Talk:Sin

Does sin require a mens rea of knowledge or intent in order to be sin?
Chris, I know you said that sin is an act done in the foreknowledge that the act is contrary to conscience, morality, or law. But I'm not so sure. Can sin by that definition exist in a society of conscienceless people who value nothing except their pleasures of the moment and who simply repeal any laws they do not like? Any man can brazenly assert, "My conscience is clear!" He might even mean what he says. But is not the act still sin, if the act in fact violates Divine standards, whether the doer knows it or not?

This is one thing that alarms me the most about postmodernism. Postmodernism tells us that no such thing as truth exists. If we start with that, then no such thing as law ought to exist, either. And most dedicated postmodernists I know, assert that no such thing as sin exists, either.

Might part of the problem be that we've been using, for centuries, a word that requires a definitely incriminating mens rea instead of the original term that does not depend on mens rea at all, but judges only the result and declares that result to be failed or at fault?

I speak here of adults, not of children. The "Age of Accountability" would be another philosophical issue entirely, and probably beyond the scope of this project.--Temlakos 11:22, 25 December 2006 (EST)


 * I would assert that we all have foreknowledge of right and wrong. This ability gives us our conscience and our sense of morality. It was obtained at the time Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. People do not need laws to know what is right and what is wrong, and neither are we absolved from actions because society views them as acceptable. Even an act which is lawful is still sinful if the person instinctively knows that it is wrong. I'll try to include some clarification that this foreknowledge is inherent. Feel free to edit further. --Mr. Ashcraft 14:15, 25 December 2006 (EST)

I have a very serious problem with the definition of sin which is declaired at the first sentence of the article. According to that defintion, Adam and Eve did not sin by eating the fruit. THE DEFINITION SHOULD BE MODIFIED. --Juvenis Sun 14:57, 25 December 2006 (EST)


 * How could they not have foreknowledge? God told them not to eat it.


 * I'm not really surprised that you have a problem with the content. A look at your contributions illustrates that your posts have been only discussions up until now, and your comments almost exclusively critical. Such behavior suggests your motives as being oppositional to ours. Constructive comments are typically those that provide meaningful information or references that would help improve the work. Please see to it that your future contributions are positive in nature. --Mr. Ashcraft 16:20, 25 December 2006 (EST)

I found the primary definition inadequate because it only talked of individual sins, whereas the principle of sin is something in our very nature from which individual sins spring. The NT tells us that any action that does not come from faith (that is, from the prompting of the Holy Spirit in us) is sin. (Romans 14:23) I also modified the article to make it clear that it was Adam's sin that condemned the world to decay. Since Eve was subject to her husband, her sin had no general effect. What would have happened if Adam had not sinned with her is unknowable. Note that if she were more generally responsible, the virgin birth would not have been effective to enable the Son of Man to be born without inherited sin. --Oelphick 05:22, 26 December 2006 (EST)

No quarrel with the above, but do you have a specific citation or quote from Exodus or some other book that tells us that the Israelites' shoes did not wear out during their forty-year wanderings? I might like to put that into the article.--Temlakos 10:48, 26 December 2006 (EST)


 * Deuteronomy 29:5 - I put it in but it needs to be made a link --Oelphick 07:26, 27 December 2006 (EST)


 * See the and  templates developed by Chris Ashcraft and myself to make linking to and quoting from Scripture quick and easy.--Temlakos 09:06, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Evidence of foreknowledge
Has anyone seen a commentary on possible evidence of this "foreknowledge of right and wrong"? It shouldn't be too difficult to demonstrate. I would argue, for example, that the very necessity of propaganda or euphemism to justify a morally reprehensible public, domestic, or foreign policy speaks to this instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. Some will no doubt object and say that the evidence for such instincts is subjective. But abundant subjective evidence might at least fall into the clear-and-convincing category and might even be considered preponderant.

Any ideas on how to write or research such a commentary?

Should this be a North Sound Christian School project or other school project?--Temlakos 15:11, 25 December 2006 (EST)


 * James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


 * This also means the exact opposite as well. If you did not know it was sin, how can it be sin when you commit it? And how can you be condemned of what you knew not of? This is why God's word is revealed in a milk then meat process. To reveal "all sin" as sin, means we would have to make a huge change all at one time (when we get saved). And if we could not do this, then we would be responsible for all we could not change. This is where God extends His mercy upon us by not revealing the knowledge we could not bear until we are ready to handle it.


 * I researched the osas (once saved always saved) and no-osas to a point to where I also had to deeply research sin in order to find truth in this subject. When I get a chance I will put here some of the information I came up with. I think it would make for a great discussion. I may even do a page on my research which took almost three years. &#91;http&#58;//creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 04:31, 22 July 2007 (EDT)