You Just Keep Sinning

[bookitty]

Sorry, it's not. You read the Bible, you study it, you understand it, you do what it says. You don't re-interpret it because you don't like what it says, and you don't cherry-pick.
But not cherry-picking means not cherry-picking, which also means every part is read in context. You have to be ready to accept that your current understanding of Scripture may be skewed in some places. That's what I mean by, it's not an echo-chamber. It's a guide.

Read in context to what? The rest of the Bible? Your modern life?

 

[AvalonXQ]

But it is plainly obvious that God agrees with believers because believers are determining the content of God's belief based on their own subjective considerations and those of the community of believers within which they socialize.

I and my community of believers adjust the content of our beliefs based on what we can determine God believes -- which would cause exactly the same correlation as mentioned in your article.

Read in context to what? The rest of the Bible? Your modern life?

I intended "the rest of Scripture". Sorry for the ambiguity there.

 

[D'rok]

It's not contradictory, no. If there is a single, objective correct answer for each person, but that answer may be different for each person, than the trait in question is individualized but not subjective. Body weight, birthdate, and legal name are all examples of this. So, I claim, is God's intention for a Christian.

Dammit, you quoted me before I fixed my embarrassing typo.

So, you claim that God has and individualized plan for you that is as objectively manifest as your vital stats. And you go about discovering this plan by...all of the projection described in the research to which I referred. God is a receptacle for that which you desire for yourself, and those desires are socially constructed.

I don't expect you to agree with this, but there it is. Nothing you have said refutes the research in that paper.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Sorry, it's not. You read the Bible, you study it, you understand it, you do what it says. You don't re-interpret it because you don't like what it says, and you don't cherry-pick.
But not cherry-picking means not cherry-picking, which also means every part is read in context. You have to be ready to accept that your current understanding of Scripture may be skewed in some places. That's what I mean by, it's not an echo-chamber. It's a guide.

But it's a poorly written guide which changes directions of guidance quite often. And, sorry to add, even our most ancient sources of text are copies and reinterpretations (either due to change of philosophy or change of language). For all we know, it was a 'talking don quixote' or a 'squawking donkey' or a 'damn tasty side of equine'. Without the originals in the original language read by someone who actually knows the language from first principles what we have are dubious texts which shouldn't even be simply read without a truckload of salt let alone used as 'guidance'.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

You don't re-interpret it because you don't like what it says, and you don't cherry-pick.
But not cherry-picking means not cherry-picking, which also means every part is read in context.

One man's "reading in context" is another man's "re-interpretation"

 

[D'rok]

I and my community of believers adjust the content of our beliefs based on what we can determine God believes -- which would cause exactly the same correlation as mentioned in your article.

It's a question of plausibility. Are you part of a well-understood behavioural phenomenon (which isn't restricted to religion, BTW), or are you and your community, unique to all other such communities, actually uncovering in piecemeal fashion what God, should such an entity actually exist, truly believes. And this despite the fact that every other community of believers thinks they're doing the same thing.

One answer is plausible; the other isn't.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Dammit, you quoted me before I fixed my embarrassing typo.

I went back and fixed it in my quote too.

Nothing you have said refutes the research in that paper.

And since the same results would manifest if either option were true, the paper provides no evidence that makes one more likely than the other.
If hypothesis A predicts outcome X, and hypothesis A' also predicts outcome X, testing for X doesn't help us distinguish between A and A'.

ETA: Getting back on topic, I hope my explanation above helped with the OP's understanding of "sin", at least from a Christian perspective. The Scriptures are clear that behaving correctly is a matter of intent, emotion, personality, and faith, and so the nature of sin is far more individualized than it sometimes is discussed as.

 

[Beerina]

A "sin" is anything that takes a person farther away from god, whether actions or thoughts.

This really just pushes the definition into "whatever the hell God says it is". It's also a backwards justification, if you ask me, for why sins are bad.

Since fear of punishment (or reward) are lousy reasons, so our modern sensibilities state, to behave "properly" from a philosophic point of view, "it's pushing you away from God" steps up to fill. Though, that, itself, seems synonymous with the mundane reward/punishment concept if you think about it. What's the big deal of being "away from God"? Punishment thus becomes just lack of the reward "not being with Him", which I've heard some suggest is synonymous with the punishment of Hell.

And that last bit of wonderfulness attempts to get rid of the philosophically similarly distasteful aspect of Hell-as-active-punishment. No, God is sad, but chooses not to be with you for ever and ever, and that's what "Hell" is, not some devil pitchforking you in the ass as you scream in lava. You either get to be with God, which is so gosh, golly, darned, unimaginably wonderful, or you don't, which might as well be akin to a pitchfork in comparison.


Religion-as-meme evolving in front of our eyes to adapt to received contemporary ethical wisdom to continue the behaviors that allow it to survive AKA spread AKA at least not contract quite as fast.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A sin is any action or thought that disobeys or questions God. You are supposed to follow him blindly and without question. or so I've been told all my life. One of my problems is that I like to think about things because I like learning. So therefore I am a sinner because i am not supposed to question anything just be a blind unfeeling robot. So much for free will.

This was the kind of lessons I received at various churches as I was growing up. It's like god gave humans free will for the soul purpose of getting them to give it back, and if you don't.. you go to hell.

 

[AvalonXQ]

One man's "reading in context" is another man's "re-interpretation"

Why did that other man interpret it out of context in the first place?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's not contradictory, no. If there is a single, objective correct answer for each person, but that answer may be different for each person, than the trait in question is individualized but not subjective. Body weight, birthdate, and legal name are all examples of this. So, I claim, is God's intention for a Christian.

Feel free to show me the objective evidence of this objective list of individualized "sin" standards.

 

[D'rok]

And since the same results would manifest if either option were true, the paper provides no evidence that makes one more likely than the other.
If hypothesis A predicts outcome X, and hypothesis A' also predicts outcome X, testing for X doesn't help us distinguish between A and A'.

Well that's where we'll obviously have to profoundly disagree. Hypothesis A is testable whereas hypothesis A¹ isn't. That alone makes A more plausible.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well that's where we'll obviously have to profoundly disagree. Hypothesis A is testable whereas hypothesis A¹ isn't.

If hypothesis A' isn't testable, then clearly no report that you link to will show evidence against hypothesis A'.
If hypothesis A' isn't testable, then clearly hypothesis A is untestable with respect to being an alternative to hypothesis A'.
On the other hand, if hypotheses A and A' are alternative hypotheses, and would cause a different result in some circumstances, than both are testable and neither one is more or less plausible for the reasons you've given.
Are we done with this off-topic subject now?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Avalon, I don't think you can trick D'rok.

 

[D'rok]

If hypothesis A' isn't testable, then clearly no report that you link to will show evidence against hypothesis A'.
If hypothesis A' isn't testable, then clearly hypothesis A is untestable with respect to being an alternative to hypothesis A'.
On the other hand, if hypotheses A and A' are alternative hypotheses, and would cause a different result in some circumstances, than both are testable and neither one is more or less plausible for the reasons you've given.
Are we done with this off-topic subject now?

Only if you agree that untestable hypotheses are not worthy of serious consideration as alternatives for testable ones.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Only if you agree that untestable hypotheses are not worthy of serious consideration as alternatives for testable ones.

You're the one who's trying to show that a hypothesis that you claim is untestable was just tested. Keep digging the hole if you want to; I'd rather focus on the actual subject of the thread.

 

[aviolet4u]

The concept of sinning becomes irrelevant especially when you consider people born with "God given" defects like certain mental illnesses or simply lacking empathy. They can't be penalized for something that is out of their control. Well with that kind of malevolent creator anything is possible I guess.

 

[D'rok]

You're the one who's trying to show that a hypothesis that you claim is untestable was just tested. Keep digging the hole if you want to; I'd rather focus on the actual subject of the thread.

Um, no. The testable hypotheses that was indeed tested is that God is a container for socially constructed beliefs. Your untestable hypothesis isn't a serious alternative.

ETA: BTW, this is on-topic. We're talking about how you determine what sin is.

 

[Ralph]

One theme I see repeated over & over again on the fundy sites such as Rapture Ready is that all sins are equal.

God doesn't differentiate between "small" and "large" sins.

All are equally offensive to god and deserving of eternal torture if you're not saved.

Hitting your thumb with a hammer and saying "goddammit" puts you in the same league as Himmler,Stalin, and child-molesting catholic priests.

I have seen opinions voiced however that being a homo is somehow just worse than murdering a few million people or so.

Maybe homos don't just get fried in hell---they get dipped in batter first so it hurts more...

 

[six7s]

A "sin" is anything that takes a person farther away from god, whether actions or thoughts.

What about actions or thoughts that take me further away from Invisible Pink Unicorns? Are they 'sins', too?