Sin -- (continued discussion with Sagesound)

This discussion is continued from the “against gods” thread…

– Sagesound

Agreed – just ‘cause I’m taking a course in history (which, by not specifying, reminds me of Good Will Hunting) doesn’t mean I comprehend all the ins and outs. It is a lot easier than high school, but I won’t speculate as to why (I went over the four page minimum, if it makes you feel any better). It’s not like my history instructor is my personal handpicked mentor. My personal handpicked mentor handpicked me (the Holy Spirit, who disclaims any stupid things I may say on my own behalf laughs both heartily and merrily – out loud). I PM’d or will PM you the questions – minus the answers, for whatever reason (?). If this is your attempt at ad hominem, it is a weak one.

As a preface, I apologize for messing up your pretty red and blue text.

First off – I didn’t say “Christian values” pulled me back. You said that because you are an agnostic (apparently), but “values” do not have a will of their own – I was willfully pulled back. I was an atheist at the time, but the case could be made for the fact that I was a Christian before that and so reverted back to a previous belief structure. It is fallacious to assume that someone came to believe something based on a prior belief in it, rather than based on it being true. If God had not forced me into my current level of awareness, I would have remained a person who did not believe. I don’t mean “forced” in any negative sense, just as Plato didn’t think it negative that a cave-dweller was dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the cave. Did it scare the heck out of me? Yes, and quite literally. Was it “societal rejection” that scared the heck out of me? No. It was God. My conscience was almost severed by the time He decided to insert Himself – I didn’t care what people thought. I will say that at one point, I had the feeling that if I could just believe – then things would get better with my marriage. But, as you probably know, you can’t just make yourself believe something for which you have no evidence (self-deception provides evidence where there is none). My heart was growing or had grown cold. It is disturbing to try to remember how I was.

What I’m telling you when I tell you God yanked me back, showed me how wrong I was (Ezekiel :sunglasses: and broke me free – is that He proved to me (with prophetic and other miracles, ruling out self-deception, because a self who is not God is incapable of initiating true prophecy or true miracles) that He exists; while doing that, He showed me modern paganism, and He stopped my madness (read “A crumb”) when I begged Him to – all of that being how He broke me free from the state of – waiting for death – that I was in before He broke through. You refer me to Nietzsche, but Nietzsche was in that state, and I no longer am. I threw away my Nietzsche books. When I was going through the madness, I considered all the possible causes of it. Because it included prophecy and miracles, and resulted in my conversion, there is only one cause that makes rational sense. God. Insanity usually is destructive, and demons are not omnipresent in time-space in order to make the future appear in my mind. I can imagine you thinking “wacko” in response to what I’m writing, which hopefully explains to you one reason why I am not open about it. Who would believe me unless they experienced it for themselves? That’s why I pray God makes Himself real to you, not that I want you to experience madness. How else will you and others like you (like I was) believe? He did it for me… I don’t see why He wouldn’t do it for you.

As for sin – I didn’t call it sin when I was an atheist. I don’t recall it ever coming up in my ethics text. But, see what I wrote on happiness in my second post of my “Faith vs. Works” thread (a short version of an essay I earned a 95% on in my ‘critical thinking’ class):

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

Sin is the obstacle of happiness (happiness, ultimately, being realized in oneness with God) – it separates us from God. Getting rid of sin is essentially righting a wrong, ending separation from God, bringing us back to oneness with God – atonement. This understanding was developed using OT sacrifices and Jesus’ NT sacrifice – communicating that it is God who provides the means of atonement – it is He who rights the wrong and brings (in my case, yanks) us back to Him. If we reject that, we reject Him. If we reject Him, we reject Love, Truth, and Life.

To Sartre, I would’ve said that to sin is to act or not act in bad faith (James 4:17). Not acting includes not helping someone who needs help, because our idols take priority (Matt 25:31-46; this passage also defines sin against God). Note that the concept of “switching perspectives” (was this a concept Nietzsche supported… or just someone with whom I used to play poker?) is covered by the Golden Rule, as you would want someone to put themselves in your shoes when considering how to behave with you. Sartre denounces private virtues as “belonging to someone with an uneasy conscience,” and I concur, except in the case of those without conscience, who mislabel their interests as “virtues”. So, while Sartre supports subjectivism, in that he sees man as the originator of value, he also undermines it, by dismissing private virtues (refer to the relativist fallacy, and consider the phrase ‘subjectivist fallacy’). In my thread on Dawkins’ “meme” I point to the reality that some values, temporal and finite, originate from man (subjectivity), but God’s values are eternal and unchanging (and we can subjectively choose His values, which brings us to Keirkegaard’s “Subjectivity is Truth” – not that I’m totally in his camp). To me, that you can hold a civil conversation with me, participate in shared meaning, and feel comfortable pointing out my errors (thank you) – tells me you understand sin more than most.

I don’t know if that completely addresses the issue, but if it doesn’t, it’s a start. And, upon review, a very long one at that, so I’ll end it here for now.

Just so you Know Ichthius:

This is the etymology for Sin and yes I wikied it…

As you can see its history has nothing to do with evil but clearly states more to the purpose of truth of being.

There is alot of History on how “Sin” came to be used in its curent form and why, But none of it is suportive to the Christian or other faiths. It’s actiauly antaganistic from the Theist side.

Here is another such poste from the same site:

You must also note that these “Bleiefs” were around long before Christianity or Jesus some even before Judaism.

Basicaly sin was turned into the represintation of evil to show that all pagan religions and anything not Christian was evil. This does not mean it is or was it was merely a ploy which was designed to instil hatetred tword other religions.

The same is true for the Horned God (Pagan God of the Harvest) and the Bapomet. (Now used to represent satan) You should look up the past and history behind why these symbles are used for such meanings and there actual history.

Here is a link explaining Bapomet and his relation on becoming “Satan”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Horned_God

This link alone Proves the above. Have fun.

Also the Cross you Christians hold so dear is not a symle of life but one of death. It represents the romans most gruisome and painful torture.

Not life and Reseraection.

I apologize for butting in on you sagesound, couldnt resist though I admit I am not at my fullest in this artical I have written. It could have been better. (Was in a bit of a hurry)

03.21.07.2039

:confused: Ich… is this your attempt to try to prove something; not just to me, but to all of ILP? What is the point of all your efforts?

Some mages and psychics can also preform “miracles” and precognitive “prophecies”, but are they “God”? Did they create the universe? Nope.

I bet you did find a god, or a god found you, but it wasn’t God, and it wasn’t a god, either. It was just a spirit of some kind. Lol, most gods get so pissed when I call them soemthing other than gods. That’s because “god” is such an egotistical, monistic concept. It’s meant to be spectacular and famous. It hates questions and it hates the laughter of disambiguity. In weaker realms I’ve appeared to other beings as something god-like. I was proud of myself but I never ever will say I’m “God”, that’s such bullshit I’m surprised so many ancient rulers did it… The concept of super-being or ultimate-being requires first a contrast between weakness and strength. But the universe is greater than both of them. The universe is more than each of them, and the universe has no ego. It is far more than one-sided.

03.22.07.2040

Words from a Canadian are words well read. Cool post Dan; I never quite thought of anything like that before. I wonder what Ich has to say about it. :-k

Sounds a bit sexual, almost like rape since it was apparently forced.

Neither do I. What makes you so special? God inserts himself into the chosen few? How come we all dont get inserted?

03.22.07.2041

:laughing: I don’t know why I didn’t notice that before. …but, look at the bright side… at least “God” let’s you know he’s “doing you”… the “Devil” won’t even let you know until it’s all over. :evilfun: Either way, you’re getting “done”. It’s such an amusing theology Ich has…

Only symbiots and parasites insert themselves into a host. Principals of biology are semi-universal. Any literal “god” acting through men is either a parasite, a symbiote, or both. If it’s not a “god”, it’s an alternate ego, a second-self, a synthetic creature made of rationalism and over-funded-faith. Please tell me, if there were no Greeks, would there be no Zeus? And if there were no Jews, would there be no Jesus? No Lord? No Father? But if a god should ever ask for something, anything, it is either a symbiant or a parasitic deification. Any self-sufficient being asks nothing from an earthling, and tends to its own progressions, far away.

*Any being having will can ultimately be reduced to either a symbiote or a parasite in relation to its social connection.

*If God knew all, he should have tought people about things like sanitation, micro-biology, etc. And not just commanded them to conform within some sort of quasi-mundane-ritualism…

Doesn’t this kind of dull the impact of the words ‘symbiote’ or ‘parasite’? I mean, it sounds kind of profound, if not profane, to say that God is a parasite, but if in the sense that you mean it, we are all too, all of the sudden it’s not such a big deal.

First of all, he wasn’t saying God was a parasite, but that He is either a parasite or a symbiote. A parasite feeds on its host to the host’s detriment; symbiotes have a mutually beneficial relationship. If God is a parasite, we’re better off without Him; if He’s a symbiote, we’re better off with Him. The significant and radical thing being said, though, is to deny a unilateral beneficence, i.e., he’s saying that (if God is a symbiote rather than a parasite) He benefits as much as we do.

My own view is that whether or not this is true depends on what one means by “God.” The ultimate reality of God is not a person. Any God (or god, or goddess) who is a person is a channel for that ultimate reality that isn’t, and a vehicle for the human mind to relate to that ultimate reality by way of the personified deity.

Such a vehicle is, in part, a creation of the human imagination, and in part, a creation of that ultimate non-personal reality, acting upon the human imagination. Without the human imagination, no personified deity would exist, yet the ultimate reality of which personified deities are a channel and a mask, still would exist. Or, as Dan put it, without Greeks there would be no Zeus.

The ultimate reality – the All – does have a uniliterally beneficial relationship with us, but even that is not quite correct, because the separation between us and It, the distinction of our identity from Its, is illusory. The All does not precisely benefit us or love us. We ARE the All. And the love we feel is a drive for union, and the penetration of the illusion that preserves separateness.

Is it only me that finds the existence of such minds, as Icthus is, to be disturbing?
:astonished:

Seporateness and connection are both predetermined.

All status and energy exists within the phase-space of dependant-origination.

Biblically, “free will” was the cause or mechanism which led to sin. In other words, our freedom disconnects us from the absolutism of monistic metaphysics. And only once all free thought has ended, and complete mind-control is gained, can one “regain” the dogma and supposed-perfection of “God”.

answers.com/sin

“Sin” is primarily disobediance.
“By hell or high water”, if a descending Christian should so happen to submit himself yet again to the words written long ago, the words which only old Jewish men wrote, and God never personally touched, there will be a sense of accomplishment, a sense of security, a sense of gratification.

The reward is moral, the price payed is life itself.

Jesus’s death by impailment was the epitome of Christian legacy: To destroy the physical, to gain the metaphysical. To destroy the immoral, to gain the moral. To suppress the carnal, in order to set free the unnatural.

The dark-ages came in God’s name. Rome fell with “good intentions”. But there is a cure… The cure is here: The cure is: “All conceptual things experienced on earth have but a human origin.”

Expect nothing but mechanistic result from all animals.
It’s only disturbing if you mistake any one of them for “human”.

I spent a year thinking like this. It diminished the pain, but the joy of life was gone too.

Joy is primarily a form of mob-psychology.

Navigator

I think my original point is preserved. If we say that God is a symbiote or parasite, then that gives certain impressions. We think of symbiotic and parasitic relationships as being a certain way. If we go on to say that EVERYTHING that interacts with anything else is either symbiotic or parasitic, then we’re returned to an empty statement- saying “God is either parasitic or symbiotic” amounts to saying “God is something” and without a developed concept of God (it’s unclear that Dan~ thinks anything like the Christian God exists, he thinks there are multiple things fitting of the title god, including himself from time to time), that becomes “something is something”. “Something is something” is not an interesting point.
The reason I’m pointing this out, is that it’s very easy to take a term like “parasite” or “symbiote”, give it a broad, abusive definition that people wouldn’t normally associate but still fits in a vague way, declare that something fits that bad definition, then retroactively attach attributes from the common definition to the subject. For example,

“Anything that respires, procreates, and has a central nervous system is an animal”

“Uccisore is an animal”

“Uccisore shouldn’t be allowed in restaurants and hotels”.

Dan~

And what is cynicism?

God “is” a Parisite. Or at least survives parisiticaly.

Do you know what hapens when your belief in God Falters? His power weakons because it is derived from the willfull surender of soul mind and body of the worshiper. As th belief commands. Without you the worshiper God is a mere speck in his existance. Your belief that he is all powerful feeds him the ability to be such…Over “YOU”. He does not have any say or any power over those who do not worship him. While yes as any being he can influence things on an impersonal level with personal results he would be nothing without your belief in him.

This is a quick path to power as those of you know who are familier with such metaphysical concepts and Magickal Studies.

This path is also for the weaker metaphysical species. So that they may apear stronger for whatever reason.

Thats right, I said God was a weak species… He exist inbetween the metaphysical and physical not even as a being of pure metaphysical manifistation. He is probably a being who was once belonging to the physical who upon his death realized the truth of things. and then promptly went about creating realms and such and as there creator claimed godship.

The truth is, Most creation grow to be far more powerful than there creator in time.

Hence:

Do not Doubt, worship unfaulteringly, Do not ask questions, Complete faith is required, Give your soul mind and body to Jesus he will make your life all better…, If god speaks to you “Obey”. and when you die you will be raised up to heaven and worship unending the Lord “your” God…

Thats right your own bible tells you you’ll be a mindless slave feeding God your energy for the rest of eternity.

As I said…

God “IS” a Parisite.

"For he giveth unto all men life so they may be shaped into his Image and Death so they may have a path to serve unto him eternaly"

You’ve simply proved your capacity to disvalue my words.
You’ve simply proved your misinterpretation of my words.
You’ve proved it to yourself, for the sake of yourself.
This is personal. This is existential. This has been universalized.
Of-course this is mostly about your situation, your experiences, everything that led up to this state of being.

As always, this is a nifty trick. It's fantastic, aswel as amazing, for it sets my statement into a different place, a unvalued place. Misinterpretation is just a step above the act of ignoring and denial. No, Uccisore, this is not a game, or a contest, or a war, or a matter of right vs wrong. You will not gain and you will not loose. This is an optional perspective. This is a reduction. This is a statement about the behavior of lifeforms baring will and desire. This was meant to insight a more realistic mode of thinking.

Admit that he         has personalized and altered the concept of "God". his concept of "God" is different than yours. Admit, your concept of "God" has changed through time. Admit to yourself in-front of a mirror, that only men on earth of any kind have proselytized theism. They were only men. Each one of them was only a man. Never was it “God”. And each one of the many religious founders and conceptualizers had their own unique version of "God", they had their own sense of "God". They had their own idea of "God". Each of these mere men, claimed to be the messenger, the mouth-piece or the representative of "God", and yet, "God" is of supposed greater force than each of them, and could have done a better job of speech and of representation on his own, without their intermediation, if “He” was any better than a man. This "God" throughout all of human history, needs humans to talk for "Him", in the same way that a hook-worm needs an intestine in order to draw blood from, in order to live FROM. In order to act FROM. "God" claims to have given the entire universe, long ago, and now “He” asks for something back. "God" is never direct, never obvious, never personal, never material, never honest, never strait-forward, never inborn as physical need. Never ever is "God" the open honesty of direct-self-portrait. "God" is instead, the illusive, the hidden, the indirect, the subtle, the twisted and the dependent metaphysical existentialism of constantly inverted response...

Dare yee torture yourselves again with distant wonders, forced too close to the heart.

Sagesound,

And was it good for you too…? :wink: