Is sin a by-product of free will?

[Sarkus]

I didn't that souls are imprisoned due to being born.
You said that.

apologies, when you raised the comparison of punishment for transgressing God's laws to people being imprisoned for transgressing their civilisation's laws, I merely continued the analogy.
[qupte]I didn't compare God and His abilities to a civilisation.
You're doing that.[/quote]You provided the direct comparison (do you really need me to require what you said?)

It is our actions that causes us to be born again and again. The material manifestation is caused by God, so that we can be born.

And your own words were to the effect that being born means we have transgressed God's laws.

God is the original cause, of the material manifestation, using the reasonable assumption.

Jan, your "reasonable assumption" you keep harking back to is only reasonable if God actually exists. It is not in itself a reasonable assumption on which to base a decision for God's existence.
To do so would, yes, you've guessed it, be a logical fallacy. Care to guess which one? Here's a hint: sounds like "Mestion legging".
And I will call you out on this fallacy every time I see you use it.

The material manifestation is the atmosphere where conditioned souls, act.


The conditioned soul is such because at some point it decided to become independent of God (consider the story of Adam and Eve).


In ignorance, the conditioned soul wanders from birth to birth. Until the soul remembers it original identity, and it's relation to God. At point the soul take birth in a pious family, and cultivate God consciousness.

So we have yet more unsupported claims, this time of reincarnation.
Sounds awfully like having your memory wiped and then being blamed for something you can't remember. Again, not really painting a picture of a kind or even merciful God.

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

You said that being born means we have transgressed.
And asked how giving us the conditions and freewill causing us to transgress.
Yet if the act of birth is a transgression, as understood by your claim that being bro means we have transgressed, it was a simple question to ask what our freewill has to do with our own birth.
Simples really.

I never said the transgression is our birth. Go back and read carefully what I said, then ask questions based on what I said instead of jumping the gun.

"being born means we have transgressed..." Oh, I see, you don't mean "means" but rather "is an indication that"?
Working out what you actually intend, being different from what you write, is a chore that many would rather do without. It just causes us to go round the houses until you actually accurately explain what you mean. Why not just do that from the beginning!?

 

[spidergoat]

God gave us free will... an those of us who use it to sin (all of us) must find Jesus (he is hidden) or we will go to hell.!!!

No he doesn't! In Exodus he deliberately hardens the Pharaohs heart, so he took his free will.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

apologies, when you raised the comparison of punishment for transgressing God's laws to people being imprisoned for transgressing their civilisation's laws, I merely continued the analogy.

It was an analogy, to give the a better idea of where I'm coming from.

I didn't compare God and His abilities to a civilisation.
You're doing that.

You provided the direct comparison (do you really need me to require what you said?)

Read above.

And your own words were to the effect that being born means we have transgressed God's laws.

In the same way that being in prison means one has transgressed the law of the land. The government does not build prisons, just in case someone breaks the law, they build them because people do break the law.

Jan, your "reasonable assumption" you keep harking back to is only reasonable if God actually exists. It is not in itself a reasonable assumption on which to base a decision for God's existence.

If God actually exists, one wouldn't need to make any assumption, reasonable or not.
Asserting the reasonable assumption suggests that I'm not making any factual claims. So I will carry on using it in this thread, for that purpose.

To do so would, yes, you've guessed it, be a logical fallacy. Care to guess which one? Here's a hint: sounds like "Mestion legging".
And I will call you out on this fallacy every time I see you use it.

I'm not using it make a decision on God's existence, so again you've jumped the gun.

The thread asks the question ''Is sin a by-product of free will'', not ''Does sin and free will exist''. I'm sure you can appreciate that this subject involves God. I'm simply responding to the nature of the question. Hope that clears it up for you.

So we have yet more unsupported claims, this time of reincarnation.

Unsupported by what?

Sounds awfully like having your memory wiped and then being blamed for something you can't remember. Again, not really painting a picture of a kind or even merciful God.

There are two levels of existence going on here, namely spiritual and material. I'm not claiming that this is a fact, but it is in line with the subject of the thread. You really need to aim your concerns at the person who started the thread, not me.

The material existence is where all the problems of sin, lie. The conditioned soul is not aware of his original identity, and accepts the material existence as ultimate reality. In this way his actions commits transgressions, and is then required to accept the reactions, getting himself trapped in a cycle of birth and death. I'm not claiming this as a fact, but an established reason of what sin entails.

The wages of sin is death, the gift of God is eternal life. What do you think that means?

You said that being born means we have transgressed.
And asked how giving us the conditions and freewill causing us to transgress.
Yet if the act of birth is a transgression, as understood by your claim that being bro means we have transgressed, it was a simple question to ask what our freewill has to do with our own birth.
Simples really.

Maybe you should ask what I mean, before presuming what I mean. It is your lack of comprehension of the subject matter, and your zeal to prove me wrong, or something, that prevents you from being rational.

I believe I have cleared up your misunderstanding.

"being born means we have transgressed..." Oh, I see, you don't mean "means" but rather "is an indication that"?

Yes, like the analogy with the prison, above.

Working out what you actually intend, being different from what you write, is a chore that many would rather do without.

I'm of the opinion that you are not allowing yourself to comprehend what I'm saying. I speak like this to you because I believe you have the capacity to comprehend it. At least try and afford me the same respect. I do have a point, and it doesn't help that I'm not a scholar, or academic, but I don't accept that it is so jumbled that you can't access it's meaning.

It just causes us to go round the houses until you actually accurately explain what you mean. Why not just do that from the beginning!?

What you regard as ''accurately explain'', usually ends up being a watered down version of what I mean.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you able to preform miracles.???

Yes.
I got my girlfriend to like me.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, I thought you were Hindu. There is no free will in Hindu is there?

Come on Seattle, there are plenty of sites which explain the Hindu belief systems.
The basis of Hindu belief in called 'Santana Dharma'. Look it up in your own time. It is as interesting as it is vast.

jan.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Yes.
I got my girlfriend to like me.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm of the opinion that you are not allowing yourself to comprehend what I'm saying. I speak like this to you because I believe you have the capacity to comprehend it. At least try and afford me the same respect. I do have a point, and it doesn't help that I'm not a scholar, or academic, but I don't accept that it is so jumbled that you can't access it's meaning.

So rather than respond to the meaning of what you write, I have to ask what it is you actually mean?
Could you not just write what you mean in the first instance? It would save having to deal with your contradictions, your fallacies, your confusing mess of trying to claim you meant something else without ever actually saying what you first said was wrong.
How will you realise that what you have written is not what you mean unless someone answers what you have written in a way that shows it for the fallacious nonsense it is?

What you regard as ''accurately explain'', usually ends up being a watered down version of what I mean.

Yes, accuracy has a habit of watering down your posts from the nonsense they tend to start out as, but maybe we unearth a gem or two amidst the detritus. Better those gems from the outset than the obfuscation and illogic you surround them with that requires wading through to get at what you do actually mean.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So rather than respond to the meaning of what you write, I have to ask what it is you actually mean?
Could you not just write what you mean in the first instance? It would save having to deal with your contradictions, your fallacies, your confusing mess of trying to claim you meant something else without ever actually saying what you first said was wrong.
How will you realise that what you have written is not what you mean unless someone answers what you have written in a way that shows it for the fallacious nonsense it is?
Yes, accuracy has a habit of watering down your posts from the nonsense they tend to start out as, but maybe we unearth a gem or two amidst the detritus. Better those gems from the outset than the obfuscation and illogic you surround them with that requires wading through to get at what you do actually mean.

Sarkus, you need to back down from what only be explained as arrogance, and/ or elitist.

This is my first post which was a response to the OP.
Aside from the ''No'' (believe me when I tell you I don't know how that got there), it is as straight forward and to the point as you could hope to get.

This is my second post, which was a response to the brilliant atheist known as StrangerInAStrangeLa.
Aside from the jipe between Stranger and myself, there is nothing as yet that gives you reason to describe my writing the way you did.

This is my third post, and second response to Stranger, which I adequately explain what I mean. Now take note of this quote ''Being born into the material world means we have transgressed God's law, and now we are bound to pay the debt in order to be redeemed".

This is your first response to me, which consists of four sentenses.
The first sentence "So who is this debt, for transgressing God's laws by the virtue of being born, owed to?" is a reasonable question, but by adding ''by virtue of being born" you have given the impression that I said or implied that being born is the reason why we have sinned, as opposed to being born means we have sinned. Which is what I actually said.
Okay. You misunderstood what I meant. I can accept that., but had you gone with what I said, instead of changing ''mean'' to ''by virtue of being born" there would be no misunderstanding.

This was my response to you. You asked me if I thought God was everything, then did He cause us to be born. The answer is obviously going to be yes, because I'm defining Him as the Supreme Cause and origin of everything. But because you had shifted the goal posts to being born is the sin itself, I answered ''We are causing us to be born. Prison only exist if there people who transgress laws''.
So by you creating a different implication, the discussion immediately took a different route.

This is your response. The response you made to ''We are causing us to be born" was met with...
..."So he is the cause of us causing ourselves to be born?" a completely unrelated statement, although it may have had a question mark. Next was you response to "Prison only exist if there people who transgress laws''. To which, your reply was "So he causes us to be born knowing that in doing so we are going to prison?". Now once again you state it as question with the implication that being born is the sin itself, therefore God creates us, to punish us. The reality is, I never said, or implied that. My explanations were clear , concise, and unambiguous. But you twisted them in such a way that you gave the impression that I was being contradictory.

Here is your logical conclusion:

Clearly. Following logic and not contradicting yourself has been a noted struggle of yours.
Let me spell it out a touch more clearly:
- God is the cause of us being born (you have admitted that this stands to reason).
- Being born into the material world means we have transgressed God's law (this is what you wrote).
- Therefore God is the cause of us transgressing His laws.
And since he punishes us for it, I would consider that hypocritical. Don't you? Or maybe not hypocritical but sadistic? Would that be a better description?

Because you maintained your implication, which completely different to what remarked, this summation has nothing to do with what I originally meant.
This is what I have to constantly go through with you.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, you need to back down from what only be explained as arrogance, and/ or elitist.

Thanks for the fallacy of the excluded middle. What you perceive might just be due to your inability to accept the criticism levelled at you and what you write. All I am doing is trying to makes sense of your contradictory and fallacious statements.

Because you maintained your implication, which completely different to what remarked, this summation has nothing to do with what I originally meant.
This is what I have to constantly go through with you.

You merely have to be accurate with what you write.
The implications I made were valid based on what you did write. That I repeatedly show that what you wrote was not what you intended should be evidence enough that you are insufficiently accurate in the first instance.
Deal with it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thanks for the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Yeah whatever.

What you perceive might just be due to your inability to accept the criticism levelled at you and what you write.

I don't mind criticism of what I write. But I do mind criticism of someone else writing, being passed of as mine.

All I am doing is trying to makes sense of your contradictory and fallacious statements.

Did you not read my links by clicking on the word ''This'' at the beginning of each paragraph?
Can you show where my statements are contradictory or fallacious, instead of just asserting they are?

You merely have to be accurate with what you write.

Where was the inaccuracy?

That I repeatedly show that what you wrote was not what you intended should be evidence enough that you are insufficiently accurate in the first instance.

Hence why I am justified in calling you arrogant and elitist.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Hence why I am justified in calling you arrogant and elitist.

Indeed - you can take criticism, just not when it shows you to be inaccurate. I get it. You have your pride.
And you can undoubtedly justify to yourself any action you take.
You do, after all, believe in God.
But that has never made it the truth.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

but we can't disobey God, if we don't know what and who God is.

jan.

Not quite the same as the previous example yet you come very close to saying what I said. If it doesn't exist, we cannot disobey. If we don't know it exists, we cannot disobey.
If it will not show it itself, it may as well not exist. Until it shows itself, there truly shouldn't be much to talk about.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Jan, I thought you were Hindu. There is no free will in Hindu is there?

I don't think she knows what she is. She certainly makes it impossible for us to make a good guess. She started with christian scripture then tries to bring everything else into it. I wonder when she'll quote from Martian Spiritual Rites.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is sin a by-product of free will?...

...back to the topic at hand.

I think we are cyclically born into sin (debt), and how we act determines whether we accumulate more sin (debt), through further transgressive actions, becoming more entangle, meaning more deaths, therefore more births. Or we find a way to pay off the debt and end the cycle becoming what you were before you became entangled (spirit soul).
Free will is ultimately, choosing one of those two paths.
This isn't my idea, but the basis of what Seatle calls, and I agree, the underlying religion.

jan.