Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 What is a sin? - Minitokyo

What is a sin?

page 2 of 2 « Previous 1 2 44 total items

In my opinion a sin is a misbehaviour not tolerated by the majority. Because god doesn't praise/punish you, people will. And because there is no right or wrong, you can never give it a word definiton.

priincess

priincess

?doing fun

in war, both of the sides r wrong

Signature Image

Quote by DarkRoseofHell

Quote: Again, you are confusing morals with values. Yes, you say abortion is good, I say it is bad, another person says another thing. But those are our values. I value all forms of life, you value something else, someone else values something else, and thus we think one way or another. What the moral is doesn't depend on what ANY of us think, its simply there. Do we know what it is neccessarily? Maybe, maybe not, we may disagree on what we THINK it is, but that doesn't change what it ACTUALLY is. Our VALUES are our views on right and wrong. What are morals from then? God. If you don't believe in God, you might argue it comes from the objective ordering of the universe, but that doesn't seem all that appealing to me. If you don't believe that, you don't believe in morals, you probably just believe in Values, and I think thats the case since you keep describing values.


Values are what something holds to you, how precious it is to you, or how worthless it is to you. To value something is given like a price tag, the more you value something, the more passion it is for what you value. What you value has nothing to do with morality... Morality is something that is of good and bad, valueing is something that pertains only to your feelings towards one thing that is how you hold to it, not of good or bad.

Quote: Do I think there are morals? Yes. Do I think we would be more like animals without morals? Probably. Would a bear protect its cubs without morals? yea, its called instinct and training, read about it sometime.


No, instincts is of our actions without thoughts. It's survival, but for a bear to protect it's cubs has nothing to do with instincts. We have instincts if you don't know it. All animals have morals. You protect something that you love, because it is considered good to you.

Quote: And you think we don't have some indication of what God's Will is. You think God didn't give us instruction and revelation, or at least that I do not believe he has done such? What do you think that I think he was doing for those 33 years he was on earth? And what about the Holy Spirit? What about the instructions given to the Isrealites? What about the laws everyone seems to know, that is in our nature, like the basic understanding that we should not lie (its in fact harder to lie than to tell the truth), or that we should eat at times, or that we should not kill and harm everyone, if for not other reason than that we need them and fear their retaliation?

Laws...? It is not a law to lie, it is not a law to tell the truth. Before a government or society established for the sake of survival, killing wasn't considered a law. Nothing was considered a law. Human emotions and a higher understanding of reasoning is what allows us to find what is good or bad.

Quote: Why shouldn't I be on this thread? As far as I can determine it is not causing me to do anything God has revealed to be wrong, and so far it seems I'm only doing what He has said to do, I've proclaimed my faith in Him it seems, i've been trying to instruct the ignorant, and I'm not harming anyone as far as I can tell. Now, its possible I am doing something wrong, possible I should be using this time doing something else, or maybe I'm doing what I think is good in an improper manner, and maybe I am in some sin then, but I think that if that is the case, it is lessened due to me not fully knowing about it, and I don't think its the case anyway. In any case, there are usually options for us to act and still act in a good way, I am not a Hindu, and do not believe in Kharma nor Dharma, and thus I do not have a specific way of acting in every situtation that I must follow.


Oh, please do tell, what has god told you? Seriously... if you had a child or a loved one that you hold very dearly to you, and someone was going to kill them, would you not harm that person in order to protect? Would you go to the extent of killing them just so your loved ones are protected? It is still killing, it is still in your bible as a sin, it still violates "Thou shalt not kill" and exactly why did you bring up Hindu in such a fashion, we're talking about your religion, nothing to do with another, and apparently you are suggesting superiority of your religion over another.

people can value a thing as good or bad, whether it is or not is a different matter. And what you've said changes nothing about morality being different between people.

Most animal reserchers would say that the bear protects its cubs out of instinct. And yes i know humans have instincts too. In fact, human mothers usually have instincts to protect their children. There is a chemical released in a mothers brain after child birth and seeing their child that makes them instinctively protect the child at all costs, this may wear off after a while or lessen, but its there too. You may say it latter leads into the mother loving and choosing to protect the child, or that it itself is love, but it doesn't change that it was an instinctive reaction initially.

You are thinking of civil laws when you think that laws occur within a government. Interestingly though, the mosaic laws which does contain similar commands to "do not lie" was both ecclisastical law and civil law in isreal at some times, or at least played both roles. In any case, the general hierarchy of laws in common philisophical terms begins with eternal law at the highest, natural law under that, civil law under that usually, ecclisiastical law under that, and various other laws under that sometimes. Eternal and Natural law exist before society and government, and were enforced by eternal and natural powers, and still are, but these methods of enforcement are different than what we normaly think of as law enforcement in terms of civil laws, which again are enforced by civil powers as far as they can be. Emotion, however, does not necessarily help us determine if something is good or bad, although it may help us determine if we like or do not like something, regardless of it being good or bad. And reason just happens to generally be concidered as a component and offshoot of natural law, such that we can figure out natural law through reason and observation and such.

I brought up hinduism because you are acting as if I follow hinduism, which would require certain specific actions in all situations througout my life, and various other things. And I did not claim superiority over them, I may believe my religion superior, i may not, i never claimed one way or the other here though. Instead I pointed out that I do not follow hinduism, and because I do not, I do not follow such requirements as you seem to indicate I should be following. And, I agree it would still be killing a person in the situation you have outlined, and it WOULD still be a sin, and would still be bad. However, I do not agree that I would kill them in the first place. As I said, that would be wrong, I might kill them in passion, who knows, i haven't come to that situation, but if I did I tell you right now that I would be in the wrong for doing so. I would try to stop them by other means, sure, and that might be alright, but going as far as killing a person would indeed be very, very wrong of me.

Quote: people can value a thing as good or bad, whether it is or not is a different matter. And what you've said changes nothing about morality being different between people.


Do you know what value means...? It's the worth of something... it's the worth of an object or the how precious or worthless something is to you...

Quote: Most animal reserchers would say that the bear protects its cubs out of instinct. And yes i know humans have instincts too. In fact, human mothers usually have instincts to protect their children. There is a chemical released in a mothers brain after child birth and seeing their child that makes them instinctively protect the child at all costs, this may wear off after a while or lessen, but its there too. You may say it latter leads into the mother loving and choosing to protect the child, or that it itself is love, but it doesn't change that it was an instinctive reaction initially.


Instincts, the act of survival, acting out of self preservation... and saying it in such a way that implies that bears have no emotion is just sick... we're all animals.

Quote: You are thinking of civil laws when you think that laws occur within a government. Interestingly though, the mosaic laws which does contain similar commands to "do not lie" was both ecclisastical law and civil law in isreal at some times, or at least played both roles. In any case, the general hierarchy of laws in common philisophical terms begins with eternal law at the highest, natural law under that, civil law under that usually, ecclisiastical law under that, and various other laws under that sometimes. Eternal and Natural law exist before society and government, and were enforced by eternal and natural powers, and still are, but these methods of enforcement are different than what we normaly think of as law enforcement in terms of civil laws, which again are enforced by civil powers as far as they can be. Emotion, however, does not necessarily help us determine if something is good or bad, although it may help us determine if we like or do not like something, regardless of it being good or bad. And reason just happens to generally be concidered as a component and offshoot of natural law, such that we can figure out natural law through reason and observation and such.


Civil laws? I wasn't even talking about that... I'm talking about how there is no law when everything was of no order, in other words, there is no religion, no government, just humans, animals, plants, and such. And what the heck are you talking about Eternal and Natural law? Since when did laws have hierarchy? So, on the topic of sin and such, to the church, being gay or lesbian is a sin, right? Is that an eternal law or natural law? Also, what the heck is eternal power? Natural power would be of nature if I'm correct, then again, I don't know what the hell you are thinking now cause it's all screwed up.

Quote: You are thinking of civil laws when you think that laws occur within a government. Interestingly though, the mosaic laws which does contain similar commands to "do not lie" was both ecclisastical law and civil law in isreal at some times, or at least played both roles. In any case, the general hierarchy of laws in common philisophical terms begins with eternal law at the highest, natural law under that, civil law under that usually, ecclisiastical law under that, and various other laws under that sometimes. Eternal and Natural law exist before society and government, and were enforced by eternal and natural powers, and still are, but these methods of enforcement are different than what we normaly think of as law enforcement in terms of civil laws, which again are enforced by civil powers as far as they can be. Emotion, however, does not necessarily help us determine if something is good or bad, although it may help us determine if we like or do not like something, regardless of it being good or bad. And reason just happens to generally be concidered as a component and offshoot of natural law, such that we can figure out natural law through reason and observation and such.


It's already obvious that you're Christian, and the way I act towards people is of no regards to their religion, rather it's by how they act. Trust and any sort of gain of respect from me is hard or easy to gain, depending on your own attitude and personality and it's how I treat everyone. I don't stare at the stereotypes, but I look at what they are.

Quote: And, I agree it would still be killing a person in the situation you have outlined, and it WOULD still be a sin, and would still be bad. However, I do not agree that I would kill them in the first place. As I said, that would be wrong, I might kill them in passion, who knows, i haven't come to that situation, but if I did I tell you right now that I would be in the wrong for doing so. I would try to stop them by other means, sure, and that might be alright, but going as far as killing a person would indeed be very, very wrong of me.


Though no one will really know until they're actually in the situation themselves, I would really have to say if you kill to protect your loved ones, first off, would it really be that bad? I mean, you do love the person, and the person that is trying to kill the person is well... trying to kill the person. Isn't that wrong to protect someone? Which is why there's a borderline between good and bad that shifts ever so much.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

self preservation is one instinct, protection of offspring is another for some species.

laws have had a hierarchy for a while. And eternal and natural law have to do with the time you were talking about, and now, before religion and government and such. natural law begins when there is nature, eternal law is eternal.
Read up on Arostotilian-Thomistic philosophy and you'll know what I'm talking about. Its pretty common philosophy of ethics and morality.

As for would it be that bad, I think it may under those circumstances be LESS bad, possibly, but still would be greatly wrong. I am not one that can judge that my loved ones lives are worth more than the one trying to take them. Nor am i one with authority to take anyones life regardless. And in any case, I am commanded to love all, including the one trying to kill my loved ones, and thus you could say this makes a problem between killing loved ones to save loved ones, and I would not be showing my love towards the one I am killing.

There's a reason it's philosophy, because personally my own philosophical views is different, anyways, that last paragraph is exactly what makes it of question, though you're supposedly told to love all, how can you exactly love the ones that are going to kill your loved ones? Does that make sense? Anyways, I was asking whether it is so considered a sin to protect or is it a wrong just to protect.

I've seen a news thing or whatever about two robbers, all armed with AK47 if I remember correctly, and literally they were just shooting at everyone they can see. Anyways, since it's in that situation, the police attempted to do several disarming shots, they didn't know what was going on, but once they died, bullet count on each person was 30+ and they injected themselves with a sort of steroid or morphine like substance. Do note, at some points when you're trying to protect, there is no choice but to kill (sadly).

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

I do not agree that there is ever no choice but to kill. You are overlooking an option: die, fail to protect. And you can love those that are going to kill your loved ones, one way would to do so would be NOT TO KILL THEM as I've said. There is a quaker theologian that once something about that kind of situation, and said that it would be the worst thing he could do to kill a man who was killing or had killed his family, in the midst of it, since he would be condemning that man to hell essentially. He admitted that he never had to face that situation and so was unsure what action he would actually take, but all the same it would be wrong to kill.

It is not wrong to protect, but protecting should not go so far as to kill the opponent. Some say that it is permissable in self-defensive or other defensive situations like that, not good, but but permissable. I do not agree. I have no right to decide that I should live if they will die, and I should not fear death anyway if I live morally, and should be prepared to die at any moment.

In any case, i don't know what you're saying when you say "there's a reason it's phiosophy, because personally my own philosophical views is different". What's philosophy and what reason are you talking about?

Philosophy is supposedly an understanding of which but doesn't mean philosophy must be from other people's point of views. I have my philosophical views and they're different than those of aristotle and such. Anyways, have you looked at my example. Seriously, they tried to disarm them several times by shooting their hands and such, but failed to do so because they were literally on drugs and everyshot that hit them, they just kept going on, couldn't just shoot their legs and arm and they would fall down, they were drugged up to the point where they wouldn't feel pain.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

I'm not sure you're making a complete sentence with you're philosophy bit. "an understanding of which but doesn't mean"...? which WHAT? Doesn't mean must be from other people's point of views? Who said it did? what are you even getting at? My philosophical ideas are slightly different from aristotles too, as are alot of philosophers, but that doesn't stop the philisophical discussion using a well estabilished school of thought. In any case, I had been telling you where these things i was talking about come from, since you seem to have never heard of them. They also come from Thomas Aquinas, who translated and commentated on Aristotle and thus we have what is traditionally refered to as Aristotilean-Thomistic philosophy.

And yes, i did look at your example, and have you looked at my response? You don't need to disarm or stop the killer if you either go away or simply die, now do you? Sure, they continue their rampage, but they'll have to deal with their own murdering, not you.

And how are you supposed to stop someone with a gun? Would you, if you were in that situation (though you probably won't know till it happens) stop the person that's shooting up everyone? The people trying to disarm the person are cops... they're not just civilians...

Quote: "an understanding of which but doesn't mean"...? which WHAT?


Which... of the surrounding, should I just put stuff then rather than which?

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

I might have agreed with this philosphical statement, but with situations such as DarkRoseofHell implied, it is too dangerous to do so these days. One of the most dangerous weapons known to man have been passed around to almost every civilion in the U.S. and it would result in considerable losses if people were to try and stop people with something so dangerous. I also believe that a "sin" is a term used to discribe an act that does something forbidden by the bible. I believe that the words good or bad are irrelivant. These words do not truly describe anything but a feeling one gets over certain acts. They do not desctibe a law of the universe, but what one feels of certain things. If murder was accepted by people, it would be considered good. These are words of mankind, not the universe.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, even though i've repeated it and I thought I was saying it clearly.
You asked me how I would stop a person with a gun, I said that maybe I could not, and in which case I simply WOULD NOT stop the person, but instead I WOULD DIE. I would DIE and others would DIE rather than kill the person killing us.

Sin is something which is evil. Good and bad do not corrispond to a feeling, approval and disapproval, like and dislike corrispond to feelings. People USE the terms good and bad in such a way, but at most you could say it describes a quality. People CONSIDER and MAY CONSIDER things to be good or bad, but that doesn't MAKE them good or bad, and doesn't change if the things are, in fact, not what they are considered to be.

hmm, sorry. Didnt read that part. Really, good does not correspond with feeling? The why is it that when you have a meal that tastes excellent, that it is considered good? Sometimes you may do something that may not always feel great, like giving part of your lunch to someone who doesnt have one. You may not feel good about sharing it, but you may also feel good having given them some. Or you may have done it thanks to social standards and the fact that you have had it drilled into you that it is the right thing to do. Good and bad have everything to do with feelings. I do not see how you could not percieve things the way you do without feelings. If you were a tobot with no emotions, do you think you would be able to say whether a someone insulting you was bad or good? You wouldnt be able to feel bad in order think such a thing. I herd my teacher label a wolf in a story "evil" because it wanted to eat a sheep. And I thought, but it is its instinct to do so, and it could not live without eating other animals, and you are going to label it so because of the way it gets sustenance? We eat cows, are you going to call humans evil because we kill them to eat? You cannot call someone evil because they kill, or even if they took pleasure in hurting someone. Evil doesnt mean anything and neither do good and bad. These are words to describe the way humans feel about certain things and are now social standards. You are exactly right when you say that people can consider something to be good or bad, because anything can be. Heres an example, it was okay to smack around your kids not too long ago, now it is not exceptable by any means and could have your children taken away for it. No one thought it was "wrong" or "bad" back then.

Quote by marfish14hmm, sorry. Didnt read that part. Really, good does not correspond with feeling? The why is it that when you have a meal that tastes excellent, that it is considered good? Sometimes you may do something that may not always feel great, like giving part of your lunch to someone who doesnt have one. You may not feel good about sharing it, but you may also feel good having given them some. Or you may have done it thanks to social standards and the fact that you have had it drilled into you that it is the right thing to do. Good and bad have everything to do with feelings. I do not see how you could not percieve things the way you do without feelings. If you were a tobot with no emotions, do you think you would be able to say whether a someone insulting you was bad or good? You wouldnt be able to feel bad in order think such a thing. I herd my teacher label a wolf in a story "evil" because it wanted to eat a sheep. And I thought, but it is its instinct to do so, and it could not live without eating other animals, and you are going to label it so because of the way it gets sustenance? We eat cows, are you going to call humans evil because we kill them to eat? You cannot call someone evil because they kill, or even if they took pleasure in hurting someone. Evil doesnt mean anything and neither do good and bad. These are words to describe the way humans feel about certain things and are now social standards. You are exactly right when you say that people can consider something to be good or bad, because anything can be. Heres an example, it was okay to smack around your kids not too long ago, now it is not exceptable by any means and could have your children taken away for it. No one thought it was "wrong" or "bad" back then.

You may FEEL as if something is good or bad, doesn't make it that. Good and bad i guess CAN be used in such a way, but thats aside from what we are talking about, and may simply be misgivings of language. generally the way you are talking about is simply another way of saying i approve or disapprove of something, like or dislike. But when we are discussing morallity and good and bad, we are refering more to something that does not have to do with our own personal feelings. We may think something is good and it actually be bad. When we say something is good or bad it is generally based on what we know and think, but we are making a statement as to our understanding of what it actually is, and what it actually is may be different and is independent of how we feel about it.

And in your example the key word is no one THOUGHT it was wrong or bad. People are wrong about what is good and bad all the time, and continue to be. It doesn't change what IS good or bad though. Just like what people THINK in medical science doesn't change what a particular thing is. or anything else. People used to THINK the world was flat, but that never made it flat by any means.

Ah, so you have a religious stand point. You believe there to a master moral out there. I thought we were having an argument about morals, but now I can see it is over religion. It is going to be a futile discussion between the two of us or anyone else if we are looking at the world from either sides.

Quote by marfish14Ah, so you have a religious stand point. You believe there to a master moral out there. I thought we were having an argument about morals, but now I can see it is over religion. It is going to be a futile discussion between the two of us or anyone else if we are looking at the world from either sides.

Well, this is the Religion and Science forum, did you think we were debating morals on the basis of science?

But anyway, theres not usually talk of morals outside of some sort of theological idea. Philosophy talks of morals alot, sure, but either in the context of God (as a general or specific idea), or of some abstract Universal Truth and Standard. The other side is relativism which generally does not believe in any real morals, just values and human rules.

Eh, philosophy is philosophy, doesn't have to be of theology or of god... For a nice example, my philosophical view could be, killing people is a nice way to relieve people of their hardships and suffering. Now, that falls into euthanasia, but you have no say to that it's not my philosophical view.

Yes, it's the religion and science forum, the only reason it is in religion and science is the fact that sin is of a religious term. Heck, if Christianity and anything of that branch, sin wouldn't have ever existed but morality still would.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

True, but do you think that either of us are going to get anywhere with each other? What do you hope to gain from this argument? It is a futile for of entertainment. Anyway, I guess I should be more patient, but once the ideas are thrown out there and no one takes, then whats the point in repeating them in different context? Anyway, we already have this argument in another thread right now though ti should really be in this one.

Yes, philosophy doesn't have to be of theology, if it did it would just be called theology. Philosophy is the the search for wisdom, which in some branches means truth, others means right action, and others maybe something else.
In any case, you seem to agree with me that I can use, and likely should be using, a religious basis for argument, as you said sin is a religious term and would not be here if it weren't for religions. I'm not sure I agree on the morality part however.

Anyway, it may be futile, but you seem to be playing along as well marfish14. The topic was thrown out, and people have come to discuss it, whether any will be swayed one way or another, its being done. As for myself, even if I cannot sway anyone, such matters are often good ways of practicing debate and testing how strong my own arguments are by being faced with some challange, allowing for refinement. On another level, a story of Lot comes to mind where he is preaching in the city day after day, though no one is listening, and a child asks him why he continues when no one cares to which he replies "I do not preach to change them, I preach so that I do not become like them." Now, there are some difficulties with that statement, but its one reason for fighting a "futile" battle.

Sin is sth that you commit against the Ten commandments in the bible.

page 2 of 2 « Previous 1 2 44 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.