Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
So you disagree that sin is about us not living up to our God given potential?
I do not necessarily see that as a sin, for who can determine what someone's 'God given potential' actually is, but God (except in the most general terms)?
Nor do I see not living up to one's potential as always and necessarily the self-determined decision not to live up to one's potential; sin requires self-determination.
God bless,
Thomas
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
To me sin isn't nearly as severe a thing as many believe it to be. When we willfully miss the mark, then perhaps then it could be concerned severe. Our everyday shortcoming are not, however. They actually afford us an opportunity to grow and further develop.
I don't know a spiritual tradition that makes light of sin. It is however a sign of the times that we seek to explain our culpability away. If we exonerate ourselves in our own eyes, then who can hold us responsible for our actions?
I still think 'wilfully missing the mark' doesn't do it justice — it's wilfully choosing the wrong mark, rather than wilfully missing the right one.
Well shortcomings are not necessarily sins, but as ends never justify the means, the bad never produces good fruit ... Sin as a 'learning opportunity' is self-delusion.
Run that past a Buddhist and you'll get the same response. It's often our 'everyday shortcomings' that actually account for more than 'severe sin' because we convince ourselves that the little things don't count. Often it's the little things, the little 1 degree offs, that end up missing the target by a clear mile.
There's a Buddhist tale is about the monk who is captured by demons and offered one of three choices, all of which involve breaking a vow: drink alcohol, eat meat, have sex with a woman. The monk decides on the alcohol as the lesser of the three evils. So he gets drunk, eats the meat, and rapes the woman. The moral being there is not such thing as a 'little sin', and the lesser evil gradually becomes the norm...
God bless,
Thomas
IowaGuy
Hunter-Gatherer
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
Is sin relative or absolute? i.e. can two people do the same action (let's say, for example, not telling the truth), and it be sin for one of them (trying to scam someone) yet not a sin for the other (who's tells a "white lie" to protect someone's feelings) ? Another example would be adultery where, in one instance someone cheats on their wife and the flipside is someone divorces their wife to remarry someone they're in love with (which is still defined as adultery by Jesus).
Do we come to our own terms with God on what defines a sin for us in our own respective lives? Or, is what constitutes a sin an absolute across humanity?
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Of course Sin is relative. One Man's Sin is another Man's Virtue. The only Absolute Sin is that it is an act against the Will of another.
Once we remove the veil of religion, Sin is simply preventing the Will of another.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
How about clouding/veiling/obscuring/mistaking/misidentifying your own true will?
IowaGuy
Hunter-Gatherer
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
For a real-world example, which of the 10 Commandments do you think your definition of Absolute Sin applies to?
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
None of the Ten Commandments except #6 Thou shalt not kill, are impeding on the Will of another, matter of fact it is this God who is actually impeding upon the adherent's Will (if the adherent in fact desires to commit one of the no no's in the Ten Commandments).
#5 Honour thy father and thy mother for example. Not everyone has parents worth honoring (most do hopefully), if your mother was raped (of course god is excused from this
) and you are the product, I certainly wouldn't be honoring that POS who raped your mother, but according to scripture either honor him or commit a Sin. THAT is impeding upon YOUR Free Will.
Absolute, in the sense that it's either a sin, or it isn't. It's like pregnancy, you either is, or you ain't.
The sin is not in the act, it's in the intention. In the first instance, the act is intended towards the detriment of the other. In the second, it is intended towards the good. In the latter case, the person might be acting unwisely, or the 'little white lie' has an unfortunate, unintended, outcome, but one can still claim one was acting with a good intention. There could be mitigating circumstances.
Remember justice is tempered with mercy.
OK. In the first instance, someone gave his word, and broke it. In the second instance, someone gave his word, and broke it. That's the way I read it, anyway. My partner and my kids have my word I will never leave them. If that means I make sacrifices, so be it.
You know the story of Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn?
Nope. Human nature is one, and sin is according to nature. If sin is determined at the level of the individual, then you'd have to say that there can be no common notion of sin, good, evil, morality, ethic, beauty, true, just, right, wrong ...
Yep. Intention is what constitutes sin. Look at Matthew 5:26-30 — all you have to do is think it
Sin must be absolute. If it is relative, then no-one can say what is bad, and if no-one can say what is bad, then no-one can say what is good. There would be no meaning, no possibility of dialogue, beyond the mere empirical. We would just stare at each other in confusion and doubt.
In effect you'd have to argue that each person is a different kind of creature to every other person. Person becomes meaningless.
God bless
Thomas
IowaGuy
Hunter-Gatherer
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
Good food for thought, but the thing that doesn't make sense to me about "absolute sin" is a scenario like birth control which isn't specifically addressed in the bible...
Is it a sin, in the Christian belief system, to use a condom or birth control pill to prevent pregnancy? If so, says who?
And if sin is "absolute", why do so many Christians disagree about what is or is not a sin? If two Christians disagree, who is "right" under an absolute sin scenario?
For example, my sister (Christian) says it's OK for her to use birth control to control the size of her family (she already has 3 kids) because God gives us choices and she believes the world is already overpopulated. The Pope (Christian) says it's a sin to use birth control since it impedes with God's will, goes against the "go forth & multiply" scripture, etc. Who is "right"? Isn't this an example of "relative truth"?
As a side note, I have never understood how a Christian can claim to be following God's will yet be using birth control. Don't they trust God to give them the "correct" amount of children?
Thanks. The point about 'absolute sin' is that, to stress again, what determines a sin is the intention, not the act.
St Thomas offers the example of two men giving alms to the poor. One gives alms to relieve the suffering of the poor man (OK), the other gives alms so that everyone will think what a really great guy he is (sin).
It is addressed in principle. Life is regarded as sacred.
There is always 'the human margin' because the world is contingent and relative. That the sin is in the intention is absolute, I think. The discussion subsequent to that is not quite so clear cut.
Your sister is in the relative position. Why are three kids OK? Why not just two, or one? The size of the family changes over time, ergo it is a relative notion.
The 'overpopulation' question is also suspect. It assumes the First World will and should continue in its profligate lifestyle, which, by the way, requires the third world to use birth control to keep numbers down while the West continues squandering all the world's resources.
The Church says it's a sin because it's preventing a natural act, conception. So, in principle, and the Church always references the principle, it is wrong.
In practice I think the question deserves more attention.
God bless
Thomas
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
who was it who said "the only sin is not loving enough" ?