Ive never knowingly committed a sin
What do we mean by the word sin? A common definition is sin is some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God. Using that definition, I can say with complete honesty and assurance that I have never knowingly sinned. Why? Because God has never revealed his will to me. As a consequence, I am unable to knowingly violate his will. I am unable to knowingly sin.
Of course, there is no shortage of people who CLAIM to know Gods will. There are priests and pastors who CLAIM to know what God wishes and what God does not wish. If I become a Catholic, Ill be told God wishes me to go to Mass every Sunday. If I become a Jehovahs Witness, Ill be told God does not allow blood transfusions. If I become Hindu, Ill be told God doesnt want me to eat beef. If I become a Muslim, Ill be told God doesnt want me to eat pork. Etc. Etc. Etc.
But being told by some human being what God wishes and God does not wish is a very, very different thing than being told by God. Its difficult to imagine two things more different: one is a work of man, the other a work of God.
Of course, there are things that religions mostly agree on, simply because most human societies have found it advantageous not to allow murder, thief, and other things commonly labeled as sin. And I believe its a good idea to try to be an upright, honest, and charitable person. I believe there are things we should generally do and things we should generally avoid.
Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then its impossible for me (and for most people, Id argue) to KNOWINGLY sin.
QED.
Of course, there is no shortage of people who CLAIM to know Gods will. There are priests and pastors who CLAIM to know what God wishes and what God does not wish. If I become a Catholic, Ill be told God wishes me to go to Mass every Sunday. If I become a Jehovahs Witness, Ill be told God does not allow blood transfusions. If I become Hindu, Ill be told God doesnt want me to eat beef. If I become a Muslim, Ill be told God doesnt want me to eat pork. Etc. Etc. Etc.
But being told by some human being what God wishes and God does not wish is a very, very different thing than being told by God. Its difficult to imagine two things more different: one is a work of man, the other a work of God.
Of course, there are things that religions mostly agree on, simply because most human societies have found it advantageous not to allow murder, thief, and other things commonly labeled as sin. And I believe its a good idea to try to be an upright, honest, and charitable person. I believe there are things we should generally do and things we should generally avoid.
Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then its impossible for me (and for most people, Id argue) to KNOWINGLY sin.
QED.
Comments (59)
I agree with you that we do not know the will of God, and that we construct it. But if I understand your argument, it is that the will of God has not been in any way revealed to us by said god, ergo, the not KNOWINGLY. So, on the same principle the existence of God has not been in any way revealed to us by said god, ergo, the discussion becomes moot.
Now, I didn't say that to critique the logic of your argument. Rather, to highlight that any knowledge we have about any of it: sin, god, God's will, God's existence, our will, our existence never comes to us from God or any such superior being (and I am neither accepting nor rejecting God's existence). Rather, knowledge always only comes to us after it had once been constructed by someone, and then, torn down, revised and reconstructed a trillion times, until it is reconstructed by one of us and settled upon as believed.
Quoting Art48
And thank "god" you, and probably the vast majority of us do. Right? So if you arrived at that belief or settled at that construction, by poetry, Immanuel Kant, logical reflection, trial and error, a proper upbringing, or the so called Bible, Koran, or Confucian analects, why should we care?
When all knowledge is a settlement or a belief, always at a given locus in History, following an inevitable chain of construction destruction reconstruction, shouldn't we be less confident in the ways in which we privilege some forms of knowledge over others? The ways in which we fight about such privilege? Tease each other concerning our actions based upon such privilege?
I.e., revelation, for theists and the like (the most obviously misplaced by some in the meaningless hierarchy--the one causing you to implicitly accept its claim of a god, while rejecting its claim regarding Her Will);
but, then reason (as if it deserves to trump all others with its denial of being equally constructed, and its pretention of preceding construction, and its claim to uncover or disclose truths which precede construction);
and perception, (as if, like empiricists claim, perception is sensation, direct access to objects, rather than what it really is, sensation promptly displaced by construction);
and so on.
So sure, I agree, you're never knowingly "sinning." But I also agree with what I think was your more genuine position. Call it sin or not, your offending yourself, and the others sharing your greater locus of history, whenever you do anything you believe you ought not have, or whenever you fail to do anything you believe you ought to (at any given locus in History, since what you settle upon will be revised and reconstructed from locus to locus).
In a much broader sense, a sin may be considered as any act that diminishes your integrity and self-worth. And we have all knowingly committed at least some minor ones.
Yes.
Only faith will do. Faith is the starting point.
Well as Christ hung on a tree dying, looking down on the men who crucified him there, he said Forgive them father, for they know not what they do. So it seems like he would agree with you.
Oh, of course, it is possible to knowingly sin. I think you are using God as escapism with the aim of not facing that you didn't actually behave according to some ethical principles. There are two classes of lying (as an example of sin): lying to avoid hurting someone's feelings and lying to cheat. But, in those two cases, you are aware enough that you are committing a sin, because you are lying.
There are a lot of ways to sin. Some are evil, others innocent. But all of them are predetermined, and not random.
That is the logic of it. Or more clearly, if you dont know the will of god, and sin is going against the will of god, then you cannot knowingly go against the will of god or sin.
So we all have to vote yes if we are to be rational about it.
Obviously the Christian response is to say that, well, that is what the Bible is, including the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the revealed word of God. Of course, you choose not to accept that, and that choice is perfectly within your rights, and I wouldn't try to persuade you. You choose to believe that Catholic Priests are expressing their ideas, arising from their personal conviction, and that religion is all man-made, and not revealed truth at all. Again, perfectly within your rights to believe that, and if you challenged them to prove otherwise, and considering the attitude you bring to the table, they in all likelihood would never succeed. And they would say, well, God's will has indeed been revealed, but you chose not to believe it.
But for some reason I am reminded of an anecdote. A parish church is sorrounded by a once-in-a-lifetime flood, but the priest refuses to leave, saying, "God will save me."
The water keeps rising, and begins to lap at the door. A crew in a rubber dinghy comes by and offers him a ride to safety. The priest declines, repeating, "God will save me."
The water continues to rise, and after some time the priest has been forced into the bell-tower. A rescue helicopter arrives and the crew shout to him through a loud-hailer and offer to lower a rope. Again, the priest waves them off, insisting, "God will save me."
But a short while afterwards, the floodwaters overwhelm him and he drowns.
When he reaches heaven, the priest asks, "Why didn't you save me?" He gets the reply, "We sent a boat! We sent a helicopter! What more did you want?"
Quoting Leontiskos
It's a preamble to casting the first stone, obviously.
Are you saying that you have never hurt another person for the benefit of yourself?
Never lied to avoid suffering the consequences of honesty?
Never pretended to be who you were/are not?
Never taken what was not yours?
Never broken a promise, made either implicitly or explicitly?
Not supported a loved one when they needed that?
I will presume you get the general idea.
Quoting Moses
i guess "He" ain't so "Omni" after all ...
Quoting javi2541997
Well, "if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God" (OP), and if "God" is (at most) a Bronze Age fictional character (myth), then "sin" is just as meaningless, or impossible, as acting "contrary to the will of" Bilbo Baggins. QED. Again, javi, for emphasis I paraphrase Camus: stupidity is the only sin without god.
We mean an immoral act. Of course, then we must decide how is morality founded and found. Religions would have you believe in the 'sky daddy' or the 'earth mother', both of which are useful and insane by roughly equal measures. Anyway, on we go.
Quoting Art48
This is, even on the surface of it, nonsensical. If we are known by the strength of our enemies then your choosing to do battle with incoherence is both terrifyingly brave and foolhardy beyond all estimation. Your foe is illusory as defined. What sort of contest is that?! For your next trick will you punch your way out of a wet paper bag? Will you accidentally offend a liberal? Set the bar higher!
Quoting Art48
I define evil as wearing pink underpants. I have never knowingly sinned!
Quoting Art48
If you can pretend to fight imaginary foes, you can at least arm them properly with imaginary truths.
God's will is known to you by intuition, by existence, by thought, imagination, and more. Even amid something as precarious as religions are, they still explain it that way, the better explainers among them. That means even such a dyed in the wool heathen as you must be is STILL informed by your own presence in the world and the world's effects on you and vice versa. You have a moral sense. Even sociopaths have the rudiments of moral understanding.
Religion is window-dressing, and not strictly necessary for discussions on morality and the moral sense.
So you are pitching a very one-sided set piece battle here. I predict inclement weather and a resounding upset.
Quoting Art48
What if they are just saying they are aware of the moral sense, really? They just do not know how to be honest and clear. It's as if they set up some illusionary battle and weighed all the lack of evidence (and the real evidence) in their favor. Then they spoke 'to the people' in a public place and played out that little charade in good faith with NO ONE, including themselves. Does that sound familiar? It should.
Quoting Art48
Are they simplifying what their moral sense tells them and then also aggrandizing it with embellishments for entertainment purposes?
Quoting Art48
Yes, so that you can continue to be indoctrinated and insert coins to continue.
Quoting Art48
Well, at least not without consent. Fluid transfer is some nasty ... stuff. "The Blood of Christ compels you, though!' I guess SOME blood is better than others. Lilu, my love, where are you? Supreme Being!
Quoting Art48
What do they say about crickets? Aren't plants people to? We need the elven point of view!
Quoting Art48
Clearly, the dumbest religion on the planet. Bacon is manna from heaven.
Quoting Art48
No, it isn't. Not really. In some Eastern faiths and more recently entertained in Western ones, is the notion that we are all one. This oneness idea, that I call the Unity Principle, is really the best way to approach such matters.
In oneness the delusional barrier of the ego is ignored or consciously denied so that unity may be more easily experienced. It is much harder to relegate any aspect of reality to 'other' status if you are them and they are you. And there is a feel to that, a sense, that is part of the moral sense. It rings true for some people. And those people would be those that many of us consider wise, oh except for academic philosophers who have real trouble with recognizing wisdom apparently. Who knew?
Quoting Art48
Man is god is you.
What do YOU consider a sin or 'bad' as an action? Now let's put the lie detector up or why not the sword of Damocles. Speak truth now. Have you ever committed a sin in your own estimation?
It's a MUCH BETTER question, don't you think?
Quoting Art48
This paragraph really is touching on the rather boring concept of conflating order and the good. That is not wise. Order is NOT the good. The good does contain some order.
Religion is not relevant. But morality is the only thing there is, let alone the only thing that's relevant.
Quoting Art48
No it is not. You are just playing games with yourself and (ha ha) your immortal soul.
Beyond this point there be dragons!
The concept of sin goes far deeper than the will of an individual deity, or a moral code. It stems from the idea that every human being has a spirit (soul, anima, essence; whatever you want to call that core personality.) What we do by choice either adds to or detracts from that essential being. A good deed, a positive action, a virtuous choice makes the inner personality better, stronger, more capable of facing challenges. A craven, underhanded, destructive act leaves pock-marks on the soul.
It's an old idea that endures in various guises in various religions.
And we do always know when we're committing an offence against our own best self.
:100: :fire:
As usual you say it better, Vera, than I did more abstractly in a recent thread Why be moral?
Quoting 180 Proof
We all 'know' these things on some level, even though we are often unaware or unmindful of them. But they are very difficult to articulate without resorting to poetry or myth.
In my experience gods are categorized by those who worship the god (the religion), not by the god itself. Thus: "the Christian god", "a Roman god", "a Norse god" etc. Therefore since those religions (purport to) "know" the will of their god, sinning or violating that will, is perfectly logical. So when you say that "God" hasn't revealed their will to you, the religious reply, of course he has... through the religion's texts and dogma.
Otherwise the word sin would have no meaning.
I don't identify as Christian, but I don't believe that is a fair characterisation of their principles. There's a diversity of views. Some denominations, especially Calvinism, insist on predestination and the sovereignty of God in a way that impacts the meaning of free will, no doubt. However, they also maintain that this divine sovereignty does not completely negate human accountability. (Don't ask me why that's not contradictory, but they might have an answer.)
But most other denominations emphasize free will. They argue that while God is omniscient and omnipotent, He has granted humans the freedom to choose or reject His grace. If we were simply "puppets on strings," completely controlled by divine will without any agency or choice, then the concept of salvation would be meaningless. So while many a criticism can be made, that's not a fair characterisation.
It is to go against one's conscience, which I would interpret as going against one's higher self (God).
He's omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, or he isn't. I can't be any fairer than that.
If Christians disagree about the degree of their god's power, that's their problem - a very big one, apparently, judging by the rate at which they've been slaughtering one another.
Quoting Wayfarer
They have lots of answers - entire big tomes of commentary, encyclicals, etc. All of them contradictory. That's not surprising, given the evolution of Jehovah.
Quoting Wayfarer
They have to. Without that unshakeable sense of guilt, how could people be persuaded to shell out for huge, elaborate confections in stone to house their god, while they themselves live in hovels? How could the bishops feast on lobster, while the peasants barely have two potatoes to rub together?
Quoting Wayfarer
Sure. So is the concept of original sin and the concept of damnation. That's never stopped people believing in them.
This is the intuitive idea behind Aquinas' ethics. It is always bad to deny one's conscience, even if one's moral reasoning is ultimately in error (however we can be negligent, and thus to blame, if we could have corrected our error). Natural Law then is largely the application of this to the aggregate, based on the primary principle of "do good and avoid doing evil."
I think the tradition has stood up so well even in the absence of its grounding in theology and human telos precisely because it is intuitive.
There has never been a shortage of people making contradictory claims about all manner of things. Is the world flat? Does dark matter exist? Why does the sun rise an set? What is the cause of various illnesses? Etc.
But surely nature tells us many of these things in a way such that we can come to know the truth of them. The same is said of sins and the Natural Law.
Consider probably the single most influential passage for natural theology in Romans 1:
Saint Paul continues in Romans 2 on righteous gentiles who have not heard (and so are not subject to) divinely revealed law, but who righteously obey the natural law.
This made me chuckle given your handle. He speaks from a burning push of course!
Several of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials claimed to be motivated by their conscience. They saw what they were doing as best for the fate of their country as well as humanity as a whole. IIRC Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem describes how Nazis were taught to e.g. resist the "temptation" to be merciful and instead dutifully perform their national mission. Nurture can lead one's conscience down very strange paths.
The operative word in there is "claimed". I don't doubt that propaganda and indoctrination in youth (not from infancy, in this case, but certainly life-long for religious zealots who commit atrocities) plays a part in people's behaviour. But does it really replace their conscience? Some people who were subjected to the very same influences did act on their compassion and their personal sense of right and wrong - even to the point of putting themselves in danger.
So I wonder... Do people who claim to have been persuaded to act against their own humanity really try very hard to resist the propaganda? Or do they welcome an authoritative leader's permission to do what they desired but feared to do when it was forbidden?
I honestly do believe people's consciences can lead them very astray (or to very different places morally). Today in the US we had many people openly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas out on the streets willing to risk arrest. Morality is different across time and place and these societies can foster very different "moral intuitions" or "consciences" among its inhabitants. Also people perceive reality in vastly different ways through factors such as IQ, education, and experience. So yes, I believe one's conscience can tell one to do vile things.
I don't agree. A lot of people shout, wave placards, attend rallies and say stupid things on camera - the public broadcast media have a prominent role in misinforming them - but actually carrying out the vile deeds falls to a hardy few whose conscience is pushed into the background.
You don't believe that one's conscience could lead one to, for instance, retrieve an escaped slave or euthanize something or someone hastily (or not euthanize where it should be done)?
Retrieve an escaped slave - possibly, but it's a stretch. Slave-catchers were mostly bounty hunters who did it for money.
Euthanize something or someone - very likely, if something (I assume by this you mean an animal) or someone were in extreme pain and distress. Hastily? Do you mean, while they could still be saved and repaired? Possibly, but that would be due to poor medical judgment rather than conscience. I don't call that an atrocity.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That's much tougher. Many - I mean, really, very many - people still believe in the Biblical god who arrogates all death-dealing to himself alone. They would be afraid to kill anyone who simply desired to be relieved of life. Oddly enough, a large percentage of these god-fearing people are comfortable with the idea of capital punishment - that, too, is in the Bible.
But there is a divide between approving of a deed and doing the deed yourself. Many people who support assisted suicide in theory could not bring themselves to administer the lethal dose. It's not just a matter of conscience; there is also sensibility and courage to consider. It can be a very hard decision.
Stop boasting. You've just committed the sin of pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Besides, you'll sin regardless of whether you do so knowingly.
You don't have to knowingly sin to be sinful. You're tainted with the proclivity to sin by virtue of being born. You're going to sin whether you know it or not; just as you'll die whether you want to or not.
What makes you think God must reveal his will to you, by the way, before you can sin? Are you Moses, to be favored with a divine revelation? Might not God's will be made manifest without the need for a visitation?
If conscience is thought of as a sort of "set of moral first principles," à la Aquinas, it seems possible to explain how people can often get things so wrong when it comes to judgements about politics.
Conscience has the easiest time connecting to proper judgment/discernment when we do not have to reason very far from "first principles." E.g., in simple cases of child abuse, armed robbery, etc., it is relatively easy to make judgements about which acts are morally unacceptable. The realm of international politics is significantly more murky, both due to its complexity, the trade-offs faced by policymakers, its unpredictability, and due to the problem of most people not being particularly well informed about issues they take a stand on.
People often base their claims in these cases on things that are shown to be patently false. Here, to the degree the individual can be held responsible, the defect isn't so much in conscience as in theoretical reason and epistemic virtue (both of which are ultimately necessary for proper moral judgement).
Norman Greenbaum's contribution to sin or sinlessness was published in 1969, his only hit "Spirit In The Sky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZQxH_8raCI
I love the song, and I like his assertion that he is sinless and never sinned. It belongs to a period of Hippiedom in which this sort of deep positive self-regard could pass without deep frowns and raised eyebrows, at least among the Hippie peers.
Such a statement would definitely not fly in the Protestant / Catholic milieu in which I was raised, in which we are rotten to the core with sin, a view which is not altogether helpful.
The most ironic part of that is the people who try hardest to refrain from sinning also set their standard higher than those whose conscience is quiescent and acquiescent. The most decent people I've known tended to fret over every minor infraction, while the most corrupt not only forgive themselves but expect forgiveness from their victims.
Nor would it fly in Jewish circles. I'll hear this song and think to myself "no way." Paul is right when he says all have sinned. But Judaism doesn't say we're all rotten to the core with sin. As long as your good deeds outnumber your sins you're considered righteous. :ok:
So just do more good than bad. But Paul falls short in many ways and he knows he's gonna need a lot of grace and a lot of faith.
Yes. The most corrupt behave abominably. But fretting over trivial infractions (and confusing etiquette with morality) isn't healthy either. Endless fretting can exhaust people, and hobble their ability to focus on the basics of loving their neighbors.
I also do not agree with everything that Paul says nor do I believe his word should be taken as absolute truth. That's Jewish tradition. Paul has always seemed to me a very flawed person trying to make the best of his situation.
Very true. It's difficult to maintain a healthy balance. I suppose 'fret' was not the most accurate word I could have chosen. I meant little mean acts, like passing on gossip or voicing a negative comment on someone's demeanour or taste, taking the last cookie, 'forgetting' to clean the catbox, keeping the felt pen that one overlooked in the shopping cart and didn't pay for. I've known a few people who would really feel guilty about those things - me, I'm a small-time but laid-back sinner; I know it was wrong, but if no great harm came of it, I keep truckin.
Perhaps, but then I don't think we have Christianity given Paul's role in spreading it. I wasn't raised Christian so I don't have that baggage. I understand though that many Christians focus quite strongly on Paul's views and place them essentially on par with Jesus's word.
Above. Moses', too. Jesus tends to get shoved into the background in much of Christian practice.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That's an intriguing thought experiment.
Success at what? Might it not mean failing at the attainment of virtue, or missing the standard one sets for one's own behaviour?
It is not, and never was, that simple. The ancient Greeks were far more subtle in their thinking, far more canny in their understanding of psychology. (Actually, all the ancients were.)
The good king defends his people, yes, but not all by himself: he has to earn the trust and loyalty of his generals and troops; he has to treat people fairly and stay in favour with his gods and bring prosperity. That takes a whole lot more than just military might or clever strategy: that means you have to 'man up' to the job. (That's also what it meant to the Judeans in the OT, why the prophets kept upbraiding their kings for laxity.)
But then, not everyone's a king, yet everyone is capable of sin, of error, and incompetence, hubris, ill intention, transgression - everyone can fail at something : hamartano "go wrong".
.
Some theists will object that it is impossible, as sin is that which is against god's will.
Aim incorrectly, possibly at the wrong target; lose sight of the essentials - the phrase is capable of some complexity. In religious societies, getting it right, or hitting the mark, would necessarily include mindfulness of the deity's or deities' requirements. A Mesoamerican ruler would need to pierce his own tongue or whatever body part, to win favour with his gods. So, religious ritual and observance was a very large part of successful kingship.
You still don't see an American president or candidate failing to mention God in a speech, or asking for God's blessing on his nation.
Yes, they love their vicious circles. I especially like when they excoriate the American natives' practice of human sacrifice, without the slightest twinge of irony.
I am not aware of any American natives doing human sacrifices today. I went to Argentina just last year and people's bodily autonomy seemed to be respected overall. But I heard it happens sometimes in Haiti, so they may have a point.
It happened 500 years ago, so what? It's still held up as a good excuse for Christian nations to invade and colonize the Americas.
I'm not asking; just musing on the different/similar belief systems of empires: Inca, Roman, British, Mughal, Songhai...