What is your view of "sin"

Sins with examples:

    1. you don't know about it, so it doesn't get done -- your auto-coolant runs out
    2. you know what to do, but you just don't feel like it -- not brushing your teeth
    3. you do it, but you know its not the thing to do -- you vote for the greater of two evils
    4. you do it, but only because you didn't know better -- you vote for the lesser of two evils
    5. sin brought on by previous sins -- robbing the bank requires that you escape from the police
    6. forced to sin by others -- she kissed you but she didn't brush her teeth
 
I don't think you can itemise "sin". It's a state of mind. If we were to have perfect trust in God there would be no sin. But things get scary, our faith wobbles, and we start closing off to others and taking care of ourselves instead. It's all downhill from there on.

We get scared and this comes out as anger. We don't trust God to provide so we store up stuff. This is never enough to calm our fears and inner emptiness so we want more and more. In the end you wind up with a divided world tearing itself apart. We all suffer.

But it can be reversed. I think this is what Isaiah is all about.
 
I think my list was not intended to be completely serious. I might be off by a sin or two, but since elections are coming up maybe we should all pay close attention to #'s 3 and 4.
 
Sin occurred first in the spirit realm before its introduction on earth.

For unknown ages full harmony with God prevailed in the universe.

Disruption came through a spirit creature referred to simply as the Resister, Adversary (Heb., Sa·tan´; Gr., Sa·ta·nas´; Job 1:6; Ro 16:20), the principal False Accuser or Slanderer (Gr., Di·a´bo·los) of God. (Heb 2:14; Re 12:9)
 
I greatly dislike the word "sin" it implies that certain actions or thoughts are judged on the spot as "good" or "bad". "Good vs. bad" is a false dichotomy. A better dichotomy, if there must be one, is the dichotomy of healthy and unhealthy. Any thought or action has consequences, which can be seen as healthy or unhealthy to an individual, the group, the environment, etc. This is where the notions of good and bad come from.
 
We acknowledge the concept "sin" i think in the Baha'i Faith but we don't dwell on it nor does it have some of the traditional theological issues it does for Christians. So we focus on the strengths and look for the good qualities in people and don't stress their short comings...

- Art
 
Arthra,

Agreed that focusing upon sins and guilt is a very unwise way to live, but who says Christians are supposed to do that?

In Christianity, sin originates within human beings as the result of a complex, intelligent force that is a part of our selves. This is sometimes translated as the 'law of sin within'. It is actually not a 'Law' in the modern sense but a mental widget. Angelic powerful spirit beings don't have this widget. People must choose between appropriate actions and whatever random action they happen to desire at the moment. That is called the 'War within my flesh'.
 
Simple, yeah. The judgment is what some people obsess over.

There are numerous examples of judgment in the Bible, when the Judge of all the Earth gives the death sentence to people. This is not considered to be unusual, since we are merely his creations. Whenever a person is judged, they are always found guilty and sentenced to death since they are always sinners. Since we have the 'law of sin within' we will always be judged this way, so the objective is to avoid being judged at all.

"Micaiah 6:8" He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the L!RD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Eccl 7:16 Be not righteous overmuch, and do not make yourself overwise; why should you destroy yourself?

Psalm 32:2-5 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit......I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD"; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin. Selah
Click to expand...
People will sometimes ask why they keep making the same mistakes, and why God judges them for what doing what comes naturally. God made us, didn't he? Why shouldn't they 'sin' as much as possible, and how can God judge them for that? Other people try obsessively hard not to sin, to the point where they can't function at all -- where they can't develop as a person or get along with anyone. They sometimes think they will escape judgment if they can just be good enough. That is missing the point, too.
 
Dream wrote:

Arthra,

Agreed that focusing upon sins and guilt is a very unwise way to live, but who says Christians are supposed to do that?

My reply:

Thanks for your response "Dream".. You can call me Art!

What I have noted is that in their preaching and emphasis many Christians emphasize sin and have a theology built around it. Such as "Original Sin" and so on...:)

The Baha'i view of sin is different.

Dream:

In Christianity, sin originates within human beings as the result of a complex, intelligent force that is a part of our selves. This is sometimes translated as the 'law of sin within'. It is actually not a 'Law' in the modern sense but a mental widget. Angelic powerful spirit beings don't have this widget. People must choose between appropriate actions and whatever random action they happen to desire at the moment. That is called the 'War within my flesh'

My replky:

Alright I will accept your definitions as yours but still believe there are widely held views of sin among Christians that probably vary from your own.

The topic here though is what is your view of "sin" and I've stated it above..

- Art
 
Sin is simply our lower and darker self. In other words, it is our animal nature.

This is what I understand from the Baha'i view.

The Day of Reckoning brought by the prophets quickens mankinds spirits so that we end up making progress further and further towards unlimited perfection. However, while those that are resurrected partake in this process, those that are judged to be dead in their sin make no progress.

Again, this is from what I understand from the Baha'i view.
 
Is Sin Real?

Hi, SE,

StarshipEnterprise said:
I greatly dislike the word "sin" it implies that certain actions or thoughts are judged on the spot as "good" or "bad". "Good vs. bad" is a false dichotomy. A better dichotomy, if there must be one, is the dichotomy of healthy and unhealthy. Any thought or action has consequences, which can be seen as healthy or unhealthy to an individual, the group, the environment, etc. This is where the notions of good and bad come from.
Click to expand...
I can understand your reluctance toward the word 'sin'. Historically there has been a strong element with the various religions of the "people of the book" to explain sin as actions worthy of the infinite torments of Hell. Certainly the endless sermons on sinners in the hands of an angry God have underlined that perspective.

In recent times many theologians have turned from the notion of sin as crimes to be punished to the notion of sin as that which separates us from God, or alternatively for those less inclined to recognize a deity, as that which separates us from the harmony of the universe. This latter view is expressed in a number of entries in this thread.

And it seems the only perspective that makes sense of the classical seven deadly sin -- pride, envy, gluttony, lust, wrath, greed and sloth. (Make your own favorite substitutions.) After all, one could have those attitudes without harming anyone. Where's the sin in that? As long as my fist stops short of your nose, there's no crime.

The modern perspective recognizes the more subtle point that whether or not a crime against others is committed, these attitudes in and of themselves interfere with healthy relationships with other people and with God. They generate social entropy. Their point is that our actions have many consequences, not only the direct consequences on others, but also the risks imposed on others, and the second- and third-order consequences of acting out of a certain attitude and of recognizing someone as acting out of that attitude.

But I don't conclude as you do from this perspective that "'Good vs. bad' is a false dichotomy". Certainly it is not a dichotomy based on whether you follow the letter of some set of rules. Rules are instructions we give to children and others incapable of exercising the wisdom to understand the complex cascade of consequences of actions. (I've read and heard a number of sources claiming that the ability to understand consequences is one of the last capabilities to be acquired in the development of the human brain, and that it doesn't take place in most people until the mid-twenties. Maybe the Hobbit's concept of tweens, as a period of post-adolescent but pre-adult growth ought to have a place in our culture.)

I agree that all of these consequences are metrics to be used in measuring the health of a community, but I disagree that we can substitute healthy and unhealthy for good and bad in our evaluations of human action.

The key question of ethics is the extent to which the individual is obligated to act in ways that are good for the community. To say that it would have been healthier for the world for the US not to have invaded Iraq may be true, but it is also a gross understatement of the moral outrage felt by many people. Regardless of your feelings about this particular example, and despite the fact that people disagree about many issues of good and bad, right and wrong, each of us regards certain actions as wrongful, as things that should not have been done, not only because of the direct harm they do, but because they disrupt the fabric of society.

Our moral language has to be stronger than that. Our choices in life cannot be reduced merely to a smörgåsbord, where de gustibus non est disputatem. Our choices have serious consequences for ourselves, for others, and for society as a whole. Responsible action takes those consequences into account. Sin does not.

Namiste.
 
Ahanu said:
Sin is simply our lower and darker self. In other words, it is our animal nature.

This is what I understand from the Baha'i view.

The Day of Reckoning brought by the prophets quickens mankinds spirits so that we end up making progress further and further towards unlimited perfection. However, while those that are resurrected partake in this process, those that are judged to be dead in their sin make no progress.

Again, this is from what I understand from the Baha'i view.
Click to expand...

Ahanu:

I think your view is the Baha'i view... The judgement comes whether we respond or not to the Manifestation in the day in which we live.

- Art:)
 
According to Dictionary.com
1.transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2.any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3.any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

So it would seem that "sin" would rely quite abit on your religions concepts of sin. Since this was not posted in a christian area Im guessing you wanted other religions views on the subject?

As a neo-pagan (druidic) my concept of sin does not tend to involve personal actions such as thoughts. It would tend to include knowingly acting to take part in harming the planet, environment, natural balance, and lastly humankind.
 
Re: Is Sin Real?

DrFree said:
The key question of ethics is the extent to which the individual is obligated to act in ways that are good for the community. To say that it would have been healthier for the world for the US not to have invaded Iraq may be true, but it is also a gross understatement of the moral outrage felt by many people. Regardless of your feelings about this particular example, and despite the fact that people disagree about many issues of good and bad, right and wrong, each of us regards certain actions as wrongful, as things that should not have been done, not only because of the direct harm they do, but because they disrupt the fabric of society.

Our moral language has to be stronger than that. Our choices in life cannot be reduced merely to a smörgåsbord, where de gustibus non est disputatem. Our choices have serious consequences for ourselves, for others, and for society as a whole. Responsible action takes those consequences into account. Sin does not.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not saying you can't use words like "good" and "evil". They can be very nessesary in moral arguments such as the Iraq war. However, when you get down to the fundamentals of what makes something "good" or "evil" it is analogous to a health issue.

DrFree said:
The modern perspective recognizes the more subtle point that whether or not a crime against others is committed, these attitudes in and of themselves interfere with healthy relationships with other people and with God. They generate social entropy. Their point is that our actions have many consequences, not only the direct consequences on others, but also the risks imposed on others, and the second- and third-order consequences of acting out of a certain attitude and of recognizing someone as acting out of that attitude.
Click to expand...

This is basically the point I was trying to get at. Notice how you yourself use the word "healthy"? There is not automatic "good" and "bad". It comes down to seeing the individual as a part of something larger, like a cell in a human body. The focus cannot only be on what is healthy or pleasurable for the individual. The other cells in the body, and the body as a whole need to be taken into account.

Words are only stepping stones. Do not get caught on the level of words.
 
greymare said:
isnt sin a choice? if you do something you know is wrong, thats a sin. simple.
Click to expand...

Good.

How about unifying all within a single set of understanding.

Each can choose to impose to existence; as the conscious species experiences choice.

It is by a choice whether to impose or not.

So "Good' can be defined as anything imposed that 'supports life.'

Bad: loss to the common.

Think in the lines of we as a species are in the image of God, meaning we can choose to impose to existence.... if what we do, causes a loss to the common, (us, you and I and our species... WE THE PEOPLE) then it should not be imposed.

Even so much as a single lie or propagation of a lie... causes a loss to the common.

Every commandment other than the first 4, are based on not causing a selfish ill regard....

It is the 'self' that is rude as there is nothing more evil than what any other person can cause.

We equally have the ability to choose what the biggest problem is now a days, is the rules are thought to be different when in reality, they are physically or literally universal.

Opinions are opinions and each have one, but reality only works One way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top