Dear Aiden,

Well not really. Firstly in the case of Christianity at least, another person does not have the power to judge you in that regard.

Matthew 7 1-3  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

So let me attempt to defend my position. I think you will find the issue of sin a non-sequitur. It is only the transgressed who can truly determined whether they have been transgressed upon in a sinful manner.

A human can not declare they or others have been sinned against in the proper usage of the word. This lies completely within the prerogative of the supreme entity if they exist. So if we are to apply the rules of logic then sin only follows if the existence of God can be logically argued.

So I submit if it can't, we are left with a charge with no basis in said logic, and thus baseless.

Therefore proper assessment of sin must always be personal.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You put: “Whether or not we are sinners is open for further discussion, but to claim that where I put myself (in relation to religion or whatever) can change the facts, is like the above claim as if my mood can change the laws of arithmetic.”

As above, you must prove the existence of God before you can assert those 'facts'. That you you believe you have to your own satisfaction makes it a 'fact' only to yourself and not to be applied outside of your personal relationship to your God.

In that there is no scientific basis for believing in God it is not in any way comparable to 2+2.

Dear Steele Redux,

2+2=11 if we are operating in a numerical system of base 3 rather than a decimal system. 3=1 if we accept the concept of the trinity. The trinity is a sad aftermath. Omnia Gallia tres divisa est. All Gaul is divided into three parts yet it is one. The trinity is a lot of Gaul or gall. The French might call the Rock of Gibraltar de Gaulle stone.

David F
I am indebted to you for pointing out my mistake. You are right, the "Pursuit of Happiness" appears in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution.
Thanks

Dear davidf,

And Gibraltar is derived from Jabal-ı Tārıq or Mountain of Tariq, the man who led the taking of the 'Rock' for the Moors. They held it for the next 750 years until the Christians took it and expelled the Muslim and Jewish populations.

I have seen opinion from Jewish scholars that the period of Moorish Spain allowed for the great flowering of Jewish culture and intellect within its borders.

You say: "2+2=11 if we are operating in a numerical system of base 3 rather than a decimal system. 3=1 if we accept the concept of the trinity."

The first has a factual basis, the second doesn't.

Happiness is the now-and-forever Mystery that IS the Real Heart and the Only Real God of every one.

ALWAYS remember that your inherent heart-disposition wants and needs Infinite, Absolute, True, Eternal Happiness.

Every living being has the instincts and the Destiny of Infinite Life.

Eternal and total freedom, wisdom, and happiness are the primary needs and ideas of Man (male and female).

When "I" Realize the Transcendental Identity, then fear leaves the body-mind, and Humor is restored.

When "I" Realize the Transcendental Identity of every one that is loved and every thing that is desired, then sorrow leaves the body-mind, and Happiness is restored.

When "I" Realize the Transcendental Condition of all phenomena, all experiences, and all dimensions or worlds in the Realm of Nature and the Cosmos, then anger leaves the body-mind, and Love is restored.

Dear David,

Thank you for correcting me. I made this mistake of accepting the article's words at face value without checking: "The pursuit of happiness sits at the centre of the Constitution and is the worm in the apple of American democracy".

---

Dear SteeleRedux,

I see that you are interested in discussing the topic of our sinfulness or otherwise. This is fine, but first note the following:

1. Whether or not we are sinful, does not depend on our ideas. Would you claim that only children who believe in Santa receive Christmas gifts from him? Wouldn't you agree that either all Christmas-morning presents come from Santa, or all do not?

2. Our sinfulness or the lack thereof does not depend on God's existence. As an example, one could think of God as an asymptotic ideal, then ask oneself: "am I or am I not short of this ideal?".

You wrote:
«So if we are to apply the rules of logic then sin only follows if the existence of God can be logically argued.»

My friends and I have discussed the existence of God in primary school and arrived at the obvious logical conclusion that He does not exist. Why should anyone insist that He does is beyond me, in fact such statements belittle and misrepresent God. To present God as existing is not a religious statement, but rather a caricature. Suppose even that you belong to an Abrahamic faith, where in the Bible does it say "God exists"? That is only an unfortunate late misinterpretation!

To Rephrase the question before us, "Are we sinful", is to ask whether we already reached and are now united with God, or have we so far missed Him. What to speak of God, are we perfect even by our own standards? are we not even short of our own petty ideals? If so, then what to speak of asking ourselves: "Am I omniscient?", "Am I omnipotent?", "Am I omnipresent?", "Am I immortal?", "Am I always benevolent?", etc?