as the exclusive proprietor.

I would also argue (also due to the ramifications that tend to come with ideologies as they manifest on the individual or collective political arena) that the sins and their avoidance are not so obvious (at least to the perpetrators).

But regardless, sin remains a very clear article (even if its definition is hazy) of the world view you are presenting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top