Is 'sin' absolute?

[secret]

Years of internet search trace out the candidates of the origin of the negatives (aka evil)

Hatred, Lust for Abuse

And now checking the definition of 'sin'
Is 'sin' absolute, with not even a single positive component?
If it is, how to define it in modern terms?

To achieve peace forever, we must oliberate the origin of the negatives.

(Maybe I watched too much cartoons....)

Post your thoughts (not just in terms of christian, but also other religions or non religions at all, we should discuss this in multiperspective)

P.S. Wikipedia gives such definition

Hatred of good

So what is the opposite of sin?
i.e. what's the term for "hatred of evil"?

[Qwerty]

Er, I'll just move this here...

[sandmaster]

Okay first point: What the fuck is wrong with the forum's guest captcha? It's giving me ads.

Second: Sin is relative to the entity's opinions about right and wrong, therefore it is not absolute.

Premarital sex, for example, was absolutely and universally wrong according to everyone for the past few centuries. Only recently with some paradigm shift or another have we realized that it is not fundamentally wrong, even if we look down upon those who do it.

[Qwerty]

First point: Nothing's wrong with them, that's what Proboards does.

Second: I must agree with you on this one.

[xShadowLordx]

Well, no sin can really be considered absolute, but some sins are more agreed upon than others. Humans know naturally that some things are right and some are wrong, but the concept of "sin" is defined by religion. Sin does not exactly mean "doing something naturally regarded as wrong"--although this is the case with many sins. Rather, it means "doing something which has been forbidden by a god or other higher power".

Take murder for example. From a secular standpoint, murder is wrong because it unfairly denies someone the right to live, and the freedom to choose their destiny and to gain happiness and fulfillment in life. It also expresses hatred and intolerance, which are impediments to the progression of society. But from a religious standpoint, not only is murder prohibited for the reasons above, but it is also prohibited because a god or higher power has prohibited us from doing it, and to do so would be to disobey that god/higher power, stains ourselves with impurity, and bring disgrace, wrath, and punishment upon ourselves later on.

Now, of course, most religions agree on major acts that are considered sinful, such as murder. However, different religions have slightly different conditions about what is allowed and what is forbidden. A sin in one religion might not be a sin in another religion. Similarly, something that is not naturally regarded as bad, might be forbidden in some religions (such as eating pork).

Not only that, but some sins are just so minor, personal, and hard to regulate, that outlawing and policing them would not be worthwhile or even possible, even though they may still be looked down upon and considered, from a secular standpoint, to be naturally wrong (such as a sin like lying). Unlike the case of murder, for example, there is nothing that government can possibly do to police such minor sins. To police such things would be a complete waste of time and resources, and would miss the big picture--the universal goal of preserving the well-being of society--which is the whole purpose of outlawing sins in the first place.

For the most part though, things deemed by most religions to be highly sinful are generally things that are outlawed by most societies, are generally naturally regarded as bad, and are detrimental to society anyway, such as killing, stealing, adultery, drugs, etc. Now, this doesn't mean they are absolute, but it does mean that there is a major consensus on most of them.

[kuraikiba]

Let me clarify pretty easily the answer to this from a logical view:

There is one truth. The reason why is because whatever is not truth is falsity, and falsity cannot contain truth as it is not truth. You can add infinite truths, but one falsity negates the truth of the matter. Truth upon truth is truth, falsity upon falsity is falsity, and truth upon falsity and vice versa is falsity. You see, regardless of our opinions, something(s) defines everything. It really doesn't matter what, so long as those definitions take place. Now, the idea of right and wrong, and the very idea of vice and virtue, relies upon this concept: Whatever is not right is wrong, and whatever is not wrong is right. In other words, in the absence of veracity, falsity comes into play. In the absence of falsity, veracity comes into play. It doesn't matter what we think is wrong or right, because everything that does not deal in absolutes, as truth is purely true and lies are purely false, is not of logic, a definitive field. Since we don't know everything and therefore work from a limited and fallible perspective, our opinions are worthless, and evidently so. To make my point short, it doesn't matter what we think is truth or falsity, but it matters that there is SOME truth, and that all else is falsity. The very idea of sin is considered absolute, as it represents lack of continence, and is the result of not adhering to virtue. Virtue is the presence of continence, and is the result of not adhering to sin. Regardless of our ideals, there is, without a doubt, a definitive truth, and all else is false. If someone says such a statement is fallacious, you destroy the heart and core of logic. Logic deals in absolutes: If not this, then that. If this, then this. If that, then that. Logic itself relies on there being 1 and zero, a situation of absolute presence, and one of the devoid of presence. So to say nothing is true, nothing is false, and nothing defines, you destroy any comprehensible meaning, purpose, and definition of anything and everything that can exist, does exist, or will exist.

Let me ask you these questions:

Does cold truly exist outside our definition? No. Anything above 0K has heat, of even the slightest degree. Cold is what we define as temperature on an arbitrary scale outside our defined comfort zone.

Does dark truly exist outside our definition? No. Anything brighter than pure darkness has light, of even the slightest degree. Dark is what we define as presence of light on an arbitrary scale outside our defined comfort zone.

Does veracity truly exist outside our definition? Yes. Unlike the previous questions, veracity was not of our definition. Veracity states something is true or not. If something isn't true, it is false. A lie is not a truth, as the truth is not a lie. There are infinitely many fallacies from omniscient viewpoint, but only one truth, as truth is definition with a fully comprehensive perspective. Since we were not the first thing that existed, as no thing can create itself, something had to exist before: Creation itself. If creation and veracity cannot exist, nothing can. For even knowledge is of our machination, as it grows constantly. But what defined all, is what defined truth.

[Qwerty]

All I got out of that message was "There is no grey, only black and white". Why not just say that instead?

[xShadowLordx]

Same here. I see absolutely no purpose or value in that entire post, Kurai.

[kuraikiba]

That is not the point of the post. It is to state that grey is simply an arbitrary variable we have defined, and black and white are defined. What I mainly state is that WE don't define truth and falsity. Something ELSE does. Since we do NOT have an unlimited perspective, something defined based of of the fact it DID have an unlimited perspective. We think our opinion can be fact. However, that isn't the case. Our universe is comprised of states, ideally 0 and 1. We define it as being on a spectrum. Also, the length is due to me explaining that saying there was fallacy in my post destroyed all logic, as I used the very idea of immutable logic in it.

[Qwerty]

Ah, I see.

So... Your answer is yes?

[kuraikiba]

It has to be. Otherwise, I would claim to have limitless perspective.

[MegaLoler]

But no humans have limitless perspective. There is no limitless perspective. Therefore everything, not just sin, but reality, is relative to the observer.

Btw, "It has to be. Otherwise, I would claim to have limitless perspective."
You are saying that if you do not have limitless perspective then sin is absolute, but if you do have limitless perspective then sin is not absolute. I think you meant the opposite.

[Qwerty]

I think he meant his answer would have to be no, not sin would have to be an absolute.

[kuraikiba]

Sin is absolute, because it is merely defined as a situation devoid of truth. What isn't truth, just is sin.

[sandmaster]

You're shitting buzzwords again. Can you define sin in a way that actually makes sense to people who aren't your internal monologue?

[Qwerty]

It is merely defined as a situation devoid of truth? I thought that was called "lies".

[kuraikiba]

What is NOT truth is false. Sin is simply a way of relaying a deviation from truth towards falsity. It doesn't matter what we think sin is, or want it to be, sin will be whatever it is, because it is merely deviation from truth. We have an odd sense of hesitance, what we dub a conscience, that, whether we like it or not, simply makes it where we can't bring ourselves to do something. Animals do whatever it takes to survive, no hesitation. We are unique, in that we consider consequence. My personal philosophy is that people decide to do what they wish, yet hate anything that limits them. If you have experienced the Creator's Paradox, as I dub it, you would see it isn't exactly a fun idea to give free will, and control beings that rebel by nature. Yet, oddly, as much as we fight it, something opposes urge and desire, and we naturally fall victim to that instead. It is all perception, but simply so.

[Qwerty]

So basically your defining sin as something absolute. Alright, what about stuff that simply isn't ethically acceptable?

[kuraikiba]

That merely is a matter of perspective. In most cases, it's what people decided they'd like, not what actually is. The idea of a God is never to restrict blindly, rather, to free people. You CAN sin, but that doesn't mean your action is without repercussion. So, virtue frees by making people not be slave to their mind and desires. The nature of vice is viral, as it overtakes and consumes you. Virtue is the reverse, where it lifts burden instead of placing it.

[sandmaster]

Shitting buzzwords.

[speedyclock]

it depends on what you beleive. Some nazis thought what they were doing was right. And most people thought it was wrong. Like all Relgions, it depends on what you beleive in.