Benevolence and Sin

Sum1sgruj

Banned
Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
774
Age
36
Location
Virginia, USA
Gil
0
So I told myself I would not make a thread on the pretenses of theological discussion. I found that to be a big mistake.
Sooo.. I'm doing a literal discussion on the concept of **benevolence and sin** and how their interactions affect the world as we know it.

I also want to point out that this is a general topic, so swaying away from it would be pretty hard to do unless you aim to desecrate it by attacking others with bias thought. This will, in turn, create a deterrent from this broad topic and make an undesirable thread.
In other words, don't get this thread closed, as we are too intelligent to be bashing ourselves and working up the moderators.


Anyways, it has been told in every book of God that no sin is greater than another.
The atheist translation: Chaos Theory
Burning a book, knowing that it will upset a religion, is just as much a sin as any. This is a monumental aspect of any believer in God, yet it goes conveniently ignored.
Why? It is extremely important to stay cautious of this, as it is easily the most consequential thing taught in the holy text.
BUT, this is just how I see it, religiously and mathematically.

And also, this is just a starter :D.
 
Last edited:
James 2:10 states "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

So you're pretty close on your description there.

What I'd like to know is where you got that it was a sin to burn a book of another religion? As far as I can see, it is not a sin.

It is not a good idea, however.

In Romans 12: 18, Paul says "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." How can burning a Koran help you be at peace with all men? It can't.

Also, in 1 Peter 3: 14-16, it states
But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed and do not fear their intimidation, and not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
Notice where I've bolded the text. How can you, in good conscience, defend burning the Koran? How can you say that you treated this particular issue with gentleness and reverence? You can't.

So, while it isn't exactly a sin, it's definitely not a good idea and will lead you no closer to God. Christians aren't called to not be offensive, because, often, the Word is very offensive to nonbelievers, but Christians are certainly not called to pick fights.
 
Last edited:
James 2:10 states "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

So you're pretty close on your description there.

What I'd like to know is where you got that it was a sin to burn a book of another religion? As far as I can see, it is not a sin.

As far as I can see, though, burning a book makes you guilty of what that text says.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself". Burning the Quran goes against this.

There can, however, be theological debate as to whether burning a holy text constitutes as violating this verse, but it seems pretty clear to me, especially seeing how burning Qurans is a blatant sign of hate.

It can all be traced to Lucifer. The original sin is vanity, where all other sin is derived. Lucifer committed this, and was cast from Heaven. God saw this in him and favored Jesus instead. This what caused the fall of Lucifer.
When Jesus came to Earth in the form of man, he was to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind. He was persecuted and sentenced to death. The Jews did not realize that they had effectively made a sacrifice to God, and this is how Jesus became the saviour and prince of Heaven. God sent His son to die,, but He did not sacrifice his son. This is a general misconception that mars the idea of sacrifice. This is also why 'simple' and 'harmless' things such as blasphemy was punishable by death before Jesus. It was God's law..
Before all this happened, however, Lucifer was trying to sway Jesus into vanity so he wouldn't become sacrificed- the one, single sin that became the crux of all the pitfalls of man to begin with.

With such an incredible and fascinating story such as that, I would think that more people, religious or not, would be more cautious of what little things can amount to being.

Here's a good way to exemplify it: The beast from the sea.
The anti-Christ, according to the book of Revelations, will gain power and turn the world inside out. To do so, he would have manipulated the minds of many and essentially make mankind destroy themselves.
But here's the kicker- was it the anti-Christ that destroyed man, or was it man themselves?
This is why I feel that burning holy books brings true meaning to the idea of 'playing with fire'//
 
Last edited:
The problem as I see it, is that all of sin is fictional. No act is inherently wrong or right, religions simply assign the label of sin to actions in order to discourage them. The vast majority of rules in the Bible contained in the old testament relate more directly to discouraging certain actions than some genuine value of sin. The ten commandments are an excellent example. Killing others is discouraged. Instead of explaining to people the ramifications of such an action, it was easier to say that some all powerful being said it was bad.

Other sins are completely pointless. Once again, we can reference the ten commandments. The first one specifically forbids putting any other gods before YHWH. This doesn't benefit anyone in any place in any way (except the religion itself, of course). A lot of the rules strewn throughout are the same arbitrary trash. How to wear your hair, acceptable clothing (though it is worth mentioning that, in context, the rules regarding food make a bit of sense, so I'll let them off the hook on those ones - though the reasons are all outdated now). Sin is just a term stuck on anything religion wants to control.

As for burning books, I have a lot of strong feelings in that field. Personally, I think the act of destroying information is monstrous. I think that all information should be accessible to all people, in all places, at all times. Destroying information runs directly oppositional to that thought. That being said, "holy" books contain no useful information. A possible defense could be made for the Bible, and the sheer number of references to it in literature, but even that defense is flimsy at best. There are many things referenced in literature that don't even exist, and literature seems to be just fine all the same. Most "holy" books tell savage and brutal tales with morals that only serve to encourage belief in their own set of arbitrary rules. Many of them encourage violence, and even the ones that don't often inspire violence. But, most importantly of all, other copies of these books exist. You're not destroying information (the information continues to exist in the other copies, like I said, all information - even useless information - should always be accessible), but a symbol. You are making it clear just how much value you give to the ideas contained within. Burning Qurans isn't about destroying the information contained within. It's about protesting the ideas of others. I could not care less when anyone burns any "holy" book, as they are only pieces of paper bound together with ink on the pages. So long as other copies exist, books are just paper. It's what that burning paper represents that has everyone's panties in a knot. Then again, I think that setting them ablaze is wasteful. Composting them so that they can serve a useful purpose (helping plant life to grow) is a far better option. Regardless (sorry, ranted a little there), it's not even a sin. Likely because it isn't something the religion is worried about controlling - after all, why would a religion care how you act towards non-believers? As the Romans 12 quote points out: peace is encouraged, not required (unlike, say, having no other gods before YHWH).

As far as Lucifer, his personal story was imagined long after the Bible was written and edited. While I see it as a being standing up to a cruel oppressor, that's just me. My opinion of god is admittedly a little bit biased by documentation of his incredible and arbitrary disregard for life in general (according to the things he does in the Bible - after all, it's a good act to offer up your daughters to be raped to save some stranger, right? It is according to the Bible. Or how about the sheer number of creatures and people that would have died in the flood had something like that actually happened?). As far as Lucifer goes, he seems like a pretty okay guy. Willing to stand up for himself and whatnot. But he's only relevant to the concept of sin as presented by the Bible in hindsight. Like Hell, he's an afterthought.

With such an incredible and fascinating story such as that, I would think that more people, religious or not, would be more cautious of what little things can amount to being.

I can agree with this. It's important to try to gauge the consequences to actions you take. But not because of the Lucifer tale, instead because we should remember there was (and in some places in the world, still is) a time where people could be killed for disagreeing with an idea. That seems like a far more worrying tale about little things amounting to something much bigger.
 
As far as Lucifer, his personal story was imagined long after the Bible was written and edited. While I see it as a being standing up to a cruel oppressor, that's just me. My opinion of god is admittedly a little bit biased by documentation of his incredible and arbitrary disregard for life in general (according to the things he does in the Bible - after all, it's a good act to offer up your daughters to be raped to save some stranger, right? It is according to the Bible. Or how about the sheer number of creatures and people that would have died in the flood had something like that actually happened?). As far as Lucifer goes, he seems like a pretty okay guy. Willing to stand up for himself and whatnot. But he's only relevant to the concept of sin as presented by the Bible in hindsight. Like Hell, he's an afterthought.

I have an approach to God that isn't so popular either. I think many people get lost in the idea of what a god is. Though I do believe that God is merciful and loving, I also feel that He holds His merit like any conceptual god would- jealousy, anger, vengeance- these are all repeated attributes throughout the Bible.
But, as precious as life may be, the lives we are living now could arguably be only half-lives, or pre-lives. According to belief, this life is only a tiny bit of what comes after.
I feel that benevolent beings do not understand of human emotion, because pretty much, they aren't human..
Angels and demons who used to be angels, it all comes together in unison with human emotion. The idea of us being sheep in wolf country never sat well with me, however, yet we are to feel no animosity towards God, or to Lucifer for that matter.
It really makes you wonder the point of being benevolent when sin so easily erases it altogether.
But, it's also important to note that 'sin' doesn't necessarily mean 'an evil act', but simply to miss the point of, or disobey, an appropriation from God.
It could be argued that good and evil are constructs of man and not even a determinate basis beyond our physical world.
 
Last edited:
Well speaking as an athiest here I will give a couple of my thoughts on this.

Most religions say that no sin is greater than another sin, yet those same people that say that will say that if you kill someone it is worse than if you were to lets say steal a car. Both are "sin" and both are wrong, so shouldn't we judge those people the same?

But my theory is that sin is in the eye of the beholder, yes we can say some things are sin, but if you do evil for a greater good is it really a sin at that point in time?
We say that killing is wrong, but if you kill someone to protect someone is it a sin?
There are just some things I look at and just can't agree with on religions, I will judge someone different depending on the action they did and why they did it.

And as far as benevolence goes if your doing something good to make yourself look good, it should be a "sin" if your doing something good just to help out or make someone else feel better, then its really a good deed...
 
Most religions say that no sin is greater than another sin, yet those same people that say that will say that if you kill someone it is worse than if you were to lets say steal a car. Both are "sin" and both are wrong, so shouldn't we judge those people the same?

As far as any Christian, Jew, or Muslim is concerned.. technically yes.
A lot of people find this surprising, as it goes against what we define as moral. Vanity is the origin of all sin, in which there is no murder, theft, or deceit without it. Henceforth, since vanity is the mother of all sins, anything that spurs from it is equally a betrayal to God's will.
This is the crux of God's will, so to speak. We are not supposed to grip on to pride or self-love, as this is what causes any and every form of sin.

God permits us to judge each other for the purpose of holding up His law, but it cannot be done with sin. Otherwise it is quite literally not His will.
This causes a lot of debate, however, because God's will becomes very foggy with certain ideas. The death penalty, for example, is reputably fought by Catholics and yet encouraged by almost all free Christians.

Nonetheless, I feel vanity is the crux of sin, and this is why I think it only makes sense that God demand mankind to glorify only Him. This is why Lucifer is the Adversary, because he justifies vanity- just like we do every day.. I think that's the predicament that prevents mankind from balance- the only literal way to live in perfection is to live without pride.
 
I have an approach to God that isn't so popular either. I think many people get lost in the idea of what a god is. Though I do believe that God is merciful and loving, I also feel that He holds His merit like any conceptual god would- jealousy, anger, vengeance- these are all repeated attributes throughout the Bible.
But, as precious as life may be, the lives we are living now could arguably be only half-lives, or pre-lives. According to belief, this life is only a tiny bit of what comes after.
I feel that benevolent beings do not understand of human emotion, because pretty much, they aren't human..
Angels and demons who used to be angels, it all comes together in unison with human emotion. The idea of us being sheep in wolf country never sat well with me, however, yet we are to feel no animosity towards God, or to Lucifer for that matter.
It really makes you wonder the point of being benevolent when sin so easily erases it altogether.
But, it's also important to note that 'sin' doesn't necessarily mean 'an evil act', but simply to miss the point of, or disobey, an appropriation from God.
It could be argued that good and evil are constructs of man and not even a determinate basis beyond our physical world.

Since we're referencing the Bible, how god acts in it, and what humans can understand, here's a couple of quotes before I say anything else (both are from Genesis):

3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Both of these quotes imply two important things regarding man's mental faculties in relation to god: A) man understands good and evil just as well as god does and B) the only thing making god superior to man is immortality (It's also worth noting that god uses the word "us" and not in the "Royal we" sense, but that's a whole other issue).

If this information is accurate, then shouldn't man's morality be equally valid to god's? Does sin even have meaning if good and evil are relative (as we as humans know them to be)?

If sin is simply misunderstanding or disobeying the rules set out by god, what does it matter? It seems to me that we know good and evil as well as he would, and our rules are just as valid (besides, our rules get updated more often than every few thousand years, which makes quite a difference in my book).

But, if we're going to argue that god (in spite of being subject to human emotional issues) and the other super-human beings don't have emotions and understanding of things like we do (and vice-versa, of course), then there's a whole different issue. We'd have to make some very big and unsupported assumptions regarding other beings and other worlds, and the repercussions of actions taken in this world affecting the other world.

Also, it's worth noting, that for the most part, the Bible doesn't address any other realms existing. Part of the reason people were/are so obsessed with preserving their corpses is because the Bible heavily implies that you'll be using your body again come judgment day. The concrete ideas regarding angels/heaven/demons are all newer ideas, and still aren't agreed upon by many Christians of the same denominations, let alone separate ones.

I also worry about the term benevolence. Depending on interpretation of various "holy" books, it seems like benevolence (I'm taking it to mean obeying god's will) includes some extremely cruel and violent acts. If following the will of a creature like old testament god is considered benevolence, I think we're all better off with sin.
 
Since we're referencing the Bible, how god acts in it, and what humans can understand, here's a couple of quotes before I say anything else (both are from Genesis):





Both of these quotes imply two important things regarding man's mental faculties in relation to god: A) man understands good and evil just as well as god does and B) the only thing making god superior to man is immortality (It's also worth noting that god uses the word "us" and not in the "Royal we" sense, but that's a whole other issue).

If this information is accurate, then shouldn't man's morality be equally valid to god's? Does sin even have meaning if good and evil are relative (as we as humans know them to be)?

If sin is simply misunderstanding or disobeying the rules set out by god, what does it matter? It seems to me that we know good and evil as well as he would, and our rules are just as valid (besides, our rules get updated more often than every few thousand years, which makes quite a difference in my book).

But, if we're going to argue that god (in spite of being subject to human emotional issues) and the other super-human beings don't have emotions and understanding of things like we do (and vice-versa, of course), then there's a whole different issue. We'd have to make some very big and unsupported assumptions regarding other beings and other worlds, and the repercussions of actions taken in this world affecting the other world.

Also, it's worth noting, that for the most part, the Bible doesn't address any other realms existing. Part of the reason people were/are so obsessed with preserving their corpses is because the Bible heavily implies that you'll be using your body again come judgment day. The concrete ideas regarding angels/heaven/demons are all newer ideas, and still aren't agreed upon by many Christians of the same denominations, let alone separate ones.

I also worry about the term benevolence. Depending on interpretation of various "holy" books, it seems like benevolence (I'm taking it to mean obeying god's will) includes some extremely cruel and violent acts. If following the will of a creature like old testament god is considered benevolence, I think we're all better off with sin.

Well argued.
I feel it's an inquiry that can only be answered by what we experience. We see war amongst men and the concept of Heaven becomes extraordinary. But there is also another war- one between Lucifer and God. It's obvious what the outcome will be, but that doesn't contribute to the concept of right and wrong either.
I think this is why benevolence and sin is so intangible. The book of Leviticus, for example, is practically an instruction booklet that paints benevolence in an undesirable light. It's probably the most 'inhumane' book in the Bible by contemporary standards.
In fact, it's because of that original standard by God that makes me believe that benevolent beings misunderstand human emotion. Even with Jesus being the Messiah by Christian belief, it highlights a certain amount of difference between how man and angels compare.
Hope is only for those who do not already live in grace, and I think this is a fundamental aspect in logic and emotion between them. All men are uncertain, even the most relentless faith leaves room for this.
 
Back
Top