ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags sin , questions

Reply
Old 25th February 2005, 04:33 AM   #1
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Questions about 'SIN'?

Hello all,

I give below some definitions;-

SIN; an offense against religious or moral law: transgression of the law of God :a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God: to commit an offense or fault...

Balance of nature; A term for an ideal condition in which the interrelationships of organisms to one another and their environment appear harmonious.

Biological equilibrium; The state of natural control, self-regulation of the numbers of plants and animals in a community, brought about by interactions within and between plants and animals and the effects of environment such as weather.

Homeostasis; a relatively stable state of equilibrium or a tendency toward such a state between the different but interdependent elements or groups of elements of an organism, population, or group.


My questions are:-

1. Why 'Antonyms of 'SIN' is not available in dictonaries of 'english' language?(I tried best, if there pls tell me.)

2. What is actual meaning of 'SIN'? Is is doing somethig bad or Is it doing anything imbalanced in view of Balance of nature, Biological equilibrium/Homeostasis as defined above?

In view of 'doing something bad', only bad deeds can be under the perview of 'SIN', but in view of 'doing something imbalanced, all imbalanced (excess or low of good or bad) deeds can come under its perview. Can you comment accordingly.

Best Wishes.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 05:23 AM   #2
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 13,043
Sin is strictly speaking an offense against religious law/rules. Other uses of "sin" are by extension from this by people who e.g. confuse religion with morals. It has nothing to do with "balance of nature" - nothing at all.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 05:47 AM   #3
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
A sin is a transgression against a particular religious or moral code, IF that religion or morality set defines it as a 'sin'.

Atheists, for example, cannot by definition sin. Catholics sin almost constantly, in thought, word, and deed, but can be forgiven from week to week.

If your religion or moral code specifically sets the balance of nature as a benchmark of sin, then and only then can you commit sin; otherwise, the two are unrelated. For example, some modern 'Druidic' cults see excesses of good or bad as a 'sin', since they specifically require the 'middle ground' in their religion.

As far as I know, there is no antonym for 'sin'.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 07:31 AM   #4
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Yes, but all these can be just religious or social considerations. Some religons or societies might had indicated some aspects as sin or illegal in view of need of that comunity, region or need of time. But what about in actual or natural sense? Is it a sin, when we cut the trees, forests, pursue imbalances, pollute environment...mean do anything which causes natural imbalances?
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 07:46 AM   #5
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,051
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
Is it a sin, when we cut the trees, forests, pursue imbalances, pollute environment...mean do anything which causes natural imbalances?
If you think causing 'natural imbalances' is sinful, then, within your personal moral framework, it is.
Marquis de Carabas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 08:19 AM   #6
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Is it not right that there can be several type of SINS eg; moral, personal, family, community, civil/social, religious, natural etc.? I think whatever can harm you & your health can be 'common'. If a peson can get diabetes or hypertention by taking more of sugar or salt in excess than it may be a SIN to consume excess sugar or salt for him. Accumulation of these in system can somewhat be alike accumulation of SINS. Whereas, it may not be a SIN for other person who is in normal health. On the contrary consumption of these can somewhat be opposite of SIN.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 08:23 AM   #7
Lisa Simpson
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,349
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
Is it not right that there can be several type of SINS eg; moral, personal, family, community, civil/social, religious, natural etc.? I think whatever can harm you & your health can be 'common'. If a peson can get diabetes or hypertention by taking more of sugar or salt in excess than it may be a SIN to consume excess sugar or salt for him. Accumulation of these in system can somewhat be alike accumulation of SINS. Whereas, it may not be a SIN for other person who is in normal health. On the contrary consumption of these can somewhat be opposite of SIN.
It's only a SIN to eat excess sugar if your religion says so. It's not a SIN to eat excess sugar if you are diabetic. It's just stupid.
Lisa Simpson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 08:38 AM   #8
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Sin is only defined in a moral/religious context. Study English before you come here with arguments about what terms mean.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 08:44 AM   #9
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
Is it not right that there can be several type of SINS eg; moral, personal, family, community, civil/social, religious, natural etc.?
No, it is not right. There are only moral and religious sins.

Personal 'sins' exist if the person has a moral or religious code which is not shared by others.

Family and community 'sins', again, exist only if a moral or religious code is applied to the entire family or community.

Civil/social 'sins' are called Crimes.

Natural 'sins' do not exist. Ever. There is no such thing as a 'natural sin'. Even if Mankind cuts down every last tree on Earth, this would not be a sin - man is a natural part of its environment, and as such, even an act of total deforestation is a natural act. True, it would be morally wrong in many instances, and would be disastrous for the planet, but it would not, as such, be unnatural or sinful from a nature point of view.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 09:09 PM   #10
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
What can be the expectation of So reffered as "GOD" from us? HE creates, tries, likes to maintain 'balance in nature'. So this can be his best liking. If we go against it, will it not be transgressing of the law of God or estranged from God or to commit an offense or fault? Any step towards balancing the nature may mean'doing HIS' work--so pleasing HIM--so doing 'opposite of sin' & doing other than this may mean 'going against HIM or adding to HIS work or displeasing HIM--so doing the SIN. Is it not real meaning? As for as personal/individual POV, creating state of any imbalance in body can mean 'doing a personal SIN. So we cn think on lne of 'blance & imbalance' not 'doing something bad'. Excess of anything is said to be as bad--whether it is excess of bad or good.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 10:42 PM   #11
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
What can be the expectation of So reffered as "GOD" from us? HE creates, tries, likes to maintain 'balance in nature'. So this can be his best liking. If we go against it, will it not be transgressing of the law of God or estranged from God or to commit an offense or fault? Any step towards balancing the nature may mean'doing HIS' work--so pleasing HIM--so doing 'opposite of sin' & doing other than this may mean 'going against HIM or adding to HIS work or displeasing HIM--so doing the SIN. Is it not real meaning? As for as personal/individual POV, creating state of any imbalance in body can mean 'doing a personal SIN. So we cn think on lne of 'blance & imbalance' not 'doing something bad'. Excess of anything is said to be as bad--whether it is excess of bad or good.
um... what?

Kumar - learn to speak English. This entire post is largely incoherent.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say - that God's will is the balance of nature? Do you have proof that God exists yet?
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2005, 11:30 PM   #12
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Yes, weakness of languge, technicalities(not meanings) are there but meaning & indications to inteligent one can be more important. Moreover, 'thoughts with some differances' can be bit irritating--but creative.

When concept of 'GOD' is in mass existance in well distributed people since long with benificial effects--it ought to be there--may be in differant language & form in deviation to gossly indicated language & form. Something can be 'Prime God', 'God', 'GOD type', 'Alike God'...etc. Just try to search first, anything which has 'Omni--present, scient & potent qualities/properties. It should be abc/basic of true understandings.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 03:42 AM   #13
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
What can be the expectation of So reffered as "GOD" from us? HE creates, tries, likes to maintain 'balance in nature'. So this can be his best liking. If we go against it, will it not be transgressing of the law of God or estranged from God or to commit an offense or fault? Any step towards balancing the nature may mean'doing HIS' work--so pleasing HIM--so doing 'opposite of sin' & doing other than this may mean 'going against HIM or adding to HIS work or displeasing HIM--so doing the SIN. Is it not real meaning? As for as personal/individual POV, creating state of any imbalance in body can mean 'doing a personal SIN. So we cn think on lne of 'blance & imbalance' not 'doing something bad'. Excess of anything is said to be as bad--whether it is excess of bad or good.
If your religion dictates that hugging trees is good and chopping them down is bad, then it is a sin to chop one down.
If your religion says that creating a "state of unbalance" is bad then it is a sin to do it.

Are you getting the picture?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
When concept of 'GOD' is in mass existance in well distributed people since long with benificial effects--it ought to be there--may be in differant language & form in deviation to gossly indicated language & form. Something can be 'Prime God', 'God', 'GOD type', 'Alike God'...etc. Just try to search first, anything which has 'Omni--present, scient & potent qualities/properties. It should be abc/basic of true understandings.
Yes, many people think there is a God. However, this does not mean it is true, or beneficial (e.g. crusades, inquisition, jihad, missionaries, boring sermons etc.).

This is called wishful thinking.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 03:47 AM   #14
to.by
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
A sin is a transgression against a particular religious or moral code, IF that religion or morality set defines it as a 'sin'.

Atheists, for example, cannot by definition sin.
You are saying that atheists cannot transgress against a moral code. I am sorry, but they can. A moral code may not necessarily be a relifgious one.
to.by is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 03:56 AM   #15
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,122
Quote:
Originally posted by to.by
You are saying that atheists cannot transgress against a moral code. I am sorry, but they can. A moral code may not necessarily be a relifgious one.
But the transgression cannot be called a "sin" without (in effect) redefining the word sin to such an extent it has no religious meaning.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 06:45 AM   #16
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Quote:
Originally posted by to.by
You are saying that atheists cannot transgress against a moral code. I am sorry, but they can. A moral code may not necessarily be a relifgious one.
Conceded.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 06:47 AM   #17
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Quote:
Originally posted by Darat
But the transgression cannot be called a "sin" without (in effect) redefining the word sin to such an extent it has no religious meaning.
No, because I did define it as 'a trangression against a religious or moral code.

A knight who slaps a wench can be said to have sinned.

Yes, this imparts religious undertones to the morality of chivalry... but most moral codes are like this. Many are founded upon religion, while others replace religion entirely.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 07:40 AM   #18
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
What for moral, social or religious codes are made? Are these to give benefits to its members or to itself?

Anyway, codes & conducts made/suggested by any authority can be related to give the benefits to individual/s at his/their physical, mental & spritual levels keeping hormony among its members. But its basis can be primarily related to give the benefits to individual/s at his/their physical, mental & spritual levels. It can be called as SIN, if one goes against those code of conducts provided these do not harm any individual on his physical, mental & spritual levels. It can also be of prime importance to maintain 'GOD or Nature' in their balanced form to get all those benefits by any individual.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 07:46 AM   #19
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,122
Quote:
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, because I did define it as 'a trangression against a religious or moral code.

A knight who slaps a wench can be said to have sinned.

Yes, this imparts religious undertones to the morality of chivalry... but most moral codes are like this. Many are founded upon religion, while others replace religion entirely.
Sorry for being a bit of a nit-picker (well I'm not really else I wouldn't have posted ) but your example is a bad one since most Knights as we would understand them were Christian Knights. Therefore they were obligated to uphold a religious morality so a Knight would be committing a "sin" if hitting the wench was against the Christian code in place at the time, and if it wasn’t then his act wouldn’t be a "sin" just bad behaviour (however given the time knights and wenches co-existed I suspect hitting a wench wasn’t considered bad behaviour).
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 07:47 AM   #20
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
[quote]Originally posted by H'ethetheth
If your religion dictates that hugging trees is good and chopping them down is bad, then it is a sin to chop one down.
If your religion says that creating a "state of unbalance" is bad then it is a sin to do it.
Are you getting the picture?


Just forget about everything, just find out what is good & what is bad for you?

Yes, many people think there is a God. However, this does not mean it is true, or beneficial (e.g. crusades, inquisition, jihad, missionaries, boring sermons etc.).

This is called wishful thinking.


Just try to translated the languages. It may be said in 'Latin' but we may be reading in 'English'.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 08:32 AM   #21
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
Just forget about everything, just find out what is good & what is bad for you?
Why forget about everything? You asked what the true meaning of the word "sin" is. In my experience it is a transgression of religious morals. It has nothing to do with personal preferences, nature, balance or anything else.
Quote:

Just try to translated the languages. It may be said in 'Latin' but we may be reading in 'English'.
I'm sorry, I honestly do not understand this comment.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 09:28 AM   #22
ceo_esq
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,935
Quote:
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Atheists, for example, cannot by definition sin.
Atheists may not be able to sin in respect of their own beliefs. It seems difficult, though, to say with complete certainty that atheists cannot sin, because that presumes knowledge that no divine law objectively exists which could unknowingly be transgressed by an atheist. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat, and so forth.
ceo_esq is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 09:42 AM   #23
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
I was, of course, speaking from the individual viewpoint of the atheist.

And until someone proves there are demonstrable objective morals and religious rules, it is best to act as if they do not exist.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 12:52 PM   #24
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally posted by ceo_esq
Atheists may not be able to sin in respect of their own beliefs. It seems difficult, though, to say with complete certainty that atheists cannot sin, because that presumes knowledge that no divine law objectively exists which could unknowingly be transgressed by an atheist. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat, and so forth.
Well, I'm not waiting up for God to uphold his law. I'll take that risk.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2005, 09:28 PM   #25
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Quote:
Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Why forget about everything? You asked what the true meaning of the word "sin" is. In my experience it is a transgression of religious morals. It has nothing to do with personal preferences, nature, balance or anything else.

I'm sorry, I honestly do not understand this comment.
I mentioned the meanings. But I want to understand the reality. There sould be some physiological/scientific effect of 'Sin' on us individually or on a community as a whole keeping individual's interests, intact. Religious morals should have been defined on this basis only. Now let us try to find science of 'SIN'. How this can effect us ap per science?

To try understand so defined 'God' or 'Goddess' at prime/basic/micro level & then at secondary/gross/macro level can help in understanding these concepts.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 04:00 AM   #26
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
I mentioned the meanings. But I want to understand the reality. There sould be some physiological/scientific effect of 'Sin' on us individually or on a community as a whole keeping individual's interests, intact. Religious morals should have been defined on this basis only. Now let us try to find science of 'SIN'. How this can effect us ap per science?

To try understand so defined 'God' or 'Goddess' at prime/basic/micro level & then at secondary/gross/macro level can help in understanding these concepts.
Oh, well, that's easy enough -

There is no physiological/scientific effect of 'Sin', only psychological effects.

There is no prime/basic/micro, nor secondayr/gross/macro level of God or Goddess in science.

Sin and Gods are not scientific; no evidence exists to support either, objectively.

Since sin is an entirely subjective concept, science cannot analyze it. Easy.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 04:27 AM   #27
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Taking excess minerals/substances in case of excesses/accumulations in body due to any physiological disorder or addiction eg; sugar & salt in case diabetes & hypertention or alcohol by an alcoholic person or excess sex without purpose of reproduction or taking outside unnatural goods or creating imbalanced environments....all can be related to SIN or physiological effects of SIN(doing anything wrong). It it not so??
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 04:48 AM   #28
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
Taking excess minerals/substances in case of excesses/accumulations in body due to any physiological disorder or addiction eg; sugar & salt in case diabetes & hypertention or alcohol by an alcoholic person or excess sex without purpose of reproduction or taking outside unnatural goods or creating imbalanced environments....all can be related to SIN or physiological effects of SIN(doing anything wrong). It it not so??
No, it is not so. These are only related to SIN if your religion defines such as SIN.

Otherwise, these are not sins.

I don't know if you're failing to understand because of the language barrier, or if you're just that stupid, but sin is an entirely psychological and religious concept, which does not apply to physiology or environments, except as defined by the religion in question.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 04:58 AM   #29
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
SIN = Ships Inertial Navigation

What has that to do with "excess minerals/substances", Kumar?
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 05:53 AM   #30
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally posted by Zep
SIN = Ships Inertial Navigation

What has that to do with "excess minerals/substances", Kumar?
Too much sand in you gyros will eventually get you off course.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 07:35 AM   #31
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
"Things we do that fall short of God's standard of perfection and holiness. We sin by disobeying God's commands. We sin by ignoring God. We sin by doing things contrary to the nature and character of God"

What we can think about God's standard of perfection, nature & character?

It is also said 'God is in everyone' or "HE" is 'omniptresent'. But, It may be a differance that either HE is active/awakened or inactive/slept. So whatever makes HIM or our body, perfectly in Homeostatis state can be thought as "HIS active/awakened state" & vice-versa.

Zep, so any imbalance can be thought as making HIM to be inactive or slept.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 04:24 PM   #32
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Assuming HE exists - and there is no proof of this, as of yet.

The attempt to relate sin to imbalance within the body or in the environment is ludicrous. I suggest sticking to your precious tissue salts. Or homeo-water. At least there you don't embarrass yourself by dragging religion into the fray.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 08:02 PM   #33
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Just think about all the suggestions in religious sayings about reducing your SINS. Are these all related to improving your health or imbalances due to accumulations of body substances. Holy dips in rivers etc. may lead to reduce mineral imbalances in body. Every substance can effect us by its physical apperance by its reflected colours on its exposure to light. We burn candles, lamps etc. in front of holy idols. Mantras can cause discharges, exposure to light & re-absorption of relevant minerals to mantras. We shouls study every holy suggestion in science. We may just find "sins" somewhat as imbalances in our health & holy indications just somewhat as correcting those imbalances.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 08:26 PM   #34
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Quote:
Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Too much sand in you gyros will eventually get you off course.
I suspect Kumar's gyros have already rusted stopped. The good ship Kumar is now sailing in erratic circles somewhere off Sri Lanka...
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 07:17 AM   #35
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
In view of imbalances can be thought as 'SINS' not just bad or good, marrying/relating two similarily imbalanced person can also be thought somewhat as SIN. Is it not so?
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 08:26 AM   #36
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumar
In view of imbalances can be thought as 'SINS' not just bad or good, marrying/relating two similarily imbalanced person can also be thought somewhat as SIN. Is it not so?
No.

Unpractical maybe. Not a sin.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 02:36 PM   #37
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
Months ago I had the same discussion with Kumar at some other thread.

I said that the concept of sin is based on and strongly dependant on cultural background. Human sacrifices would be nowdays considered as a sin by most religions. However, many cultures and religions considered it as essential or acceptable in the past.

IF "the concept of sin" had a "natural basis", THEN the vast majority of cultures and religions in the world would have very similar sins.

Why not all religions declare a sin the consume of pig meat?
Why some religions consider sex a sin while for others it is part of sacred rites?

The concepts of sin have strong cultural basis. Most seem to have been created to avoid desintegration of social fabric and maintain the identity of a given population.

Kumar´s proposal also has a major issue- the concept of sin requires not only the existance of a god (something unproven at best), but also of a god who cares about sins. And providing there is such god, which acts will truly be sins among the long list provided by the religions are the true ones? Eating pig meat, eating cow meat or eating meat?

Without religions, there are no sins. You may have, however, crimes. And what is considered as crime is also dependent on the culture.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 02:40 PM   #38
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
This whole thread is crap.

"Holy dips in rivers'? What other metaphysical nonsense is Kumar going to push? Marrying imbalanced people? MINERAL BALANCES???

Kumar - get your head out of your 4th pt. of contact, and go to a real school and learn some real science. Put down the 'Tissue Salts for Dummies' and pick up 'Causes of Disease for Dummies'.

Oh, and get a frickin' life.

I put up with a lot of nonsense out of a lot of the guys here - but they generally have one brand of nonsense they're peddling. You seem to be trying to sell us the package deal, sin included.

And if you're not going to listen to the answers to questions, why ask them?

Oh, and what 'tissue imbalances' does the so-called 'sin' of polyamory cause? Some sects consider it a sin, others a blessing. In neither case does it affect health any more or less than monogamy.

...

To everyone else - sorry, I have a headache, and Kumar is about three IQ points below 'tree stump'.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 02:59 PM   #39
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
 
Piscivore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home is wherever I'm with you
Posts: 27,388
Since "god" is wholly imaginary, the "law of god" is likewise imaginary, thus the act of "transgressing" this law is itself an impossible act. As is being "estranged" from god.

Thus, in the religious sense, no one has ever sinned. Ever.

Such an act that is both impossible and wholly conceptual, cannot therefore have any consequence upon the material world. The placebo effect may lower stress levels, thus contributing to the alleviation of stress related symptoms, but that's just psychology and self-delusion.
__________________
Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody's gonna die. Come watch TV.

"...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen
Piscivore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 09:45 PM   #40
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
We can consider nature's system & progression in balanced manner instead of 'God's work, if we dislike or couldn't yet understood this concept/entity, entirely.

Some differances in religious suggestions can be due to cultural & regional/environmental differances BUT basic indications should be somewat similar. If differant religions suggest use of holy water from differance sources/rivers--can mean regional existance of that source. Few may suggest taking non-veg as SIN, whereas other may not. In real sense, both can be thought as 'killing of livings & interfering in progression of nature'(unless fruits are only used)--so we should try understand its science i.e. whether any of these food or type of taking these foods by humans is somewhat 'health related & harmful'. It is possible that religious indications may be 'just our health related' & so we must find there science to really understand those--if we can't do 'blind faith' due to effect of modern lifestyle.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.