The Nature of Sin.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


According to Christians, but I am not a Christian. I say believing in the Christian god is both a sin and blasphemy. There's a reason Christianity is the most popular religion on a planet full of lies, because it is a lie itself.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

This is a Christian thread, which means that by denying the Christian god, you are committing a sin.

This thread is entitled "The Nature of Sin" and just happens to be authored by a Christian. Christianity doesn't own the rights to the definition of sin.

There's a thread going right now :Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven, in which the Pope declares sin to be something that goes against one's conscience, stressing that non-believers can be led NOT to sin, through what God places in their conscience.

3NL1GHT3N3D1 is suggesting that they're without "sin" according to what God has placed in their heart, in their conscience.

Yes "knowing " God is the key.John was not trying to qualify who are justified or have been made perfect he's talking about a process because he also said them that don't think they have sin deceive themselves and don't "know" the Truth.

The word translated sin has many aspects however the crux is sin is imperfection.We are born imperfect as is everything that "lives"growing is the natural process to living.If it doesn't grow it dies and the irony of course is everything that grows eventually dies.God is very aware of this process ...he instituted it!Sinning is the nature of the "beast of mankind".God did not make a mistake. It's part of the process of life.

There are many fundamental flaws in the OP.First the price for sinning is not eternal hell.That is blasphemy of the highest order and is nowhere in the scriptures.The cost of imperfection is physical death.We are sinful (imperfect) because we die..that is the consequence of imperfection....death.That imperfection also pervades the carnal mind ...the natural man... and has moral and ethical implications.In advanced stages of the disease it is the carnal religious mind that is at complete enmity with God(while believing it is in harmony).

Here is a fundamental foundational flaw in the doctrines of Christianity.God has not pardoned ANYONE of their guilt of falling short.He has only "forgiven" ALL of mankind....the point being this forgiveness doesn't mean pardoning of guilt it means freed from bondage...setting the captives free.God is just .All will be held accountable for all they have done.There are zero exceptions no matter what false doctrines they believe.

The bottom line is salvation is a process not an event.EVERYONE will be set free ....first from the bondage of physical death....hades...the grave.Everything else follows suit.We can begin to be freed from bondage while living in the physical realm however it is GOD doing the work.No one sets themselves free by any method.Man does not have the ability to do any of it.Mankind's growth is embryonic at best....most of mankind are zygotes.

No one cause themselves to be born.It didn't happen in the physical and it isn't in the spirit either.This is the delusion mankind is under...that THEY are the masters of their own reality and destiny.Nothing could be further from the Truth.God is causing ALL to happen.The nature of the beast of mankind can only receive.

reply to post by windword

3NL1GHT3N3D1 is suggesting that they're without "sin" according to what God has placed in their heart, in their conscience.

You hit the nail on the head, thank you.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Yeah! I'm defending my own perspective as well as yours. In that we're in agreement.

reply to post by Rex282


You misunderstood me sir. I said the price for sin was what Jesus paid for us. The consequence of sin is physical death. I guess I should have said that the punishment for sin is hell rather than consequence.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

You misunderstood me sir. I said the price for sin was what Jesus paid for us. The consequence of sin is physical death. I guess I should have said that the punishment for sin is hell rather than consequence.

Oh, physical death! Pardon the irony, but I think I could live with that. Although people never seem to agree whether damned souls burn for all of eternity, or just burn for a thousand years and then are consumed and destroyed, or just burn until the arrival of Jesus where they and Satan himself will be utterly and eternally destroyed. It's funny how the absolute word, the truth and the way, ends up being divided into so many variations. They can't even agree on exactly what happens to sinners.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Punishment-consequences, what's the difference?

reply to post by windword

This thread is entitled "The Nature of Sin" and just happens to be authored by a Christian. Christianity doesn't own the rights to the definition of sin.

Technically, no. Effectively, yes. Considering most the major religions in which sin plays a significant role are born of the same father - that is to say, Abrahamic religion - sin effectively means the same thing in all of them.

in which the Pope declares sin to be something that goes against one's conscience, stressing that non-believers can be led NOT to sin, through what God places in their conscience.

As an atheist, I behave morally because I have empathy, not because some imaginary figure is influencing my thoughts and feelings. If they wanna call empathy God, then that's their decision. But if they say it to my face, I'll lay it straight. Sounds to me like the Pope knows he is fighting a losing battle, so he's scrabbling for any foothold he can possibly get. He wants to plant the seeds before the seeds are destroyed by science. God has nothing to do with my moral code, and most atheists will tell you the same thing.

3NL1GHT3N3D1 is suggesting that they're without "sin" according to what God has placed in their heart, in their conscience.

Oh, nice. That's wonderful. Once again, God is taking credit for our successes. Screw that. My morality is my freaking morality, and he has nothing to do with it.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

According to Christians, but I am not a Christian. I say believing in the Christian god is both a sin and blasphemy. There's a reason Christianity is the most popular religion on a planet full of lies, because it is a lie itself.

See what I posted in my response to Windword.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Punishment-consequences, what's the difference?

Consequence - you paying as a natural result of your actions.

Punishment - someone going out of their way to make you pay.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Punishment is a consequence, you do know that right? Apparently you just like to argue for arguments sake.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Punishment is a consequence, you do know that right? Apparently you just like to argue for arguments sake.

Well, since you want to start with the ad hominem...

con·se·quence noun \ˈkän(t)-sə-ˌkwen(t)s, -kwən(t)s\
: something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions

pun·ish verb \ˈpə-nish\
: to make (someone) suffer for a crime or for bad behavior

And what did I say? Right here, verbatim: "Consequence - you paying as a natural result of your actions. Punishment - someone going out of their way to make you pay."

You don't have to apologize, I've already forgiven you.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

These two verses explain why God views our SPIRIT not our FLESH as sin free. Colossians 2 explains why God is allowed to view Christians as sin free, and why Paul says that it isn't he(his spirit) that sins, but rather the sin living in him(Flesh). John is referring to our spirit being clean before God's eyes. If that doesn't make sense then I don't know how to help you grasp the concepts.

No, this doesn't make any sense. The spirit lives within the flesh, so you're saying that the spirit is clean but the thing that lives within us (the spirit) is not? The flesh is not "within", it is "without", so you contradicted yourself there.

The concepts you are trying to convey are convoluted and are a sign that you are trying to reconcile a contradiction that cannot be reconciled. Christian doctrine clearly contradicts what John says in his epistles, and you are bringing in entirely new concepts to try and patch it up. You didn't do a very good job.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


You can go with the attitude that you will always fix and repair whatever you have created. The thing about what you seed is that you in a imperfect place where you cannot 100% control the damage you create since you do not know all the variables.

I drive a car and hit bugs on my windows all the time and kill things that I do not want to kill just because they are at a place where I cannot avoid it. When I see a larger animal i will make efforts to avoid the animal even at the cost of destroying my car since it is supposed to be here.

One day I will in one way or another make sure that those so called bugs are ok with what happened and if not do something to make them ok with what happened.

I can need guidance and affection from the other side but that is because I normally feel more at home with souls that can think like Jesus. Buddha, Krishna and Nanak. Duality from those who cannot think like them bore me and make me feel disconnected from the ones who preach the duality.

The source of human religions is very nice and loving and fun to feel connected to. I am not as impressed by humans understanding of the source but should not judge others since it took me 36 years on this planet until I said enough is enough and pushed myself to the limit where I could break thru the barrier.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Lol, the two definitions mean the same thing. Punishment is a consequence for "something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions", in this case "for a crime or bad behavior".

Stop playing both sides of the fence, if anything it is annoying.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Lol, the two definitions mean the same thing. Punishment is a consequence for "something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions", in this case "for a crime or bad behavior".

Of course you wouldn't have the capacity or consideration to recognize the fine line between the two. You would make a terrible lawyer. Go ahead, take that as a compliment. Anyway, there's a difference between a natural consequence such as burning yourself and an imposed punishment like your mother spanking you for touching the hot stove. Do you get it now?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


According to Christians, hell is a "natural" consequence of not believing. The consequence, in Christian doctrine, is the punishment of being sent to hell. I agree that in secular terms they are different, but as you said, "this is a Christian thread", or at least a Christian authored it.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

From your link:

The present active infinitive ἁμαρτανειν [hamartanein] can only mean “and he cannot go on sinning,”

How is this any different from what I'm saying? Those who know God cannot go on sinning. It goes from stating that to this:

What is happening is that John is saying that the one who is born again does not habitually abide in sin.

The only reason to make that leap in logic is to justify Christians calling themselves sinners and the biblical doctrine of everyone being a sinner their whole life.

What John is saying is that everyone has sinned before but once you know God, you "cannot go on sinning", exactly how your link explains it, except they double back on their explanation and giver their own interpretation of it that isn't true to the meaning of the words.

Your link is far from dismissing the contradiction. John does not contradict himself, Christian doctrine contradicts John.

edit on 12-9-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

That happens when you listen to someone who is more interested in a church and how it should be ruled than evolving souls to get the message Jesus really told. One say take responsibility, one say you are saved by the garment of joining our club.

From my point of view if you are part of the many then you are probably missing the point totally as it is written in the bible.

I believe Kate Bush was right when she said that everyone has to run up the hill themselves.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

According to Christians, but I am not a Christian. I say believing in the Christian god is both a sin and blasphemy. There's a reason Christianity is the most popular religion on a planet full of lies, because it is a lie itself.

I am rather confused about your stance now that you say you do not believe in God and that you are not a Christian and all Christian writings are a lie.

Then let me ask you why do you start threads asking why Paul says one thing and Jesus says another. Or that Christ represents the pineal gland and the two others on crosses are the left and right hemisphere of the brain.

So why do you argue against something that you do not believe in and basically think the whole bible is a lie?

Is arguing over something that you believe is a lie, by tring to show your supior reasoning powers just another form of pride?

reply to post by guitarplayer


The entire bible is not a lie, but most is. There is truth in it, but it is buried underneath a mountain of lies. Jesus' words are truth, Paul's are not. Jesus was speaking of all of us when he spoke of himself. He was pointing out what we all are, not just him.

Just because I don't believe in your version of god does not mean I don't believe in God. I am not an atheist, I know there is a God, but he is not in the bible, at least not fully.

I don't understand why you think me not believing in your god means I am prideful. I have discernment, Christians don't. I don't see how that is any more prideful than Christians believing they are the only ones with discernment. Believing everything in the bible is true and without error is the opposite of discernment.