if you commit sin, and the universe is created by god, thus, it was an act of god. if it allowed the event to occur, it must have been created by god. unless, the devil created or influenced the event, and that bring an even bigger question. who the fuck is the devil, and why does evil exist. i believe god is both right and wrong, the ying and yang. if it exists, it is an extention of god.

Beginner.

You choose to sin. Yes God allows it to happen, but that doesn't mean YOUR ACTION was an act of God.

There is no such thing as sin, really. This was something dreamed up the priesthood in order to help maintain their mind control over the laity.

Definitions vary, of course, but usually include something about "offending God." God, being God, cannot be offended.

At the Highest Level, there is no such thing as right and wrong (there is only what works--that is, what serves you--and what does not)--these are just labels we place on things we approve or disapprove of, and ultimately mean nothing more.

There is no such thing as sin, really. This was something dreamed up the priesthood in order to help maintain their mind control over the laity.

Definitions vary, of course, but usually include something about "offending God." God, being God, cannot be offended.

At the Highest Level, there is no such thing as right and wrong (there is only what works--that is, what serves you--and what does not)--these are just labels we place on things we approve or diaspprove of, and ultimately means nothing more.

I'd have to disagree with you arms. I think sin is an action or though that impedes on positive spiritual progress. For example gluttony(over eating, not good for the physical body), pride(clouds judgment), lust(clouds judgment). These things, which are sins, only feed the ego and promote selfishness. I will agree that at the highest level there is no such thing as right or wrong, but if you sin it really prevents you from actually experiencing the "highest level".

Satan is the human ego, and sin nothing more than it's desire.

The human ego is so fucking smart it has convinced half the world that it is an external supernatural force. Truly amazing.

There is no highest level b/c you cannot EVER rid yourself of your ego. You cannot EVER completely eliminate your desire. If you did it would only be the result of physical brain damage such as a labotomy.

I disagree, I think it is entirely possible to eliminate your ego in order for just a purely positive conscious mind to exist.

I disagree, I think it is entirely possible to eliminate your ego in order for just a purely positive conscious mind to exist.

And I disagree for the simple reason that I have done it-- albeit rarely, and fleetingly.

I'd have to disagree with you arms. I think sin is an action or though that impedes on positive spiritual progress. For example gluttony(over eating, not good for the physical body), pride(clouds judgment), lust(clouds judgment). These things, which are sins, only feed the ego and promote selfishness. I will agree that at the highest level there is no such thing as right or wrong, but if you sin it really prevents you from actually experiencing the "highest level".

You presuppose that selfishness is a vice and not a virtue. I introduce you to one Ayn Rand.

Sin is Nis backwards.

It is a label for anything fun or what society calls immoral. Since society changes, 'sin' changes. Samething as back in the inquisition and Salem trials. Certain shit just didn't sit well with some people in power, or people in general, so someone gave such an action a name. Certain things were called sins back in the day, like 1000 bc, that now is a common day occurence.

While I am no scholar of christianity, it seems they call what ever they find entertaining evil.

You presuppose that selfishness is a vice and not a virtue. I introduce you to one Ayn Rand. How is selfishness not a vice? Selfishness causes suffering to the selfish person and the people around him. Therefore it is definitely not a virtue, lol.

Sin is Nis backwards.

It is a label for anything fun or what society calls immoral. Since society changes, 'sin' changes. Samething as back in the inquisition and Salem trials. Certain shit just didn't sit well with some people in power, or people in general, so someone gave such an action a name. Certain things were called sins back in the day, like 1000 bc, that now is a common day occurence.

While I am no scholar of christianity, it seems they call what ever they find entertaining evil.

Sin to me is anything that leads to the continuing suffering of an individual and disconnection from god. Desire is sin. When you sin you just feed your own suffering.

so well are all settled on the existence of suffering, but, is it a sin to relieve suffering that everyone has?

I'd have to disagree with you arms. I think sin is an action or though that impedes on positive spiritual progress. For example gluttony(over eating, not good for the physical body), pride(clouds judgment), lust(clouds judgment). These things, which are sins, only feed the ego and promote selfishness. I will agree that at the highest level there is no such thing as right or wrong, but if you sin it really prevents you from actually experiencing the "highest level".

Point made. But I still maintain that "sin" is not an appropriate term, since it carries so much obsolete Judeo-Christian emotional/theological baggage.

Then again, one might well argue that ANY thought keeps you away from the mental stillness that is a hallmark of enlightenment.

if you commit sin, and the universe is created by god, thus, it was an act of god. if it allowed the event to occur, it must have been created by god. unless, the devil created or influenced the event, and that bring an even bigger question. who the fuck is the devil, and why does evil exist. i believe god is both right and wrong, the ying and yang. if it exists, it is an extention of god.

Ignorance of the Spirit is the greatest evil... Ignorance is the root of all evil. If we knew what we were or are doing than the only people you could say are sinning is the one who KNOWS what he/she is about to do is "wrong" and does it anyway.

The Devil is the King of this World but than that means physicality the physical universe is evil. No, not evil but flawed by an ignorant "creator" god. Whom which if I had to wager saw only a dim reflection of the things above and made things from that.

Evil is a cancer... What is cancer a part of the body that is killing the rest of the body, the body wishes the cancer worked properly as a regular collection of cells but it does not and hurts the body even if it does not wish to, it does so in ignorance of its actions. To me evil is the cancer of life.

But Sin is not some judgmental "OMG! YOU SINNED YOU ASSHOLE!" It means to "miss the mark" like in archery and its more forgiving. This "missing the mark" is more like saying: "Okay, Get Up a Try again." Another phrase "Falling Short"

And I disagree for the simple reason that I have done it-- albeit rarely, and fleetingly.

You can perform acts that seem selfless, anyone can. When you inform others of these "selfless" acts, they cease to become selfless, don't they?

So every moment you have ever "got rid of" your ego, even fleetingly, ceased to be selfless the moment you told us this.

I will say it again: The ego cannot be eliminated. To try to ELIMINATE the ego is an epic exercise in futility. This is something that you cannot change, accept it.

NOW the ego can be controlled to an extent, but that is another matter.

social insurance number?

so well are all settled on the existence of suffering, but, is it a sin to relieve suffering that everyone has?

It depends on how you relieve it. If you feed your ego you only make it stronger and it causes you more suffering. But if you take away it's power over you and understand it, it will die and suffering will cease to effect you.

There is no such thing as sin, really. This was something dreamed up the priesthood in order to help maintain their mind control over the laity.

Definitions vary, of course, but usually include something about "offending God." God, being God, cannot be offended.

At the Highest Level, there is no such thing as right and wrong (there is only what works--that is, what serves you--and what does not)--these are just labels we place on things we approve or disapprove of, and ultimately mean nothing more.

Pretty much exactly this, although the first paragraph is overgeneralized speculation about all religions and I wouldn't take it as fact.

God would never be so petty as to be "jealous", "good" or "evil, he's above that because he isn't human. They are a part of our human world; nothing more. Human culture has anthromorphized God a little too much, and a lot of us think that God is very much like us.

People's Gods are often perfect visions of what their culture idealizes and its moral values. Almost the perfect human.

I think I've written about 'good' and 'evil' being subjective value judgements we make that are ultimately important for our survival, ability to recognize threats and keep society in order, and evolutionary success in another thread - but can't be bothered copying and pasting. At ArmsMerchan't so-called "Highest Level", "good", "evil" and "sin" don't mean shit and are not objective qualities of things. The same sort of principle applies to sin. I like R.M Hare's emotivism.

So yeah, pretty much what AM said but without the slight intuitive mysticism.

How is selfishness not a vice? Selfishness causes suffering to the selfish person and the people around him. Therefore it is definitely not a virtue, lol.

You're confined to a lack of objectivity because you are stuck in your own moral system; without having looked at others ie. Nietschzean morality and realized the subjectivity and changing nature of the whole thing; and why morality actually changes.

Example: We often think of cannibalism as immoral, but to (possibly) the Aztecs and some of those Island peoples, cannibalism is a part of everyday life with no moral connotations. Look at why you believe what you believe - perhaps start with sociology or just google until you find some theories of morality. Personally that stuff doesn't interest me when it becomes overly-analytical, but I suggest reading about it to widen your "Reality tunnel" (thanks for that one, Arms ;)) I've never read anything about Ayn Rand but from what that other poster said, he sounds about right.

What you should do is really look at why you think selfishness is bad. Examine all your morals and what might lie behind them. For one: Jewish morality, which influenced Christian morality, which influenced our culture's morality today, which rubbed off on you. The culture around you is just one factor.

if you commit sin, and the universe is created by god, thus, it was an act of god. if it allowed the event to occur, it must have been created by god. unless, the devil created or influenced the event, and that bring an even bigger question. who the fuck is the devil, and why does evil exist. i believe god is both right and wrong, the ying and yang. if it exists, it is an extention of god.

God is beyond your definitions of "right" and "wrong", although the Old Testament says something akin to "He is pure and righteous". The Christian God (you mentioned sin so I assume this is the one we're talking about) gave us free will. He is resonsible for allowing free will, so is he responsible for evil in the world because of that? This is the old "problem of evil" - why a benevolent, omnipotent God would ever allow evil to exist.

Thing is: We can't really put God into a box. In the Book of Job, Job tried to do this. Thinking he understood God and could blame Him or make an accurate judgement about Him. Job was only human. He couldn't and God showed him that he was totally off-base. Accept that you don't understand why God does what he does because your understanding is so limited compared to His, or look into theodicy - an area of theology that tries to explain why God would (either directly or indirectly) allow evil to exist.

Satan is the human ego, and sin nothing more than it's desire.

The human ego is so fucking smart it has convinced half the world that it is an external supernatural force. Truly amazing.


How much do you know about human psychology?

I think you're very much on the right track; but that it's much, much more complex than that with other factors playing into it.

You can perform acts that seem selfless, anyone can. When you inform others of these "selfless" acts, they cease to become selfless, don't they?

So every moment you have ever "got rid of" your ego, even fleetingly, ceased to be selfless the moment you told us this.

I will say it again: The ego cannot be eliminated. To try to ELIMINATE the ego is an epic exercise in futility. This is something that you cannot change, accept it.

NOW the ego can be controlled to an extent, but that is another matter.

I'm in no position to judge whether the ego can be completely eliminated or not as there have been very few fully "enlightened" individuals (existing on a regular basis with no ego) and none have been scientifically studied for this purpose as far as I know. But I'm doubtful.

You can perform acts that seem selfless, anyone can. When you inform others of these "selfless" acts, they cease to become selfless, don't they?

This may be why in the New Testament it says to pray and perform good deeds in secret - so that it's not just an ego-booster. Very clever, they were.

Ignorance of the Spirit is the greatest evil... Ignorance is the root of all evil. If we knew what we were or are doing than the only people you could say are sinning is the one who KNOWS what he/she is about to do is "wrong" and does it anyway.


"ignorance" is a term that can be used to mean "if you dont agree with my values and beliefs, you're ignorant of the truth" without consideration that you may be the one who is wrong.

Lets say there exists an all-knowing being totally devoid of ignorance - and of sound, perfect understanding. Being ignorant ourselves, could we really predict how such a creature with that much knowledge would react in any given situation? I'm willing to bet that many of the actions you consider 'evil' would not be in line with the viewpoint of this creature of perfect understanding.

So this creature knows everything. What if it decided that wiping out all life to eliminate suffering is the best course of action?(negative utilitarianism) Wheras you might consider mass-forced euthanasia evil?

What if the creature knows everything but still has a "malicious or evil" heart? You might say that when you know everything and have no ignorance, you would always choose the side of "good" (or at least, your subjective definition of what constitutes good). How can you know that when you yourself are ignorant and not even close to all-knowing? You don't have nearly enough knowledge to go on, compared to an omniscient creature. Your morality is largely based in intuiton, shaped by the culture and environment aroudn you.

Personally I think such a creature would be beyond "good" and "evil", such subjective and petty human things.. then again, I could be wrong.

God I'm tired.. a lot of this might not make sense

Satan is the human ego, and sin nothing more than it's desire.

The human ego is so fucking smart it has convinced half the world that it is an external supernatural force. Truly amazing.

There is no highest level b/c you cannot EVER rid yourself of your ego. You cannot EVER completely eliminate your desire. If you did it would only be the result of physical brain damage such as a labotomy.

Or death.

"ignorance" is a term that can be used to mean "if you dont agree with my values and beliefs, you're ignorant of the truth" without consideration that you may be the one who is wrong.

Lets say there exists an all-knowing being totally devoid of ignorance - and of sound, perfect understanding. Being ignorant ourselves, could we really predict how such a creature with that much knowledge would react in any given situation? I'm willing to bet that many of the actions you consider 'evil' would not be in line with the viewpoint of this creature of perfect understanding.

So this creature knows everything. What if it decided that wiping out all life to eliminate suffering is the best course of action?(negative utilitarianism) Wheras you might consider mass-forced euthanasia evil?

What if the creature knows everything but still has a "malicious or evil" heart? You might say that when you know everything and have no ignorance, you would always choose the side of "good" (or at least, your subjective definition of what constitutes good). How can you know that when you yourself are ignorant and not even close to all-knowing? You don't have nearly enough knowledge to go on, compared to an omniscient creature. Your morality is largely based in intuiton, shaped by the culture and environment aroudn you.

Personally I think such a creature would be beyond "good" and "evil", such subjective and petty human things.. then again, I could be wrong.

God I'm tired.. a lot of this might not make sense



Your right, but before claiming anyone else to be ignorant, there is one person you can always look to and that is yourself, you must "seek and find" on your own, seek to know yourself and understand yourself. During this time seek to improve yourself where you see flaws. As long as we are in these bodies there will always be a flaw, but do you understand what I am trying to say when I say that?

Than I must change myself to get to be one with this perfect being. There are those who come out of ignorance, those who had Gnosis (no, you don't have to be a Gnostic to have it) or knowledge of this perfect being.

It would because, this being would know that it exists in everything, and to destroy something would be to destroy a part of itself, thus it seeks to transform any mishap into perfection.

You know how you said parts might not make sense... I will try to see if I can answer this correctly:

1) This is not the perfect being, if it has an evil heart or intention, like I said earlier: To destroy something would be to destroy a part of itself. "Evil" would be founded on ignorance than.

2) Gnosis, or the intimate knowledge of this perfect being would allow you to know the all of which you are a microcosm of, you may not have knowledge of everything (intellectual) but you will have a greater understanding of this being who transcends the universe itself.

Your right this being would transcend "good" and "evil," it just is... You cant comprehend it fully, but you can gain knowledge of it, there is after all a difference between knowing and understanding. You gain understanding after you know something, for example:

You know, the sky is blue.
Why is the sky blue? The sky is blue because, the gases in the atmosphere react to the sunlight, that make the atmosphere look blue.

So in a sense, Knowing is answering "What" and understanding answers "Why." But to go back to this transcendental being, to fully know the being is impossible and thus to understand the being would be inconceivable because, you don't even fully know it. However, based upon this gnosis you know a part of it, and soon after understand a part of it as well. But to understand only a part of it is for you and only you to know, in part because, it goes beyond just mere words to explain the transcendental.

Thus, explaining why evangelism is stupid, I would want to spread the word about something I fully understand not something that I partially understand, since this being can never be fully understood since this being can never be fully known, than it is stupid to evangelize people based on something that was only meant for you and this being to share with you. You can talk about it, perhaps it will interest others but you should not force it upon others. Personally, I find it to be that actions speak louder than words, so perhaps the way one will act will let them develop an interest in following you.

Does that make sense....? That was alot...