Do you sin against God or man?

lightg said:
so it doesn't seem particularly fair to designate abrahamic theology as the exclusive proprietor.
Click to expand...
Didn't.

Just a handy, flagrant, and audience familiar example of a sin against Creation, easily recognized.

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).
Click to expand...
OK, maybe not so easily recognized.
 
iceaura said:
Didn't.

Just a handy, flagrant, and audience familiar example of a sin against Creation, easily recognized.
Click to expand...
You missed the point.

You are talking about an issue exclusive to politics, since there is no essential teaching of abrahamic theology that requires oppression or what not by necessity
 
glaucon said:
What if one doesn't believe in "sin"??
Click to expand...
Its kind of like if one doesn't believe in laws.

Won't make any difference when the narc squad kicks in your door at 3 am (or alternatively, it won't make any difference if the narc squad is a collective fantasy generated over millenium or whatever)
 
lg said:
You missed the point.
Click to expand...
:D

glaucon said:
What if one doesn't believe in "sin"??
Click to expand...
It's a useful abstraction or concept, adaptable to various techniques of acquiring insight - one of the tools in the box.

And if you don't own it, it will - like music or narrative as techniques, love or empathy or tribal loyalty as concepts - be taken from your kit and absorbed into one of the monotheistic theologies. And you will have much trouble getting it back undamaged.
 
lightgigantic said:
Its kind of like if one doesn't believe in laws.

Won't make any difference when the narc squad kicks in your door at 3 am (or alternatively, it won't make any difference if the narc squad is a collective fantasy generated over millenium or whatever)
Click to expand...

Alas, an inept analogy LG.

"Sin"s are neither legally enforceable, nor punishable.

And lo, the whole point behind my distinction...
 
When it comes to humans, there are behavior which can maximize the individual. And there are behavior which maximizes the group. Sin is typically connected to behavior which, although it might maximize the individual, it would not maximize the group or would have an adverse effect on the group.

For example, stealing might actually maximizes some individuals, since stealing is so much faster than working. This could give one more time to enjoy life. However, stealing will have a negative impact on the group, creating problems while increasing social cost.

If you look at the ten commandment, in the light of the individual versus the group, they reflect ways to maximize the group, but not necessarily the individual. Some individuals could be maximized if they could commit adultery, steal the husband's wallet and then kill him. But the group would suffer if everyone did this. Culture might maintain its stability if only a few people were allowed to maximize this way; king. The fair thing is nobody can do this; sin.

Lower level sins like gluttony could maximize the individual since food tastes so good and more allows one to enjoy food more. But in terms of the group, this can lead to social costs, since we now need to pay for health issues. That was the logic of sin.

The ideal was to find ways to maximize the individuals while also the group.
 
glaucon said:
Alas, an inept analogy LG.

"Sin"s are neither legally enforceable, nor punishable.
Click to expand...
if you don't hold the existence of god as valid., you have a premise, albeit one lodged solely in the realms of speculation (much like speculating about the narc squad whilst going about one's wheeling and dealing)
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
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:
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing that you do not have any examples.
God remains an absentee landlord and proprietor.

Regards
DL
 
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...

I agree. God would be a redundant victim. Not at all necessary.

Regards
DL
 
Lori_7 said:
me neither. so why do you believe that then? :confused:

oh yeah, here's the answer...



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

now go back to sleep.
Click to expand...

I see you have listed God's main attributes.

We all know of God's wrath. Ask Noah.
We all know of his greed when all one need do is reject his sorry ass and off to hell with us.
Did he lust after Mary or was she just a tool for his seed? Then again, he did covet her.
God showed pride in Jesus. Tsk tsk.
I could go on.

Regards
DL
 
birch said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your view of the teachings of Jesus being the antithesis to the O T God.
Nevertheless, they are the same God thanks to the Trinity concept.
Same mouth different words that day.

It is like following Hitler's son.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
Thanks for showing that you do not have any examples.
God remains an absentee landlord and proprietor.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
well yeah, for reasons you can are yet to explain ....
:shrug:

... on the bright side though I guess now we can comfortably put aside all your attempted arguments about slavery and god (probably about 90% of your posts) , since your convinced (for whatever reason) that god is absent as a proprietor
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
When it comes to humans, there are behavior which can maximize the individual. And there are behavior which maximizes the group. Sin is typically connected to behavior which, although it might maximize the individual, it would not maximize the group or would have an adverse effect on the group.

For example, stealing might actually maximizes some individuals, since stealing is so much faster than working. This could give one more time to enjoy life. However, stealing will have a negative impact on the group, creating problems while increasing social cost.

If you look at the ten commandment, in the light of the individual versus the group, they reflect ways to maximize the group, but not necessarily the individual. Some individuals could be maximized if they could commit adultery, steal the husband's wallet and then kill him. But the group would suffer if everyone did this. Culture might maintain its stability if only a few people were allowed to maximize this way; king. The fair thing is nobody can do this; sin.

Lower level sins like gluttony could maximize the individual since food tastes so good and more allows one to enjoy food more. But in terms of the group, this can lead to social costs, since we now need to pay for health issues. That was the logic of sin.

The ideal was to find ways to maximize the individuals while also the group.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA
 
Greatest I am said:
I see you have listed God's main attributes.

We all know of God's wrath. Ask Noah.
We all know of his greed when all one need do is reject his sorry ass and off to hell with us.
Did he lust after Mary or was she just a tool for his seed? Then again, he did covet her.
God showed pride in Jesus. Tsk tsk.
I could go on.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
now I guess you just have to hone this razor sharp perception on your own self
:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top