1. I know lots of Christians who say that other Christians are idolators. What about them and where are their emotions and their sin in this (as if it's any of our business)?

The problem with Christianity is it is itself idolatrous: utilizing a male central figure whose own individual conduct serves as a basis for a 'state' (ie. Christianity). The model itself is idolatrous, thus it effectively does not matter which Christian claims which. Islam is the same: Muhammad serves as the male central figure "mercy upon mankind" model for humanity. Imitating (dead) men and/or spilling blood over not accepting them as exemplary is whence idol worship is revealed.

It is the psychological/emotional/habitual attachments that adherents have to these idols that is stirred upon undermining the idols. If not for such attachments, adherents would not become polarized upon the undermining of the idols. This is why idols are to be avoided: people develop emotional attachments to them and are thus controlled via them. This is so very clear in Islam especially: criticisms of Muhammad are liable to trigger madness in Muhammadans because the conduct of Muhammad justifies their own. This involves marriage/sex with children, which is why Muhammad is protected. That anyone would resolve to spilling blood over criticisms of a strictly psychological figure reveals the depths of their "sin".

2. If one believes something better than all this, it ceases to be pathological. Your argument has failed because it claimed to be categorical. If you had made it weaker, it would be stronger.

If one "believes" something better, it means they are using the conscience to hold currently held "beliefs" to scrutiny with intention to evolve them into something better. In this case, it is not a pathology.

It is when an individual(s) does *not* allow for their "beliefs" to be scrutinized by themselves (ie. conscience) and/or others. The difference is fundamentally this:

TRUTH over/above any/all matters of AUTHORITY
*requires use of the conscience to scrutinize
vs.
AUTHORITY over/above any/all matters of TRUTH
*does not require use of the conscience to scrutinize

A "belief"-based model (incl. idolatrous models) necessarily involves use of the latter authority>truth (ie. "belief" in an authority figure/book) whereas a strictly altruistic pursuit that is concerned only with what is (un)true will default to the former and allow whatever is true to be the authority. The difference is use of conscience to graduate "beliefs" into "knowns" such that one is never "bound to believe" something that is not true, which satisfies the condition for a pathology. As such, "belief"-based 'states' that utilize "belief"-based assertions which are certainly false necessarily are pathological and, as I would argue, satanic.

3. Not all pain is caused by ourselves. The majority of it as I can see it, is inflicted on us by other people and by the universe, e.g earthquakes, meteorites.

I know the tendency is to think this way; in my experience, each is accountable for how they deal with their own suffering. That does not mean others do not play a role in the suffering of others, but I find ultimately one must take responsibility for their own internal state of being instead of attempting to associate it to outside causes. It is a difficult topic because there is much nuance begging to be explored, and much easier to point fingers. In particular, it begs the question whether or not suffering (ie. bondage) is a necessary condition for freedom (ie. liberation), which in short I have to argue that this is indeed true, and any/all suffering can/does serve a greater purpose if comprehended.

2. So you admit your point was not categorical after all !!!

Admit you have NO IDEA who these people are or why they shouldn’t continue to call themselves by the name of any religion.

3. You sound dismissive of what people go through. What is wrong with associating trouble to a cause? I know a cult that blame the sufferer, they are initially plausible but so cynical. You should stop flinging suffering in people's faces I say!

You say that if anyone has emotion it is pathological. You blame them. You should accept the circumstances of other people's lives (if they are any business of yours) as they are.

We presume you never go through anything yourself!

↪A Gnostic Agnostic sin is defined as disobedience toward god, or gods. — hachit

This is a hard-and-fast definition, but those who are not convinced of any god's or gods' existence, are they able to behave sinfully?

Guilt rides on the sinful, on the criminal, and on the unconscienable. The presence of guilt alone does not establish a sure measure of sinfulness.

Some scriptures are clear what god(s) want(s) from its believers, but not all scriptures are, and some are self-contradictory. So the scriptures would be an obvious starting point and ending point in learning precisely what sinful behaviour is, but they are not.

If my grandson and granddaughter asked me, "Grampa, what is sin?" I would be stuck for an answer. "Why, my little darlings, sin is when you pee in Grampa's soup and you don't tell anyone. Sin is when you play house. Sin is not taking your puppy out for a walk for two days in a row. Sin is pulling your cat's tail. Sin is telling a blind man bent on crossing the street that there is nothing coming when there isn't."

Some Hindus, most Marxist-Leninists (as in Cambodia) behave like the OP describes, are they "Abrahamic"? The agnostic atheists like GMBA, are they "Abrahamic"?

Some of us do sometimes do some of what is described, but the argument would have greater force if weakened.

In addition as GMBA points out, emotion sometimes doesn't accompany sin, sometimes precedes it, sometimes follows it.

There are no grounds for saying people should not associate their suffering to its cause (that may be instructional - e.g telling the relatives not to go to Cambodia). This is slyly glossed over with the throwaway word "instead".

The OP is merely telling us it's our fault we are sad. I think I've made it clear what I think of that.

I don't care how mixed up a character Father Abraham was, I insist on thinking straight and I insist on thinking a lot!

2. So you admit your point was not categorical after all !!!

No, I do not, actually. I attempted to clarify, and will do so again shortly.

Admit you have NO IDEA who these people are or why they shouldn’t continue to call themselves by the name of any religion.

I actually do not have an idea of who "these people" are and/or why "they" shouldn't continue to call themselves by the name of any religion. I do not know who you are referencing by "these people" / "they". Can you clarify?

To clarify the first point, it is categorical only when a certain condition is met: lack of scrutiny (as granted by use of the conscience). Please see this video for a basic understanding of how the word "satan" translates into normal language:

"expression of being bound forever"

such that if a "believer" never subjects their "belief" to scrutiny, it may be the case that what they "believe" is certainly false such that renders a categorical pathology captured by the above. Modified to include such, it reads:

"expression of being bound (to "believe" something that is certainly false) forever"

thus satisfying the condition of a pathology.

The point is: "belief" is not so much a virtue as knowing who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to "believe" on the basis of "knowing" such to be certainly false, if so. This renders "belief" without an intrinsic virtue.

3. You sound dismissive of what people go through.

The opposite is true: I am empathetic of what people go through. I understand what a "believer" goes through "believing" something to be true, when in fact it is false. The problem is, they themselves do not know that what they themselves "believe" has implications for (concealing the real) who/what/where/why/when/how they are suffering as they "believe" their suffering is coming from a place it is not. It is the absence of such "knowledge" (with "belief" serving in its place) that is the culprit.

What is wrong with associating trouble to a cause?

I don't understand the question. Hopefully I capture the essence of what you are after in what follows.

All problems have a cause. However, all problems can also be seen as a symptom to an even greater problem which, had it not existed, the old "problem" (now a symptom) would likewise not exist. Therefor, any/all problems have deeper problems underlying it.

In doing this (ie. seeing each problem as a symptom of a greater problem) one can derive fundamental roots (ie. root problems) that, should their reconciliation be found, all problem(s) resulting therefrom can be identified. This is the reason the problem 'from whence human suffering?' demands inquiry into the very first instance of any/all "problem", including the original sin and/or good and evil.

I know a cult that blame the sufferer, they are initially plausible but so cynical. You should stop flinging suffering in people's faces I say!

According to the Abrahamic mythology, the first instance of "blame" was Adam attempting to blame the women for his own eating of the forbidden fruits. In reality I see this as fundamentally true and it is captured by the men who blame women for being raped.

As such, I am not "flinging suffering in people's faces" as you put it, but rather prompting people to confront their own suffering as potentially having something to do with themselves - what "beliefs" they hold which enables the suffering in the first place.

You say that if anyone has emotion it is pathological. You blame them.

No, this is not true. Please do not put words into my mouth.

The emotions are what is used to perpetuate a destructive pathology, such as enmity, hatred, resentment etc. but there is nothing wrong with being perpetually happy, joyful etc. insofar as it serves ones self and others around them. Not all "pathology" is bad/evil, but it certainly can be when negative/destructive emotion(s) is (are) involved. This comes back to "satan" as alluded to above: expression of being bound forever.

You should accept the circumstances of other people's lives (if they are any business of yours) as they are.

I do - it is usually the people who do not accept the circumstances of their own lives because they are "bound to believe" something(s) that is (are) certainly false, which is a/the culprit for their own suffering.

We presume you never go through anything yourself!

I do, but I do not appropriate the source of my own suffering as belonging to anyone/anything else but myself. In other words, I know I suffer myself and nothing else is responsible for my suffering.

I find that this is true of all people, but the ones who fall into the trap of "believing" their suffering is coming from somewhere else are the ones who suffer the most not knowing the original sin is the blaming of others. I understand people wish to "believe" it is someone else's fault, so they have a place to point their finger, but giving enmity, hatred, resentment etc. any justification for existing is why they exist in the first place. Those who dwell in such things suffer themselves while perpetually blaming others. This is the original pathology: blame, and those who blame, might find over time that the following is always true:

The accuser is the accused,

*if*, and only if, there is enmity (towards/against another) present. Otherwise, it is possible to make a sound accusation towards/against another that is rooted in sound justification.

There is no sound justification for men blaming women for their own being raped. This is a product of the original sin itself, and to be found in even Abrahamic religions who holds Moses (ie. books of Moses) as inspired. Such people are themselves hypocrites, just as much as any/all who blame the victim.

The first victim of any "belief"-based ideology advancing a false assertion (to be "believed" in) is the "believer" themselves, as they are intentionally exploited. The problem is such "believers" will defend, with their lives if needed, that their "belief" (thus actions) is (are) in accordance to (a) god's will, when in fact it is not. This is how they suffer.

Some Hindus, most Marxist-Leninists (as in Cambodia) behave like the OP describes, are they "Abrahamic"? The agnostic atheists like GMBA, are they "Abrahamic"?

No, and I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Some of us do sometimes do some of what is described, but the argument would have greater force if weakened.

It might depend on who is reading it and how much they tend to blame others for things they personally would otherwise have full control over.

In addition as GMBA points out, emotion sometimes doesn't accompany sin, sometimes precedes it, sometimes follows it.

I acknowledge it was stated, and simply state I do not find this sound. I think the problem lies in how one defines and/or understands what 'sin' is. The point of the OP was to advance a way of clarifying it outside of "belief"-based dogmas.

There are no grounds for saying people should not associate their suffering to its cause (that may be instructional - e.g telling the relatives not to go to Cambodia). This is slyly glossed over with the throwaway word "instead".

It's identifying the real 'cause' that is the problem.

The OP is merely telling us it's our fault we are sad. I think I've made it clear what I think of that.

That might be how you are reading it - so I would amend the statement to read:

The OP is merely telling me it's my fault I am sad. I think I've made it clear what I think of that.

And, certainly, you have made it clear how you think about that.

I don't care how mixed up a character Father Abraham was, I insist on thinking straight and I insist on thinking a lot!

To contrast I insist on thinking only insofar as it serves to discern what is true from what is untrue, and to spend as little time as needed to discern it correctly, as there always seems to be an even more fundamental problem demanding use of the faculty.

I believe that the ability to empathize with others, will bring suffering on that person. Suffering is a negative emotion. The old and new testament said the Messiah would be a man of suffering.

I believe that the ability to empathize with others, will bring suffering on that person.

If I am reading this correctly, empathizing with others places the one who is empathizing in a state of suffering for their knowing of others' suffering. If this is the meaning, I agree:

"Christ consciousness does not come lest by way of knowing the suffering of others."

Suffering is a negative emotion. The old and new testament said the Messiah would be a man of suffering.

I'm not sure it is safe to say suffering is necessarily a negative "emotion" (it certainly can give rise to them), but suffering knowing the suffering of others can be good, giving rise to a positive emotion, such as love.

The problem is most people do not realize that as they come to know the suffering of others, the same is Christ. For those who never come to realize the suffering of others, the same is anti-Christ. Such is not a particular person, it is an internal state that either comes, or does not come, according to ones own nature. Therefor those who are in Christ, are not in a man, but as a man knowing the suffering of others such that their own conduct reflects it.

well the good news for both of us is we won't be stuck in this hell hole forever. Many people who actively serve people on a daily basis experience burnout. Doing the right thing very often isn't rewarding atleast in the relatively short term.

Your supposed refutations don't hold water but more importantly this is a Prussian and Hegelian question. Your Qabbala sources are drawing on whatever antecedents Hegel also had. As Nietzsche warned, this attitude is bringing on nihilism.

You can state what you are stating, but it isn't a discussion.

I said, " Some Hindus, most Marxist-Leninists (as in Cambodia) behave like the OP describes, are they "Abrahamic"? The agnostic atheists like GMBA, are they "Abrahamic"? "

The reason I said that is, you are stating it is because of Abraham - ism that suffering such as these people are causing, to people of the same religion as themselves (in the first case), or receiving from somewhere, anywhere (the second case), is being caused.

This is not a discussion point in your point of view so there is nothing for me to participate in.

You have copied woodenly something you saw stated somewhere and aren't paraphrasing it intelligibly or making a case, nor are you advocating we nuance it in regard to the extent to which "Abraham - ism" is a red herring, or Qabbala is a red herring (even if not 100% so).

Discussions when they really occur, are full of nuance, paraphrase, tact.

You say I am the first person ever to testify to what I testified to and you knew well I am not. If I speak for who I speak for, every reader except you knows this holds water.

There is no discussion for me to participate in.

I am interested in understanding how others understand 'sin'. What is 'sin'? What criteria is used to designate an act, body etc. as 'sinful'? Is ones idea of 'sin' in accordance with a "belief" system (ie. a religion)? Or is it derived and/or arrived at internally? — A Gnostic Agnostic

I see theology and philosophy as basically the same as they both seek the best rules and laws to believe and live by. Having said that ---

I see the word sin as synonymous with crime.

Without a victim or someone who has a complaint against certain acts, then there is no sin or crime.

Many say that when we sin against someone, we also sin against god. This is garbage thinking.

No one can make a victim out of god and that is why he does not have the right to forgive before a victim does.

Further, if you or I forgive a sin or crime, god nor the government has a further role to play.

Regards
DL

The other thing I meant to mention is, sometimes a religious leader will wield the falsafa trope - claim that when adherents or observers wish to apply logic and honesty, that is necessarily sophistry even when it isn't.

Anyway best wishes.