Questions about 'SIN'?

[Kumar]

Hello all,

I give below some definitions;-

SIN; an offense against religious or moral law: transgression of the law of God :a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God: to commit an offense or fault...

Balance of nature; A term for an ideal condition in which the interrelationships of organisms to one another and their environment appear harmonious.

Biological equilibrium; The state of natural control, self-regulation of the numbers of plants and animals in a community, brought about by interactions within and between plants and animals and the effects of environment such as weather.

Homeostasis; a relatively stable state of equilibrium or a tendency toward such a state between the different but interdependent elements or groups of elements of an organism, population, or group.


My questions are:-

1. Why 'Antonyms of 'SIN' is not available in dictonaries of 'english' language?(I tried best, if there pls tell me.)

2. What is actual meaning of 'SIN'? Is is doing somethig bad or Is it doing anything imbalanced in view of Balance of nature, Biological equilibrium/Homeostasis as defined above?

In view of 'doing something bad', only bad deeds can be under the perview of 'SIN', but in view of 'doing something imbalanced, all imbalanced (excess or low of good or bad) deeds can come under its perview. Can you comment accordingly.

Best Wishes.

 

[Wudang]

Sin is strictly speaking an offense against religious law/rules. Other uses of "sin" are by extension from this by people who e.g. confuse religion with morals. It has nothing to do with "balance of nature" - nothing at all.

 

[Z]

A sin is a transgression against a particular religious or moral code, IF that religion or morality set defines it as a 'sin'.

Atheists, for example, cannot by definition sin. Catholics sin almost constantly, in thought, word, and deed, but can be forgiven from week to week.

If your religion or moral code specifically sets the balance of nature as a benchmark of sin, then and only then can you commit sin; otherwise, the two are unrelated. For example, some modern 'Druidic' cults see excesses of good or bad as a 'sin', since they specifically require the 'middle ground' in their religion.

As far as I know, there is no antonym for 'sin'.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, but all these can be just religious or social considerations. Some religons or societies might had indicated some aspects as sin or illegal in view of need of that comunity, region or need of time. But what about in actual or natural sense? Is it a sin, when we cut the trees, forests, pursue imbalances, pollute environment...mean do anything which causes natural imbalances?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Is it a sin, when we cut the trees, forests, pursue imbalances, pollute environment...mean do anything which causes natural imbalances?

If you think causing 'natural imbalances' is sinful, then, within your personal moral framework, it is.

 

[Kumar]

Is it not right that there can be several type of SINS eg; moral, personal, family, community, civil/social, religious, natural etc.? I think whatever can harm you & your health can be 'common'. If a peson can get diabetes or hypertention by taking more of sugar or salt in excess than it may be a SIN to consume excess sugar or salt for him. Accumulation of these in system can somewhat be alike accumulation of SINS. Whereas, it may not be a SIN for other person who is in normal health. On the contrary consumption of these can somewhat be opposite of SIN.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Is it not right that there can be several type of SINS eg; moral, personal, family, community, civil/social, religious, natural etc.? I think whatever can harm you & your health can be 'common'. If a peson can get diabetes or hypertention by taking more of sugar or salt in excess than it may be a SIN to consume excess sugar or salt for him. Accumulation of these in system can somewhat be alike accumulation of SINS. Whereas, it may not be a SIN for other person who is in normal health. On the contrary consumption of these can somewhat be opposite of SIN.

It's only a SIN to eat excess sugar if your religion says so. It's not a SIN to eat excess sugar if you are diabetic. It's just stupid.

 

[Z]

Sin is only defined in a moral/religious context. Study English before you come here with arguments about what terms mean.

 

[Z]

Is it not right that there can be several type of SINS eg; moral, personal, family, community, civil/social, religious, natural etc.?

No, it is not right. There are only moral and religious sins.

Personal 'sins' exist if the person has a moral or religious code which is not shared by others.

Family and community 'sins', again, exist only if a moral or religious code is applied to the entire family or community.

Civil/social 'sins' are called Crimes.

Natural 'sins' do not exist. Ever. There is no such thing as a 'natural sin'. Even if Mankind cuts down every last tree on Earth, this would not be a sin - man is a natural part of its environment, and as such, even an act of total deforestation is a natural act. True, it would be morally wrong in many instances, and would be disastrous for the planet, but it would not, as such, be unnatural or sinful from a nature point of view.

 

[Kumar]

What can be the expectation of So reffered as "GOD" from us? HE creates, tries, likes to maintain 'balance in nature'. So this can be his best liking. If we go against it, will it not be transgressing of the law of God or estranged from God or to commit an offense or fault? Any step towards balancing the nature may mean'doing HIS' work--so pleasing HIM--so doing 'opposite of sin' & doing other than this may mean 'going against HIM or adding to HIS work or displeasing HIM--so doing the SIN. Is it not real meaning? As for as personal/individual POV, creating state of any imbalance in body can mean 'doing a personal SIN. So we cn think on lne of 'blance & imbalance' not 'doing something bad'. Excess of anything is said to be as bad--whether it is excess of bad or good.

 

[Z]

What can be the expectation of So reffered as "GOD" from us? HE creates, tries, likes to maintain 'balance in nature'. So this can be his best liking. If we go against it, will it not be transgressing of the law of God or estranged from God or to commit an offense or fault? Any step towards balancing the nature may mean'doing HIS' work--so pleasing HIM--so doing 'opposite of sin' & doing other than this may mean 'going against HIM or adding to HIS work or displeasing HIM--so doing the SIN. Is it not real meaning? As for as personal/individual POV, creating state of any imbalance in body can mean 'doing a personal SIN. So we cn think on lne of 'blance & imbalance' not 'doing something bad'. Excess of anything is said to be as bad--whether it is excess of bad or good.

um... what?

Kumar - learn to speak English. This entire post is largely incoherent.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say - that God's will is the balance of nature? Do you have proof that God exists yet?

 

[Kumar]

Yes, weakness of languge, technicalities(not meanings) are there but meaning & indications to inteligent one can be more important. Moreover, 'thoughts with some differances' can be bit irritating--but creative.

When concept of 'GOD' is in mass existance in well distributed people since long with benificial effects--it ought to be there--may be in differant language & form in deviation to gossly indicated language & form. Something can be 'Prime God', 'God', 'GOD type', 'Alike God'...etc. Just try to search first, anything which has 'Omni--present, scient & potent qualities/properties. It should be abc/basic of true understandings.

 

[H'ethetheth]

What can be the expectation of So reffered as "GOD" from us? HE creates, tries, likes to maintain 'balance in nature'. So this can be his best liking. If we go against it, will it not be transgressing of the law of God or estranged from God or to commit an offense or fault? Any step towards balancing the nature may mean'doing HIS' work--so pleasing HIM--so doing 'opposite of sin' & doing other than this may mean 'going against HIM or adding to HIS work or displeasing HIM--so doing the SIN. Is it not real meaning? As for as personal/individual POV, creating state of any imbalance in body can mean 'doing a personal SIN. So we cn think on lne of 'blance & imbalance' not 'doing something bad'. Excess of anything is said to be as bad--whether it is excess of bad or good.

If your religion dictates that hugging trees is good and chopping them down is bad, then it is a sin to chop one down.
If your religion says that creating a "state of unbalance" is bad then it is a sin to do it.

Are you getting the picture?

When concept of 'GOD' is in mass existance in well distributed people since long with benificial effects--it ought to be there--may be in differant language & form in deviation to gossly indicated language & form. Something can be 'Prime God', 'God', 'GOD type', 'Alike God'...etc. Just try to search first, anything which has 'Omni--present, scient & potent qualities/properties. It should be abc/basic of true understandings.

Yes, many people think there is a God. However, this does not mean it is true, or beneficial (e.g. crusades, inquisition, jihad, missionaries, boring sermons etc.).

This is called wishful thinking.

 

[to.by]

A sin is a transgression against a particular religious or moral code, IF that religion or morality set defines it as a 'sin'.

Atheists, for example, cannot by definition sin.

You are saying that atheists cannot transgress against a moral code. I am sorry, but they can. A moral code may not necessarily be a relifgious one.

 

[Darat]

You are saying that atheists cannot transgress against a moral code. I am sorry, but they can. A moral code may not necessarily be a relifgious one.

But the transgression cannot be called a "sin" without (in effect) redefining the word sin to such an extent it has no religious meaning.

 

[Z]

You are saying that atheists cannot transgress against a moral code. I am sorry, but they can. A moral code may not necessarily be a relifgious one.

Conceded.

 

[Z]

But the transgression cannot be called a "sin" without (in effect) redefining the word sin to such an extent it has no religious meaning.

No, because I did define it as 'a trangression against a religious or moral code.

A knight who slaps a wench can be said to have sinned.

Yes, this imparts religious undertones to the morality of chivalry... but most moral codes are like this. Many are founded upon religion, while others replace religion entirely.

 

[Kumar]

What for moral, social or religious codes are made? Are these to give benefits to its members or to itself?

Anyway, codes & conducts made/suggested by any authority can be related to give the benefits to individual/s at his/their physical, mental & spritual levels keeping hormony among its members. But its basis can be primarily related to give the benefits to individual/s at his/their physical, mental & spritual levels. It can be called as SIN, if one goes against those code of conducts provided these do not harm any individual on his physical, mental & spritual levels. It can also be of prime importance to maintain 'GOD or Nature' in their balanced form to get all those benefits by any individual.

 

[Darat]

No, because I did define it as 'a trangression against a religious or moral code.

A knight who slaps a wench can be said to have sinned.

Yes, this imparts religious undertones to the morality of chivalry... but most moral codes are like this. Many are founded upon religion, while others replace religion entirely.

Sorry for being a bit of a nit-picker (well I'm not really else I wouldn't have posted ) but your example is a bad one since most Knights as we would understand them were Christian Knights. Therefore they were obligated to uphold a religious morality so a Knight would be committing a "sin" if hitting the wench was against the Christian code in place at the time, and if it wasn’t then his act wouldn’t be a "sin" just bad behaviour (however given the time knights and wenches co-existed I suspect hitting a wench wasn’t considered bad behaviour).

 

[Kumar]

If your religion dictates that hugging trees is good and chopping them down is bad, then it is a sin to chop one down.
If your religion says that creating a "state of unbalance" is bad then it is a sin to do it.
Are you getting the picture?

Just forget about everything, just find out what is good & what is bad for you?

Yes, many people think there is a God. However, this does not mean it is true, or beneficial (e.g. crusades, inquisition, jihad, missionaries, boring sermons etc.).

This is called wishful thinking.

Just try to translated the languages. It may be said in 'Latin' but we may be reading in 'English'.