If you don't subscribe to a religion that uses the term "sin" then you cannot be a "sinner."


The concept of "sin" if studied in depth, boils down to "disobedience" of the Lord thy God. This becomes null and void if you don't believe in God.

Therefore, an atheist can commit a crime, but he or she is exempt from "sin."

The "commandments" are supposed to be rules from God and to disobey or break them is a "sin" according to many religions, primarily because of the disobedience part.

Rules are created for people who don't know any better. People are given rules because it is expected that they are not smart enough or moral enough to make the right decisions, so they must be subject to rules. If you subscribe to a given religious belief and agree to be a part of some religion, then you are subject to their rules. That is an agreement or a contract.

But what happens when the religion distorts the meanings of the rules and abuses their authority and power? Then they begin to make up stuff and start deciding what is "sin" and what is not "sin."

(I once went to a church that told me that to go out dancing or even to dance at all was a "sin.")

Where did they get this idea? Is there a commandment "Thou shalt not dance?" I don't think so. This preacher was abusing his power and pretending to be God.

Many churches abuse their power by laying heavy guilt trips on good people about how they are living their lives because they preach the concept that to "disobey God" is a sin, and they have put themselves in the position of speaking for God.

So they told me that if I did not go to church, that was also a "sin."

(Get serious. How stupid do they think we are??)

I'll answer that. They think we are very stupid!!

So in order to be immune to being called "a sinner" one need only to grow up and take responsibility for their own Karma and start making their own decisions about what is right and what is wrong and stop listening to their Churches.

Make your own rules from now on.

An atheist is not a sinner because he or she is not affiliated with the religions that use that term. An atheist cannot "disobey God." He does not acknowledge that any God exists and there is no church authority ruling over his life.

A person can call other people "sinners" all they want but that is just futile name calling. It does not make them sinners. If they do not subscribe to your religion and are not subject to your belief in God or your church leaders who have taken the position of God as an authority, then they are not subject to those rules. They simply are are not within your jurisdiction. Don't call them sinners. You hav no right or authority to do so. They did not sign any contract with your religious organization.

If your church leaders teach you that other people are "sinners" who do not subscribe to your church, they are stepping out of their authority to do so. They have no power over those who do not agree to hand over their power to them.

The term "sin" is meaningless outside of the church authority. If a person has the audacity to call me a sinner, I tell them that they have no authority to do so and that the term "sin" is meaningless. Of course they still believe this fairy tale, but they should keep it to themselves.

Um... yeah, agreed. Sin has become somewhat colloquial but if you're not a part of that belief system then it is a rather arbitrary label.

I think the common thread is that there's sin and not sin (righteous acts), good and bad karma, good and bad action, skillful and unskillful acts... basically just stating there's a necessary duality for either to exist.

Cheers.

No dancing? Is this Footloose?

It's actually in the Old Testament that it's a sin not to attend Church. In fact, the Bible claims that God commanded that anyone who doesn't attend Church on the Sabbath should be stoned to death.

What does that say about Jesus? Clearly Jesus was a sinner who should have been stoned to death according to the Old Testament. Not only did he not attend churches but he even preached against them. According to Matthew Jesus sat around on mountain tops preaching to the masses that the Scribes and Pharisees (the priests and preachers of the day) were indeed hypocrites. Just read Matthew 23, it's quite a lenthy rant.

Therefore, according to the Old Testament Jesus was a sinner and quite unholy.

The whole religion is an oxymoron.

It's funny that you would post this today, because just this morning I was thinking about Eastern Mysticism and how many people object to it because it doesn't contain "Commandments" and basically says that you're free to do whatever you want because you are God.

What they fail to realize is that this is actually precisely the same thing that Jesus himself taught (according to the gospels), even Jesus said, "Ye are Gods".

The key difference between the Abrahamic religions and Eastern Mysticism is that Eastern Mysticism is indeed designed for intelligent people. Any truly intelligent person can see that Eastern Mysticism includes a concept of Karma. They shouldn't need to be told what's right and wrong. It basically boils down to the very same thing that Jesus taught, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Anyone who cares to argue with that one in an attempt to put down Eastern Mysticism must simultaneously argue with Jesus.

Eastern Mysticism is for the non-sinners. It's for the intelligent good people. It makes no attempt to try to convince idiots not to do bad things by laying guilt trips on them. Instead it simply tries to educate people to the truth that they are responsible for their own actions. Once again, a concept that would be silly to argue with for anyone who believes in free will.



I agree. And in a very real sense Christianity is the most oxymoronic religion of all, because it supposedly worships a man named Jesus as "God", yet Jesus himself not only did not attend church, but he actually ranted about how hypocritical the preachers are.

Jesus' own behavior and example shows us that to follow a church is utterly stupid. Yet look at how many Chrisitans do precisely that! They totally ignore the lessons and examples of Jesus.

Jesus was constantly rejecting the moral values and directives that has been previoiusly taught in the Torah or Old Testament. The very notion that he was the Son of Yahweh is truly a totally unworkable idea, yet look at how many people fell for that one!

its an interesting POV but sin is actually any moral transgression

refusal to believe in morals doesnt save any of us from transgressing, one could possibly say that the refusal to believe(defiance) is a transgression in and of itself

ah c'mon, ya can't be punished for the way ya believe if it isn't causing harm to anyone...and everyone has a different moral code. Each set their own, just because your religion sets yours doesn't mean it's the moral code for ALL.

duly noted, and even by that standard,,,if we only apply transgressions to actions,,,everyone does or has done things they ought not,,,, whether they believe it or not,,,,

Even Jesus Christ? Such as the time recorded in Scripture when he spoke disrespectfully to the woman who gave birth to him, breaking one of the Ten Commandments?


-Kerry O.

I don't know of the sin,, the commandment is honor mother AND father,, which is kind of tricky because the FATHER was his father and the FATHER comes before all else,,,, I would love a reference to the chapter and verse where such 'disrespectful' converstaion occurred,,,,

Jesus would have been a huge sinner according to the Bible. Not only did he show disrespect for his mother's wishes, but he also ranted to the masses about how all the preachers and priests are hypocrites. He also taught against the directives and commandments that had been established by the Torah. In other words, he blasphemed the so-called "Word of God" at that time.

He even went against his own preachings. He preached to turn the other cheek, yet he then went into the temple and took a temper tantrum overturning money tables violating his own advice.

He didn't even practice what he preached.

Of course, we can't say whether any of this is actually true. All we have to go by is hearsay that was far removed from the time when this man named Jesus had supposedly lived. We can't even be sure if Jesus was a real person, much less trust the gospels to be an accurate reflection of what had actually happened even if Jesus was an actual person. The gospels are filled with contradictions and conflicting stories so they've already shown themselves to be quite fallable and undependable.

I understand morality and the polar aspects of it... however, sin is a concept manifested by the church to make their ten percent from your income. Now it's just spread to guilt you into going to church.

I don't know of the sin,, the commandment is honor mother AND father,, which is kind of tricky because the FATHER was his father and the FATHER comes before all else,,,, I would love a reference to the chapter and verse where such 'disrespectful' converstaion occurred,,,,


Try John 2, verse 4:



See, it's contradictions and doubletalk like this that convinced me the Bible is just the "Paper Pope" that can be interpreted to say whatever is convenient.

I have to admit, though, your explanation was one of the better examples of word lawyering in that regard that I've seen. "Tricky" doesn't even begin to explain it, and that's why one of the world's leading and oldest professions is the priesthood.

-Kerry O.

well in the grand scheme, I suppose semantics could be argued, whether one calls it SIN or wrong doing,, if we acknowledge wrong actions and wrong words and we choose them anyway,,,,we are not living a life of much integrity

whether we call it sin, will mostly not matter so long as we know it is wrong,,,, and , concerning God, what choice we make concerning those things we know are wrong will make quite a bit of difference in whether he welcomes us home or not,,,,,,for those who dont believe in God anyway,, I can agree, that sin doesnt have to make a difference to them,,,

Try John 2, verse 4:



See, it's contradictions and doubletalk like this that convinced me the Bible is just the "Paper Pope" that can be interpreted to say whatever is convenient.

I have to admit, though, your explanation was one of the better examples of word lawyering in that regard that I've seen. "Tricky" doesn't even begin to explain it, and that's why one of the world's leading and oldest professions is the priesthood.

-Kerry O.


its not lawyering, its just my studies and interpretation

so it wont surprise you that I dont find that discourse to be disrespectful,,,,,

everyone that has faith in Jesus, and knows he was crucified for us and tries their best not to sin against God is sinless. Jesus christ was sacrificed for our sins, so we seek forgiveness and it is given.

I don't know about you, but if I'd have tried that little tantrum on *my* mother, I'd have been sent out to 'cut a switch' from one of the trees on the lower 20 acres when my father got home.

As to the 'mother AND father' dodge, can you just see someone standing before the Almighty on Judgement Day using that one?

"Verily."


-Kerry O.

ummmm,,,,what?

What? You've never heard of "Spare the rod, spoil the child?" To 'cut a switch' means the child is forced by his parents to cut the very tree branch used to flog them.

As to the 'mother AND father' quote, I think you know very well that I was referring to your quote where you try to pass off the idea that it's not a sin unless one _simultaneously_ disrespects _both_ parents at the same time.

C'mon. That's a line on par with the Bill Clinton 'depends on what the definition of 'is' is' wrangling for legal technicalities. It's patently ridiculous to think that would get past ANY judge, much less a divine one.


-Kerry O.

The line between sin and wrongdoing is simple. If it's an actual Law that is broken, it's wrongdoing. If it's totally arbitrary rule that there is no point to, it's a sin.

Yes this is the point exactly. The term "sin" is manufactured by the church authority.

People who attempt to apply that term to the masses including atheists and people of different belief systems just don't understand this.

Here is a good example: If when you were a child your mother and father made a set of rules for you to obey, these rules applied only to you and perhaps to your siblings. They might call disobedience of these rules "flins" and make them subject to some kind of punishment. (hopefully not death or stoning)

BUT if you are at another friend's house these rules do not apply to that friend in that house. If he disobeys those rules in his house he is not a "flinner." He is not subject to those rules or the punishment.

This is the situation broken down in the simplest form. If a Christian can't see this, then they are beyond my help.

I am not very religious but everybody sins. Seems to be just an overblown term for making a mistake. Nobody is perfect......