if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

I agree with you that we do not know the will of God, and that we construct it. But if I understand your argument, it is that the will of God has not been in any way revealed to us by said god, ergo, the not KNOWINGLY. So, on the same principle the existence of God has not been in any way revealed to us by said god, ergo, the discussion becomes moot.

Now, I didn't say that to critique the logic of your argument. Rather, to highlight that any knowledge we have about any of it: sin, god, God's will, God's existence, our will, our existence never comes to us from God or any such superior being (and I am neither accepting nor rejecting God's existence). Rather, knowledge always only comes to us after it had once been constructed by someone, and then, torn down, revised and reconstructed a trillion times, until it is reconstructed by one of us and settled upon as believed.

I believe it’s a good idea to try to be an upright, honest, and charitable person. I believe there are things we should generally do and things we should generally avoid. — Art48

And thank "god" you, and probably the vast majority of us do. Right? So if you arrived at that belief or settled at that construction, by poetry, Immanuel Kant, logical reflection, trial and error, a proper upbringing, or the so called Bible, Koran, or Confucian analects, why should we care?

When all knowledge is a settlement or a belief, always at a given locus in History, following an inevitable chain of construction destruction reconstruction, shouldn't we be less confident in the ways in which we privilege some forms of knowledge over others? The ways in which we fight about such privilege? Tease each other concerning our actions based upon such privilege?

I.e., revelation, for theists and the like (the most obviously misplaced by some in the meaningless hierarchy--the one causing you to implicitly accept its claim of a god, while rejecting its claim regarding Her Will);

but, then reason (as if it deserves to trump all others with its denial of being equally constructed, and its pretention of preceding construction, and its claim to uncover or disclose truths which precede construction);

and perception, (as if, like empiricists claim, perception is sensation, direct access to objects, rather than what it really is, sensation promptly displaced by construction);

and so on.

So sure, I agree, you're never knowingly "sinning." But I also agree with what I think was your more genuine position. Call it sin or not, your offending yourself, and the others sharing your greater locus of history, whenever you do anything you believe you ought not have, or whenever you fail to do anything you believe you ought to (at any given locus in History, since what you settle upon will be revised and reconstructed from locus to locus).

If you subscribe to such a thing as "the will of God", it means you believe in a god. And to believe, you need a specific god. The god you believe in has to be identified, defined and described somewhere. If there is a holy book that tells you about the god you believe in, that book most likely has a list of dos and don'ts listed in it. In the form of commandments, maybe or a book of Leviticus? So you do have access to to the will of your god. (Otherwise, what would be the point of having a god?) Not getting a personal inscribed no-no list of your very own is a lousy excuse for sinning, and any god worth his burnt offerings would catch it.

In a much broader sense, a sin may be considered as any act that diminishes your integrity and self-worth. And we have all knowingly committed at least some minor ones.

- So you've managed to stumble upon the tautology that someone who does not believe in sin is not able to knowingly sin? Okay. :chin:

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin.

QED.
Agree — Art48

Yes.

What would it even mean for God to reveal his will to someone? Couldn’t they just interpret it as a hallucination or a delusion? Or an alien. How does God prove that he is God? Could not a powerful alien or imagined being do great feats?

Only faith will do. Faith is the starting point.

God has never revealed his will to me. As a consequence, I am unable to knowingly violate his will. I am unable to knowingly sin. — Art48

Well as Christ hung on a tree dying, looking down on the men who crucified him there, he said “Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.” So it seems like he would agree with you.

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

Oh, of course, it is possible to knowingly sin. I think you are using God as escapism with the aim of not facing that you didn't actually behave according to some ethical principles. There are two classes of lying (as an example of sin): lying to avoid hurting someone's feelings and lying to cheat. But, in those two cases, you are aware enough that you are committing a sin, because you are lying.

There are a lot of ways to sin. Some are evil, others innocent. But all of them are predetermined, and not random.

the tautology that someone who does not believe in sin is not able to knowingly sin? — Leontiskos

That is the logic of it. Or more clearly, if you don’t know the will of god, and sin is going against the will of god, then you cannot knowingly go against the will of god or sin.

So we all have to vote “yes” if we are to be rational about it.

- Paul addresses almost this exact issue in Romans 2, especially vv. 12-16. Obviously this idea gets developed by Christians in all sorts of directions. ...So I don't really know what the OP hopes to achieve with his tautology, but I rather doubt that he will succeed in drawing any substantial conclusion.

God has never revealed his will to me. — Art48

Obviously the Christian response is to say that, well, that is what the Bible is, including the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the revealed word of God. Of course, you choose not to accept that, and that choice is perfectly within your rights, and I wouldn't try to persuade you. You choose to believe that Catholic Priests are expressing their ideas, arising from their personal conviction, and that religion is all man-made, and not revealed truth at all. Again, perfectly within your rights to believe that, and if you challenged them to prove otherwise, and considering the attitude you bring to the table, they in all likelihood would never succeed. And they would say, well, God's will has indeed been revealed, but you chose not to believe it.

But for some reason I am reminded of an anecdote. A parish church is sorrounded by a once-in-a-lifetime flood, but the priest refuses to leave, saying, "God will save me."

The water keeps rising, and begins to lap at the door. A crew in a rubber dinghy comes by and offers him a ride to safety. The priest declines, repeating, "God will save me."

The water continues to rise, and after some time the priest has been forced into the bell-tower. A rescue helicopter arrives and the crew shout to him through a loud-hailer and offer to lower a rope. Again, the priest waves them off, insisting, "God will save me."

But a short while afterwards, the floodwaters overwhelm him and he drowns.

When he reaches heaven, the priest asks, "Why didn't you save me?" He gets the reply, "We sent a boat! We sent a helicopter! What more did you want?"

Good grief!

I don't really know what the OP hopes to achieve with his tautology — Leontiskos

It's a preamble to casting the first stone, obviously.

If God wills that one of his creatures commit a sin, then that creature must do so; if He wills that they refrain from sinning, they have no option but resist temptation. If He grants a chosen elite eternal grace, those people either cannot sin or are guaranteed forgiveness. If some are destined for eternal damnation, they cannot help sinning. Big Omni is everywhere, knows all and controls all.

Are you saying that you have never hurt another person for the benefit of yourself?

Never lied to avoid suffering the consequences of honesty?

Never pretended to be who you were/are not?

Never taken what was not yours?

Never broken a promise, made either implicitly or explicitly?

Not supported a loved one when they needed that?

I will presume you get the general idea.

I agree.

:smirk: :up:

How does God prove that he is God? — Moses

i guess "He" ain't so "Omni" after all ...

Oh, of course, it is possible to knowingly sin ... There are a lot of ways to sin. — javi2541997

Well, "if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God" (OP), and if "God" is (at most) a Bronze Age fictional character (myth), then "sin" is just as meaningless, or impossible, as acting "contrary to the will of" Bilbo Baggins. QED. Again, javi, for emphasis I paraphrase Camus: stupidity is the only sin without god.

What do we mean by the word “sin”? — Art48

We mean an immoral act. Of course, then we must decide how is morality founded and found. Religions would have you believe in the 'sky daddy' or the 'earth mother', both of which are useful and insane by roughly equal measures. Anyway, on we go.

A common definition is sin is some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God. — Art48

This is, even on the surface of it, nonsensical. If we are known by the strength of our enemies then your choosing to do battle with incoherence is both terrifyingly brave and foolhardy beyond all estimation. Your foe is illusory as defined. What sort of contest is that?! For your next trick will you punch your way out of a wet paper bag? Will you accidentally offend a liberal? Set the bar higher!

Using that definition, I can say with complete honesty and assurance that I have never knowingly sinned. — Art48

I define evil as wearing pink underpants. I have never knowingly sinned!

Why? Because God has never revealed his will to me. As a consequence, I am unable to knowingly violate his will. I am unable to knowingly sin. — Art48

If you can pretend to fight imaginary foes, you can at least arm them properly with imaginary truths.

God's will is known to you by intuition, by existence, by thought, imagination, and more. Even amid something as precarious as religions are, they still explain it that way, the better explainers among them. That means even such a dyed in the wool heathen as you must be is STILL informed by your own presence in the world and the world's effects on you and vice versa. You have a moral sense. Even sociopaths have the rudiments of moral understanding.

Religion is window-dressing, and not strictly necessary for discussions on morality and the moral sense.

So you are pitching a very one-sided set piece battle here. I predict inclement weather and a resounding upset.

Of course, there is no shortage of people who CLAIM to know God’s will. — Art48

What if they are just saying they are aware of the moral sense, really? They just do not know how to be honest and clear. It's as if they set up some illusionary battle and weighed all the lack of evidence (and the real evidence) in their favor. Then they spoke 'to the people' in a public place and played out that little charade in good faith with NO ONE, including themselves. Does that sound familiar? It should.

There are priests and pastors who CLAIM to know what God wishes and what God does not wish. — Art48

Are they simplifying what their moral sense tells them and then also aggrandizing it with embellishments for entertainment purposes? <Brzzzt> "Please insert additional coins to continue ..."

If I become a Catholic, I’ll be told God wishes me to go to Mass every Sunday. — Art48

Yes, so that you can continue to be indoctrinated and insert coins to continue.

If I become a Jehovah’s Witness, I’ll be told God does not allow blood transfusions. — Art48

Well, at least not without consent. Fluid transfer is some nasty ... stuff. "The Blood of Christ compels you, though!' I guess SOME blood is better than others. Lilu, my love, where are you? Supreme Being!

If I become Hindu, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat beef. — Art48

What do they say about crickets? Aren't plants people to? We need the elven point of view!

If I become a Muslim, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat pork. Etc. Etc. Etc. — Art48

Clearly, the dumbest religion on the planet. Bacon is manna from heaven.

But being told by some human being what God wishes and God does not wish is a very, very different thing than being told by God. — Art48

No, it isn't. Not really. In some Eastern faiths and more recently entertained in Western ones, is the notion that we are all one. This oneness idea, that I call the Unity Principle, is really the best way to approach such matters.

In oneness the delusional barrier of the ego is ignored or consciously denied so that unity may be more easily experienced. It is much harder to relegate any aspect of reality to 'other' status if you are them and they are you. And there is a feel to that, a sense, that is part of the moral sense. It rings true for some people. And those people would be those that many of us consider wise, oh except for academic philosophers who have real trouble with recognizing wisdom apparently. Who knew?

It’s difficult to imagine two things more different: one is a work of man, the other a work of God. — Art48

Man is god is you.

What do YOU consider a sin or 'bad' as an action? Now let's put the lie detector up or why not the sword of Damocles. Speak truth now. Have you ever committed a sin in your own estimation?

It's a MUCH BETTER question, don't you think?

Of course, there are things that religions mostly agree on, simply because most human societies have found it advantageous not to allow murder, thief, and other things commonly labeled as “sin.” And I believe it’s a good idea to try to be an upright, honest, and charitable person. I believe there are things we should generally do and things we should generally avoid. — Art48

This paragraph really is touching on the rather boring concept of conflating order and the good. That is not wise. Order is NOT the good. The good does contain some order.

Religion is not relevant. But morality is the only thing there is, let alone the only thing that's relevant.

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

No it is not. You are just playing games with yourself and (ha ha) your immortal soul.

Beyond this point there be dragons!

The concept of sin far predates the personification of that herder-god who gave his chosen tribe somebody else's fertile country.
The concept of sin goes far deeper than the will of an individual deity, or a moral code. It stems from the idea that every human being has a spirit (soul, anima, essence; whatever you want to call that core personality.) What we do by choice either adds to or detracts from that essential being. A good deed, a positive action, a virtuous choice makes the inner personality better, stronger, more capable of facing challenges. A craven, underhanded, destructive act leaves pock-marks on the soul.
It's an old idea that endures in various guises in various religions.
And we do always know when we're committing an offence against our own best self.

What we do by choice either adds to or detracts from that essential being. A good deed, a positive action, a virtuous choice makes the inner personality better, stronger, more capable of facing challenges. A craven, underhanded, destructive act leaves pock-marks on the soul.
It's an old idea that endures in various guises in various religions.
And we do always know when we're committing an offence against our own best self. — Vera Mont

:100: :fire:

As usual you say it better, Vera, than I did more abstractly in a recent thread Why be moral?

[T]he (foreseeable) consequence of every action (or inaction) either

• helps more than harns,
• harms more than helps,
• harms and helps more or less equally
or
• (mostly it seems) neither harms nor helps

by which habits of judgment (i.e. virtues, vices) are reflectively cultivated. — 180 Proof

We all 'know' these things on some level, even though we are often unaware or unmindful of them. But they are very difficult to articulate without resorting to poetry or myth.

:up:

In my experience gods are categorized by those who worship the god (the religion), not by the god itself. Thus: "the Christian god", "a Roman god", "a Norse god" etc. Therefore since those religions (purport to) "know" the will of their god, sinning or violating that will, is perfectly logical. So when you say that "God" hasn't revealed their will to you, the religious reply, of course he has... through the religion's texts and dogma.

Otherwise the word sin would have no meaning.

If God wills that one of his creatures commit a sin, then that creature must do so; if He wills that they refrain from sinning, they have no option but resist temptation. — Vera Mont

I don't identify as Christian, but I don't believe that is a fair characterisation of their principles. There's a diversity of views. Some denominations, especially Calvinism, insist on predestination and the sovereignty of God in a way that impacts the meaning of free will, no doubt. However, they also maintain that this divine sovereignty does not completely negate human accountability. (Don't ask me why that's not contradictory, but they might have an answer.)

But most other denominations emphasize free will. They argue that while God is omniscient and omnipotent, He has granted humans the freedom to choose or reject His grace. If we were simply "puppets on strings," completely controlled by divine will without any agency or choice, then the concept of salvation would be meaningless. So while many a criticism can be made, that's not a fair characterisation.

Personally I am not religious, yet the concept of sin makes intuitive sense to me.

It is to go against one's conscience, which I would interpret as going against one's higher self (God).

I don't identify as Christian, but I don't believe that is a fair characterisation of their principles. — Wayfarer

He's omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, or he isn't. I can't be any fairer than that.
If Christians disagree about the degree of their god's power, that's their problem - a very big one, apparently, judging by the rate at which they've been slaughtering one another.

. However, they also maintain that this divine sovereignty does not completely negate human accountability. (Don't ask me why that's not contradictory, but they might have an answer.) — Wayfarer

They have lots of answers - entire big tomes of commentary, encyclicals, etc. All of them contradictory. That's not surprising, given the evolution of Jehovah.

But most other denominations emphasize free will. — Wayfarer

They have to. Without that unshakeable sense of guilt, how could people be persuaded to shell out for huge, elaborate confections in stone to house their god, while they themselves live in hovels? How could the bishops feast on lobster, while the peasants barely have two potatoes to rub together?

If we were simply "puppets on strings," completely controlled by divine will without any agency or choice, then the concept of salvation would be meaningless. — Wayfarer

Sure. So is the concept of original sin and the concept of damnation. That's never stopped people believing in them.

Personally I am not religious, yet the concept of sin makes intuitive sense to me.

It is to go against one's conscience, which I would interpret as going against one's higher self (God).

This is the intuitive idea behind Aquinas' ethics. It is always bad to deny one's conscience, even if one's moral reasoning is ultimately in error (however we can be negligent, and thus to blame, if we could have corrected our error). Natural Law then is largely the application of this to the aggregate, based on the primary principle of "do good and avoid doing evil."

I think the tradition has stood up so well even in the absence of its grounding in theology and human telos precisely because it is intuitive.

Of course, there is no shortage of people who CLAIM to know God’s will. There are priests and pastors who CLAIM to know what God wishes and what God does not wish. If I become a Catholic, I’ll be told God wishes me to go to Mass every Sunday. If I become a Jehovah’s Witness, I’ll be told God does not allow blood transfusions. If I become Hindu, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat beef. If I become a Muslim, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat pork. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There has never been a shortage of people making contradictory claims about all manner of things. Is the world flat? Does dark matter exist? Why does the sun rise an set? What is the cause of various illnesses? Etc.

But surely nature tells us many of these things in a way such that we can come to know the truth of them. The same is said of sins and the Natural Law.

But being told by some human being what God wishes and God does not wish is a very, very different thing than being told by God. It’s difficult to imagine two things more different: one is a work of man, the other a work of God.

Consider probably the single most influential passage for natural theology in Romans 1:

18 For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, 19 since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. As a result, people are without excuse. 21 For though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became worthless, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.

24 Therefore God delivered them over in the desires of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served what has been created instead of the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen.

Saint Paul continues in Romans 2 on righteous gentiles who have not heard (and so are not subject to) divinely revealed law, but who righteously obey the natural law.

Romans 2:12 For all who sin without the law will also perish without the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified.14 So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the law, do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing thoughts either accuse or even excuse them 16 on the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

What would it even mean for God to reveal his will to someone?

This made me chuckle given your handle. He speaks from a burning push of course!

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Several of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials claimed to be motivated by their conscience. They saw what they were doing as best for the fate of their country as well as humanity as a whole. IIRC Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem describes how Nazis were taught to e.g. resist the "temptation" to be merciful and instead dutifully perform their national mission. Nurture can lead one's conscience down very strange paths.

It seems entirely reasonable that if one is damaged or damages themselves to a great enough extent, they lose that connection with their higher self, no?

Several of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials claimed to be motivated by their conscience. — BitconnectCarlos

The operative word in there is "claimed". I don't doubt that propaganda and indoctrination in youth (not from infancy, in this case, but certainly life-long for religious zealots who commit atrocities) plays a part in people's behaviour. But does it really replace their conscience? Some people who were subjected to the very same influences did act on their compassion and their personal sense of right and wrong - even to the point of putting themselves in danger.
So I wonder... Do people who claim to have been persuaded to act against their own humanity really try very hard to resist the propaganda? Or do they welcome an authoritative leader's permission to do what they desired but feared to do when it was forbidden?

I honestly do believe people's consciences can lead them very astray (or to very different places morally). Today in the US we had many people openly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas out on the streets willing to risk arrest. Morality is different across time and place and these societies can foster very different "moral intuitions" or "consciences" among its inhabitants. Also people perceive reality in vastly different ways through factors such as IQ, education, and experience. So yes, I believe one's conscience can tell one to do vile things.

I don't agree. A lot of people shout, wave placards, attend rallies and say stupid things on camera - the public broadcast media have a prominent role in misinforming them - but actually carrying out the vile deeds falls to a hardy few whose conscience is pushed into the background.