Sin & Freedom

If sin is freely transgressing God’s commandments, It’s possible that none of us have ever sinned, and it’s possible none of us ever will sin. Each and everytime time we committed murder, adultery and theft, we may have been under the influence of determinsitic forces, such as the temptations of Satan and the flesh, sufficiently powerful enough to rob us of every ounce of our free will (and we have only God to blame for that, since he created those temptations). Also, we may have been too ignorant and stupid to figure things out, again robbing us of our free will. The new testament seems to suggest our ancestors freely broke God’s commandments. However, there is no guarentee modern man has ever sinned, nor is there a guarentee we ever will sin. The moment you say it is written in stone, all men have sinned and will continue to, then you deny us our freedom, for you say things are predetermined, and predetermination and freedom are incompatiable doctrines. If our generation has never freely disobeyed the divine law, and never will, then we have no need of salvation. It’s possible Christ’s death was in vain. And if we have sinned, it is still possible we can redeem ourselves. In light of this new reasoning, I think Christian doctrine needs to be rewritten.

rewritten? if it’s wrong like…maybe u should just write something new and not flawed instead of rewriting something old and flawed…

This is all true stuff, the very least we can conclude is that we can’t be to blame for the things we do if God created us this way. Determinsim is certainly incompatible with the idea of an ombenevolent God too.

Hmmm, I think I’ll take your advice.


Re: benevolence, these two threads are worth reading:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=166300&p=2039417 … 5&t=152294

Particularly the OP in the second one.

I agree with this.

I highly encourage everyone to address it as they see it, like Humpty suggested.
Here was my version of addressing the subject matter.

[tab](Reader’s Note: “bomanism” is not a religion. It’s a philosophy.)
The word, “sin”, must be addressed considering the western culture’s interest in the subject.
In Bomanism, sin is not the word used.
The reason for this is that the word sin is too widely used for too many theological placements.
Instead, what would be called sin elsewhere is called a Degradation, and ultimately; that is what sin (regardless of the theology) truly is; a Degradation.


  1. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace.
  2. To lower in moral or intellectual character or quality.
  3. To reduce in worth or value.
  4. To impair the structure or function.
  5. To lower or wear by chronic erosive or corrosive action.
  6. To fall below a normal state; deteriorate.

Degradation is seen disambiguated from theological concern.
It is instead introspective.

Degradation is described as that which deteriorates the quality of the relationship between oneself and their deity, oneself and another person, or oneself and their self nature.
However, this corrosive status is not seen as permanent, or irreversible. Instead it is seen as a retardant or inhibitor.
The corrosive and deteriorating capacity of Degradation is present until one rights themselves in regards to their relationship in which they have offended.

There is no Degradation which one cannot reconcile, correct, and overcome.

But it is important to note that all Degradation one causes is one’s own responsibility and no other.
If one feels they have Degraded (what many would call, “sinned”), then it is only themselves that may forgive their self for the inhibition.

A given doctrine of a person may hold other entities or forces that will forgive the person, but no true freedom from the weight of the Degradation will be felt by the person until they first responsibly take ownership of their act, respect the Degradation they have caused the relationship, understand the value of the relationship to their self, desire full fulfillment in the relationship, and forgive themselves for their offense to the relationship.

It is important to note that if a relationship one has offended involved another person, the other person may not forgive the offender.
This is not within one’s interests or control.
Each person only has control over their respective part of a relationship; if the other part of the relationship does not wish to make amends then this must be respected and accepted.
The pain of the loss should be accepted and examined to learn from for future relationships, and an openness to all that close one person off should be maintained should those who shut one off ever change their feelings.
Resentment is only another name for Degradation.
It corrodes the emotions and broods focus on the negative instead of balance between the negative and the positive.[/tab]