PDA

View Full Version : goodness at its worst state



len
11-03-2010, 12:35
what is the best defination for sin?
Is there anything like sin?

I would say goodness at its worst state or
purity degraded.

rusmeister
11-03-2010, 13:45
what is the best defination for sin?
Is there anything like sin?

I would say goodness at its worst state or
purity degraded.
I'd like to give a better and more Orthodox answer later, but for now (having less than 30 seconds), I'll say that it is mutilation of self and possibly others; ultimately self-destructive behavior - whether the effects are perceived or not.

len
11-03-2010, 16:04
I'd like to give a better and more Orthodox answer later, but for now (having less than 30 seconds), I'll say that it is mutilation of self and possibly others; ultimately self-destructive behavior - whether the effects are perceived or not.

A big WOW

Jean08
12-03-2010, 00:35
If U read the Bible...... U shud probably know the answer....
If U dont know whats sin still !! Then i advice U read it again :)

rusmeister
13-03-2010, 11:06
QUESTION:

I have been having a discussion concerning what should be a basic question; however the answer eludes us. One position, following the Wesleyan tradition, says that sin is a "willful transgression of the known will of God", while another is more Calvinistic position is a "deviation from a standard of perfection."

What is the Orthodox definition of sin?


ANSWER:

In Greek -- the language in which the New Testament was written -- the word for "sin" is "amartia," which literally means "to miss the mark." For Christians, the "mark" for which we strive is to live in communion with God, basing our lives and actions on the life and actions of Jesus Christ; hence, when we "miss this mark" we sin.

The Church Fathers further acknowledge that sin is a personal power or force that has usurped the government of the world as created by God and has tainted creation after the Fall of Adam. Jesus Christ took on our nature and entered into the world in order to deliver mankind, through His death and resurrection, from this force and its consequences, the chief of which is death.

Orthodox Christians believe that sin may be voluntary or involuntary and conscious or unconscious and that sin is always personal in nature, leaving each person to account for what he or she has done or left undone.

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=148&SID=3

is4fun
16-03-2010, 19:03
orthodoxy, catholicism, buhdism, muslimism, jim jonesism, asama binladinism bla bla bla… This Forum should be deleted as I asked before! Moderators, please delete this forum from EX-p.ru!

Korotky Gennady
21-03-2010, 15:20
what is the best defination for sin?
Is there anything like sin?

.
For me this defination is to be a religious man. In Russia it's to be an orthodox.

Korotky Gennady
21-03-2010, 15:29
QUESTION:

I have been having a discussion concerning what should be a basic question; however the answer eludes us. One position, following the Wesleyan tradition, says that sin is a "willful transgression of the known will of God", while another is more Calvinistic position is a "deviation from a standard of perfection."
l]But nobody knows his will... And it's not the fact that his (her) will is useful and good for you. So to follow this imaginable will could be a big misery for you.

So it would be better for you to follow your own will... not his (her) will becoz you know much better what things you want and what you need.


I hope that my explanation is clear.

rusmeister
22-03-2010, 07:22
But nobody knows his will... And it's not the fact that his (her) will is useful and good for you. So to follow this imaginable will could be a big misery for you.

So it would be better for you to follow your own will... not his (her) will becoz you know much better what things you want and what you need.


I hope that my explanation is clear.

Quite clear, thank you.

On whose authority do you define sin? If on your own authority, why should others accept your definition? What makes you an authority?

The traditional definition of sin has never relied on the individual as authority. It's a purely modern idea, one aimed at rejecting all authority (the self desires to be self's own God).

Korotky Gennady
22-03-2010, 18:56
Quite clear, thank you.

On whose authority do you define sin? If on your own authority, why should others accept your definition? What makes you an authority?

The traditional definition of sin has never relied on the individual as authority. It's a purely modern idea, one aimed at rejecting all authority (the self desires to be self's own God).


Yeah... you are right. The traditional definition of sin is a false one. It's false becoz if nobody knows The Will of GOD, then nobody knows what is sin and what are actions which god wants from you.

I can only repeat my thesis... nobody knows what sin is...

What makes me the authority ? It's a strange question... I don't need any authority in order to decide what I can do and what I can't do... It's my inborn right to decide it by myself.

If I want to do something, I have right to want it and I have the right to do it if it's not to condradict to juridical legislation.



And that doesn't mean that one is self's own god if he (she) does what he (she) wants.

He (she) isn't obliged to do only that what the imaginable god wants from him (her).


So there is no sin and there is no duty to do what god wants... Anyway i have no duties before god or gods.

God have no duties before me and I have no duties before god (or any godness).

rusmeister
22-03-2010, 19:08
Yeah... you are right. The traditional definition of sin is a false one. It's false becoz if nobody knows The Will of GOD, then nobody knows what is sin and what are actions which god wants from you.

I can only repeat my thesis... nobody knows what sin is...

What makes me an authority ? It's a strange question... I don't need any authority in order to decide what I can do and what I can't do... It's my inborn right to decide it by myself.

If I want to do something, I have right to want it and I have the right to do it if it's not to condradict to juridical legislation.



And that doesn't mean that one is self's own god if he (she) does what he (she) wants.

He (she) isn't obliged to do only that what the imaginable god wants from him (her).


So there is no sin and there is no duty to do what god wants... Anyway i have no duties before god or gods.

God have no duties before me and I have no duties before god (or any godness).

Your thesis is strange - it's like claiming "Nobody knows what quantum physics is" -which flies in the face of groups of highly educated people that do claim to know what it is. You can ignore the existence of those people and their arguments - but that's just ignorance.

I'm left with no reason to accept your definition because it is said on the authority of Gennady. I, at least, can claim external authority, and that I am not an authority in my own right; that the Church has said, much better than you or I could, what sin is. And the Church is right.

As to your desires and "right" to enact them:
"
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." - A Short History of England, Ch.10

Korotky Gennady
22-03-2010, 19:41
Your thesis is strange - it's like claiming "Nobody knows what quantum physics is" -which flies in the face of groups of highly educated people that do claim to know what it is. You can ignore the existence of those people and their arguments - but that's just ignorance.



10
Of course It is not so. It's not so becoz your example with "quantum physics" isn't good one. By the way up to now I dream to start to study Quantum Physics myself.

There are people who knows quantum mechanics very well... There are not many... but a few people do it even now.

My thesis that there are no peole who can't know The Will of God becoz it's impossible to know it. How can one know it ?


For sure you have no answer becoz it's impossible for anyone to know it.

Korotky Gennady
22-03-2010, 19:49
I'm left with no reason to accept your definition because it is said on the authority of Gennady. I, at least, can claim external authority, and that I am not an authority in my own right; that the Church has said, much better than you or I could, what sin is. And the Church is right.

As to your desires and "right" to enact them:
"" - A Short History of England, Ch.10


Hmm... seems you didn't understand me. If nobody can know the WILL OF GOD then the Church is the last who can know it. How can the priests do know it ? Of course they can't...


Your orthodox priests claim that they are serves of god but really how can they prove it ? And how can they prove that they know the Will of God. Of course they don't and didn't...

And how can you prove that Russian Orthodox Church is right ? Maybe you think that if you have fat beard and you wear the black garb, you hang up a heave golden cross on your neck then you know the will of god... but it doesn't prove that you know it.

Korotky Gennady
22-03-2010, 20:12
I'm left with no reason to accept your definition because it is said on the authority of Gennady.
of course I speak on my own authority becoz I don't claim as The Church does... that I speak from supreme authority of god.

rusmeister
23-03-2010, 06:50
Of course It is not so. It's not so becoz your example with "quantum physics" isn't good one. By the way up to now I dream to start to study Quantum Physics myself.

There are people who knows quantum mechanics very well... There are not many... but a few people do it even now.

My thesis that there are no peole who can't know The Will of God becoz it's impossible to know it. How can one know it ?


For sure you have no answer becoz it's impossible for anyone to know it.

If you mean "It is impossible for anyone to know it by their own abilities (and limitations)", then we agree.

But there is one clear way around that problem - if the Creator steps in from outside and reveals something about Himself via revelation, then something can be known. Furthermore, if He establishes a divine Institution that He knows will be filled with and run by imperfect and limited human beings, yet remain divine, then that Institution could pass on the revelation.

If you say that such a thing is impossible, that only means that "On the basis of your limited knowledge it does not appear to be possible." If it turns out that there is something that you don't know (which appears to be implicit in your thesis) then that could make it possible. It's the same question as to whether miracles are possible, "miracle" being understood as "external intervention into the natural order of things".

PS: Don't use the mispelled form "becoz". Stick with the standard and educated form "because". Your arguments are not helped by poor or substandard spelling. (Recognizing that you are an educated Russian with fairly good English and are not afraid to use it :)

rusmeister
23-03-2010, 06:56
of course I speak on my own authority becoz I don't claim as The Church does... that I speak from supreme authority of god.
Precisely.
Saying "I believe thus-and-so because Gennady says so" is not convincing for others. You have an audience of one for that. By comparison, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have audiences of hundreds of millions of people who recognize them as authority.

As an individual all you can do is appeal to reason, and if you would convince others, you must first convince them that their own arguments are weaker than yours.

Korotky Gennady
24-03-2010, 20:59
If you mean "It is impossible for anyone to know it by their own abilities (and limitations)", then we agree.

But there is one clear way around that problem - if the Creator steps in from outside and reveals something about Himself via revelation, then something can be known. Furthermore, if He establishes a divine Institution that He knows will be filled with and run by imperfect and limited human beings, yet remain divine, then that Institution could pass on the revelation.


:)

Dear rusmeister of course it's impossible. And it was me who told it to you the first...

But you can't get away from this problem with "creator steps in" becourse you have no proofs that it was the actual revelation of god.

You don't know... was it revelation or not ?... but of course you want it to be revelation... but it is your wish... it isn't scientific fact..


now back to the problem of sin..


So it can be that that... what you imagine... to be a divine Institution... is in fact only the people who pretend that they know the Will of Creator... But I can only reapet ше that in fact they don't know The HIs Supreme Will becourse it's impossible to know it as we found out it together.

Korotky Gennady
24-03-2010, 21:15
Precisely.
Saying "I believe thus-and-so because Gennady says so" is not convincing for others. You have an audience of one for that. By comparison, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have audiences of hundreds of millions of people who recognize them as authority.

As an individual all you can do is appeal to reason, and if you would convince others, you must first convince them that their own arguments are weaker than yours.

Even if thier arguments are weaker than mine are... It can't convience them becourse they want to be the ones who they are now.


And the size of audience can't be the proof of rightness and correctness of their teaching. You know the cleaver men are so not many... But a lot of stupid people live and enjoy their life around us... God bless them.


We, clever men, are very rare species.

Korotky Gennady
24-03-2010, 21:26
PS: Don't use the mispelled form "becoz". Stick with the standard and educated form "because". Your arguments are not helped by poor or substandard spelling. (Recognizing that you are an educated Russian with fairly good English and are not afraid to use it :)

Sorry, I mispell "becoz" instead of "because" because I didn't know how to spell this hellish difficult word correctly.

Korotky Gennady
24-03-2010, 21:32
It's the same question as to whether miracles are possible, "miracle" being understood as "external intervention into the natural order of things".


it :)


Of course they could be understood in this way... but only if you (or they) can prove that they are the real intervention.

But you can't prove it.

They can be anything else than to be what you want them to be.

MickeyTong
25-03-2010, 02:57
....whether miracles are possible, "miracle" being understood as "external intervention into the natural order of things".

I have to acknowledge that, in the context of the known Universe, "life" appears to be very much outside the "natural order of things": as far as we know living organisms exist only on the minuscule speck which is the Earth, a very "unnatural" phenomenon.....

robertmf
25-03-2010, 03:26
I have to acknowledge that, in the context of the known Universe, "life" appears to be very much outside the "natural order of things": as far as we know living organisms exist only on the minuscule speck which is the Earth, a very "unnatural" phenomenon.....

"life" decreases entropy; which is not the natural order of things ... :beerbros:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_and_life

MickeyTong
25-03-2010, 04:40
"life" decreases entropy; which is not the natural order of things ... :beerbros:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_and_life





Thanks Robert......for a moment I almost "got religion", until I read this:

H(X) = -\sum_{i=1}^n {p(x_i) \log_b p(x_i)}

Now it all makes sense....................................

rusmeister
25-03-2010, 07:06
for a moment I almost "got religion"

If by "get" religion, you mean "understand", then at least you're close! :)

MickeyTong
25-03-2010, 15:52
YouTube- Rory Gallagher - I Could've Had Religion

Benedikt
25-03-2010, 16:22
what is the best defination for sin?
Is there anything like sin?

I would say goodness at its worst state or
purity degraded.

just lost a kgr or two:mml: after 6 monthe of heavy workout :rant:and heading straight to McD for a double big mac,2 portions wedge potatoes and 4 packs mayo, tripe floppy with all the works, 1/2 lrt coke and a big coffee with milk and 5 sugars.:tongue:
THIS IS SIN AND SINNING.....:tongue:

robertmf
27-03-2010, 22:24
Thanks Robert......for a moment I almost "got religion", until I read this:

H(X) = -\sum_{i=1}^n {p(x_i) \log_b p(x_i)}

Now it all makes sense....................................

:10475: Can you also do tensors :question:--**smirch**

The eq. is simply a statistical fluctuation in the quantum vacuum :eek:

MickeyTong
28-03-2010, 12:46
[color="darkred"]
:10475: Can you also do tensors :question:--**smirch**


No, I've never even heard of them - I was being facetious.








Isn't everything a statistical fluctuation of the quantum vacuum?

robertmf
28-03-2010, 21:33
No, I've never even heard of them - I was being facetious.

Isn't everything a statistical fluctuation of the quantum vacuum?

Yes, VSE !! :10189: Tensors and statistical fluctuations will keep Russmeister and you out of trouble for a very long time :)

MickeyTong
01-04-2010, 13:52
Yes, VSE !! :10189: Tensors and statistical fluctuations will keep Russmeister and you out of trouble for a very long time :)


I've never tried them, but I find that doing a couple of quadratic equations has a calming effect on me. Mind you, vectors just piss me off.............