Questions about "SIN" & Good Acts?

[Kumar]

Following link gives definitions of SIN & some I have taken are:-

*estrangement from god

*violent and excited activity; "they began to fight like sin"

Origional sin;The eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which led to their expulsion from Eden by God. In Christian theology, the act by which all humans fell from divine grace.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:sin

Let us consider that when all are well balanced as per nature's balance i.e. when all things & beings are in harmony to each other--there may be no debt, outstanding & carry forward of SIN or its Antonyms say GOOD DEED.

So my questions are:-

1. What is meant by god as mentioned in above definition?

2. What is best--positive/excess, negative/deficiency or balance/homostatis?

3. Whether SINs are just bad deeds or any deviation from nature's balance as I defined above?

4. Whether GOOD ACTS are just good deeds or any deviation from nature's balance as I defined above?

5. Whether any bad or good acts or deed done for our needs--social & natural, can be treated as SIN or GOOD DEED?

6. Why does God cause destructions & constructions?

(my views; May be for nature's balance or to balance us, if are imbalanced. We can't think HE may be doing anything for bad or "self" otherwise how HE be called/accepted as GOD.)

Best wishes for logical understandings.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

1. What is meant by god as mentioned in above definition?

The word "god" doesn't mean anything. It's a word people use to make what they say look more important.

What they really mean is that human beings are inherently evil ("original sin") and that we need to follow their beliefs in order to be "good". "God" is just window-dressing.

2. What is best--positive/excess, negative/deficiency or balance/homostatis?

What ?

3. Whether SINs are just bad deeds or any deviation from nature's balance as I defined above?

Sins only exist in Christianity, not in the real world.

4. Whether GOOD ACTS are just good deeds or any deviation from nature's balance as I defined above?

There is no such thing as "nature's balance", and we are part of "nature". Whatever we do is "natural".

5. Whether any bad or good acts or deed done for our needs--social & natural, can be treated as SIN or GOOD DEED?

You can treat them as anything you want, but that does not make it so.

6. Why does God cause destructions & constructions?

There is no "God". Destructions are caused by natural events and human immorality/error. Constructions are caused by natural events (like the emergence of a volcano) and human morality/success. Hope that helps.

 

[Kumar]

The word "god" doesn't mean anything. It's a word people use to make what they say look more important.

What they really mean is that human beings are inherently evil ("original sin") and that we need to follow their beliefs in order to be "good". "God" is just window-dressing.
What ?
Sins only exist in Christianity, not in the real world.
There is no such thing as "nature's balance", and we are part of "nature". Whatever we do is "natural".
You can treat them as anything you want, but that does not make it so.

There is no "God". Destructions are caused by natural events and human immorality/error. Constructions are caused by natural events (like the emergence of a volcano) and human morality/success. Hope that helps.

Hello Francois Tremblay,

Thanks. But we may need to understand these things in (1) form as these are described (2) As a concept shown as a mythlology/picture of some realities which may be effecting all beings & things--good or bad to make these as easy/simpler to understand & practice. Few people make pictures/dramas of some past happening and about the lessons from that, to teach people indirectly. Some real happenings might have attached to same as characters & places. But the basic intention of some talented & deep thinker people who might had understood & forsighted--what is & will be good or bad. Accordingly, they might had classified;

Good/good deeds>>BALANCE<< Bad deeds/Sins

All such classifications of realities in indirect way might be the characters as:-

Angels>>BALANCE?<<Devils for good deeds>>BALANCE<<Bad deeds

I meal that logic & effect is somewhat similar as indicated but physicalities might not be there in same form as indicated.

I am taliking above the possibilities for designing the BASICS. Any person, who may possessed or pursued or naturally gifted with the above qualities--might had been or may be considered as alike above entities as Son of GOD, priests, saits etc. Suppose we call alcohol, smoking, drugs or other harmful things as devils & their taking in excess quantity as SIN, how it can be co-related?

So pls think as a CONCEPT instead as a PERSON, then reply.

SINs, GODs, GOOD DEEDS, Angels, devils, Goddesses etc. looks to be described in all religions in some form/name or the others--with somewhat similar meaning/logic EXCEPT in modern science who may be having their own names, definition & entities for those really logical/basic theories.

 

[bruto]

I think you have a basic problem at the start, when you say "suppose we call..."

You can define sin any way you want, as others have done before you, and then, according to your definition, draw whatever conclusions you want. Sin is a pliable word. Same thing with god. You decide what you think god is and you've defined both god and at least one sin.

The forbidden fruit that got Adam and Eve in so much trouble was not the knowledge of how to get out of balance with nature. It was the knowledge of good and evil. They became "sinners" when they substituted judgment for obedience. If you want to use this biblical legend, there's only so far it can be stretched to your purpose. If you want a nice ecology allegory, you'd better look around some more.

Why does God cause destructions and constructions?

If you first give us a good reason to believe there is a god, and then that this god has some active role in the running of the cosmos, and then that any such activities have ever taken place, then will be time for that question.

 

[Kumar]

Hello bruto,

My intentions remain in to know true logic or science behind any mass existing concept/theory.

Can't there be a basic/prime force behind all fundamental forces & their complexes? Can't everything or being be a complex of that basic/prime force? Can't that do/effect/be a reason/source of everything?

 

[bruto]

Hello bruto,

My intentions remain in to know true logic or science behind any mass existing concept/theory.

Can't there be a basic/prime force behind all fundamental forces & their complexes? Can't everything or being be a complex of that basic/prime force? Can't that do/effect/be a reason/source of everything?

My short, rather unsatisfying answer in reverse order: Yes, of course there might be such a basic, prime force, but nobody can be sure if there is, or what it is, and that is why people have been arguing, philosophizing, and more than occasionally burning each other at the stake over this question for as many millennia as we have any records. True logic and science do not get you where you want to go. Faith might, but though you might celebrate it, sing it, proselytize it, sell it, enforce it or plead its case, you cannot prove it with logic or science.

 

[Kumar]

Probably but mostly, If we could know "prime/most basic" force of all forces, we would had known to everything & all confusions might had been over. But I think, it is already indicated in spritual litreture as "indescribale" beyond the reach of most".

Let us suupose, if it is there, can it tell us everything?

 

[bruto]

Probably but mostly, If we could know "prime/most basic" force of all forces, we would had known to everything & all confusions might had been over. But I think, it is already indicated in spritual litreture as "indescribale" beyond the reach of most".

Let us suupose, if it is there, can it tell us everything?

I'm inclined to say no, it pretty obviously cannot tell us everything, because otherwise it would have. Spiritual literature is a mixed bag. Any crackpot with a pen can write spiritual literature. Even the most spiritual, religious person must sift and exercise harsh editorial judgment or end up with a nonsensical, incompatible muddle. If you decide that there is such a force, you need to figure out a good reason why it is indescribable, and whether or not it can tell anyone anything at all. Then figure out why it is beyond the reach of most, if it is not beyond the reach of any. What makes it reachable by some and not others? Why can't the "some" agree on anything? You're left with the conundrum: if it can tell anyone anything, why doesn't it tell everyone everything? If you come to believe in a sentient god of some sort, it would be helpful to try to figure out what this god gains from obscurity. Given that that obscurity leads a huge proportion of humanity to constant, continuous, often devastating sin, what is god's motive for being so coy?

It's pretty clear that whatever this force, god, prime mover, whatever, might be, it is not going to remove our confusions. Of course, if you should have a flash of divine revelation or insight you might find that it removes your confusions, but it won't remove anyone else's.

 

[c4ts]

Probably but mostly, If we could know "prime/most basic" force of all forces, we would had known to everything & all confusions might had been over. But I think, it is already indicated in spritual litreture as "indescribale" beyond the reach of most".

Let us suupose, if it is there, can it tell us everything?

Err, not if it's outside the boundaries of actual knowledge...

 

[Mojo]

Any crackpot with a pen can write spiritual literature.

Maybe Kumar has found his true vocation!

Even the most spiritual, religious person must sift and exercise harsh editorial judgment or end up with a nonsensical, incompatible muddle.

Ah. Maybe not.

 

[Kumar]

I'm inclined to say no, it pretty obviously cannot tell us everything, because otherwise it would have. Spiritual literature is a mixed bag. Any crackpot with a pen can write spiritual literature. Even the most spiritual, religious person must sift and exercise harsh editorial judgment or end up with a nonsensical, incompatible muddle. If you decide that there is such a force, you need to figure out a good reason why it is indescribable, and whether or not it can tell anyone anything at all. Then figure out why it is beyond the reach of most, if it is not beyond the reach of any. What makes it reachable by some and not others? Why can't the "some" agree on anything? You're left with the conundrum: if it can tell anyone anything, why doesn't it tell everyone everything? If you come to believe in a sentient god of some sort, it would be helpful to try to figure out what this god gains from obscurity. Given that that obscurity leads a huge proportion of humanity to constant, continuous, often devastating sin, what is god's motive for being so coy?

It's pretty clear that whatever this force, god, prime mover, whatever, might be, it is not going to remove our confusions. Of course, if you should have a flash of divine revelation or insight you might find that it removes your confusions, but it won't remove anyone else's.

Good post & Logical thoughts. Let us consider HIM as a director/producer of any drama. HE gave some script & taught to characters, how to act. HE remain behind the stage. Still characters act according to their constitutions & wish. Drama may be more successful or just a flop---mean different from the director/producer's expectations. If more successful, director/producer may not say anything but still will find that that character not done acoording to him, and can blame & claim and if next time drama flops giving example of first istance. If it flops this time, d/p shall blame & claim now, strongly. So, we should be having a nature's system for nature's balance, if we deviate from it a homeostatis/balance can be disturbed and we may suffer from that for imbalance created on any side of this balance. Needs, greeds & addictions can create/initiate imbalancing wantings in us. Moreover all these can be a drama/show/system of nature, so HE may write any script thinking "Show must go on".

Think about woods, silk, leather,fruits etc. When naturally balanced, we would be getting plenty of old & matured wood from dead trees, silk when insects are gone, leather whn animals are naturally dead, justfruits for food. But whenwe are more & our need, greedor addiction is much more, we opt for some other unnatural means & all these new options may not behave naturally, makes us sinful or imbalanced. Although HE may be considered as source of everything, still HE also go according to nature. Whatever imbalanced, we may sow/eat today, we may have to compensate it tommorow to maintain a balance in nature.

Btw, what was forbidden fruit to Adam & Eve in comitting origional sin?

Good wishes.

 

[Kumar]

Err, not if it's outside the boundaries of actual knowledge...

Do you mean modern knowledge..? Is it "absolute", "complete", "stable" or "persistent? Someone said, many wrinkle in some knowledges, enormus discoveries are yet to be made..etc. Actual knowledge should be "absolute" or "complete" or "persistent" or atleast "stable", otherwise just knowledge can go any side as I indirectly exampled in my previous post.

New topic may come now, "Can we depend on modern evidances/knowledges completely/absolutely?"

 

[Kumar]

Maybe Kumar has found his true vocation!

Ah. Maybe not.

May be some people are "just resisters" of knowledges. HE has made many characters with basic motto "nature balance" & "show must go on". To acieve it, HE trained many type of characters(somewhat indicative as 360, 27, 12,6,4,3,2 astro. with deep & gross considerations) with basic thoght of "Creations", "Maintainance" and "Destructions", so made the characters accordingly. Which type you are? Nothing to be felt, as all these chracteristics may be HIS creation/system.

 

[l0rca]

The key answer to all these questions is, "Well that's, um, err, technical"

1. What is meant by god as mentioned in above definition?

--The above definition doesn't really contain all the fallacies of what is "meant by the word God," to really dig into the Christian’s shoes. But as someone raised in a Catholic home, despite being bitter about it, I could give what I found to be my definition of God a few years ago: someone incredibly omniscient, but "seemingly" subjective at the same time, who tended to be entirely conditional in every instance, and when he was contributed to an act that might be considered unjust, his motivations were always considered "mysterious, but in the perfect mind of God must be for the good of all." Basically, we considered God above our logic, or in other words, capable of extreme contradiction, but excusable because he's the Big Guy.

So I don't think we could hold any Catholic to any form of "God is obviously contradictory," because they consider their Big Guy above all that.


2. What is best--positive/excess, negative/deficiency or balance/homostatis?
--I don't know. Some form of confused mix of them all, depending on what era of religious quackery we live in.


3. Whether SINs are just bad deeds or any deviation from nature's balance as I defined above?
--Sins were defined to me, both in high school and grammar as "missing the mark," meant as any act, and even any thought, that does not follow what we know to be "the path of god"

To get more technical (mostly every technical understanding of the laws and pathos of Catholicism I have was given to me by scholarly priests, who tended to ad hoc every one of these technicalities on the spot, which might become obvious as I explain...), the phrase "that does not follow what we know" I used is tricky. You see, you only "sinned" if you knew God forbid it, and you did it anyway. It was explained to me that children under 7, I think it was, were incapable of most sins because they didn't have the intelligent to recognize that God thinks they're wrong. What always confused me about this "technicality," was that foreign religious peoples, non-Catholics, who do not know our laws, were considered big-time sinners, especially since they weren't following the real God. And the phrase, "path of god" I used, is quite a winding, Alice in Wonderland-esque path, whose laws and penalties seem to change with every generation. Following "the path of god," could probably be summed up as "following your own paradigm of what you think your god tells you is right and wrong".


4. Whether GOOD ACTS are just good deeds or any deviation from nature's balance as I defined above?
--I was going to answer with the technical answer that it depends on who is in charge of the church, but then I remembered God was supposed to have given us the earth on a silver platter, to use however we want. As in, we're "free" to use the planet however we want, but he'll punish us "when we die" if we don't use the earth right. So far as using the earth right, I suppose that's answered by the first technical answer I was going to use.



5. Whether any bad or good acts or deed done for our needs--social & natural, can be treated as SIN or GOOD DEED?
--Again, technical. I have no idea where the church stands on it right now, and since I'm an outsider, I suppose my non-theistic education on the matter wouldn't be technical or valid enough.


6. Why does God cause destructions & constructions?
--It's a mystery, they say. I swear, for the 9 years I was in a Catholic school that was the answer. "God works in mysterious ways."

 

[l0rca]

My intentions remain in to know true logic or science behind any mass existing concept/theory.

Can't there be a basic/prime force behind all fundamental forces & their complexes? Can't everything or being be a complex of that basic/prime force? Can't that do/effect/be a reason/source of everything?

To reply to the first paragraph; so far as the Catholic religion, they've probably got their logic wrapped tighter than I thought, or they revised it since then. Actually, I'll take away that "probably" and suggest a "probably don't". But say if they did. We could attribute that same awesome logicness to other things, where logic was derived from false assumptions. Take Kant, or Hegel. Take Socco.

For the second, I've actually written an essay on it, and don't feel much like repeating myself (I'm not saying I was right in the essay, and no argument is needed on it; I'm just lazy). I guess I could show you the essay, if you'd be interested.

 

[bruto]

Good post & Logical thoughts. Let us consider HIM as a director/producer of any drama. HE gave some script & taught to characters, how to act.

So some say, but others disagree. This is a matter of faith, based in part on the faith in the authority of others and their writings. Many do not share that faith.

HE remain behind the stage. Still characters act according to their constitutions & wish. Drama may be more successful or just a flop---mean different from the director/producer's expectations. If more successful, director/producer may not say anything but still will find that that character not done acoording to him, and can blame & claim and if next time drama flops giving example of first istance. If it flops this time, d/p shall blame & claim now, strongly. So, we should be having a nature's system for nature's balance, if we deviate from it a homeostatis/balance can be disturbed and we may suffer from that for imbalance created on any side of this balance. Needs, greeds & addictions can create/initiate imbalancing wantings in us. Moreover all these can be a drama/show/system of nature, so HE may write any script thinking "Show must go on".

Think about woods, silk, leather,fruits etc. When naturally balanced, we would be getting plenty of old & matured wood from dead trees, silk when insects are gone, leather whn animals are naturally dead, justfruits for food. But whenwe are more & our need, greedor addiction is much more, we opt for some other unnatural means & all these new options may not behave naturally, makes us sinful or imbalanced. Although HE may be considered as source of everything, still HE also go according to nature. Whatever imbalanced, we may sow/eat today, we may have to compensate it tommorow to maintain a balance in nature.

That may be fine in theory, but not in practice unless you want to go back to hunter-gatherers, or in your suggestion, just gatherers. Mankind would not be the hugely successful species it now is, but a marginal bunch of rather pathetic scavengers. We survive on our wits and our ability to oovercome the limitations of nature, which has afforded us very few other advantages relative to other species. It all depends, I suppose, on how you define the balance of nature. If we are part of nature, our actions are part of nature, at least to some extent. Man, even in a state of nature, is a wily creature who uses tools and adjusts his environment to suit his needs. If human beings did not do this, they would be something other than human beings, and probably would not last long anyway. Of course, you can argue that it's possible to go too far with this, and most would agree, but to suggest that we turn our own evolved characters around and abandon our civilization is both impractical and, in some way, unnatural.

Just to pick a portion of the above, I suspect you haven't spent much time in the woods if you think good lumber comes from trees that die a natural death. If you want useful wood, you kill the tree while it is still healthy. If you want useful wood, and are a smart forester, you leave some, and plant some, as you do this. This is not to say that we should pillage nature and ransack earth's resources; husbandry is of utmost importance, but that doesn't mean we should be living on fallen fruit and competing with the vultures for our shoe leather. Aside from that, the world is full of predators who eat other animals. We are one. If you will be true to the "balance of nature," you will allow man to be the omnivorous creature he always has been, and that means, like it or not, that we eat other animals.

Btw, what was forbidden fruit to Adam & Eve in comitting origional sin?

I am not sure I understand the question. Nobody knows just what kind of fruit it was supposed to be. There's a story in the bible, and you can read it and make of it what you will.

Good wishes.

 

[Kumar]

So some say, but others disagree. This is a matter of faith, based in part on the faith in the authority of others and their writings. Many do not share that faith.{/quote]

We can keep faith for future possibilities or don't keep by saying it is not in science. But science is not yet complete or absolute and enormus discoveries are still pending. One out of this be to know "the prime/basic" force of all forces. Mother or Director/Producer should be there of all forces and their complexes i.. matters etc.. If we shall keep in future possibility to kno prime force, we may find/look/understand it otherwise it will be an end of research. In spritual's sayings it is omni, allmighty still indescrible. In science also if it is, it is same.

That may be fine in theory, but not in practice unless you want to go back to hunter-gatherers, or in your suggestion, just gatherers. Mankind would not be the hugely successful species it now is, but a marginal bunch of rather pathetic scavengers. We survive on our wits and our ability to oovercome the limitations of nature, which has afforded us very few other advantages relative to other species. It all depends, I suppose, on how you define the balance of nature. If we are part of nature, our actions are part of nature, at least to some extent. Man, even in a state of nature, is a wily creature who uses tools and adjusts his environment to suit his needs. If human beings did not do this, they would be something other than human beings, and probably would not last long anyway. Of course, you can argue that it's possible to go too far with this, and most would agree, but to suggest that we turn our own evolved characters around and abandon our civilization is both impractical and, in some way, unnatural.

Not to talk about social/selfish requirements except for need to understand reality in logic/nature. We might have made different( still, it may be a definition made by us only) by gifting to think & do by intentions not just for need, thinking logics, thinking politically, thinking differently etc. which can be thinking both for good bad. In reality we might had gifted this to think & effect good but....? If thinking & effecting good, we are above animals because earning good deeds but If thinking bad, we may be worse/below than animals because adding sins as per nature's system. Social system may be different. Animals may not be gifted with to earn good deeds or sins--they just do as per need & survival, not imbalances, so can be better than us in some respect in getting nature's grace. The extreme & utmost goal to humans is indicated "to atain salvation" or to become alike god & mixing in HIM.

Just to pick a portion of the above, I suspect you haven't spent much time in the woods if you think good lumber comes from trees that die a natural death. If you want useful wood, you kill the tree while it is still healthy. If you want useful wood, and are a smart forester, you leave some, and plant some, as you do this. This is not to say that we should pillage nature and ransack earth's resources; husbandry is of utmost importance, but that doesn't mean we should be living on fallen fruit and competing with the vultures for our shoe leather. Aside from that, the world is full of predators who eat other animals. We are one. If you will be true to the "balance of nature," you will allow man to be the omnivorous creature he always has been, and that means, like it or not, that we eat other animals.

To understand natural realities, we may have to see those beings & things which still live in nature/reality. Few acts can be due to need & balancing the nature, but should not be for imbalancing it...if we want no sin.

In nature, Aid(AIDS) to nature's balance, add to good deeds, deviate to nature's balance--add to sins.

If we are imbalance in any sense, imbalanced activities are to be followed/must, if not, not--so the sins & good deeds.

I am not sure I understand the question. Nobody knows just what kind of fruit it was supposed to be. There's a story in the bible, and you can read it and make of it what you will.

Probably it is shown that, even fruits or some complexed fruits were not needed to keep body's chemistry in homeostatis state.

 

[bruto]

So some say, but others disagree. This is a matter of faith, based in part on the faith in the authority of others and their writings. Many do not share that faith.{/quote]

We can keep faith for future possibilities or don't keep by saying it is not in science. But science is not yet complete or absolute and enormus discoveries are still pending. One out of this be to know "the prime/basic" force of all forces. Mother or Director/Producer should be there of all forces and their complexes i.. matters etc.. If we shall keep in future possibility to kno prime force, we may find/look/understand it otherwise it will be an end of research. In spritual's sayings it is omni, allmighty still indescrible. In science also if it is, it is same.




Not to talk about social/selfish requirements except for need to understand reality in logic/nature. We might have made different( still, it may be a definition made by us only) by gifting to think & do by intentions not just for need, thinking logics, thinking politically, thinking differently etc. which can be thinking both for good bad. In reality we might had gifted this to think & effect good but....? If thinking & effecting good, we are above animals because earning good deeds but If thinking bad, we may be worse/below than animals because adding sins as per nature's system. Social system may be different. Animals may not be gifted with to earn good deeds or sins--they just do as per need & survival, not imbalances, so can be better than us in some respect in getting nature's grace. The extreme & utmost goal to humans is indicated "to atain salvation" or to become alike god & mixing in HIM.



To understand natural realities, we may have to see those beings & things which still live in nature/reality. Few acts can be due to need & balancing the nature, but should not be for imbalancing it...if we want no sin.

In nature, Aid(AIDS) to nature's balance, add to good deeds, deviate to nature's balance--add to sins.

If we are imbalance in any sense, imbalanced activities are to be followed/must, if not, not--so the sins & good deeds.




Probably it is shown that, even fruits or some complexed fruits were not needed to keep body's chemistry in homeostatis state.

Most people read the meaning of adam and eve differently, and consider the "fruit" to be either figurative or irrelevant. It's the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and it's the knowledge, not the digestive quality, that is usually considered to be the point. Of course you can read it any way you wish, but then you hardly need to bother with that story or any other. You can make up whatever you want.

Anayway I don't think we're really connecting here.

 

[Kumar]

The key answer to all these questions is, "Well that's, um, err, technical"

--The above definition doesn't really contain all the fallacies of what is "meant by the word God," to really dig into the Christian’s shoes. But as someone raised in a Catholic home,

Nothing may be different in any religion on basic logic with just name, form & some adjustments for some regional environment considerations are taken care of. These can start from prime/basic state/form TO any gross state/form, from basic till today.

despite being bitter about it, I could give what I found to be my definition of God a few years ago: someone incredibly omniscient, but "seemingly" subjective at the same time, who tended to be entirely conditional in every instance, and when he was contributed to an act that might be considered unjust, his motivations were always considered "mysterious, but in the perfect mind of God must be for the good of all." Basically, we considered God above our logic, or in other words, capable of extreme contradiction, but excusable because he's the Big Guy.

So I don't think we could hold any Catholic to any form of "God is obviously contradictory," because they consider their Big Guy above all that.

It should be true. We can keep "pending prime force to know in science" considering that as big/biggest guy/force. Since that should be the prime source of every being & thing, that is above on all beings & things. Since, we have not yet seen that in science, that can be contradictory--as every individual/group of individual is different, so can think differently. H is mystrious, because couldn't yet ne known. Omni-scient, omno-potent & omni-scient--beacuse is in every thing & being as prime source.

--I don't know. Some form of confused mix of them all, depending on what era of religious quackery we live in.

]

Balance.homeostatis should be considered as BEST, neither good or bad. But if we are more bad debts in our present state which can't be balanced inspite all our good deeds, all goods can be considered as suitable--so best.

--Sins were defined to me, both in high school and grammar as "missing the mark," meant as any act, and even any thought, that does not follow what we know to be "the path of god"

"the path of god" should be "the path towards balance".

To get more technical (mostly every technical understanding of the laws and pathos of Catholicism I have was given to me by scholarly priests, who tended to ad hoc every one of these technicalities on the spot, which might become obvious as I explain...), the phrase "that does not follow what we know" I used is tricky. You see, you only "sinned" if you knew God forbid it, and you did it anyway. It was explained to me that children under 7, I think it was, were incapable of most sins because they didn't have the intelligent to recognize that God thinks they're wrong. What always confused me about this "technicality," was that foreign religious peoples, non-Catholics, who do not know our laws, were considered big-time sinners, especially since they weren't following the real God. And the phrase, "path of god" I used, is quite a winding, Alice in Wonderland-esque path, whose laws and penalties seem to change with every generation. Following "the path of god," could probably be summed up as "following your own paradigm of what you think your god tells you is right and wrong".

Sorry, but if we are in much debt of sins, no use to to tell & think about sin but to talk about good deeds. If we want to add to sin, or if nature want it for balance, we may just think & do about sins. Any living being or thing is not different in God's eyes on their basic level,because that is JUST HE, alike for example, all electrons, protons or neutrons etc. may be same in all atoms with same properties, but in complexes of atoms all can be different on gross levels. Every being & thing should have some similarity at sub atomic/quantum level ultimately same at "prime force" level.

--I was going to answer with the technical answer that it depends on who is in charge of the church, but then I remembered God was supposed to have given us the earth on a silver platter, to use however we want. As in, we're "free" to use the planet however we want, but he'll punish us "when we die" if we don't use the earth right. So far as using the earth right, I suppose that's answered by the first technical answer I was going to use.

By using the earth right, do you mean "in accordance to nature's system/balance"..?

--It's a mystery, they say. I swear, for the 9 years I was in a Catholic school that was the answer. "God works in mysterious ways."

Can it be for to maintain the nature system or for to maintain the nature's balance--a state when all things & beings are in perfect hormony to each other.

Just for your thoughts, goods = angels, bads = devils, Balance = GOD. Both angels/goods & devils/bads can be the part & modes of GOD/Balance not just only angels/goods. OK??

Best wishes.

 

[Kumar]

In short, technically, logically or scientifically, whether whatever, which can imbalance your body system or chemistry be a deviation from GOD for you or not--good deed-the angel & the sin--the devil? OR Whether whatever, which imbalances(any side positive or negative) your body's system/chemistry can be considered as "sin" and which balances it can be considered as "good deed" or not?