"That is a deep subject on all levels. In one respect I agree with the statement, but on another level everyone seems to have their own truth. Still on another level, truth is just information." JB

no - everyone has there own belief's gained through digesting what ever information they have at hand or read or see. Gathering information does not mean the info is truth!! it only means you may view it as truth. truth's are truth's beyond any one's nay or yeah as to there belief in them.
As to gravity - i cannot say with certainty that it is universal - but - we know it exist here and the moon and mars and that it's affect in the galaxy and all the planets,etc., in the same way - if it is not "universal - it seems it is rampant as far as were able to see with our instruments, which leads me to believe it is universal - but if you don't it's fine with me, The point i was getting at is that there are "truth's" that exist independent of what any one's personal belief's may be about them - gravity, magnetism, entropy,etc.. That is what i'm stating when i say truth's are truth's whether you believe them or not.

ahh then we cannot continue JB - if the meaning of words cannot have any concept except for the meanings you believe then all communication is mute.

I think answered beautifully by Wouldee and Morning Song...have nothing to add.......Love God with all your heart, with all your soul with all your mind....

I don't know what you could say to me that would convince me that "sin" is not a word that is connected to religious dogma, judgment, god, etc.

People in general for the most part are steeped in religious dogma and have been since the dawn of time.

Words only represent ideas and things etc. Their meanings are interpreted. Anyone who speaks to me of "sin" is automatically speaking about judgment of what they consider to be morally right or wrong and are 99% apt to be speaking from a religious belief system of some kind.

If you want to use the word differently and understand it differently that is your choice. I have explained to you merely what it means to me. Now explain to me what it means to you.

JB

I have heard this argument before.

But for every person who believes they have the truth, they will have mounds of evidence and proof to back them up. As long as someone else disagrees and also has evidence, no one really knows for sure what is truth. They both are sure they own it.

It is only when they all agree that it becomes truth.

JB

Then for you there are no truth's, i accept that.

truth's are beyond evidence - i have no evidence for many things that exist, no one has to agree that gravity exist, a 2 year old does not know about gravity in a knowledgeable way, yet he does know intuatively when he jumps up in the air he comes back down to earth - though he may not put it in this context. Nor does everyone have to believe in something for it to be truth. it has not been that long ago that the majority of people believed the earth was flat, or the earth was the center of the universe - that was "the" accepted "truth" there was no real evidence for these theories - yet the majority believed them.
You speak of transient truths of which gravity is not one of them amongst others. Gravity has existed long before mankind and will continue to exist long after mankind it is not dependent of someone's belief in it's existance.

"I don't know what you could say to me that would convince me that "sin" is not a word that is connected to religious dogma, judgment, god, etc." JB

HMMMM????

How bout this - love is a word used in religious dogma, judgement,god, from the beginning of religious beliefs also - does the word "love" only have meaning within those religious context??? does not love have many other meanings outside religious use? different types and definition's???

"Words only represent ideas and things etc. Their meanings are interpreted. Anyone who speaks to me of "sin" is automatically speaking about judgment of what they consider to be morally right or wrong and are 99% apt to be speaking from a religious belief system of some kind." JB




Then i guess i'm not an "anyone"

Let me approach this in another way then. Yes, everyone uses the word "Love" but it is not owned by religious doctrine. Everybody owns that word.

But the word "sin" you will find, is owned by religious doctrine and it is usually always followed by the 'other shoe dropping,' which is usually punishment for sins, forgiveness of sins and various solutions on how to be forgiven and/or saved... from your sins.

The word "love" is not owned or used in this way by religious doctrine.

If you want to test this idea, try starting your own church and lay down all your own commandments and claim that they were given to you by God. Then tell others that to break these commandments is a "sin." Create your own hell and punishment if you wish. Create your own method of being saved if you wish.

Now one of these commandments is:

THOU SHALT NOT GIVE CANDY OR SUGAR TO CHILDREN.

Now the next Christian you meet tell them that they have sinned because they have given candy to children and see how possessive they become of that word "sin" then.

They will react in this way: "How dare he tell me I have sinned. He does not know what sin is. Only we know what sin is, and it is according our God not his."

Try using that word outside the context of their use of it and see what happens.

JB

I am still waiting for your interpretation of the word "sin." What does it mean to you and how do you use it?

Please give me an example of how you use that word outside of some religious doctrine. Please, I am all ears.

JB

I have not ever heard of your version of this word. either in greek or latin to greek or latin to greek to english.

Sin

is "any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God" (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; 7:5-24). It is "not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offence against a personal lawgiver and moral governor who vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that his sin is (1) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (2) that it justly deserves punishment, and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters, (1) ill-desert, guilt (reatus); and (2) pollution (macula).", Hodge's Outlines. The moral character of a man's actions is determined by the moral state of his heart. The disposition to sin, or the habit of the soul that leads to the sinful act, is itself also sin (Rom. 6:12-17; Gal. 5:17; James 1:14, 15). The origin of sin is a mystery, and must for ever remain such to us. It is plain that for some reason God has permitted sin to enter this world, and that is all we know. His permitting it, however, in no way makes God the author of sin. Adam's sin (Gen. 3:1-6) consisted in his yielding to the assaults of temptation and eating the forbidden fruit. It involved in it, (1) the sin of unbelief, virtually making God a liar; and (2) the guilt of disobedience to a positive command. By this sin he became an apostate from God, a rebel in arms against his Creator. He lost the favour of God and communion with him; his whole nature became depraved, and he incurred the penalty involved in the covenant of works. Original sin. "Our first parents being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature were conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation." Adam was constituted by God the federal head and representative of all his posterity, as he was also their natural head, and therefore when he fell they fell with him (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22-45). His probation was their probation, and his fall their fall. Because of Adam's first sin all his posterity came into the world in a state of sin and condemnation, i.e., (1) a state of moral corruption, and (2) of guilt, as having judicially imputed to them the guilt of Adam's first sin. "Original sin" is frequently and properly used to denote only the moral corruption of their whole nature inherited by all men from Adam. This inherited moral corruption consists in, (1) the loss of original righteousness; and (2) the presence of a constant proneness to evil, which is the root and origin of all actual sin. It is called "sin" (Rom. 6:12, 14, 17; 7:5-17), the "flesh" (Gal. 5:17, 24), "lust" (James 1:14, 15), the "body of sin" (Rom. 6:6), "ignorance," "blindness of heart," "alienation from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18, 19). It influences and depraves the whole man, and its tendency is still downward to deeper and deeper corruption, there remaining no recuperative element in the soul. It is a total depravity, and it is also universally inherited by all the natural descendants of Adam (Rom. 3:10-23; 5:12-21; 8:7). Pelagians deny original sin, and regard man as by nature morally and spiritually well; semi-Pelagians regard him as morally sick; Augustinians, or, as they are also called, Calvinists, regard man as described above, spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1; 1 John 3:14). The doctrine of original sin is proved, (1.) From the fact of the universal sinfulness of men. "There is no man that sinneth not" (1 Kings 8:46; Isa. 53:6; Ps. 130:3; Rom. 3:19, 22, 23; Gal. 3:22).

"Forgive me jellybean for i have sinned against you" I have broken your command and not started my own church to test your theory. Please dont send me to hell

Thank you Feral. You have just proved my point.

Sin:
any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God"

JB

tribo:

I did not make that a commandment, It was just a suggestion.

But if you join my church, and if you give candy to children, then you have sinned.

My hell is to be tied up and forced to watch Little House on the Prairie for eternity. If you like Little house on the prairie, we will find a show you hate.

You should hear my other commandments.

P.S. In fact, even if you are not in my church, if you give candy to children, then you have sinned and are destined for hell unless you are saved.

I have already stated my position on the word sin as being no more than missing the mark- i have nothing to add - especially not an iterpretation.

in�ter�pre�ta�tion
Pronunciation: \in-ˌtər-prə-ˈtā-shən, -pə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the act or the result of interpreting : an explanation

you have me at a disadvantage F, it has not been since the 70's when i was involved in this so as i have time i will try my best to find the missing the mark definition i speak of ok?

ps: your post only states what the meaning of sin, sinner, etc., means in those religious dogma's held by religious sects. you donot define the word "sin" as to greek or other text of the time when it was written.Maybe you can find the answer quicker than i if you have a greek lexicon or two i used to have 4 but they are long gone.

tribo:

You really should read the definition that Feral Posted. It proves my point.

Religious doctrine has taken ownership of that word. I will you will not have much luck using it in your own way.

JB

AHHHH !!!!! so you are religious i hate TV so you'll have to find another way to punish me

No, it just proves a religious point, a definition within religious dogma, as i stated i will try to find the "missing the mark" meaning again as i have time, and dont hold your breath- it is certainly not on my short list of things to do.

Well it does prove that religious doctrine has taken ownership of the idea of "sin."

They are even a little jealous when someone like Oprah or some other 'guru' comes along preaching love and compassion and spiritual enlightenment, but they don't own those ideas although they would like to.

They do take a dim view of anyone outside of religious doctrine using the term "sin" unless it related to their God.

JB