Thinking on sin, whether this sin be taken from a theistic or a-theistic perspective

gubberningbody

Needs at least two things, it would seem.

1. Free will

2. A discrete responsible self (tied into 1)

3. Memory

I'm just thinking aout loud...

When I think of punishment as a consequence of engaging in an illegal activity as a way of changing the mind of an offender with regard to future behavior it seems that this requires that the individual has a memory of the event.

Suppose it were possible to wipe the memory of the event.

Would guilt remain?

It's been said that if you come home and find your apartment trashed by your puppy that if you punish the puppy, the puppy won't learn because it has no memory connection between activities it was involved in and your reactions to those when you came home.

gubberningbody

Beuller?...

VoidEater

The question is regarding "guilt".

You have not defined "guilt". Guilt as emotional response? Guilt as external approbation?

Without personal memory there is no guilt as emotional response (except as habituated hormonal imbalance, which is obviously not what you are referring to). This seems to be most on point from the given context.

mindmelda

It's been established that guilt seems to be intrinsic to primate behavior. Chimps and other primates display it in certain circumstances, such as when caught stealing food from another chimp.

It's thought it's a useful deterrent against doing things that get you kicked out of a cooperative society, as we do better at surviving in groups than alone. All group species have social and behavioral inhibitions more or less built in so they can exist cooperative in groups.

Dogs seem to exhibit some guilty behavior, and it's because they're highly social too. We've actually bred them to be even more socially adept than the wolves they're related to, it's necessary to get along with humans, who are now more their "pack" than even other dogs.

notverylikely

By sin do you mean sinning as in the bible sin (sleeping with someone you're not married to, for instance)? If so, how can you have an atheistic view of it?

gubberningbody

I'm using gulit in the context of an entity's apprval or disapproval, whether that entity be a society with generally agree-upon limits to behavior or even if that entity be a g(G)-od of sorts.

Is it reasonable within that (the above) context for guilt and the expiation of that guilt by some means to be resolved by the elimination of the memory of those events?

AGuest

Needs at least two things, it would seem. 1. Free will 2. A discrete responsible self (tied into 1) 3. Memory

I would disagree, dear GB (peace to you!)

The answer is, really, "it depends." On the TYPE of sin: willful... or unwillful. Spirit... or flesh. Free will is involved in willful sin... and sin of the spirit. It is CHOSEN error, at least to the extent that the person WANTS to commit the error. On the other hand, we often commit sin unwillfully... even accidentally. In addition, the flesh contains sin IN it (which is why it gets sick, ages, dies). Sin is not just breaking a "law" - it is corruption in the flesh.

When I think of punishment as a consequence of engaging in an illegal activity as a way of changing the mind of an offender with regard to future behavior it seems that this requires that the individual has a memory of the event.

Not always. If, for example, if it is a "sin" to commit murder (which is what the Law Covenant prohibited, vs. killing, which was NOT prohibited)... and then the act becomes SO unbearble that the perpetrator convinces him/herself that it did not happen because they simply cannot face the TRUTH... that it DID happen, and they are the one who DID the act... such person's inability to comprehend their own act does not negate the act... or its error.

Suppose it were possible to wipe the memory of the event.

Yes, this what I meant...

Would guilt remain?

You mean culpability? Yes. BUT... that is the PURPOSE... of MERCY. The person may very well be guilty (i.e., culpable and so deserving of punishment, BUT mercy could "triumph over"... and therefore, cover/wipe out/negage the CONSEQUENCES of the error. This is the VERY reason why, contrary to the WTBTS' false teaching regarding Adam, Eve, Judas, etc., that they will NOT be resurrected... they WILL be resurrected.

The WAGE of sin IS death... is death, dear one... NOT of the BODY, but of the SPIRIT. IF there is a covering for such sin, then although one has died, one can live again by means of resurrection to life. If one has NO covering, then one is JUDGED on the basis on one's sins. I.e., resurrected to judgement. Adam and Eve died by means of the sin IN the long garment of skin given them; however, they have not yet stood judgement for their errors. They will, however, because the [second] resurrection is "of the righteous AND the unrighteous." When they DO stand for such judgment, however, who knows the outcome? The Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, shows mercy to whomever HE wishes to show it... by means of the names written in the Book of the Lamb, His Son and Christ, the Holy One of Israel, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH.

It's been said that if you come home and find your apartment trashed by your puppy that if you punish the puppy, the puppy won't learn because it has no memory connection between activities it was involved in and your reactions to those when you came home.

I'd disagree with this one, too, at least as far a MY puppies are concerned. They know EXACTLY what they do/have done... and "why" it is they're "gonna get a spank"... and get one. Yep, I have to "tap that Pamper" from time to time, especially when I pre-warned them NOT to "mess" with something... and then, after giving me that "look"... they grab "it" and run off with it. A game of chase is fine... but not with my, well, whatever it is I told them not to run off with, etc. Dogs (indeed, animals in general)... have WAY more knowledge, understanding... and sense... than we give them credit for!

Anyway, peace to you and I hope this helps!

A slave of Christ,

SA

notverylikely

In addition, the flesh contains sin IN it (which is why it gets sick, ages, dies). Sin is not just breaking a "law" - it is corruption in the flesh.

So sin is a genetic condition that causes cells to divide with incomplete genetic information?

PSacramento

It's been established that guilt seems to be intrinsic to primate behavior. Chimps and other primates display it in certain circumstances, such as when caught stealing food from another chimp.

Not sure if that qualifies as guilt, there is no way to knwo that primates or dogs ( your other example) know guilt other than knowing the possibeloutcoem of getting caught and knowing the possible conclusion of that ie: beat down.

gubberningbody

Has anyone noticed that I can't count yet?

Thinking on sin, whether this sin be taken from a theistic or a-theistic perspective

Share this