Human thinking tends to be convoluted and lead nowhere in particular. I prefer computer thinking, like:
"if(//condition to be met) sin=1; else sin=0;" and everything is clear.
For example, there could be a program taking 2 parameters: criteria for something to be considered a sin, and then an item to be checked for sin-like qualities. It would return bool (1 - sin, 0 - no sin).
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
sin is defined as disobedience toward god, or gods.
I think it's safe to disregard Satan. There is no proof that such a thing exists. The same applies to God.If satan requires "belief" would not avoiding "belief" entirely be the preferred state to avoid being bound by satan? — A Gnostic Agnostic
You don't need to guard yourself from your emotions. All you need to do is understand them and not let them take control over you. Emotions are like silly children - you need to show them who's the boss.People are obviously exploited through their emotions, which further leads me to suspect that guarding against being subject to ones own emotions is the closest thing I can find to "obedience" to any god. — A Gnostic Agnostic
IMO best way to repel negative emotions is to analyze whether they are justified. If so, take action aimed at resolving the problems that gave rise to those negative emotions. If they are unjustified, just disregard them and focus on other things.Placing the actual existence of god aside, even if granting true, might the "disobedience" come by way as a product of dwelling in negative emotions? As in: one must first be dwelling in negative emotions in order to "sin", regardless of the god(s). — A Gnostic Agnostic
I think it's safe to disregard Satan. There is no proof that such a thing exists. The same applies to God.
an expression of being bound in an ongoing state
"Belief" is not a virtue.
You don't need to guard yourself from your emotions. All you need to do is understand them and not let them take control over you. Emotions are like silly children - you need to show them who's the boss.
IMO best way to repel negative emotions is to analyze whether they are justified. If so, take action aimed at resolving the problems that gave rise to those negative emotions. If they are unjustified, just disregard them and focus on other things.
I am interested in understanding how others understand 'sin'. What is 'sin'? — A Gnostic Agnostic
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? These are only some question one can consider. — A Gnostic Agnostic
I'd like to know how you have found those meanings. I find a lot of value in the pictographs (according to this chart), and what I see in this, the one "consuming the lot of seed" - so the satan is a destroyer, the one bringing the end of all chance that life has to grow.For example, if taking the meanings of the Hebrew letters as (I can explain how these meanings are derived if important enough):
shin - expression (psychology/emotions/instinct)
tet - bind
nun (final) - ongoing state — A Gnostic Agnostic
I think of the word as deriving from "fidelity" - which is "replication true to the original". So an infidel is someone who has not replicated the original [faith] accurately. They have distorted the faith, they are corrupting the faith.What is ones definition of "infidel"? — A Gnostic Agnostic
All that said, sin, ignorance and suffering have deep roots. — Wayfarer
I would rather consider such 'state of being' in psychiatric terms, without adding Satan to the mix. Holding unreasonable position and acting upon it doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. But religion often unites and galvanizes such abnormal individuals. Now, what is considered normal and abnormal is confusing because majority by definition cannot be considered abnormal. Which means that if the majority is insane, the sane minority will be labeled 'abnormal'. So in a society where the majority is insane, a person officially certified as insane could be perfactly sane. Everything is relative, as they say. So given the mass appeal of religion across societies one might be justified in his suspicion that insanity is nothing out of ordinary among people.But suppose rather than satan being a 'being' that (does not) exist(s), satan is a 'state of being'. — A Gnostic Agnostic
Convincing people who "believe" rather than think to anything can be problematic. You may construct your proof only for it to be unreasonably rejected. What's your plan B?This is why I find the implications of proving:
"Belief" is not a virtue.
as necessarily true, of immense gravity. — A Gnostic Agnostic
I'd like to understand that better, in case I might have wrongly assumed why. Could you please explain?I fail to see how humans are possibly 'made in the image of God'. — enqramot
I admit that I have extrapolated the image as a character rather than a role, and the godly character is not found so often except in children (because of the transpiration and infiltration of the corrupted (fallen) human thinking that displaces the godly nature, and the liberties to do iniquity that come with age). Yet, we can see that sometimes there comes a person who knows how to explain godliness in a way that makes sense, because they are absolutely right and able to say it, and if people would learn from them, they would become restored into the character that God intended. It is that restored character that I have said is the natural state of a human (IE: what a human is when they are not of a sinful spirit).Where are the similarities? — enqramot
do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. — Serving Zion
I fail to see how humans are possibly 'made in the image of God'. — enqramot
I'd like to understand that better, in case I might have wrongly assumed why. Could you please explain? — Serving Zion
So, what is the critical difference? It is wisdom, and what is essential to wisdom? Knowledge, understanding (discernment) and authority. Humans are finite, being mortal. We have a beginning point of zero knowledge, gaining our knowledge from those more established, and as we grow in knowledge, we take a role of disseminating that knowledge to the coming generations. So the human problem is a systemic corruption that distorts and displaces the innate human nature before we come to have sufficient independence and authority to direct our own will.It's hard to infer a consistent image of God from the Bible as God of New and Old Testament seem to differ quite a lot. What I see though as a major difference is God's infallibility. No matter what challenges at hand, he just has this inbuilt resilience that rules out any mistake on his part. Humans, on the other hand, are like poor quality end product, constantly suffering from failures. If God designed us to be like him, then it seems he failed miserably. — enqramot
You have to keep in mind that this world that we have is not exactly the world that God created or that God desires (consider Genesis 6:6 as compared to Genesis 1:31 and Romans 8:20-21, especially noting that God subjected creation to futility "not willingly" - God was not willing for creation to go that way. So He has chosen suffering, in hope).And yet he's supposed to be perfect. It just doesn't add up. How could a perfect god create such obviously imperfect world unless on purpose, but what on earth could that purpose be and how could it be any good?? — enqramot
I think it is an extension of the principle in Proverbs 21:30, and a natural outcome of a servile mind when forced by their insecurity, to claim authority by association. What I said does not negate the possibility of it's truth though, as even Hebrews 10:14 forces us to look carefully at what people say. "What is perfection?".How has this idea of God being perfect even cropped up? — enqramot
Only by employing circumstantial relativity in His judgement. We are not all God's workmanship, because there are many people who contribute to our growth in a way that is not conducive to God's intentions (Ephesians 2:2-3).Also people come with different abilities, let's call them talents. You can have singing talent, you can have beyond average ability to avoid paths in life which put you out of sync with the godly way of life prescribed by Jesus, which is also some kind of talent. Uneven distribution of such "talents" is unfair. So how can God be perfectly just? — enqramot
I'm more inclined to blame the translators, as the authors of the bibles you read, because of the large misrepresentation of the scriptures coming through English translations. But in saying that, yes I agree that we (not to point at the bible writers but the characters in it) are constantly facing, and sometimes falling foul of, the tactics of the deceiver (Revelation 12:9a(ii), John 10:10), who is an imposter (1 John 4:3b-c)), who takes captives through judgement of their failures to love the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).Rather than humans made in the image of God, I think it's Bible's God being a distorted image of humans resulting from limitations in imagination department that Bible's authors, being merely humans, suffered from. — enqramot
I'd like to know how you have found those meanings. I find a lot of value in the pictographs (according to this chart), and what I see in this, the one "consuming the lot of seed" - so the satan is a destroyer, the one bringing the end of all chance that life has to grow.
I think of the word as deriving from "fidelity" - which is "replication true to the original". So an infidel is someone who has not replicated the original [faith] accurately. They have distorted the faith, they are corrupting the faith.
Convincing people who "believe" rather than think to anything can be problematic. You may construct your proof only for it to be unreasonably rejected. What's your plan B?
-Mark Twain“When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane, not in all things, but in religious matters. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic — for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it.”
Fear of god is the beginning of wisdom.
Is it better to suffer fear, or to understand it?
Is suffering fear necessary for understanding it?
If one finds themselves in a state of fear, how does one overcome it?
Is it better to suffer fear, or to understand it?
Who is using fear to exploit others? How and why?
1. You can't demonstrate that everybody that believes in a religion is an idolater (that the head of their house is a liar) just because it is true for some of them. To get me to agree with the latter is easy. However it is not a sufficient condition to extend to significant exceptions. You could say "it is sad that so many . . ." which you can build an argument on, but you have not said this, so we are not able to reflect what might make somebody (of any religion or none) break out of that vicious circle.
2. You need to be challenged about your category of so called "Abrahamic" and "Abrahamists" who have about as much in common as those in the phone book with surname beginning A, i.e the same as if their surnames were across several letters of the alphabet.
Those calling themselves muslim for example don't have Abraham, they have Ibrahim, much of whose life story is different from the other man's.
Then Hebrews use a very cut down version of the concept of Abraham of Christians (assuming you can find any Christians with ideas that overlap at all), but sometimes with other conflicting additions, of all different kinds of meanings and connotations.
So, there is no such category of any meaningfulness.
Furthermore, it isn't clear how your grouping of "A - brahamic / -sts" actually advances any of your arguments. Did you intend to confine your point to those diverse groupings only, and why - because people of all other belief systems (and none) are surely also of interest in the context of your thread title. You have not furnished reasons for the parameters of the information you present.
We are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant and final word of god.
3. I was aware that numerical values were built into the wording of old manuscripts that had to be copied, as a double check on accuracy. The material was mostly passed on orally but at an advanced stage in training, practitioners were inducted into the art of preserving the content in recorded form. For example, Eliezer has value 318 and that occurs near the figure 318. The same was done in early Sanskrit. General literacy among Hebrews dates from the exile.
It might at a pinch be slightly interesting to know a little of how some people have got value out of lettering, in connection with the subject matter, but you have taken a very long time to introduce your two points. You could try harder to see which angle(s) we are interested in.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.