Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Sin [be more descriptive with your title] Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Prince o palities Posted at 6:01 pm on July 7, 2009 All sins are ontologically but not teleologically equal.

Replies Valde Incompertus Posted at 9:39 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:14 am on July 8, 2009 Quote: from static nightmare at 3:13 am on July 8, 2009 So basically you are saying that the morality of something has nothing to do with its consequences? If by this you mean that I don't practice some form of teleological ethics, then that is correct. ------------ icantthinkofaname But does God look at how it impacts the world? I'm thinking God just sees the sin, not the Earthly repercussions. Then again, I don't even pretend to understand the 'mind' of God. What does God see? I imagine He sees everything. It seems logical to me that God is intimately concerned with the created order and what occurs here. He created it after all. ------------ tell me again Does this statement compare the various categories of sins, or various possible sinful acts?   I only agree if it's the latter. I'm not sure what the former refers to, but it is the latter. As far as I know, I only conceive of "sin" as individual acts. Sorry it took a while, and that I'm to lazy just to quote my section. Anyway, but does it not also seem logical, that to an all perfect being, bad is bad?  No degrees, no levels, just bad?  All bad is the worst, all bad is... the opposite of worst (though best doesn't fit?)? Moridin Posted at 9:17 am on July 9, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 4:01 am on July 8, 2009 All sins are ontologically but not teleologically equal. So you are merely asserting that consequentialism is false without so much as a shred of evidence? This is pretty sad, even for you.   theyareAs Posted at 8:37 pm on July 8, 2009 Its all in context, mainly your personal views. Hence this thread LogicandReason Posted at 7:52 am on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:01 pm on July 7, 2009 All sins are ontologically but not teleologically equal. I want to change the word 'sin' into 'transgressions against society' and agree with your posit.  Please direct me to this same wisdom in the Bible...I seemed to have missed it. Great philosophical question! Charolastra Posted at 6:23 am on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 9:03 pm on July 7, 2009 I disagree. What makes you think that they aren't all technologically equal? haha *teleological, it just means things that require context. ontological just means.. well it doesn't really mean much, tbh. lol You would think that if God assigns certain attributes or characteristics to sin that he would also be capable of assigning a value to it. Then again, I don't even pretend to understand the 'mind' of God. I tend to agree more with this. Prince o palities Posted at 6:14 am on July 8, 2009 Quote: from static nightmare at 3:13 am on July 8, 2009 So basically you are saying that the morality of something has nothing to do with its consequences? If by this you mean that I don't practice some form of teleological ethics, then that is correct. ------------ icantthinkofaname But does God look at how it impacts the world?  I'm thinking God just sees the sin, not the Earthly repercussions.  Then again, I don't even pretend to understand the 'mind' of God. What does God see?  I imagine He sees everything.  It seems logical to me that God is intimately concerned with the created order and what occurs here.  He created it after all. ------------ tell me again Does this statement compare the various categories of sins, or various possible sinful acts? I only agree if it's the latter. I'm not sure what the former refers to, but it is the latter.  As far as I know, I only conceive of "sin" as individual acts. static nightmare Posted at 1:13 am on July 8, 2009 So basically you are saying that the morality of something has nothing to do with its consequences? Valde Incompertus Posted at 10:34 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 7:02 pm on July 7, 2009 That's a way to put it. The point is that people often discuss "which sin is the worst?" It's happening in another topic right now. When it comes to whether or not one should sin, they are all equally bad. They have the same ontological quality; their essence is the same. However, people often come back at this with the statement "So God thinks its the same to tell a lie and to mass murder babies?" Obviously not, since they are teleologically unequal. Both the liar and the murder sin and that sin has the same ontological effect, however, teleologically mass murder impacts the world more dramatically, more negatively than your typical lie. But does God look at how it impacts the world?  I'm thinking God just sees the sin, not the Earthly repercussions.  Then again, I don't even pretend to understand the 'mind' of God. tell me again Posted at 9:36 pm on July 7, 2009 Does this statement compare the various categories of sins, or various possible sinful acts? I only agree if it's the latter. Effigy Posted at 7:49 pm on July 7, 2009 Yeah sounds right to me. However, due to the religious/theistic connotations it carries, I'm a bit uncomfortable using words like 'sin' to describe transgressions of moral law. But we do need words like it in order to have any sort of discussion on morality, so I guess I'll go with it. Prince o palities Posted at 7:02 pm on July 7, 2009 That's a way to put it. The point is that people often discuss "which sin is the worst?"  It's happening in another topic right now.  When it comes to whether or not one should sin, they are all equally bad.  They have the same ontological quality; their essence is the same.  However, people often come back at this with the statement "So God thinks its the same to tell a lie and to mass murder babies?"  Obviously not, since they are teleologically unequal.  Both the liar and the murder sin and that sin has the same ontological effect, however, teleologically mass murder impacts the world more dramatically, more negatively than your typical lie. Valde Incompertus Posted at 6:37 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:12 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 8:03 pm on July 7, 2009 I disagree. What makes you think that they aren't all technologically equal? What might be a simpler thing now could turn out to be a serious sin to avoid in the future. Teleologically, not technologically. All sins are equal ontologically, that is they all have the same essential effect metaphysically. They are not teleologically equal in that one may have more terrible and far reaching physical effects. Okay... so if I understand correctly, you are saying God percieves all sins equally, but they can have different effects?   Tavis Posted at 6:31 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Prince o palities at 9:12 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 8:03 pm on July 7, 2009 I disagree. What makes you think that they aren't all technologically equal? What might be a simpler thing now could turn out to be a serious sin to avoid in the future. Teleologically, not technologically. All sins are equal ontologically, that is they all have the same essential effect metaphysically. They are not teleologically equal in that one may have more terrible and far reaching physical effects. This puts my whole discussion to shit. In this case, I agree. Prince o palities Posted at 6:12 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 8:03 pm on July 7, 2009 I disagree. What makes you think that they aren't all technologically equal? What might be a simpler thing now could turn out to be a serious sin to avoid in the future. Teleologically, not technologically. All sins are equal ontologically, that is they all have the same essential effect metaphysically.  They are not teleologically equal in that one may have more terrible and far reaching physical effects. Valde Incompertus Posted at 6:07 pm on July 7, 2009 Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and admit that I don't understand this.  Could you do me a favor and explain it? Most recent 15 of 20 previous replies displayed.