Is there a nature of sin in free will?

[Immanuel Can]

Hmm, yeh that actually makes sense..thanks!

You're welcome.

[cicero117]

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?

to commit something against God's words

[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?

to commit something against God's words

But he's not left any words.
ANd god is dead.

What about this one..
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
(LEV 12)
Is it a sin to NOT do this?

What about POLYGAMY?
The scriptures say it is good and bad.

[Greatest I am]

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?)

Yes. It is demonstrable that we live in a dualistic reality and that it has been this way forever.

You might believe in the creation myth and if so, you should agree with me, even as I do not believe as you do, but to you, given that, ---- in the beginning there was only god, --- and all that is, be it good or and evil had to emanate from him.

If sin was/is all evil, why do Christians sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan?

Would you not follow Adam's led and sin, or would you derail god's plan?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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?

to commit something against God's words

What if those words were some of the lies that scriptures say Yahweh puts into the mouths of the prophets?

Should those not be spoken against seeing as they are lies?

Regards
DL

[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.

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.

Well, no...for it's got to be quite obvious something can be "uniquely flawed." So "unique" can't mean "perfect."
- Something can be uniquely flawed only in comparison to something else, such as your notions of perfection.

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.
- What is unique is sui generis at creation, as is each person, perfect when compared only to itself, not to your notions of perfection.

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?
- When the child realizes it is a separate entity is the rooting, and perhaps before, when it learns to reach and grasp.

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.
- Your judgment is based on flawed understanding of what was written, thus it is likely flawed.
- Interesting. I didn't expect such a narrow range.

[Immanuel Can]

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

- Something can be uniquely flawed only in comparison to something else, such as your notions of perfection.

Fair enough. But if God is the Creator, then "perfection" is the pattern He has in His mind, not some contingent impression I have. So the first man cannot have been said to be "perfect" in this absolute sense, since He was a creation...and since Eve, being somewhat different from Adam, was still "perfect" in the required sense.

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.

- What is unique is sui generis at creation, as is each person, perfect when compared only to itself, not to your notions of perfection.

Well, again, it's not my "notions" that have merit. It's what the Creator knows that counts.

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?

- When the child realizes it is a separate entity is the rooting, and perhaps before, when it learns to reach and grasp.

Umm...?

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.

- Your judgment is based on flawed understanding of what was written, thus it is likely flawed.

Well, no; because the standards of reason are outside of my judgment, and can actually be used to pass judgment on my views, too. They are bigger than me...and than you, too, of course.

[Walker]

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.

- Your judgment is based on flawed understanding of what was written, thus it is likely flawed.

Well, no; because the standards of reason are outside of my judgment, and can actually be used to pass judgment on my views, too. They are bigger than me...and than you, too, of course.

Hardly. You're making the statements as the self-arbiter of reason, after misunderstanding previous statements, as indicated by your feedback, and then corrected.

I rather think you're just screwing around at a low level.

Not interested.

Besides, the question wasn't even addressed to you.

[Walker]

- Your judgment is based on flawed understanding of what was written, thus it is likely flawed.

Well, no; because the standards of reason are outside of my judgment, and can actually be used to pass judgment on my views, too. They are bigger than me...and than you, too, of course.

Hardly. You're making the statements as the self-arbiter of reason, after misunderstanding previous statements, as indicated by your feedback, and then corrected.

"So the first man cannot have been said to be "perfect" in this absolute sense, since He was a creation"

If you got that reasoning from God, it’s incorrect.
Maybe you misunderstood God's reasoning, too.

Any one of a kind is perfect as itself.
It is only imperfect when compared to something else.


I rather think you're just screwing around at a low level.

Not interested.

Besides, the question wasn't even addressed to you.

[Immanuel Can]

Hardly. You're making the statements as the self-arbiter of reason,

Not at all. I'm saying, "Show me how reason compels the conclusion you seek me to believe." That's all.

And right now, I'm not seeing it.

[Walker]

The reasoning, in plain sight.

Any one of a kind is perfect as itself.

It is only imperfect when compared to something else.

Let's say you see a quince. It's the only quince in the world. No other quince exists for comparison, or has ever existed. You don't even have a name for it. You have no other basis of comparison other than something other than a quince. Therefore, the quince is perfect, in and of itself. If you modify it you may think it more perfect, but it is just different from its natural, unique perfection.

You can compare it to an orange and say, it's an imperfect orange.
But you cannot say it's an imperfect quince, because you only have your own notions of what that might be.

And that's just another way of saying what has already been written, and none of what you've written has changed the truth of it, because you can't.

If you don't see the truth of it now, then the truth is simply self-protected by your limitation, and you're gonna have to live with that. Savvy?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's say you see a quince. It's the only quince in the world. No other quince exists for comparison, or has ever existed.

Is it a "created" quince, or did it just pop into existence on its own steam?

It make a huge difference which you answer. If the quince popped into existence by no particular means, then it's the only quince that exists, and hence "the perfect quince," to which all others are compared, plausibly.

But if it was created, then it existed in the mind of the Creator as a pattern and intention, before it existed in fact. It was like the idea in the painter's mind, just before his brush hit the canvas. And any particular quince, even the first quince, can be judged by its perfection relative to the divine pattern. If it meets that divine standard, then it's "perfect." But if it has a flaw relative to that pattern, it's not perfect, even if there's only one in existence.

[Walker]

- As the only quince, there is no other quince to compare.
- Presuming to know the Creator’s mind is the cause of blaming God for hurricane destruction and death.

[Immanuel Can]

- As the only quince, there is no other quince to compare.

Not if the quince was created. For then, the concept of the quince existed in the mind of God before there even one quince.

- Presuming to know the Creator’s mind

Who says you and Ihave to "know" what the perfect quince is? The "perfect" quince is only as "perfect" as it is proximate to the intention of the Creator...and you and I are most certainly not the Creator.

[Walker]

Hello.

IC: Not if the quince was created. For then, the concept of the quince existed in the mind of God before there even one quince.
W: That statement presumes to know the mind of God. It implies a limitation in the form of “concepts,” inserts a requirement required of God for “creation,” as creation is understood by man (i.e., humankind.)

IC: Who says you and I have to "know" what the perfect quince is? The "perfect" quince is only as "perfect" as it is proximate to the intention of the Creator...and you and I are most certainly not the Creator.

W: Expanding the concept of the quince example, each and every human is unique and incomparable, although duality requires comparison with something else, not necessarily a human. However, the nature of how each and every human is “created” is the first part of the tri-question: Where do we come from? Not everyone accepts any one answer.