God's Commandments are being violated if you lie.By lying you violate the 5th, (by dishonoring your parents by lying) the 9th, the 2nd (created a god to suite yourself), and the 1st Commandment. (Didn't put God first)
When you steal you violate the 5th, the 8th, the 2nd, and the 1st Commandments.
By breaking a Commandment it actually is blasphemous to God. We are made in his image after all, so God sins? There goes the 3rd also.
If we really think about it, we are even violating the 4th since Jesus is now our Sabbath Rest. (Matthew 11:28-30, Hebrews 4:9-10) We are not "keeping it Holy" (Exodus 20:8) so there it goes. When you sin you are breaking, which ever sin PLUS, the first 5 Commandments.
You are breaking a great deal of Commandments with one simple lie.
Let's compound that. Let's just say, you break God's Laws (Lie, steal, lust, or covet) 5 times a day. You lied once, lusted once, stole something, etc. In one year, that would be 1,825 sins. If you live to 85 and started sinning at, lets just say age 15, @ 70 years of sinning you would have broken God Laws 127,750 times.
Compounded again, if you sinned one time, and thus breaking 5 other Commandments each time totaling 6 sins, and did that 5 times a day that would be 766,500 sins in a lifetime!!!
Now take that times just 6 billion people and that is some 4.6 quadrillion sins for the planet on an average.
Now, lets multiply that by many generations throughout history...
Dude, that is a lot of sins!!!
You're made in God's image. When you lie, you're calling God a liar.
Now can you see that sinning is not just a little thing? Its a big, big deal!!
bit.ly/onelittlelie
Yeah, but since there's no such thing as a sin, there's no problem.
ReplyDeleteThere are moral choices, but the concept of sin only leads to abysmal psychosis, as we see with Dan.
ReplyDeleteIt is alarming and heartbreaking to watch this mess.
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"Yeah, but since there's no such thing as a sin, there's no problem."
Yes, I assume you don't believe that stealing, murdering someone or cheating on your missus is wrong. It's all about the survival of the fittest, right?
Froggie, what's your definition of morals and where do they come from?
ReplyDeleteStewie,
ReplyDeleteMorals and ethics are human constructs based on empathy and the law of reciprocity. Empathy is the bedrock of morality which developed over millenia as humans formed larger groups and started to share.
Ethics are a survival skill.
If you care to read about this you could start here.
Dan
ReplyDeleteYou realize of course that what you go on about as the commandments, are the biblical sound bytes that Moses smashed. The ones that he gave moses later aren't nearly so digestable but it seems that if one believes in the bible and the bible says "These are the commandments"(Ex34:28) well they probably are.
Dax
And yes I've heard the explainations or as I like to call them, excuses.
The single most destuctive lie ever created by humans is "In the begining God..." the first four word of the bible. No other lie will ever come close to the suffering caused by this LIE.
ReplyDeleteStewie asks:
ReplyDeleteYes, I assume you don't believe that stealing, murdering someone or cheating on your missus is wrong. It's all about the survival of the fittest, right?
I didn't say anything about right and wrong, which is another topic that Froggie has touched upon. I was talking about what Dan was talking about: sins. Without God, there are no sins, but right and wrong may still evolve, as they have here.
And no, it's not all about the survival of the fittest, at least not in the sense of the fittest organisms or genes: there's also the survival of the fittest societies, and the fittest ideals, the ones that fit best with our empathetic selves.
Stewie, I don't believe in God. And yet I don't rob banks, or even knock down old ladies in the street. Neither does Froggie, and I'm willing to bet Antzilla and Dax don't either. Why not, do you suppose? Why is it that the most secular societies have the least crime?
Stewie said...
ReplyDeleteZilch,
"Yeah, but since there's no such thing as a sin, there's no problem."
Yes, I assume you don't believe that stealing, murdering someone or cheating on your missus is wrong.
No. You just made an ass of yourself. Do you idiots compete to distort the positions of atheists or what? That's the kind of idiocy that Dan (or any religious apologist) would say.
It's all about the survival of the fittest, right?
No. "Sin" is a "crime" that breaks the law of a non-existent god. That's what Zilch's point is.
As for morals, societies have to figure them out themselves. Morals change as time goes on. Your own holy book is a perfect example. Compare the NT with the OT.
As for morals, Froggie and Zilch seem to take care of explaining that to you.
Sin n.
ReplyDelete1. An act that violates a religious or MORAL law.
2. An offense in general.
3. To violate human rights, law or propriety; to commit an offense; to trespass; to transgress.
You claim that "there is no such thing as a sin". Therefore you are implying that there is no such thing as morals. Then you contradict yourselves by saying you are moral beings. Make up your minds, it's either "sin" exists or it doesn't.
Reynold,
'No. "Sin" is a "crime" that breaks the law of a non-existent god.'
As the definitions above prove, your statement is not completely true. As for your claim that God does not exist; it's your opinion, it's not a fact.
"Morals change as time goes on."
Gee genius, is that so? Do you think peoples views on murder, theft, lying, adultry etc. will change as time goes on?
"Your own holy book is a perfect example. Compare the NT with the OT."
My own holy book? Who said I have a holy book? and what are the morals that changed in the NT? Give examples.
Stewie, you say:
ReplyDeleteSin n.
1. An act that violates a religious or MORAL law.
2. An offense in general.
3. To violate human rights, law or propriety; to commit an offense; to trespass; to transgress.
I don't know where you got your definitions, but I use the words "sin" and "sinful" only in the sense of the first half of the first definition: a sin is an act that violates a religious law. If you insist that we use "sin" to refer to religious and nonreligious law, then I will amend what I said to referring to "religious sin", which I'm pretty sure is what Dan was talking about, since he defined "sin" by the Bible. Check out this Wiki on sin for a good exposition.
You claim that "there is no such thing as a sin". Therefore you are implying that there is no such thing as morals. Then you contradict yourselves by saying you are moral beings. Make up your minds, it's either "sin" exists or it doesn't.
Not so: as Froggie, Reynold, and I have already mentioned, it's quite possible, in fact it seems to be the case, for morals to have evolved in a way similar to life having evolved. Plus simply thinking about what a good world means to one, and implementing good ideas about heading in the direction all want: peace, freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering, freedom of expression- in other words, all those tried and true methods for achieving successful societies, the core beliefs of most religions and most secular humanists too. What's so hard to understand here?
Zilch,
ReplyDelete'I don't know where you got your definitions, but I use the words "sin" and "sinful" only in the sense of the first half of the first definition: a sin is an act that violates a religious law. If you insist that we use "sin" to refer to religious and nonreligious law, then I will amend what I said to referring to "religious sin", which I'm pretty sure is what Dan was talking about, since he defined "sin" by the Bible. Check outthis Wiki on sin for a good exposition.'
Still, there is not much of a difference between religious and non-religious law. Apart from the first 4, the ten commandments refer to the same moral laws you abide by and breaking them is a sin. Your claim that sin (whether religious or not) does not exist is just absurd.
"Not so: as Froggie, Reynold, and I have already mentioned, it's quite possible, in fact it seems to be the case, for morals to have evolved in a way similar to life having evolved."
Again, that's an opinion, an assumption, not a fact.
"Plus simply thinking about what a good world means to one, and implementing good ideas about heading in the direction all want: peace, freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering, freedom of expression- in other words, all those tried and true methods for achieving successful societies, the core beliefs of most religions and most secular humanists too. What's so hard to understand here?"
You're basically saying what I've said above. Which again proves your "there is no such thing as a sin" statement to be false.
Oh, one more thing Zilch. Your moral standards are derived from religion. You can try to deny it all you want, but the truth is that religion (specifically christianity) played a major role in the establishment of laws and moral standards, especially in western culture.
ReplyDeleteStewie: the difference between what I call a sin and what I call a moral wrong is, as I said, that sins have to do with God, and if there's no God, then there are no sins. Doesn't matter if my ideas of right and wrong have a lot of overlap with yours, and with the Dalai Lama's for that matter: that's certainly interesting, and needs some explanation; but for me as an atheist, sins do not exist.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for right and wrong having evolved, yes, that's my opinion, for which there's lots of evidence, for instance in the behavior of non-human primates. The idea that right and wrong come from the Christian God is your opinion, for which the only evidence is a very old book that features talking snakes and donkeys.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Oh, one more thing Zilch. Your moral standards are derived from religion. You can try to deny it all you want, but the truth is that religion (specifically christianity) played a major role in the establishment of laws and moral standards, especially in western culture.
ReplyDeleteThat's certainly one way of looking at it, and it's historically correct, as far as it goes: but it's just as important to look at it the other way around: religions play a major role in establishing laws and moral standards, because laws and moral standards are necessary to build societies, and societies are necessary to pass on culture, including laws, moral standards, and religion.
So while moral standards are taught, passed on, and enforced by religion, religion itself, at least in part, is a creation and an elaboration of moral standards, which predate religion.
"And as for right and wrong having evolved, yes, that's my opinion, for which there's lots of evidence, for instance in the behavior of non-human primates."
ReplyDeleteNon-human primates like chimps (our supposed closest cousins) who hunt, kill and eat each other and practice infanticide on a regular basis? Yeah right.
Zilch wrote: "And as for right and wrong having evolved, yes, that's my opinion, for which there's lots of evidence, for instance in the behavior of non-human primates."
ReplyDeleteStewie responded: Non-human primates like chimps (our supposed closest cousins) who hunt, kill and eat each other and practice infanticide on a regular basis? Yeah right.
Stewie, do you realize that you've just supported Zilch's argument?