Is there a nature of sin in free will?

[Walker]

Sin can only be recognised as intention.

Intention is the rider of the will.

In the words of a Zen poem: The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection; The water has no mind to retain their image. When a mountain stream flows out of a spring beside the road, and a thirsty traveller comes along and drinks deeply, the traveller is welcome.

The mind is like the water, it does not intend. However, where there is a will there is a way to intend an action or inaction. Actions have consequences. Inactions don't.

Intention is only revealed through action, or deliberate inaction.

If a truck is coming at you and you don't move, that inaction will have consequences if the truck doesn't stop.

[Dontaskme]

Sin can only be recognised as intention.

Intention is the rider of the will.

In the words of a Zen poem: The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection; The water has no mind to retain their image. When a mountain stream flows out of a spring beside the road, and a thirsty traveller comes along and drinks deeply, the traveller is welcome.

The mind is like the water, it does not intend. However, where there is a will there is a way to intend an action or inaction. Actions have consequences. Inactions don't.

Intention is only revealed through action, or deliberate inaction.

If a truck is coming at you and you don't move, that inaction will have consequences if the truck doesn't stop.

There's no such thing as inaction without the intent to be inactive. For the mind an inaction is still an action.

Intention is the rider of the will. In the truck heading me way scenario. .there is an instant Will I move or Will I not. If I move there are no consequences. If I don't, harm is a cometh. .

You didn't understand the Zen poem.



.

[Sculptor]

God gave Adam the right to choose, freedom of choice to do right or wrong, the freedom of sinning and not sinning.

What is sinning?

[Walker]

Sin can only be recognised as intention.

Intention is the rider of the will.

In the words of a Zen poem: The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection; The water has no mind to retain their image. When a mountain stream flows out of a spring beside the road, and a thirsty traveller comes along and drinks deeply, the traveller is welcome.

The mind is like the water, it does not intend. However, where there is a will there is a way to intend an action or inaction. Actions have consequences. Inactions don't.

Intention is only revealed through action, or deliberate inaction.

If a truck is coming at you and you don't move, that inaction will have consequences if the truck doesn't stop.

There's no such thing as inaction without the intent to be inactive. For the mind an inaction is still an action.

Intention is the rider of the will. In the truck heading me way scenario. .there is an instant Will I move or Will I not. If I move there are no consequences. If I don't, harm is a cometh. .

You didn't understand the Zen poem.



.

- Certainly there is.

- Sleep is a mind inaction, a natural choiceless function, and it occurs without the intent to be inactive.

- Although you may delay sleep with action, eventually the body and mind choicelessly become inactive, without will or intent or motive to be that way.

- In fact, you may be on guard duty and your intent is mind action, i.e., staying awake, but your mind decides without your permission of intent, to sleep and be inactive.

[Dontaskme]

Intention is only revealed through action, or deliberate inaction.

If a truck is coming at you and you don't move, that inaction will have consequences if the truck doesn't stop.

There's no such thing as inaction without the intent to be inactive. For the mind an inaction is still an action.

Intention is the rider of the will. In the truck heading me way scenario. .there is an instant Will I move or Will I not. If I move there are no consequences. If I don't, harm is a cometh. .

You didn't understand the Zen poem.



.

- Certainly there is.

- Sleep is a mind inaction, a natural choiceless function, and it occurs without the intent to be inactive.

- Although you may delay sleep with action, eventually the body and mind choicelessly become inactive, without will or intent or motive to be that way.

- In fact, you may be on guard duty and your intent is mind action, i.e., staying awake, but your mind decides without your permission of intent, to sleep and be inactive.

Nature has no intent to harm. It has no mind to do so.

Harm is by mindful intent via direct deliberate Interference due to the nature of free will.

Dont intend to do harm and there will be no consequences.

Please get off your soapbox. I'm talking about sin fool.

[Walker]

Remember to keep it clean.

Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
(what does that mean?)

Zen II – Nature

[Walker]

Dont intend to do harm and there will be no consequences.

Let us consult Wiki on the Phenomena of Unintended Consequences … some of which can be harmful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

[Dontaskme]

Remember to keep it clean.

Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
(what does that mean?)

It means FUCK OFF

[Walker]

I was on the soapbox/clean tangent, which is ripe for development.



Just one more example for that Wiki.


Returning comfort zone to normal.



.

[bahman]

God gave Adam the right to choose, freedom of choice to do right or wrong, the freedom of sinning and not sinning.

Does this mean there is a nature of sin in our free will?
If we are really "perfect" when we were made, doesn't that mean we should only know to do the right thing?

If a human is made perfect, then shouldn't we have "true knowledge" , hence should only do the right thing?

More so, what of the free will that angels have?
If they have a tint of sin in their free will then how are they able to exists besides God, who can't bear the existence of it?

When Lucifer sins, doesn't that means he knows that angels can, indeed, sin?

No. Free will is the ability to freely choose when there are at least two options to choose from, to do or not to do. Our tendency toward options is due to our nature. One option could be sinful.

[Walker]

If we are really "perfect" when we were made, doesn't that mean we should only know to do the right thing?

To be perfect when made means that each life is unique. What is unique is complete in and of itself at creation, with only itself as comparison to define perfection. That doesn’t last long before some critical facility of comparison takes root in consciousness.

Don't know if that fits into Christian acceptance, or not.

[Walker]

- From Genesis kjv, Adam was made from dust, and Eve was made from Adam’s rib.

- The serpent convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.

- Eve convinced Adam to eat the forbidden fruit.

- To defy God’s commandment is sin.
- Eve sinned, and Eve was created from Adam.
- Therefore, sin is part of Adam.
- Therefore, Adam has no free will when Eve is around.

[Immanuel Can]

If we are really "perfect" when we were made, doesn't that mean we should only know to do the right thing?

To be perfect when made means that each life is unique.

Well, no...for it's got to be quite obvious something can be "uniquely flawed." So "unique" can't mean "perfect."

What is unique is complete in and of itself at creation,

That can't be quite right either. For if something is actually "complete and unique in and of itself," then it's not "created." A "creation," by definition, is an entity created by another. So "in and of itself," it's not complete.

That doesn’t last long before some critical facility of comparison takes root in consciousness.

I'm not sure I grasp the implication of this sentence at all, actually. If something is "complete...in and of itself," then it has no "comparisons," right?

Don't know if that fits into Christian acceptance, or not.

Not really, I think. At least, if the problems I see in the wording are real, then it would seem it maybe doesn't quite fit reason either.

[cicero117]

Let me explain. A "faculty" is just an ability one has, a capability, if you will. "Eyesight" is a faculty. Eyesight is not evil. "Hearing" is a faculty...but it can be used to shut out the truth or to receive it. "Speaking" is a faculty...but it can be used to bless or curse.

However, eyesight and those others can be employed to DO evil. That does not mean we ought not to have eyesight: God has made us all with two eyes to see, and they can be used for good or evil. We all have ears to hear and tongues to speak. These are faculties.

Free will is a faculty. It makes it possible that you can choose evil. But it also empowers you so that you can genuinely choose good, since you can also reject the evil. So free will itself is not bad or good...it's a faculty.


Let me paraphrase what you're saying, using a different case, one that you will identify with.

Let's suppose you had written, "In the marriage ceremony, it is sworn by my groom and I that we will never love another again. Does it mean, then, that my groom never had an option to choose me? Does it mean he's lost his identity, his free will, his choice?"

Now, I doubt that you are perplexed by my paraphrase the way you're perplexed by your earlier question, right? I know what you'll answer: you'll say, "But IC, it's not really important that once my groom is married to me he does not take other lovers. In fact, the more happy, content and devoted to me he is, the more real is our commitment to each other." And you're right.

It's not a violation of free will that we are "married" to God eternally. It's the fulfillment of the commitment made by our free will. It's the confirming of our our personal choice, the solidifying of what we have committed to do.

See it?

So the Bible says that we will be with God as free will beings, but no longer plagued with sin. The fact that we DID once have a choice, is all that is necessary for free will to be real and genuine.

Hmm, yeh that actually makes sense..thanks!

[cicero117]

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Before I do anything brash, I just want to confirm.

So are you saying that this world must consist of good and evil (even before the fall of Adam?)