It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The nature of SIN

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:09 PM
This thread is not intended to spark a religious debate of whether or not the Bible or the Christian God is in fact real. It is merely to discuss the underlying philosophy of the first stories of genesis by me and other who wish to participate in the discussion.

It was mentioned in another tread that the definition of sin the inability to full fill a certain purpose. We know from the Bible that God despises sin.

So I've been thinking...

It is said that God has a plan/purpose for all of us from the start. Adam and eve committed the first sin by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We know now that knowledge itself creates good and evil through perception because knowledge operates on the basis of relativity between duality. Lucifer is known as the light bringer and I personally find that perhaps he is so named for a reason. It is true that light illuminates and makes things clear, but from the perspective of duality, it also separates and divides and dazzles and deceives. So when things are clear, what is it that we are truly seeing? We see a lot of things that we like and a lot of things we don't like. Being the humans that we are, we want to avoid anything that causes dis-comfort and indulge in things that bring us pleasure and thus we engage in the hoarding of happiness while passing on pain and suffering out into the world. The pursuit of happiness then creates its inverse by polarizing our experience in this world. What's worse is that it became a self perpetuating system that bring out more evil in the world the more we strive for what we perceive as good. So began the down ward spiral of self feeding doom created as we continually feel the need to get away from it. We feed the evil by actions we commit in fear and the more we fear evil the more evil we commit in the name of good.

Thus this is were we currently stand:


If humans had not taken in the knowledge of good and evil, we would simply exist. This existence would be in the same realm as God himself. However, the knowledge of life in a world of dualism mandates the existence of death. What was once unified and part a whole was shattered by knowledge and light and the gears of what was intended to be part of a unified body became purposeless. Everyone suddenly became individuals even though being apart from the whole makes one afraid. It is said in the first verse of the Bible that God said in the beginning, "Let there be light.". What this implies is that before there was light, God was just fine being in the darkness. We know darkness as being terrifying but why is that exactly? Darkness is terrifying because it implies infinite possibility and when confronted with possibility on that scale, our minds just shut down as all our fears are reflected back at us. What what is darkness exactly? It is something that is a whole, anything that goes into it becomes a part of it. It is not prejudiced, it is fair, it cleanses, and within it all is possible. Doesn't that sound more like what God is than when associated with light? Then why is it that we associate everything that is good with light and everything bad with darkness? Why is it that the duality which creates purposeless and sin and therefore death is advocated so intensely by the Church?

Just some ramblings derived from my train of thought...
edit on 6-12-2011 by kynaccrue because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2011 by kynaccrue because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2011 by kynaccrue because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:15 PM
Simple definition of sin.
Is it fun?
If yes...then it's a sin.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by kynaccrue

This is the first verse of Tao Te Ching:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

I think you said something similar.

edit on 6-12-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by Itisnowagain

Ah yes I remember that...

Good old Tao Te Jing never fails.

But why do you think we are so obsessed with light and the illumination of all there is; It is in all of our literature and even the Bible. Is there some sort of conspiracy to flip the truth upside down? As in all this time people have been worshiping God as the light when they may be actually worshiping the devil?

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by kynaccrue

I can see where this could become a lengthy and involved thread. May I start at the top?

It was mentioned in another tread that the definition of sin the inability to full fill a certain purpose.

What kind of inability? I can't dunk a basketball, or eat extra long and fat worms with fangs. Is it inability? Lack of desire? Something else?

And what kind of purpose? God's purpose? The purpose you set for yourself? Lucifer's?

And what if you only get part way to fulfilment?

I'm pretty slow and would appreciate your attempts at clearing this up for me.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by kynaccrue

I think it is because humans are generally caught in desire and they only see the manifestations. We see a rainbow and want it. We don't see what is seeing the rainbow. So in a way we see the light but not the seer of the light, the knower.
Also from another angle illumination means to see the truth, when something becomes obvious a light comes on.
It is clear.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by charles1952

I suppose the inability would be something that is possible for you to accomplish but was chosen not to due to various shortcomings in terms of decision making. Something akin to knowing that doing something is necessary but abstaining from acting because of laziness, fear, prejudice, etc...

As for whose purpose it is... well lets just say for the sake of argument that it is God's purpose; and by God's purpose I mean the purpose of returning to the whole.

Personally I don't believe any individual can achieve the purpose by him/herself. The only possible way to fail would then be akin to something like giving up half way, being distracted from the original goal, and/or deciding to go in the opposite direction. (I don't want to speak in terms of good or evil or right or wrong but it is difficult to do so as a human being.)

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:45 PM
the concept of sin in truth is from what freedom is positive from getting smthg or superior from dealing with others, then it is an opposition to truth conception of free move

in truth free move is positive from being itself objective source alone freedom
and is superior from considering existing all objective while staying out of it free
so relative free move are normally done by truth as superior rights or positive rights or true freedom rights

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by Itisnowagain

But as you said before that the truth is in darkness because that is where the mystery and manifestations come from, a place where we can reflect upon ourselves.

Or do you mean that there are two kinds of light? The kind we see with our eyes and the kind that we find within? The light within the darkness, the dim glimmer that illuminates and blends into the darkness but does not divide? or something along that line...

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by kynaccrue

Dear kynaccrue,

Thank you for your kind explanation. While everything is not clear, it is clearer. I'll need some "mull it over" time.

With respect,

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by kynaccrue

as if light is another source, or that it needs a certain seting to b, light mean smthg existence from what doesnt know it perspective, it is just a perception that objectively smthg is working better

the key of light is principally about right consideration to what is objectively free as being superior

in the conception of what is left from considering right objectively objective superiority, being light, it surely knows a lot while dealing right with superiority so having no obligation at all since superiroity is in his field existing, so it is free light, knowing moving without having to

it is a crucial rule i think to always recognize what is objectively superior objectively, it is the secret of freedom right in pointing that relative can b superior to absolute, so u should b given to be free absolutely while u r already acting free in right conception of, from meaning objective superior in positive terms, as if u r not of objective realisation while able to b objective

to explain it more of the hard way i will say this,

in truth first is object
then objective
then freedom

but we got that of truth so it is not us, while if u act in sort of meaning that truth in our objective perspective is more then us since before us, then we will do a realization that would look like going back

the free mean being inferior to
realize an object to mean being itself relativity

then he will get another free sense of being right

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:15 PM
an absolute existing right but as a relative one right being free out of truth freedom

while an absolute one do not exist, bc absolutes are to things that when they become absolute thing then the freedom is what is out not the thing, thing freedom is not the thing

that is how truth is all while noone ever

but absolute right free beings can exist as relative ones rights existence

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:18 PM
Sin I think you have to look at how it started, God said do not eat from the tree of knowledge but you were able to eat from the tree of life. So we observe God is talking about 2 trees in the center of the garden. One you my eat, one if you do you will surely die and you will sin. Just a thought to contemplate there are 2 trees and 2 humans one tree named Life the other Knowledge that has a serpent, that is talking about the tree of knowledge, that if you eat from it you eyes will be opened I conjecture that Adam and Eve are represented in the 2 trees, the tree of knowledge that has a serpent a sign of the masculine and Eve being represented as the tree of life a sign of feminine.Then I read that Eve is contemplating eating of the fruit of the tree. I ask you to consider that this is a metaphor of Eve understanding Adams sexuality.If God made this female Eve To be Adams help Mate I would think he would have some strong desire for her and the serpent would be upright not on its belly.
So Eve understands that this is both spiritual and physical because she can feel it spiritually and see it physically.So now she has information see can use for good or evil she acts upon this want to control Adam. I conjecture that started her intellect and metaphorically ate from Adams tree, then Adam also eats from his tree by becoming angry over wanting and being controlled which started his intellect.
So now they are not in bliss.And they know they have sinned feeling separated from God. I don't believe the act of sex is sin but getting there other than love is.
Just food for thought

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by kynaccrue

Enjoyed your post.
"If humans had not taken in the knowledge of good and evil, we would simply exist"
Beyond duality there is a place where good and evil are just words. A place where you can Just Be - nothing more nothing less - as nothing is really "real". It's all about attachments to words that we think are real but yet they are just words. Good and evil exist only as words of judgment. Nothing is actually good or evil - they just ARE until a label/attachment/opinion are added to them. And those labels/attachments/opinions are added based on our perception/interpretation/experiences of them. Light and Dark exist - just because one doesn't accept it doesn't change that.

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by kynaccrue

the point for me is the following, in the dark light becomes a necesity. We are unable to function properly without it, but the moment we let go of dark and light, our needs are reduced. I call it clear seing.

Right and wrong, pleasure and pain, exist in mind only. They are not your concern. You neither do nor enjoy. You are free." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

enjoy the view
edit on 7-12-2011 by ancientthunder because: link not working

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:32 AM
Sin is to Religious Laws
Crime is to Secular Laws

And Morality, overlaps both of them, but is clearly different. There can be bad or immoral laws from either Gov't or Religion.

When you take the massive leap of faith of following a religion, you also take on faith that the religious laws(even the nutty ones) are for the better. And even if they visibly aren't, they're what you're deity wants.

The bible has many horrid laws and things to make sins out of. Commonly, that's excused by saying Jesus got rid of the old laws. However, it's hard to discuss biblical sin, when different people pick and choose different old laws to consider still relevant and dismiss others. There isn't really any verdict on what, biblically, is considered a sin anymore.

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:22 AM
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

sin is not religious when it is a word so a concept of existing end

religious is to god or gods powerful life that conscious witness out of their objective perspectives and spiritual forces on everything conditions existence that has clearly nothing in common with words,

that is how scripture were written by humans always, never any god spoke to masses in words

words are all to objective truth realities since words are powerless and always meaning something or one thing alone

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:33 AM
""Sin" as it became understood in the post-patristic West1, is a poor translation of the Hebrew and Greek concepts it is supposed to represent. Consequently, it expresses inadequately the Scriptural idea it is used to render."

"The term in Greek and Hebrew means "to fall short of the goal, miss the mark, fall short of one's destiny." This term is rendered in Latin as "sons," "sontis," which means "guilt; guilty," and has a forensic significance. We can see already that there is an important difference here. The terms used in Holy Scripture ('amartia, etc.) refer to something far greater than the Latin term used to translate them. "

""Sin" does not refer simply to a "violation of the law" which is "punished by God's justice." This is not to suggest, however, that there is no guilt in sin"

"God does not punish man for his sins and sinfulness in this life, or even in the life to come. We forge our own destiny. That which we call "hell" is our own creation. We may experience it already in this life and, by our own choices, experience the fulness of it in the age to come."

This View on Sin explains how we create our own concept on the actual meaning of the word.

Please read more at this link:

for the OP great discussion

top topics


log in