We are not responsible for our sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We would indeed be responsible for it if the “bug” was our own doing (original sin).
You cannot remove the problem by introducing the story of original sin. If Eve made a irrational decision then she was buggy too.
I’d like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that reason alone (our rationality) prevents one from acting against reason. How exactly does the knowledge of the evilness of Action A prevent the agent from executing the action?
What prevent God from acting evil? Perfection.
Someone posted the question using an Oreo analogy. Being a rational being allows me to reasonably conclude that eating three sleeves of Oreo cookies would be harmful to my health. Yet that alone does not stop me from eating them. I’d still be free to do it.
We make irrational choice because we are buggy. God cannot sin because He is perfect. So the point is perfection.
 
STT, I’ve seen you do this quite often and I’m beginning to think that you’re trolling the forums.

You come up with these absurd theories and each time, after they’ve been soundly answered, you fall back and insist we have to prove your theory wrong, or else it stands right.

That’s not the way anything, let alone philosophy, works. The burden of proof falls on you who would make the claim that rational beings are not responsible for their moral actions.

The power of rationality, or reason, does not prevent someone from freely acting against the information received by the reason.
I am not trolling.
 
You cannot remove the problem by introducing the story of original sin. If Eve made a irrational decision then she was buggy too.
No that is the point. She was not “buggy”.

Yet she choose evil as did Adam (without the effects of a fallen nature). Freely. Because free will can do that - as it can also freely love.
We make irrational choice because we are buggy…
We sin in our *will. *

As explained above.
 
No that is the point. She was not “buggy”.

Yet she choose evil as did Adam (without the effects of a fallen nature). Freely. Because free will can do that - as it can also freely love.

We sin in our *will. *

As explained above.
I am sure that you believe that God cannot sin. He has free will as we have. He is rational as we are. Then what is that thing that allows us to sin which is not in God? There is a problem here.
 
I am sure that you believe that God cannot sin. He has free will as we have. He is rational as we are. Then what is that thing that allows us to sin which is not in God? There is a problem here.
Well you can believe it.

God cannot sin.

God is God.

God is Love.

Truth, goodness…

But not going to get into all that - that again is on the order of large treatises…

Please respond to my posts above. And please take the time to read that link - it is not very long but a good few readings can be helpful.
 
Well you can believe it.

God cannot sin.

God is God.

God is Love.

Truth, goodness…

But not going to get into all that - that again is on the order of large treatises…

Please respond to my posts above. And please take the time to read that link - it is not very long but a good few readings can be helpful.
So truth and goodness are things which differentiate us from God. We simply don’t have them. I call that a bug since we also couldn’t sin if we have those.

Thanks for the link. I read it.
 
You cannot remove the problem by introducing the story of original sin. If Eve made a irrational decision then she was buggy too.
How so? You have not given an explanation as to how rational creatures are incapable of performing evil acts. You’ve simply made the claim and repeated it in different forms.
What prevent God from acting evil? Perfection.
Wrong. God’s perfection is just a different way of looking at His essence. Perfection is not an attribute belonging to God, as if He had many. God is perfection. Therefore it would be a logical contradiction to say that He could sin.

Besides, this doesn’t answer my question because humans are necessarily different from God. Now please, answer the question: How did you cognitively arrive at the conclusion that the knowledge of the evilness of Action A prevents an agent from executing the action?
We make irrational choice because we are buggy. God cannot sin because He is perfect. So the point is perfection.
OK, can you please define “buggy” because that’s not helping. We make irrational choices because we are free to do so. The logic of freely choosing to love God and obey His commands necessarily means that there must be the possibility of freely choosing to disobey Him. Choosing to love God means nothing if that’s all we can choose.
 
Proposal: “We are not responsible for our sin”

Response: Negative.

We are by definition responsible for the sins we commit.

If one is not responsible - though the action in itself remains evil - there is no sin committed.

More information - scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm

(too much to go into in a forum - see link).
 
So you believe that we could sometimes become irrational? A glass of wine or poison. Which one do you pick up?
Not all sin can be said to be obviously irrational.
Most people like to rationalize away their sins, preferring to do as they please, rather than accept the moral choice.

Sure, it’s obvious to most of us that we should not to sleep with our neighbor’s wife, but some people would say that sleeping with someone else’s spouse is no big deal.

People who deny God would think they themselves are terribly rational.
To a believer, it appears irrational.
 
Well if you believe something is not wrong then you haven’t committed a sin. One needs to prove that abortion is evil.
So all the doctors, women and all involved in abortion including those who vote Pro-Choice are not sinning because of their belief?
 
How so? You have not given an explanation as to how rational creatures are incapable of performing evil acts. You’ve simply made the claim and repeated it in different forms.
I can analyze different scenarios as following: (A) Temptation is beyond our strength and (B) Temptation is not beyond our strength. We sin in first case and I think we can agree that we are not responsible for our sin in this case. Now we analyze the second case: (1) We are rational when we make a decision and (2) We are irrational when we make a decision. We don’t sin in first case. We sin in the second case but we are irrational therefore we are not responsible for our sin again. It is like choosing between a glass of wine or a glass of poison. The person who choose poison is not responsible for his choice since he was irrational. Mad people are completely irrational and we don’t expect anything from them. Being irrational is something between being mad and healthy, rational.
Wrong. God’s perfection is just a different way of looking at His essence. Perfection is not an attribute belonging to God, as if He had many. God is perfection. Therefore it would be a logical contradiction to say that He could sin.
So we are not God and can sin when we are only irrational. Therefore we are not responsible for our sin.
Besides, this doesn’t answer my question because humans are necessarily different from God. Now please, answer the question: How did you cognitively arrive at the conclusion that the knowledge of the evilness of Action A prevents an agent from executing the action?
The person is either rational or irrational at the moment he makes the decision. We define rational as “based on or in accordance with reason or logic”. Evil is defined as wrong as opposite as good which is defined as right. We are cognitively open to both concepts. We know the consequence of evil and good act. Therefore we always do good when we are rational or otherwise.
OK, can you please define “buggy” because that’s not helping. We make irrational choices because we are free to do so. The logic of freely choosing to love God and obey His commands necessarily means that there must be the possibility of freely choosing to disobey Him. Choosing to love God means nothing if that’s all we can choose.
By buggy I mean there are problems in our functioning, in another word we become irrational sometimes. Irrationality is not a potential in us that we can become or choose to be irrational. Irrationality is a bug which prohibit us from functioning properly and rationally.
 
I can analyze different scenarios as following: (A) Temptation is beyond our strength and (B) Temptation is not beyond our strength. We sin in first case and I think we can agree that we are not responsible for our sin in this case. Now we analyze the second case: (1) We are rational when we make a decision and (2) We are irrational when we make a decision. We don’t sin in first case. We sin in the second case but we are irrational therefore we are not responsible for our sin again. It is like choosing between a glass of wine or a glass of poison. The person who choose poison is not responsible for his choice since he was irrational. Mad people are completely irrational and we don’t expect anything from them. Being irrational is something between being mad and healthy, rational.
You’re missing a third option: That we can overcome temptation when assisted by God.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." John 15:5.

“No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.” 1 Cor. 10:13

This indicates that on our own, we would of course be powerless to resist temptation. However, God provides necessary strength to overcome temptation. Thus when we sin, it will be in spite of the readily available and freely offered strength to resist.

The person in your example is merely acting irrationally, they have not become intrinsically irrational. You have only proven that a person is capable of choosing to do irrational acts. You have not proven that person actually becomes irrational when they act irrationally. There is a difference.
So we are not God and can sin when we are only irrational. Therefore we are not responsible for our sin.
You don’t simply lose your rational powers at the moment you sin. There’s absolutely no basis for that. You’re unnecessarily denying the ability to be a rational being and still willfully act contrary to known goodness.
The person is either rational or irrational at the moment he makes the decision. We define rational as “based on or in accordance with reason or logic”. Evil is defined as wrong as opposite as good which is defined as right. We are cognitively open to both concepts. We know the consequence of evil and good act. Therefore we always do good when we are rational or otherwise.
Wrong. When philosophers and theologians define “rational” as pertaining to human nature, they’re describing an attribute, not an ability that can be turned on and off. By our reason we have the power to grasp metaphysical concepts like “self”, “love”, and “justice”
Again, you’re denying the ability to have full knowledge of the gravity of sin and executing it with full consent.
By buggy I mean there are problems in our functioning, in another word we become irrational sometimes. Irrationality is not a potential in us that we can become or choose to be irrational. Irrationality is a bug which prohibit us from functioning properly and rationally.
That’s an interesting hypothesis, but it’s been proven wrong. Rational beings don’t simply become irrational every time they do wrong. Apart from suffering a mental break due to some sort of trama, humans have the ability to grasp right and wrong and act in accord with either.

Sin, temptation, habit, inordinate attachment can all be factors in our judgement for either good or bad, and thus our culpability can be diminished. But that’s completely different from saying “humans sometimes act irrationally, and thus are irrational, and thus not responsible for their actions.”

For instance: I know that driving my car off a cliff is irrational. I know this because I can logically deduce that such an action would put my life in direct imminent danger. FULL STOP. I have so far proven my reasoning abilities to be fully in tact… and there is nothing stopping me from willfully thwarting that reason and driving off the cliff anyway.

There is nothing else I can say. If you still don’t understand, or refuse to understand, then I can’t be of any help. Have a good Memorial Day.
 
Yes. You sin when you do contrary to what you believe.
And also when you do something objectively wrong, like killing babies. It doesn’t matter if your horrendously formed conscience told you it was OK.
 
Proposal: “We are not responsible for our sin”

Response: Negative.

We are by definition responsible for the sins we commit.

If one is not responsible - though the action in itself remains evil - there is no sin committed.

More information - scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm

(too much to go into in a forum - see link).
 
You’re missing a third option: That we can overcome temptation when assisted by God.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." John 15:5.

“No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.” 1 Cor. 10:13

This indicates that on our own, we would of course be powerless to resist temptation. However, God provides necessary strength to overcome temptation. Thus when we sin, it will be in spite of the readily available and freely offered strength to resist.

The person in your example is merely acting irrationally, they have not become intrinsically irrational. You have only proven that a person is capable of choosing to do irrational acts. You have not proven that person actually becomes irrational when they act irrationally. There is a difference.
We cannot rationally decide to act irrationally. That is contradictory. Therefore we become irrational when we act irrationally.
You don’t simply lose your rational powers at the moment you sin. There’s absolutely no basis for that. You’re unnecessarily denying the ability to be a rational being and still willfully act contrary to known goodness.
I think that we have the power to act irrationally when are rational but we would never do it. Heaven or Hell. Which one do you pick up?
Wrong. When philosophers and theologians define “rational” as pertaining to human nature, they’re describing an attribute, not an ability that can be turned on and off. By our reason we have the power to grasp metaphysical concepts like “self”, “love”, and “justice”. Again, you’re denying the ability to have full knowledge of the gravity of sin and executing it with full consent.
Rationality is not 1 or 0. It has a spectrum. You can have insane people or completely irrational. Moreover, rationality is not a constant in a individual and can change from time to time.
That’s an interesting hypothesis, but it’s been proven wrong. Rational beings don’t simply become irrational every time they do wrong. Apart from suffering a mental break due to some sort of trama, humans have the ability to grasp right and wrong and act in accord with either.

Sin, temptation, habit, inordinate attachment can all be factors in our judgement for either good or bad, and thus our culpability can be diminished. But that’s completely different from saying “humans sometimes act irrationally, and thus are irrational, and thus not responsible for their actions.”

For instance: I know that driving my car off a cliff is irrational. I know this because I can logically deduce that such an action would put my life in direct imminent danger. FULL STOP. I have so far proven my reasoning abilities to be fully in tact… and there is nothing stopping me from willfully thwarting that reason and driving off the cliff anyway.

There is nothing else I can say. If you still don’t understand, or refuse to understand, then I can’t be of any help. Have a good Memorial Day.
If what you say is true then you have to accept that we can rationally decide to do an irrational act. This is contradictory. Therefore we perform sin only when we are irrational.
 
And also when you do something objectively wrong, like killing babies. It doesn’t matter if your horrendously formed conscience told you it was OK.
The baby goes to Heaven and parents are saved from more trouble. So why do you bother?
 
Proposal: “We are not responsible for our sin”

Response: Negative.

We are by definition responsible for the sins we commit.

If one is not responsible - though the action in itself remains evil - there is no sin committed.

More information - scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm

(too much to go into in a forum - see link).
Could you please tell me which part in the article answer my question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top