does sin really exist?

Ok, so something that exists is obviously there. Everyone can agree that it is there and what it feels like and tastes like and so on and so on. So then, we can then go on to say that for something to exist, it is the same for everyone. However, when this idea is applied to sin, not everyone can agree on a certain set rules for sin. Hell, we can't all even agree that one particular "sin" is bad (take murder for instance. african warlords see murdering as just a bad habit. soldiers sign a paper saying they are willing to kill for god and country before they enter the military). Since we can't agree on even on "sin", this would then mean that sin obviously does not exist except as a projection of our imaginations. Does this make sense to you guys?

 

Lots of things don't exist, like justice, love, your human rights. Societies are founded on things that don't exist physically, but I would still suggest we need them in order to survive.

 

But do you think that things that do not exist hold you back? I myself find that sin is a very negative word and I believe that when our imaginations get ahold of negative ideas, they only become more negative. What would be your reasoning for needing sin in order to survive?

 

everything is an interpretation of your mind technically. about what you said for things that are real, lets give an example, we can all agree that the colors red, blue, green, yellow, etc. exist but as a linguistic agreement, but how do we know that we're actually seeing the same things? what if your brown is my red?

we wouldn't be able to answer your question without you clarifying what exactly sin is in your opinion.
but what is typically acknowledged as sin, and even the idea of sin itself is to try to keep people from doing certain things considered "evil", driven by religion. you can say it exists if you consider any abstract concept real, but it is something unacknowledged by science completely thusfar and the question should be of it's usefulness as a partially real concept. if you find it useful, by all means you can take it as real. if not, then let reasoning be a stand-alone thing and forget sin.

 

As a society, a large group of people working together, we need sins like murder and theft so that everyone can live fairly and for as long as possible. That simple.

I used to be an anarchist when I was a lad, so sure, if you personally want to ignore sin, go for it. But it doesn't hold up for large groups of people, because then who is to say you wouldn't end up at the bottom of this anarchistic mass? In fact, I'd wager there are people out there stronger, smarter and much more manipulative than you.

 

you know the difference between right and wrong..

if you seen a baby sitting on a field and there is a goal post, you can think about punting the baby, but shouldnt do it.. Cause thats just wrong, but it would be funny in a cartoon to do it, I know..

 

However I'd point out that the extent of sin is different for everyone. Past murder, rape, theft and general violence I'm not really bothered. Certainly any sexuality, as long as it is consensual, is fine by me.

 

Ask the question another way. Is there such a thing as guilt?

 

I definitely agree that right and wrong exists. But the question is sin. I think that sin is different from right or wrong. Sin is an idea of which a certain religion holds of what is considered unsacred. I think the major difference between the two is that right and wrong is more positive and more of a common sense type thing that everyone knows. Whereas sin is more negative and is often brainwashed into you by your religion. If you follow what i'm saying.

 

You're not specifying what exactly sin is.

Something that is a sin to myself may not be a sin to you..

HOWEVER: In the question of sin vs right & wrong- personally, I believe that sin does not exist. I believe in personal decision and consequences.

 

Its ok to suck a penis,,,,, if thats what your trying to beat around the bush too..

I havent thought.. but someday I probably will, if she's hot enough..

 

The word sin is a term meaning to miss the sign. To miss a sign is an error in perception. The only use for error, is correction. Acts are not sins. Unhealthy acts or reactions, arise from errant perceptions. As orison points out you have a natural inclination to goodness and everyone no matter how heinous their actions, are in fact, in pursuit of that goodness based on their perceptions of what that is.

The purpose of the teaching of the concept of sin, is not to make guilty, but to give cause to make the appropriate correction. The errant or criminal act arises naturally from the errant perception, an errant perception is an illusion.

What should be the response to an apparent lack of goodness, not punishment but goodness.

 

Illusion? The sin is the better explanation for the illusion for US being in the midst of the Collective. The collective is the worst explanation for Mass Sinning. Therefore, the real sequence for the determination of life failing and faltering is Utopia; I believe that the failure of Utopia happening is beyond freedom and dignity to Explain. The failure of utopia may itself be some kind of Utopia which is beyond the 'correction' You just explained, because this natural principle, this description of failure has no basis to anything like a Sin, the choices and free Doing of life to property in Hope of something better for "Man behaving". We can actually regard that Man was never in Sin.

 

Oneness and collective are not the same principle.

There is no opposing will, no such thing as non-existence.

Things are not done in opposition but in concert, meaning with harmony.

 

Reality is as real as your perception sees fit. It's all subjective to YOU.

 

Unless we share it.

 

We were not immersed. We were at body language. That is the sin of it which can't be sure. Of course, that is contingently to be self-realized. SO the discussion about the film-festival I presented, Thedope, was transparent to the concern that the values could be talked about, exchanged as a duty, but never a priori philosophically assumed.

Then I am at that state of ethics scientists fail ME, O.K. Come on, you can all do better on the basis of your school readings.

 

Your on to something. :sunny:

 

When I look around I see some come seeking, the rest are actors. It is hard to tell the difference. What is sought, identity.

Ingenuity seems to me ingenuous, that is artless. Thou art already that.