07-02-06, 03:34 AM #1
Questions about sin and good deeds?
What is sin and good deeds out of these:-
1. Doing only so thought as good acts?
2. Doing only so thought as bad acts?
3. Coming towards mid/balance of good and bad acts?
4. Deviating from mid/balance of good and bad acts?
5. Following nature's rules/initiations.
6. Following social rules/initiations.
07-04-06, 12:32 AM #2
Which is bad or good deed-- planting trees or cutting/pruning trees?
Wich is right, excesses--balance---deficiencies?
How excesses and defficiencies be balanced?
Good deeds>>balance<<Bad deeds/sins
07-04-06, 02:36 AM #3
Originally Posted by Kumar
Theists have holy books (the Bible of course for Christians) which address the issue of morality. Atheists have to essentially 'make it up as they go along', and in truth use a lot of heritage from religions' moral codes (whether admitted or not!). The problem is that if you wish to deviate from, for instance christian morality in a post modern agnostic/atheistic society, it is very difficult to get any formal agreement between large numbers of people as to what should be retained and what should be changed. In the UK we have struggled with that for nearly 50 years. Morality of course extends far beyond the law and in this repect, the culture adapts and probably reflects what the prevailing (majority) view is at that time. So for instance in the 1950's the concept of an unmarried mother would have been considered morally unacceptable (that did not mean it did not happen of course) whereas now it is so common in the UK that it is quite unremarkable. In a different sphere, the primary pursuit of excessive personal wealth to the exclusion of everything else became morally acceptable during Mrs. Thatcher's years of office in the UK when previously this had been considered an immoral way of living.
On the basis of this 'concensus morality' whether anything is 'right' or 'wrong' can never by definition be objectively answered as there is no objective arbiter outside society in a godless society.
As far as christianity is concerned, there is a moral code, but it is accepted that no one will ever be able to completely live up to it. It is the christian belief therefore that God had to provide an alternative to take the just punishment that we all deserve for the nasty things we do (which can never be balanced by the good, however defined). Jesus Christ was of course the one provided.
Christians therefore do not have to try and balance 'good deeds' against 'bad deeds'. That really is a lost cause.
07-04-06, 03:10 AM #4Originally Posted by Gordon
morals to the atheist are the same the world over, however morals become relative in regard to religious upbringing, atheism is the most ethically sensible possition you could ever find yourself in.
07-04-06, 03:54 AM #5
We can have two consideration, social and natural. One can deviate anyone from the other. Religion can be a tool/media to keep these two in harmony to each other. Religion or sprituality can be meant to benefit us, physiologically and psyclogically...morally and materalistically. These can have similarities at basic level but slight variations at gross level for the adjustment of "time and environmental" changes. Nothing can be for GOD as HE is "Omnipotent". So anyone who follow basic principles by himself or through tools/media, can still be somewhat same.
GOD has created nature, nature laws/system, nature balance etc., any act or deed aiding to these can be a good deed in nature otherwise bad in nature.
We have created society, social rules/system, social balance etc., any act or deed aiding or voilating these can be a good deed or sin in society respectively.
Which out of these--natural or social is correct in reality, is need to be evalued. Which out of sugarcane and sugar is better is need to be evalued.
Pls awnser my questions specifically first.
07-04-06, 07:18 AM #6Originally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by KumarOriginally Posted by Kumar
07-04-06, 07:47 AM #7
Originally Posted by the preacher
Clearly people therefore are not born atheists since new born babies are not capable of logical analysis. People are more likely to be born agnostic (not knowing). They have to choose later to accept or discard God or gods.
If 'morals to the atheist are the same the world over', what is the agreed moral position of all atheists on capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriages, military interventionist wars, global trade, etc. etc.?
If your personal belief set really depends on logical analysis and thought, I suggest you do some before opening mouth or typing on keyboard rather than just pursuing an unthinking prejudiced nonsensensical vendetta against religion.
(Plurals by the way do not have apostrophes in English - only possessives or abbreviations, so it should be 'places' and 'Aesop's rather than the other way round. If you wish to adopt some form of 'intellectual high ground', I suggest it may be well to learn some of these things!)
07-04-06, 10:16 AM #8Originally Posted by GordonOriginally Posted by GordonOriginally Posted by GordonOriginally Posted by GordonOriginally Posted by GordonOriginally Posted by Gordon
07-04-06, 10:28 AM #9Originally Posted by the preacher
I suppose it could be, but it is'nt is it.
again I suppose it could, but it also is'nt is it.
cant see how these two have anything to do with Religion or sprituality, one is the functions of living organisms, the other science that deals with mental processes and behavior, I suppose the latter could have something to do with Religion or sprituality, especially if your studying why people believe.
again cant see any real conection to Religion or sprituality, the is absolutley nothing morally good about any religious book, and as for the materialistically, is'nt this more atheist thing than theist, what theists has the common sense to know what reality is.
“ Originally Posted by Kumar
These can have similarities at basic level but slight variations at gross level for the adjustment of "time and environmental" changes. ”
“ Originally Posted by Kumar
Nothing can be for GOD as HE is "Omnipotent". So anyone who follow basic principles by himself or through tools/media, can still be somewhat same. ”
no you think god has create nature, we just live in nature, it's our reality.
well yes of course, no holy books or churches needed.
both, we work with nature to improve our society.
“ Originally Posted by Kumar
is need to be evalued. Which out of sugarcane and sugar is better is need to be evalued. ”
07-04-06, 10:49 AM #10
07-04-06, 11:04 AM #11Every spritual and religious recommendation is just for your benefit.
Everything and being can be as a result of "prime force".
07-05-06, 06:01 AM #12
"And what is "prime force"? "
Prime of all forces, yet to be understood in science. It is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent...still indescribable.
07-05-06, 09:01 AM #13Originally Posted by Kumar
as I said senseless drivel.
07-05-06, 10:47 PM #14
One Mother should be there of everything, whether four forces or of elementary particles.
Can't it be possible that we can feel/experiance/think something, still can't describe it in common or ubable to understand its science due to our limits or limits of science?
Don't expect "GOD" has given/gifted everything to common? He has to oprete the world, so can keep something with him.
Bubbles and waves in a pool are just variations, still connected to the water.
Last edited by Kumar; 07-05-06 at 10:57 PM.
07-06-06, 11:10 PM #15
How can you think, SIN; which deviates us from health/homeostatis at individual level and at universal level, Good acts(why no name to good act or antonym given in english disctonary?): which bring us closer to health/homeostatis at individual and universal levels?