The first sin

When satan sinned he was kicked out of heaven to the Earth. Then he was the first sinner and he brought sin to Earth? Sin is disobediance to God? pljames

am i the only one that things the phrase “disobedience to god” is an oxymoron? i mean, if god made you as you are, and made everything as it is, and knew exactly what it was going to do, and made it in the knowledge of what it was going to do, and made it to do what it was going to do, then everything that everything does is done according to what god made it to do, and it’s not really possible to do something that god didn’t make you to do, and so everything you do you do because god made you to do it, and so i will end this really long sentence now i think you get my point, there’s no way to disobey an omniscient, omnipotent god.

God didn’t start out as omniscient and omnipotent - that was added later. The Old Testament God didn’t know what Lucifer or Adam and Eve would do in the future, so it was possible to disobey and sin.

Yes, going against the will of God.

i wouldn’t call disobeying “sin” so willy nilly. why is it sin? if he’s not an omnipotent, omniscient god, then presumably he could give orders which aren’t morally necessary or correct, or even immoral, hell he could be WRONG, so why is it okay to disobey some people but it’s a sin to disobey him? because of his title as “god”? psh i’m gonna need a better reason than that.

He created everything and even if He is not omnipotent or omniscient, He still knows a lot more than any human. That’s why He is called God. He is the ultimate authority on morality and everything.

he is? lol hardly. biggest hypocrite I’ve heard of. “thou shalt not murder” while he goes and floods the entire planet to kill off everything not in Noah’s boat. psh, he might be your moral authority, but not mine.

It doesn’t say “I shall not murder”.

God is beyond good and evil.

me too

The difference is that God is untouchable.

that must be lonely

God is the Logic (The “Logos”); “What is”, “I AM”, “Truth”.
To sin is to want against Logic/Truth/(What is), to be irrational.
“The Logos is my Shepherd. I shall not irrationally want.”

In the theological variations that hold the fall of the devil story, yes.
In the theological variations that do not (because it’s not literally present in the Torah, Talmud, or Bible), no.

For instance, in Judaism, Satan doesn’t sin.
Satan does his job. Man falters and learns the lesson of how knowledge is not something that comes without consequence.
It doesn’t matter if that makes sense to pure logic that a god would do this or that; it’s a description from the Hebrew peoples about how man learned his lessons of things which they valued: primarily, the idea that knowledge is not something you can just up and grab and be chief pimp daddy with. You need wisdom of how to handle knowledge.
That’s the concept in the Torah for the Judaic side.

For the Christian variations that hold ideas of the fallen angel account, the idea is that the sin started with Satan and spread unto humans by his will.

Now, as to the murder thing…really?
Even if god were an ass, who gives a shit?
If there’s a god, I’m pretty sure they can do whatever the piss they want and if someone doesn’t like it…too bad.
What would we do? Cry? Say it’s unfair?
Oh no…something’s not fair. Darn.

Now, on a more pragmatic level.
That law wasn’t to not kill.
It was to not murder, which has a very specific order of definition in the ancient Hebrew culture.
There’s a reason a large count of sub-clauses go through when it is and is not considered murder when someone kills someone else.

The idea of murder to their mind was that of unmerited act; like randomly walking up to someone and killing them without any provocation.
You could kill for many reasons; the law even required such in some cases.
But you could not randomly kill just because you felt like offing someone…and that’s what, to them, was murder.

I mean…keep some perspective here…what time period are we talking? Where are we talking about?
Right, then it should be obvious that these peoples are well versed in killing and being killed regularly.
Killing wasn’t like today where our civilized sensibilities have a problem with nearly any life being taken in general.
No, back then, there were a grand number of reasons justifiable to kill another person, but the reasons for killing a fellow Hebrew, one of your own kindred (as true with the Celts, the Goths, Mongols, or any ethnic/regional group), were far more narrow.

You could kill a non-Hebrew for being on your land. Because that would be a threat immediately back in the early forming years of the Hebrew highlanders…keeping in mind most of them fled from surrounding areas to the highlands that no one else wanted at the time and thus formed the Hebrew peoples.
You could not kill a Hebrew for the same. That would be murder.

So to take that “don’t murder” law and fling it around like the author’s considered it as meaning anything akin to what their god could do is quite off par to their cultural references.

And even if that same god is held as truly real, then the same logic the Hebrews understood it to be would carry over as those that are Judaic as they are following a continuation of those same laws, and those that are not Judaic but following Christianity in some fashion are doing so through the proxy of the Hebrew ambassadors of that same god so their comprehension culturally of that law would dictate the same god’s intended meaning of the matter.

Or, you could just disagree with any of that logic and say that this same god meant something you’ve figured out special and everyone previous was wrong about what that god meant, or you could just say that god is still an asshole as if that really matters even if that god exists and were an asshole.

That whole “Thou Shall not Kill” thing was one of the more serious debacles that almost immediately fell into the reign of political interpretation, unresolvable at this point. So now it merely means, “Only cause death in the way we tell you to… and don’t get caught”.

That’s what it always meant.
Which should actually be obvious.
That is one of the few concepts that has remained pretty constant through human history; your community has to condone you killing people for it to be … approved killing.
Every other form is considered wrong…extremely few, few exceptions exist to this standard.