Discussions
What Is Sin?
Posted by Albran • 8/11/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Tags: a course in miracles, forgiveness, God, mind, separation, sin
A big discussion went on these days about the question whether homosexuality is sin.
What does the idea of sin mean, if you look at it fundamentally? Does what one in most Christian establishments learns about sin reflect what Jesus taught about this idea? Or does it stem from a much older notion of a god that could not be acceptable to any loving and reasonable mind?
If you are interested in a broader perspective on these ideas, please, read my recent entry.
teachingacourseinmiracles.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-is-forgiveness-what-is-...
User Comments
-
In the Hebrew the word sin is translated from - chata' khaw-taw' a primitive root; properly, to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin; by inference, to forfeit, lack, expiate, repent, (causatively) lead astray, condemn.
Also from - shagah shaw-gaw' a primitive root; to stray (causatively, mislead), usually (figuratively) to mistake, especially (morally) to transgress; by extension (through the idea of intoxication) to reel, (figuratively) be enraptured.
also from - chatta'ah khat-taw-aw' or chattacth {khat-tawth'}; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender
In the Greek the word sin is translated from - ham-ar-tan'- properly, to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), i.e. (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin.
There are other Greek word that they translate into sin.
Bottom line The source of sin is the ego, Kind of like when a person says "I am a" and makes a title for themselves, which is ego related. Although the word ego was never used in the western world of scripture. -
Sin is doing something that someone else don't like you doing. -
sin is falling short of God's standard. I must add, we are all sinners and we get reconcilled to God when we repent our sins through Jesus Christ who freely forgives all our sins. -
sin is thinking, speaking and doing untruth -
Sin is going aganist God's word. The Bible outlines all these things for you. -
sin is nis backwards.-
I like this. Hahaha...
-
-
I used to thing that sin was an act against God, his commandments and the standards set forth in the Bible as interperated to me by a Southern Baptist Minister. Now, I'm not so sure and I think sin is any intentional act that causes harm. I'm no longer worried about punishment from a vengeful God. I plan to do the best I can to do no harm and I'll answer for my mistakes at the end if that is what God requires of me. If I am wrong, well, then the fundamentalists can laugh at me on the way down.
I think in human society sin has come to mean any activity that is not sanctioned by the "loudest voice" majority..ie homosexuality and marriage, at the moment. Let's go back 40 years and you could have heard people using almost identical arguments against mixed race marriages and quoting the Bible to support their views...that was certainly considered a sin where I grew up. Not any more. Now it's common and the couples are accepted into Baptist churches..so tell me was mixed race marriage EVER a sin in God's eyes?
I don't think so.-
Lisa, I'd be very interested to hear what scriptural references were used to argue against racially mixed marriages. From a political/social perspective, I agree with you that the two issues have a lot of parallels, but since the Bible has a lot to say about marriage as it relates to male/female roles and nothing to say that I can think of offhand about interracial marriage, I'm very curious about that argument. I know that a lot of conservative Christians were actively opposed to interractial marriage, but I'm having trouble sorting out how "quoting the Bible" might have supported their position. -
Madame X,
I grew up in the deep south and the two scriptures I remember most were:
Genesis 9:24-27 - an obscure story about the curse placed on the sons of Noah, thus (supposedly, for the sake of supporting this opinion) dividing the races.
Deuteronomy 7:3 - "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son." (vague at best, right?)
I never believed any of the racist slants that were added to these scriptures but people I knew (and unfortunatly, still know) used them to support their cultural views. These were adults in my community who were doing their best to shape my beliefs as a child. That's why I said that I feel many times sin = current cultural views. -
Interracial marriage took place in the Bible a lot. I'm not talking about color of skin which was never condemned. What God was primarily concerned with people marrying into other cultures, was that those people worshiped other gods, which where false. King Solomon is a prime example of this.
The Bible says not to be "unequally yoked with nonbelievers." -
Oddly, Awwanabe, I believe that the "yolked with unbelievers" admonition arises only in the context of remarriage after being widowed. Certainly it seems reasonable to extrapolate that to first marriage as well, but to my knowledge there is no such explicit statement.
-
Lisa, thanks so much for the detailed response. The Deuteronomy reference was very specific (as you probably know by now) to the destruction of pagan nations, and goes on to say, "For they would turn your sons from following me to serving other gods..." It's hard for me to imagine that any minister could in good faith believe this to have been a racial issue (which isn't in any way to question the good faith belief of the many people misled by such ministers).
The reason I asked the question is that I frequently see the parallel you mentioned drawn, even in very reputable places, but the actual claims "back in the day" seem to have been much vaguer. For instance, the original trial judge in Loving v. Virginia (criminal prosecution for interracial marriage caes eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court) did cite religious grounds, but his reasoning was that the almighty had placed different races on different continents, which was evidence enough that he didn't intend us to mix. -
Hello Madame X,
I don't think "Do not be unequally yoked with nobelievers" just pertains to marriage. I think it pertains to all relationships.
And it certainly would apply to the first marriage, since God never intended for people to divorce, that was Satan's plan. -
Can you give me a citation, Awannabe? I can't find that statement anywhere in the Bible except in reference to remarriage after being widowed (not divorced). And, of course, if it applied to all relationships, then we'd run into tremendous problems with mentoring friendships, teaching relationships, even parent-child relationships, wouldn't we?
-
-
What is a sin? Asking that kind of question on these forums.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
-
It's an illusion. We really are not here. It's a dream.
-
For us to redefine sin would be putting ourselves above God. That would be breaking the first commandment.
Doesn't the creator make the rules for his product or creation when he creates it? Is the creation smarter than the creator?
I think Paul dealt with this in Romans Chapter One. -
Here is the english definition.
sin (as in "unrighteousness") n. : estrangement from god
sin (as in "transgression") n. : an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will
sin (as in "sine") n. : ratio of the opposite side to the hypotenuse
sin (as in "Semitic deity") n. : (Akkadian) god of the moon; counterpart of Sumerian Nanna
sin (as in "letter") n. : the 21st letter of the Hebrew alphabet
sin (as in "activity") n. : (colloquial) violent and excited activity; "they began to fight like sin"
sin (as in "transgress") v. : commit a sin; violate a law of God
sin (as in "transgress") v. : commit a faux pas or fault-
that would be the second definition you gave above
-
And the last definition was the one I meant above.
-
The definitions are from different languages. Biblical hebrew and greek. Then from the modern english dictionary.
The source of "sin" is the ego, the problem is that the dogma of Judaism, Islam and Christianity has not taught this, consequently; confusion. The way religion has taught the idea is based on guilt, shame and fear which points to control.
-
-
"What does the idea of sin mean, if you look at it fundamentally? Does what one in most Christian establishments learns about sin reflect what Jesus taught about this idea?"
Why are we limiting the discussion of Sin to Christianity again?-
I am referring to Jesus and his teaching, which have NOTHING to do with all the crap that is used and taught by established Christianity. Jesus did not teach nor intend religion. He taught the actual change and transformation of your mind to a very or completely different perspective of who you ARE and therefore the EXPERIENCE of it. Being born again is not adherence to a particular concept. It is the undergoing of a RADICAL change in your self-identity in which you have nothing to say about. You are what you are, and not what you think you are.
Good for you to ask. -
Albran, if you worship Christ, are you not a Christian?
-
Yes, I am a Christian, but definitely not as defined and used in this world. My concern also is not worship in the traditional sense, whatever that is. I am teaching and learning to applay the mind training of A Course In Miracles, which is a message not of this world, for me and to me to remember who I am, and to leave this place of death and denial of truth.
-
Alright, then. Since I do not ascribe to the doctrine of Jesus as God (nor do I have a problem with people who do, mind you), I was excluded from the original question, which was what I was getting at. At least, that's how I took it, my apologies if that's not what was intended.
God and sin are not subjects Christians have the markets cornered on, is all I meant. -
Well, I can't see where you have been excluded. For you to take part you would have to know about the teachings of established Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. That is a possiblility for you, even if you do not subcribe to any of it.
But whatever, you somewhere would have to admit that any kind of separation is what sin is. Otherwise, what are we even talking about? Second, separation can only represent an act of mind, a mistaken or meaningless thought. Therefore it is not a reality, but an error to be corrected. Correction then, obviously, is universally applicable, and by necessity not a doctrin but an experience undoing the thought and awareness of separation in any form.
If you say, Jesus is not perfect as God created him, then you must be saying, you are not perfect as God created you. Take anyone, it does not matter. There is only one power, one life, one mind, that you share with God.
-
-
Hmmm... for Christians it is about 'original Sin'...however might there be Jungian slant ref: the archetype sin that is meta-religious. Defining Good, Sin Truth etc might also get 'tricky' because they are predisposed to relative perceptions. The debate might be more fruitful if the question were posed ...Is Sin capable of being an 'absolute' objective term regardless of 'who decides' (eating cream cakes is a sin :)?) or is it destined to remain subjective 'relative' to historical period, culture and individuality.-
It's a question of doctrine - and, as usual in these forums, no one knows how to discuss anything concerning religion outside of their own doctrine (present parlay excluded, of course).
*sigh* ... I give up.
... not to mention they keep ending up in the 'shameless' forum, perhaps there's a hidden meaning there.
-
-
Ghosty,
Isn't that how most people discuss things..from their own frame of reference? My early moral makeup (which I am refining as I grow older) was determined by the way I was raised which was by a Baptist mother and a Jehovah's Witness father. What a mix that was!
I'd love to discouss someone elses beliefs about sin and anything else they wish to share. That's how I grow and expand my knowledge base. But, unfortunately, my answers will alway be clouded by my own prespective.
Respectfully,
Lisa-
Sure, you are absolutely right. However, this is a public, worldwide forum, and sin has a lot of meanings to a lot of different people.
Instead of posing the question from a Christian standpoint, the question could have been posed from a universal one, i.e.:
"What does the idea of sin mean, if you look at it fundamentally? Does what one in most Christian establishments learns about sin reflect what Jesus taught about this idea?"
... could have been phrased as ...
"What does the idea of sin mean, if you look at it fundamentally? Does what one in most religions learns about sin reflect what God taught about this idea?"
Perhaps the poser of the question wasn't interested in what any non-Christian had for an answer?
Of course, we all identify things from our own perspective. Recognizing that our perspective isn't the only one out there keeps discussions like this open to everyone. -
Ghosty,
Your version of the question does not make it better. Where do you find reference for God actually teaching about anything? Why would God have to teach? He knows and does not have to learn.
Certainly you would not accept the idea of God teaching you, would you?
The most advanced teaching of enlightened thought is A Course In Miracles, which is not limited to any particular religious tradition at all, nor in the least advocating the establishment of any religious system. -
"Certainly you would not accept the idea of God teaching you, would you? "
Of course I would. God teaches on spiritual levels - although cause and effect, seen through actions in the material world, are a part of that as well. There's no reason to suppose that intellectual and spiritual learning have to be separate entities. -
The idea of God teaching does not make any sense. What is perfect, cannot know of imperfection. Therefore, there is no need to teach in God, infact, there is not any need in God. Need is the idea of imperfection. Imperfection cannot exist in God.
-
"The idea of God teaching does not make any sense. What is perfect, cannot know of imperfection. Therefore, there is no need to teach in God, in fact, there is not any need in God. Need is the idea of imperfection. Imperfection cannot exist in God."
That's quite interesting. However, there are several thousand years of Hindi teaching with might disagree with you, even though 90% of Vedic thought agrees with your first two sentences - what is perfect cannot know of imperfection, and that there is not any need in God.
However, my perception of 'perfect' is different from yours. I am perfect in God's eyes because I am exactly what He intends for me to be at this very moment, and nothing else. Therefore, even in my imperfection, I am perfect.
Quite a bit different, I assume. -
ghostytwofish, when you say,
"my perception of 'perfect' is different from yours. I am perfect in God's eyes because I am exactly what He intends for me to be at this very moment, and nothing else. Therefore, even in my imperfection, I am perfect."
I agree, but have to say, that God does not intend imperfection. If you say you are imperfect, you definitely do not think with God. Whatever you call imperfect therefore does not exist. If you are fearful in any way, you do not exist.
Who likes that?
-
-
For me 'that's the point' yes we do discuss things from 'our position' - where we sit naturally affects what we see...however don't you think it is a puzzle to consider if there is such a thing as 'Sin' regardless of our relative positions. Such that no matter 'who', 'when', 'where' 'how' a 'thing' we might label as Sin is...Sin and recognised universally. I sense a monster survey coming on..on a scale of 1 -7 where 1 is totally agree and 7 is totally disagree...is it Sin to swat Flies, Cut people up on the motorway (UK), commit incest, take another life, eat meat, etc etc... possibly the big guy/gal/neuter tried this and said aahh 'to hell with that' try these 10 rules for starters and here's 7 deadly ones to get you going??
-
I think a better question than 'what constitutes a sin' would be 'what is sin'. What constitutes a sin varies from doctrine to doctrine, even from sect to sect. That discussion would not answer very many questions.
-
-
I doubt that any of you participating in this discussion is really interested in a new perspective at all.
You definitely demonstrate this apparent lack of motivation for further research and investigation by your behavior. You all come to me with your positions and preconceived ideas. You all seem to know what sin is or not is. No one seemed to care to read what was said in my blog entry.
It is way to dangerous, I suppose.-
To be honest, I never read your post, as I am not interested in this type of question. That's why I said this thread was a sin.
-
Just as, it seems, you started the thread as a means to advance your position rather than to encourage serious discussion or consider alternate viewpoints.
Guilty as charged over here--I find the "perspective" Christ passed to us through his church quite adequate and don't feel any need to hope that someone will come along and create a website to provide me with something better. -
I read your stuff. What I couldn't find were your credentials. Do you have a life of studying philosophy and religions behind you, or are you just marketing your lesson plan?
-
I read some of your post, skimmed through it. I will be the first to admit I am very stubborn in my faith. I don't follow blindly. My stubborness comes from the miracles and ways JC has revealed himself to me starting when I was five years old. I know my God is real. So I let him define what sin is, and the Holy spirit do the convicting.
I thought A Course in Miracles was a book used in 12 step groups btw. Am I confusing it with something else or are you affiliated. -
MadameX,
well, that is why I posted in "Shameless Blog Promotion". That is what I am left with, if I want you to take note of something. You got it perfectly. If you don't want to, fine. But to be able to respond to it, you still would have to read it. There is no sense in arguing with me without reading it, because it is radically different from what ordinarily is learned about sin. At least as I perceive it.
I did not intend to provide anything "better". I am saying, while there are definitely enlightened teachers in every tradition and time, the teachings of the churches do not reflect what Jesus taught. Just look at what "they" did with Teilhard de Chardin or, a little earlier, with Baruch de Spinoza or you name it. I am saying, the world, and the churches are part of the world, does not know of the truth. Yet it is here. Something got through.
Of course, it is all up to you to decide what you will do with it. Although you do not really have a choice. Truth is true, and nothing else is true. No one will deny truth forever, allthough there is no judgment or punishment involved except that denial of truth is what judgment or punishment is, in other words a sinful act leading to your own death, by your own hand. That is why I say, we are all addicted to death. -
Albran writes, "to be able to respond to it, you still would have to read it." My question: respond to what? The title of this thread asked a question that did not demand a response to your blog post. Instead of asking, "What is sin?", you could write, "My personal ideas about sin" (or something similar in a question form). The point is that you cannot blame people for misunderstanding you when you post such a simple statement, "What is sin?" Yes, you add more details in the initial post to this thread, but you have to face the consequences of your own title for it. Instead of calling people cowards or what not, just try to communicate a bit more effectively. Whether or not you get any takers is another question.
-
awannabe,
I did not ask for blind following. By referring to a previous discussion I posed a question and offered an answer on my blog. That is what I wanted to tell in this "Shameless Blog Promotion".
Everyone can read and argue reasonably with an idea presented, if that is what he wants.
A Course In Miracles is used by many in the 12 Step program. That, however, does not limit it to that program. Some say, it is identical to the 12 Step program. Some say, A Course In Miracles is the 13th step. Whatever, it stands on its own, and has a revolutionary mission. -
ghostytwofish,
Credentials? Anyone is a teacher. He teaches himself, based on what he wants to learn. I am a teacher of A Course In Miracles.
Credentials are what? Expressing that I am a human being and will die, no matter what I do? The hell with that. -
stoneman,
I get your point. I can accept. I was misleading in my posting.
Thanks. -
Albran, I simply disagree with you; I've read your blog before, and I think you're wrong. It's that simple. No, I did not read the post referenced here, but I question your apparent perception that simply because you started a thread, you have the right to control how it grows and evolves as other people participate. Your intention was to draw attention to your own blog--I get that. But how is it different, for instance, from a television commercial after which one person turns to another and tells a story about something she was reminded of, or comments on what someone in the commercial was wearing, though that's not relevant to the product. People talk. Not all discussion is going to further your interests--that's the nature of open participation.
This reminds me a bit of the thread a month or so ago in which someone posted a link to her own site and then came back a few responses later and chided others for adding links to posts of their own.
-
-
A mystery:
Hidden in all the imperfection we percieve with our fleshly being hides the perfection of God.
For your entire life, for teaching purposes, your closest friend has been your flesh, that wondrous vehicle that has carried you from birth to the place where you are today. Through thick and thin it has always been there for you. It’s been with you so long that it is hard to tell where it stops and you begin. To most people, it is you.
The Holy Spirit told me that the flesh is like a glove that you put on for a specific dirty task. The soul is like your hand that the glove was put on to protect. The spirit is the body and mind that told the hand what to do. After the task is complete, the glove is to be discarded but you and your hand will go on with your life.
Your flesh was given to you by God to teach you about sin and other temporary things like death and Satan. This vehicle is flesh. It is therefore subject to the flesh. This fleshly world that we live in is the kingdom of Satan. All fleshly things of this world have been put away and denounced by the entire Kingdom of God.
Sin is the transgression of the law. The law is those things which God has deemed right or wrong. If God says that something is right and you don’t do it, you have committed sin. If God said something is wrong and you do it, you have committed sin.
I cannot tell you how many times in my own life that I have requested a lack of wisdom so that I could have the things that I lusted after in the flesh. I knew better than to fornicate, love money, lie, cheat, steal or be proud, but I wanted these things so I would cast off wisdom.
the only struggles with these question are us trying to get around the commandments of God for our lusts. No sin is worse or better than the other to God, they are all death. Its only man who labels one sin to be worse and one sin to be harmless. We will not leave the flesh even through death until we accept all the commandments of God.
The ten commandments are the end result of every living soul.-
justawitness,
I will have to question you.
Why in hell would God have to teach me anything? If He created me in His likeness, I am perfect and do not need to be taught. Also, your statement implies God knowing of this world. That is not true. Can such a world really exist?
Also, God does not command. God only gives. Commandment implies separation. God is one, and does not know of separation. Separation is a mistaken thought. That is what this world is. A thought, for which you, ultimately, have to take responsibility. God is the mind with which you think. -
Albran writes, "Why in hell would God have to teach me anything? If He created me in His likeness, I am perfect and do not need to be taught."
Is this just a rhetorical strategy? Or do you believe this? -
stoneman,
I am just using simple reason and logic. If I am told by any teacher that I am whole and perfect, created in the likeness of God, I would need teaching only in case I am not aware of who I am.
This is the case of everyone in this world. Yet in truth you do not need anything because you are perfect. You are denying your own being. That is why you need A Course In Miracles. It is an impossible situation. Not just that, it is over and gone. -
I do not understand a word you said, except that I'm pretty sure you believe what i quoted you saying.
-
And with that in mind, I don't think there's a lot of room for discussion here.
-
I read your post and gotta say you are really confusing yourself.
I read your reply and I believe that is the strangest reply to the wisdom of God that I've heard to date.
I've kicked around several answers but I can't see any reason to give you one.
-
-
Honestly, bro, I scanned your post and I cought some things I agree with, but your post is way too long. You might want to consider breaking up the post with bolded subheaders that explain what the paragraph is about.
Check out www.copyblogger.com/
It really helped me out with writing.
This may be the reason why no one (or very few) Are responding to your post.
I did not read it. Sorry. It's too long. I've got a bunch of work to do, and although I'm interested, I can not respond to your post.
jorge-
I can tell, your monkey icon is all squinty-eyed.
-
Thanks for the kind advice and honesty, Jorge.
-
Thanks for the kind advice and honesty, Jorge.
-
Thanks for the kind advice and honesty, Jorge.
-
Sorry for this mess. I lost connection and kept pressing the button.
-
-
I'm hungry.
-
Simulated Intravenous Needle to help those with needlephobias to get over it. Thank goodness I did, considering how many time I've ended up in the ER. -
Asking everyone to define sin is very provocative and a bit self-serving to want people to read and talk about your article/post. I think if you would have broached this question with highlights of your opinion perhaps you would have gotten a different type of discussion. I get where you are trying to drive this train. However someone posted:no one is willing to just follow anyone blindly...ok maybe a lot will, but for this discussion not hardly. Keep posting thought provoking stuff.
Love,
Babz
www.lovebabz.blogspot.com-
Babz,
I feel like I basically have answered what you expressed in my reply to MadameX.
Thank you.
-
-
I thought the question was,"What is sin" How to deal with it is a whole different bag of monkeys-
Jadedvisalian writes, "I thought the question was,'What is sin'"
So did everyone else. -
Maybe everyone expresses somewhere that sin is separation from God, even if he goes on much more specificly.
Yet, if that is what sin in its most fundamental idea is, one has to ask himself, if the idea makes sense. Can there really be separation from God, meaning, regardless of my experience of it, can it really have the status of reality, if God is what He is, that is everything, omnipresent, all-loving etc? Or do I have to admit that by sin I am making something up that is not possible, even if I am in the experience of it?
That would have to have consequences on how to deal with sin.
-
-
Blimey Albran ...sorting out 'what is truth' now are we? Got bored with the 'sin' problem?...Just interested to know what evidence you have for the fact that 'no-one' above is interested in a new perspective! how have you reached that conclusion? I think most poeple above have made it clear that they have a 'view' and that whilst their perpective is important to them they are willing to explore others...provided they are involved in a discussion and not a diatribe. Additionally you might consider the ideas of someone such as Ken Wilber as this might assist you in locating your opinions (and Aramaic etymology) in some sort of over-arching perspective that encompasses your present view. Natuarlly we forgive you if you do not feel inclined to appreciate these issues from a different perspective...
-
reasonablerobinson said:
"I think most poeple above have made it clear that they have a 'view' and that whilst their perpective is important to them they are willing to explore others...provided they are involved in a discussion and not a diatribe."
I see that my statements could be offending to some here. I wanted to present an idea. My way of doing that maybe was inappropriate. Maybe due to that, most if not all participants, at least according to my blog stats, did - until some point - not read the entry I was refering to. Only five of all visited my post. 80 % bounced off, whatever that means in detail. That led me to my conclusion of lack of interest in a new perspective on the subject. Do I care? I guess not really anymore. In the beginning of this discussion, yes. But I had to see that I have to do this for myself. If I do this in order to convince or convert anyone, I am just full of crap. All I can do, is offer an idea, and then trust, and most of all accept it for myself.
I fall victim to my idea of someone else having to learn about the possibilities and miraculous nature of A Course In Miracles. That is not true. Only I have to learn and do this.
I also think this discussion can be used to demonstrate that anyone gives everything all the meaning it has for him. That is the way how one avoids confrontation with something new or different. That is also the way how one stays in his own bubble and loop of thought. Everyone is just talking to himself. It is a closed system. You can call it a poor experience, embarrasing to admit or face, yet that is what it is for anyone in sin, in disconnection from everything that is.
Thanks to everyone in this exposure of ourselves.
-
-
Getting too drunk to feed your kids~ -
Can everyone accept the idea that sin in its most fundamental sense is the idea of separation from God?
Yet, one has to answer the question if separation from God is really a possibility and therefore a true idea. God meaning the idea and source of life, being everything there is, omnipresent, all-loving and whole in any regard. Everything is true by the possibility of it.
If separation from God is not possible, it can only be imagined if experienced. Therefore, this would have dramatic consequences in how to deal with sin. -
Wow! These long posts. It don't become 'sin' until you're caught in the act.
-
Since God resides within you, you're caught as soon as you make your move.
Not that being 'caught' is an accurate analogy, anyway.
-
-
Outstanding Nesmuth - bang on! and that's surely the argument in a nutshell...caught by either... 'me/I' (subjective, in here at one with... etc) OR 'him/her/it' (objective, out there cartesian division)
Intersting tho' - is thinking about doing it a Sin too? In which case its the firey pit and eternal toast for me! -
All too often, now and historically, "sin" is whatever the self-righteous oppose at the moment.
Years ago, when the Catholic church lightened up on never eating meat on Fridays, the Catholic Digest ran a cartoon about a distraught priest running with the news to his superior, frantically asking, "What are we going to do with all those people we sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?!" The answer--"Father, what makes you think God does everything we tell him?"
People use the word to mean "I"M close to God--you're NOT," feigning concern for others' souls in what's really a passive agressive attack. It reduces "religion" to the level of a gang, and certainly has nothing to do with Scripture, except in the minds of the self-righteous.
An example:
writingtrue.blogspot.com/2007/05/clery-in-goat-line.html
Writer-
Isn't that the truth, thankfully scripture answers all that as well.
-
-
Writing True,
I loved what you posted. I like the way it made me see things differently. I think Albran is trying to feel his way on his spiritual path and is eager to share what he has found to be truth for him and his experiences. I am not interested in the concept of sin as it relates to what consenting adults do. I am however interested in what we can do to prepare ourselves to be better people on this planet. The Course in Miracles is one thought provoking path--there are many others in the same vein.
Love,
Babz
www.lovebabz.blogspot.com -
Albran, you are not a Christian. Perhaps you are agnostic, which attempt to call themselves Christian by reading false prophets and testimonies to support their desire to be one with God. To be a Christian means to be a Christ follower. To be a Christ follower means to admit that Christ was the Son of God the only perfect, sinless human. God may have created man perfect, but also created him with free will. Man used that free will to choose to sin by eating of the fruit of Knowledge of Sin. After that, no human except Jesus was born perfect. I don't know who taught you that you were created perfect. They taught you wrong. I will pray for your eternal soul, that you might see the real "Truth" and see God for who He truly is, and therefore yourself as you truly are. We are all sinners falling short of the Glory of God. Lucifer's biggest problem was that he saw himself as equal to God, just as you seem to. That is why he was thrown out of Heaven and will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for all eternity. My prayers for you. In Him Alone, A Proverbs 31 Wannabe-
When Jesus says, be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven, he says, I can be perfect and have to be perfect. I see you confuse what you think you are/have become with what God created. You think you are real in a body, as a separate identity in space/time. Yet if you are in Jesus Christ, one with him as He is one with the Father, that cannot be true. You might want to admit that you will never be able to become one, unless you are already one. You do not have to power to change what you are, and God does not create anything imperfect. If that does not correspond with your experience, you MUST be wrong. It is that simple, though it may not seem to be that way.
But either Jesus is right, or not. There is no inbetween.
-
-
*Sigh* I wasn't going to join this discussion, but wanted to throw in scripture since I haven't seen any in this discussion.
For those of you who DO believe in the infallibility of God's word and that all scripture is inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:17), this is for you
JOHN 16:7-11
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9OF SIN, BECAUSE they BELIEVE NOT on me;
10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged
ROMANS 14:23
23"And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is NOT of FAITH IS SIN."
Based on Christ's definition of sin, sin in it's purest form is unbelief. Attitudes and behaviors originating sin are manifestations of this fact.
LUKE 6:45
"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."
Example: Eve bit the apple, because at heart, she did not trust/believe God. Her disobedience was a manifestation of her unbelief.
I have a post that expounds on this a bit. You're welcome to stop by and visit.
confessionsofanunchurchedbeliever.blogspot.com/2007/07/salvation-by-faith-o...-
Oh, lovely, Hannah.
I read that God does not judge. That is my experience of light. It is absolutely non-judgmental. As long as I am in judgment, I cannot enter this experience. The conceptual mind is totally meaningless and does not know nor understand anything.
That is what no human being can stand. It is a total threat to him. Finally, you are threatened by any direct experience of God. Why? It renders anything you do meaningless. You can neither add nor take away from God. All you can do is to include yourself in and let yourself be healed.
But that is why you crucify/did crucify Jesus Christ.Because man is afraid ofit. -
"I read that God does not judge."
Would only that more "Christians" could grasp this point.
-
-
10 commendments defines some of the sins, Anna -
Romans 13:18
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Romans 8:3
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
(Thus, Christ's discription of sin in John 16:9 )
My name is Hannah BTW with an H not A
-
-
I suppose it's a question of whether or not you accept Christ as the fulfillment of law (Ten commandment and Jewish temple laws)
Which is how Christianity came to exist, (Christ as the head of the Church) unfortunately we have gotten far away from the principles/doctrine of Christ as defined by the Word, and we exist in this society of splinter Christian churches.
All in all, for those of you who believe in the infallicy and consistency of the Word. Let's not forget the means of the remission of sins brought forth by His sacrifice.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever BELIEVETH in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
verses 17-19 should also be read and considered Unbelief is sin in it's purest form. -
Sin is deviating from social norms. Some people want to live a God life. Some people don't. -
Sin is actually an ancient archery term that means missing the mark-
Well, yes, but that's quite an oversimplification.
According to Answers.com:
sin
Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation. The English word sin was originally an archery term. The distance from the center of the bullseye to the point where an arrow struck is known as the 'sin of the arrow'. Sin is often used meaning an action thought of as wrong or prohibited however in some religions (most notably Christianity), sin or sinning is something that is an action or a state of mind.
In monotheistic religions, the code of conduct is determined by God. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienative might be termed "sinful".
Common ideas surrounding sin in various religions include:
Punishment for sins, from other people, from God either in life or in afterlife, or from the Universe in general.
The question of whether or not an act must be intentional to be sinful.
The idea that one's conscience should produce guilt for a knowing sin.
A scheme for determining the seriousness of the sin.
Repentance from (expressing regret for and determining not to commit) sin, and atonement (repayment) for past deeds.
The possibility of forgiveness of sins, often through communication with a deity or intermediary; in Christianity often referred to as salvation.
Crime and justice are related secular concepts.
Etymology
The English word sin derives from Old English synn., recorded in use as early as the 9th century.[1] The same root appears in several other Germanic languages, e.g. Old Norse synd, or German Sünde. There is presumably a Germanic root *sun(d)jō (literally "it is true").[2] The word may derive, ultimately, from *es-, one of the Proto-Indo-European roots that meant "to be," and is a present participle, "being." Latin, also has an old present participle of esse in the word sons, sont-, which came to mean "guilty" in Latin.[citation needed] The root meaning would appear to be, "it is true;" that is, "the charge has been proven." The Greek word hamartia (ἁμαρτία) is usually translated as sin in the New Testament; it means "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target" which was also used in Old English archery. Similarly in other research, this word has been associated with the "hem" of a garment.[citation needed]
"Sin" was also the name of the Babylonian moon god. Some students in recent times have postulated a connection with the modern English word "sin"[citation needed], but this is likely a folk-etymology. Note that the Babylonian/Akkadian deity name is from the Sumerian moon god Nanna - Suen. In the Sumerian myth "Enlil and Ninlil" [3] Suen is trapped in the underworld. Sons of Enlil and Ninlil are given as substitutes to allow for the ascent of Suen.
Buddhist views of sin
Buddhism doesn't recognize the idea behind Sin because in Buddhism, instead, there is a Cause-Effect Theory, known as Karma, or action. In general, Buddhism illustrates intentions as the cause of Karma, either good or bad. Furthermore, most thoughts in any being's mind can be negative.
Vipaka, the result of your Karma, may create low quality living, hardships, destruction and all means of disharmony in life and it may also create the healthy living, easiness, and harmony in life. Good deeds produce good results while bad deeds produce bad results. Karma and Vipaka is your own action and result.
Pañcasīla (Pāli) is the fundamental code of Buddhist ethics, willingly undertaken by lay followers of Gautama Buddha. It is a basic understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is a Buddhist teaching on ways to stop suffering.
Pancasila
I undertake the rule to refrain from destroying living creatures.
I undertake the rule to refrain from taking that which is not given.
I undertake the rule to refrain from sexual misconduct.
I undertake the rule to refrain from incorrect speech.
I undertake the rule to refrain from intoxicants which lead to carelessness.
Noble Eightfold Path
Right View
Right Intention
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Work
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration
These ultimately lead to cessation of suffering and thus is a way to be free of Samsara. After that, Nirvana is achieved.
Jewish views of sin
Judaism regards the violation of divine commandments to be a sin. Judaism teaches that sin is an act, and not a state of being. Mankind was not created with an inclination to do evil, but has that inclination "from his youth"(Genesis 8:21). It should be noted that if indeed this was the case, that God had created man sinfully, it would impugn the absolute goodness of God that all three Abrahamic religions profess. He does have the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and choose good over evil (Psalm 37:27).[3] Judaism uses the term "sin" to include violations of Jewish law that are not necessarily a lapse in morality. According to the Jewish encyclopedia, "Man is responsible for sin because he is endowed with free will ("behirah"); yet he is by nature frail, and the tendency of the mind is to evil: "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. viii. 21; Yoma 20a; Sanh. 105a). Therefore God in His mercy allowed man to repent and be forgiven."[4] Judaism holds that all people sin at various points in their lives, and hold that God tempers justice with mercy.
The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is avera. Based on verses in the Hebrew Bible, Judaism describes three levels of sin. There are three categories of a person who commits an avera. The first one is someone who does an avera intentionally, or "B'mezid." This is the most serious category. The second is one who did an avera by accident. This is called "B'shogeg," and while the person is still responsible for their action it is considered less serious. The third category is someone who is a "Tinok Shenishba", which is a person who was raised in an environment that was assimilated or non-Jewish, and is not aware of the proper Jewish laws, or halacha. This person is not held accountable for their actions.
Pesha or Mered - An intentional sin; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God; (Strong's Concordance :H6588 (פשע pesha', peh'shah). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H6586); rebellion, transgression, trespass.
Avon - This is a sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion. It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God; (Strong's Concordance :H5771 (avon, aw-vone). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H5753); meaning perversity, moral evil:--fault, iniquity, mischief.
Cheit - This is an unintentional sin, crime or fault. (Strong's Concordance :H2399 (חַטָּא chate). According to Strong it comes from the root khaw-taw (:H2398, H2403) meaning "to miss, to err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble."
Judaism holds that no human being is perfect, and all people have sinned many times. However, certain states of sin (i.e. avon or cheit) do not condemn a person to damnation; only one or two truly grievous sins lead to anything approaching the Biblical conception of hell. The Biblical and rabbinic conception of God is that of a creator who tempers justice with mercy. Based on the views of Rabbeinu Tam in the Babylonian Talmud (tractate Rosh HaShanah 17b), God is said to have thirteen attributes of mercy:
God is merciful before someone sins, even though God knows that a person is capable of sin.
God is merciful to a sinner even after the person has sinned.
God represents the power to be merciful even in areas that a human would not expect or deserve.
God is compassionate, and eases the punishment of the guilty.
God is gracious even to those who are not deserving.
God is slow to anger.
God is abundant in kindness.
God is the god of truth, thus we can count on God's promises to forgive repentant sinners.
God guarantees kindness to future generations, as the deeds of the righteous patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) have benefits to all their descendants.
God forgives intentional sins if the sinner repents.
God forgives a deliberate angering of Him if the sinner repents.
God forgives sins that are committed in error.
God wipes away the sins from those who repent.
As Jews are commanded in imitatio Dei, emulating God, rabbis take these attributes into account in deciding Jewish law and its contemporary application.
A classical rabbinic work, Midrash Avot de Rabbi Natan, states:
“ One time, when Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was walking in Jerusalem with Rabbi Yehoshua, they arrived at where the Temple in Jerusalem now stood in ruins. "Woe to us" cried Rabbi Yehoshua, "for this house where atonement was made for Israel's sins now lies in ruins!" Answered Rabban Yochanan, "We have another, equally important source of atonement, the practice of gemilut hasadim (loving kindness), as it is stated 'I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice'. ”
The Babylonian Talmud teaches that "Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eleazar both explain that as long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now, one's table atones [when the poor are invited as guests]." (Tractate Berachot, 55a.)
The traditional liturgy of the Days of Awe (the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) states that prayer, repentance and tzedakah (charitable actions) are ways to repent for sin. In Judaism, sins committed against people (rather than against God or in the heart) must first be corrected and put right to the best of a person's ability; a sin which has not also been put right as best as possible cannot truly be said to be repented.
Jewish conceptions of atonement for sin
For more details on this topic, see Repentance in Judaism.
Atonement for sins is discussed in the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament. Rituals for atonement occurred in the Temple in Jerusalem, and were performed by the Kohanim, the Israelite priests. These services included song, prayer, offerings and animal sacrifices known as the korbanot. The rites for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, are prescribed in the book of Leviticus chapter 15. The ritual of the scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to be claimed by Azazel, was one of these observances (Lev. 16:20-22).
A number of animal sacrifices were prescribed in the Torah (five books of Moses) to make atonement: a sin-offering for sins, and a guilt offering for religious trespasses. The significance of animal sacrifice is not expanded on at length in the Torah, though Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17 suggest that blood and vitality were linked. It should be noted that modern conservative Jews and Christians argue that the Jews never believed that the aim of all sacrifice is to pay the debt for sins - only the sin-offering and the guilt offering had this purpose; modern scholars of early Jewish history, however, often disagree and argue that this division came later. Later Biblical prophets occasionally make statements to the effect that the hearts of the people were more important than their sacrifices - "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams" (I Samuel 15:22); "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6); "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17) (see also Isaiah 1:11, Psalm 40:6-8).
Although the animal sacrifices were prescribed for atonement, there is no place where the Hebrew Bible says that animal sacrifice is the only means of atonement. Hebrew Bible teaches that it is possible to return to God through repentance and prayer alone. For example, in the books of Jonah and Esther, both Jews and gentiles repented, prayed to God and were forgiven for their sins, without having offered any sacrifices.[3] Additionally, in modern times, most Jews do not even consider animal sacrifices. On the High Holidays of Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and the period between these two holidays known as the Days of Atonement, repentance of sins committed is based on specialized prayers and hymns, while some Jews continue the ancient methods of sacrifice. An example of a common method of "sacrificing" for the sake of repentance is simply to drop bread into a body of water, to signify the passing of sins and the hope for one to be written into the Book of Life by God once again. This is especially emphasized on what is arguably the holiest Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur.
Repentance in itself is also a means of atonement (See Ezekiel 33:11, 33:19, Jeremiah 36:3, etc.) The Hebrew word for repentance is teshuvah which literally means to "return (to God)." The prophet Hosea (14:3) said, "Take with you words, and return to God." Judaism teaches that our personal relationship with God allows us to turn directly to Him at any time, as Malachi 3:7 says, "Return to Me and I shall return to you," and Ezekiel 18:27, "When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." Additionally, God is extremely compassionate and forgiving as is indicated in Daniel 9:18, "We do not present our supplications before You because of our righteousness, but because of Your abundant mercy."[3]
Note that modern Judaism's views on sin and atonement are not identical to those in the Hebrew Bible alone, but rather are based on the laws of the Bible as seen through the Jewish oral law.
Christian views of sin
In general
In Western Christianity, in a sense, sin is often viewed as a legal infraction or contract violation, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms, similar to Jewish thinking. In Eastern Christianity, sin is more often viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. The Bible, however, shows sin to be not following God's moral guidance. This is based on the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis. They went against God and acquired from disobeying Him, the "knowledge of good and evil," by eating the fruit of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." They now had the ability to judge for themselves. To abide by God's judgement and value is Not sin. Thus, the moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree which God commanded them not to, sin was born; it was the disobeying act that was the sin. Though, since God spoke specifically to Adam, and then Adam told Eve what God had said, it usually believed that Adam held the most responsibility for the evil that took place on that day.
The Greek word in the New Testament that is translated in English as "sin" is hamartia, which literally means missing the target. In Christianity, salvation is viewed in terms of reconciliation and a genuine relationship with Christ. 1 John 3:4 states: "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." (ESV) This law refers to the statements (commonly called the Ten Commandments) in Exodus 20:1-17 that God demands of those that follow Him. Another example of this is in Romans 6:23 where it says the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ our Lord. Both Eastern and Western Christians agree, on the basis God's Word, that sin serves as a barrier in one having a complete relationship with God. But in the Gospel of John 3:16 it states "For God so loved the world, He gave his one and only son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." This verse is the base of Christianity. Salvation is not obtained through good works but faith alone accompanied by obedience to the law that which God has set forth. The works will follow the faith. Christains trust that every one of us falls short of the perfect glory of God with because of our sins (imperfections), but the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins was the perfect and ultimate sacrifice; therefore, one can obtain salvation only through seeking faith in Jesus Christ who was crucified and resurrected for all of mankind.
Roman Catholic views
Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between personal sin and original sin. Personal sins are either mortal or venial.
Mortal sins are sins of grave (serious) matter, where the sinner is fully aware that the act (or omission) is both a sin and a grave matter, and performs the act (or omission) with fully deliberate consent. The act of committing a mortal sin cuts off the sinner from God's grace; it is in itself a rejection of God. If left un-reconciled, mortal sins result in eternal punishment in Hell.
Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins. The act of committing a venial sin does not cut off the sinner from God's grace, as the sinner has not rejected God. However, venial sins do injure the relationship between the sinner and God, and as such, must be reconciled to God, either through the sacrament of reconciliation or receiving the Eucharist.
Both mortal and venial sins have a dual nature of punishment. They incur both guilt for the sin, yielding eternal punishment, and temporal punishment for the sin. Reconciliation is an act of God's mercy, and addresses the guilt and eternal punishment for sin. Purgatory and indulgences address the temporal punishment for sin, and exercise of God's justice.
Roman Catholic doctrine also sees sin as being twofold: Sin is, at once, any evil or immoral action which infracts God's law and the inevitable consequences, the state of being that comes about by committing the sinful action. Sin can and does alienate a person both from God and the community. Hence, the Catholic Church's insistence on reconciliation with both God and the Church itself.
According to Roman Catholicism, in addition to Jesus, the Virgin Mary also lived her entire life without sin. It is believed that Jesus assumed her directly into heaven after the end of her life on Earth; see Assumption of Mary. The belief in Mary's sinlessness is shared by many Eastern Orthodox theologians, but is not universally held and is not generally considered to be a point of dogma. In addition, the Orthodox view of the sinlessness of the Theotokos is not quite of the same nature as that held by Roman Catholics, since the Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception is not an Orthodox doctrine.
View of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas
Sin is differentiated from the relativistic, individualized transgressions of moral standards pure human rationale dictates, by secular humanism, by its immutability and everlasting nature. Sin never changes, but popular notion does. Hence, sin will always be sin, regardless of epoch.
Religions other than Roman Catholicism view the concept of sin as a wandering from the path to enlightenment, and this also applies to Roman Catholicism, with the addition that God is a Person, and is unchanging; The Father by which everything in three dimensional reality is defined. What is contrary to the Will of God is sin.
Man is the only thing that can sin because free will is required, and with the exception of mankind, everything in the Universe perfectly obeys the Will of God. The predictability of all things created belies the nature of all things as being ordered according to time, measure, and weight; as recorded in The Holy Bible. Relative physics adopted this view of the Universe and refers to the second, meter, and kilogram as the foundation of all three dimensional reality.
In the grand scheme of everything, from beginning to end, God's Will must be done. The illusion of free will and personal accountability serves as consolation for those not chosen for The Everlasting Kingdom of God. By this measure sin can be viewed as the wraith of primordial guilt, or original sin.
The term sin is only applicable to competent individuals past the age of reason. If a person doesn't know something is contrary to the Will of God they cannot be held accountable for sin until such time comes that the individual understands that particular sin is wrong.
This doesn't always happen during the temporal, physical, organic life of the physical body. In this instance the person will be illuminated after death, at which point the soul will be aware of exactly what sins they are guilty of. Atonement for sin cannot be made after the physical death of the human organism, and thus the soul of the unrepentant sinner is in an impossible predicament of final annihilation from existence.
However, God is not bound by time, and if a person was ever forgiven, they
-