How to decide Sin

Ok, this is interesting . . . everyone agrees except me, that there is no room in the world for Hate, that it serves no beneficial purpose?

Hate:[heyt] Noun (Verb when used with an object)
1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

*René Descartes viewed hate as an awareness that something is bad combined with an urge to withdraw from it.

*Baruch Spinoza defined hate as a type of sorrow that is due to an external cause.

*Aristotle viewed hate as a desire for the annihilation of an object that is incurable by time

*Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas maintain that it is virtuous to hate sin, but a sin to hate sinners as a whole. (damn is that confusing :p)

*Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness.

A good read on the necessity of Hate can be found HERE

Looking forward to everyone's "loving" rebuttal ;)
 
Yes hate is soooo important.... we should all learn to hate more things and more often....


I do imagine that you or that author could write a compelling treatise on the benefits of heroin use in junior high schools

yikes.
 
wil said:
Yes hate is soooo important.... we should all learn to hate more things and more often....


I do imagine that you or that author could write a compelling treatise on the benefits of heroin use in junior high schools

yikes.
Click to expand...
That is hardly a rebuttal, much less a loving one :rolleyes:
 
rebutting hate is good for all of us is like rebutting someone attempting to argue the sun is a purply grey...

you see things differently.... it is your choice....
 
Etu Malku said:
Ok, this is interesting . . . everyone agrees except me, that there is no room in the world for Hate, that it serves no beneficial purpose?

Hate:[heyt] Noun (Verb when used with an object)
1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

*René Descartes viewed hate as an awareness that something is bad combined with an urge to withdraw from it.

*Baruch Spinoza defined hate as a type of sorrow that is due to an external cause.

*Aristotle viewed hate as a desire for the annihilation of an object that is incurable by time

*Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas maintain that it is virtuous to hate sin, but a sin to hate sinners as a whole. (damn is that confusing :p)

*Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness.

A good read on the necessity of Hate can be found HERE

Looking forward to everyone's "loving" rebuttal ;)
Click to expand...

quotes from the article:
As an event occurs that causes hate to capture your body, allow yourself to truly feel that darkness inside you. Attempt to understand what is causing the hatred to rise, and verify what outside stimulus is increasing your scornful spirit.

Sometimes you will not be able to think clearly when you are in a moment of animosity, and you will only be able to understand your hatred after the fact. Nevertheless, try to give in completely to experiencing the emotion when it happens, even if you must excuse yourself out of fear of violence. Not allowing yourself to feel the hate will only increase its power over you, and make it that much harder to understand and cure.
<...>
After hitting the climax of hatred, coming down from that high should give you ample time to confront your hate. Only when you have time to understand the exact reasons behind your hatred will you be able to seek out closure and/or a remedy to cure your anger.

As long as the hatred is fresh within you it can be analyzed and removed. When you ignore your hate or refuse to confront it, then it becomes toxic bile within your system causing you to change your regular actions to accommodate your new state of hatred and intolerance.
<...>
Any lingering hatred you currently possess is a sign that you have not taken the opportunity to be introspective and discover the reasons behind your rage. While this exploration may be painful at times, it is necessary to your happiness.
<...>
Focus on what you do have control over. Do not deny yourself the freedom of experiencing your thoughts and emotions, but do not allow your emotions to take away your freedom.​

This is the meditative/contemplative approach, which I agree with. Anger/hatred will pass, and if you "take it to the cushion" (go into quiet insight meditation) you can observe it and learn from it, watching it rise, and watching it pass away. No need to bring it out into the Objective Universe. ;)
 
No one I read is saying hate does not exist or may have beneficial effects. I (at least) am merely saying it does not rule the world and (usually) leads to more suffering in the Buddhist or utilitarian sense).

Descartes later (see his Passions of the Soul, his last work) considers all passions “the agitation by which the spirits move the little gland [i.e., the pineal gland] in the middle of the brain” which must be “controlled and subservient to reason”.

Spinoza (in his Ethics) concludes we should “strive to be free from the passions”—or, since this is not absolutely possible, at least to learn “how to moderate and restrain them”. The good, the goal is to become “active, autonomous beings”.

Plato (Aristotle’s teacher) said the best among mankind are those who seek the truth yet the one who tells the truth is the most hated. Aristotle was defining hate, not approving of it.

Augustine and Thomas: “odio” really has strong undertones of dislike and contempt. Besides the phrasing is more like “love the sinner, hate the sin”, which puts a much different spin on it. Love comes first.

Freud was merely defining hate. We pretty much all agree with it. What you miss EM, is that we do not feel it is a necessary state. We are not determinists, materialists; nor do we believe that people are merely robots at the beck and call of base emotion.

Do you see the difference?
 
radarmark said:
No one I read is saying hate does not exist or may have beneficial effects. I (at least) am merely saying it does not rule the world and (usually) leads to more suffering in the Buddhist or utilitarian sense).

Descartes later (see his Passions of the Soul, his last work) considers all passions “the agitation by which the spirits move the little gland [i.e., the pineal gland] in the middle of the brain” which must be “controlled and subservient to reason”.

Spinoza (in his Ethics) concludes we should “strive to be free from the passions”—or, since this is not absolutely possible, at least to learn “how to moderate and restrain them”. The good, the goal is to become “active, autonomous beings”.

Plato (Aristotle’s teacher) said the best among mankind are those who seek the truth yet the one who tells the truth is the most hated. Aristotle was defining hate, not approving of it.

Augustine and Thomas: “odio” really has strong undertones of dislike and contempt. Besides the phrasing is more like “love the sinner, hate the sin”, which puts a much different spin on it. Love comes first.

Freud was merely defining hate. We pretty much all agree with it. What you miss EM, is that we do not feel it is a necessary state. We are not determinists, materialists; nor do we believe that people are merely robots at the beck and call of base emotion.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...
It "IS" necessary, just not desirable.
We are not determinists, materialists; nor do we believe that people are merely robots at the beck and call of base emotion.
Click to expand...
What does any of this have to do with an emotion that is a part of our being human?

I don't believe for a moment that anyone here hasn't at least once found their emotion of Hate to be beneficial in a certain situation.
Denying and suppressing this emotion for whatever sense of moral and ethics you see yourself embracing is not only detrimental to the psyche but also a lie.
 
wil said:
Sin... a greek archery term meaning 'missing the mark' not doing your best
Click to expand...
Hmmm ... is it? Missing the mark, certainly, but not 'not doing your best'.

The philosophical ideas conveyed by the word were developed by Aristotle in his work Poetics. Although rooted in the notion of missing the mark, it covers a broad spectrum of usage that includes ignorant, mistaken, or accidental wrongdoing, as well as deliberate iniquity, error, or sin.

In Greek tragedy, stories that contain a character with a hamartia often follow a similar blueprint. The hamartia, as stated, is seen as an error in judgment or unwitting mistake is applied to the actions of the hero. As such it often signifies a 'fatal flaw'.

However, hamartia cannot be sharply defined or have an exact meaning assigned to it. Consequently, a number of alternate interpretations have been associated with it, such as in the Bible hamartia is the Greek word used to denote "sin."

Hamartia, as missing the mark, could be deployed in the sense that the mark was missed due to some deficit — weakness in the arm, or a failing of the eye — the point then is not that the mark was missed, but the why the mark was missed.

God bless,

Thomas
 
EM, you are entitled to that opinion.

I do not find hate necessary (nor did most of the mysics and others I read), so we differ in that. Nor is it a lie that denying or suppressing is desirable.

You may not agree with Plato, Spiniza, Descartes, Mill, James, Whitehead, or Hatshorne when they call it desirable... but calling them liars is pretty over the top.

EXAMPLE: I may have once had a passing thought about having sex with a minor, but looked at it, found it repulsive (not hating it, merely thinking "ick!") and repressed it. Is that good. Yep, in my moral world (and I support laws that enfore that), not acting on (stupid) thoughts like "I wonder what sex with a sheep is like, so I need to try" or "I just hate those Republicans, so I need to hurt them" are the epitome of good.
 
radarmark said:
EM, you are entitled to that opinion.

I do not find hate necessary (nor did most of the mysics and others I read), so we differ in that. Nor is it a lie that denying or suppressing is desirable.

You may not agree with Plato, Spiniza, Descartes, Mill, James, Whitehead, or Hatshorne when they call it desirable... but calling them liars is pretty over the top.

EXAMPLE: I may have once had a passing thought about having sex with a minor, but looked at it, found it repulsive (not hating it, merely thinking "ick!") and repressed it. Is that good. Yep, in my moral world (and I support laws that enfore that), not acting on (stupid) thoughts like "I wonder what sex with a sheep is like, so I need to try" or "I just hate those Republicans, so I need to hurt them" are the epitome of good.
Click to expand...
No, I was stating that we all use Hate in different degrees, that it is useful, and that if you (not you specifically:D) say that you don't experience hate then that's a fib . . . and I HATE fibbers! :rolleyes:

All in all this discussion is getting worn out!
 
STRAWMAN. I never said I do not hate (find it anywhere on this site). I merely stated that is a base emotion I do not care to indulge in.

"God do not belongs to any specific religion. If jesus is close to God then mohammad is also as close as Jesus. An acceptable act/thing/behavior in cristian tradition may not not be acceptable in islam. Then How and why and who will decide what is sin???"

Is the original thread theme. We can return to that. Sin is just not doing what is right (in your own eyes or in the eyes of G!D).
 
punished by our sins, not for them....

Hence the not doing your best.

When you fall short of your own mark, don't do what you know you could, or should, that is when it gets ya (me)

In my religion we talk of thou shall not murder to include not murdering a young child's creativity or enthusiasm...

of not committing adultery, to not adulterating, not diluting your principles.....of standing up when required....

Personal responsibility for ones actions and ones life, folks often think of New Thought as some lovey dovey new age belief.... but it is a little tougher than that... I miss blame.
 
How to decide sin?

A question for the group: is homosexuality a sin? If so, why do you think so and what scripture backs up that view? If homosexuality is indeed a sin (per the Christian worldview), is it possible for a non-celibate homosexual to be a Christian?
 
IowaGuy said:
How to decide sin?

A question for the group: is homosexuality a sin? If so, why do you think so and what scripture backs up that view? If homosexuality is indeed a sin (per the Christian worldview), is it possible for a non-celibate homosexual to be a Christian?
Click to expand...
Personally, it isn't for me. How could it be? Oppressing someone's Will is the Sin here.
 
There really is nothing in the NT that defines it at such. If one takes the hard core line that the OT really has been replaced or updated (say as Mulims approach both OT and NT), nope. No foul, no sin.
 
radarmark said:
There really is nothing in the NT that defines it at such. If one takes the hard core line that the OT really has been replaced or updated (say as Mulims approach both OT and NT), nope. No foul, no sin.
Click to expand...

So then, homosexuality is NOT a sin (because it's not defined as such in the NT), but divorcing & remarrying IS a sin (per Mark 10:2-12) ???

Is a Church condoning sin (as defined by Jesus himself) if they remarry a divorced person?
 
Some suggest that sin is an offence against God, while others suggest sin means to miss the mark, or to fall short of what God desires for us. Sin is not something that is necessarily an offence against God as much as it is an offence against us. God has given us life, and there is a target or rather a purpose that we are meant to meet as a people. In other words, we miss the mark (sin) when we fail to realize our potential.

A ship is designed to float first and foremost. Secondly, its purpose is to get its passengers to a certain destination. If the ships integrity is compromised and begins to leak, it will slowly fill with water and sink. When this happens, the ship has missed the mark it was meant to fulfill. It has failed to stay afloat, thus it will likewise fail to reach its destination. In much the same way, humanity has a similar purpose. We have been designed to fulfill a particular duty. Like the ship, when our integrity is compromised, we soon find ourselves sinking. We miss the mark when we allow ourselves to be breeched by that which opposes our purpose in life.

Humanity has a destination to reach together. This destination is God’s kingdom. We are much like a fleet of earthen vessels on a journey to paradise. When the integrity of our vessels are compromised, that which opposes the kingdom fills us up, which ultimately prevents us from realizing our potential. Things like doubt, lack of hope, slothfulness, greed, pride, and lack of faith are a few of the root causes that prevent us from reaching the “golden shores”. The good news is that we are destined to reach those golden shores. It is the natural flow of life. We are on a steady course to God’s kingdom, and we will one day reach our destination as a people. Our sails have been set. Even so, when we as God’s vessels have been breached by doubt, greed, and a spirit of complacency it causes great resistance. It slows down our progress exponentially, both as individuals and as a collective body.

Sin is about humanity not realizing our potential. It is about humanity failing to meet our purpose as God’s vessels. It's about us denying who we were created to be. When we miss the mark, we fail to make progress as quickly as we should. God gave us dominion for a reason. We were designed to be good stewards and caretakers. It is simply who we were born to be. The purpose for our design is to realize paradise on earth, to realize our potential, and to maintain paradise once it is reached by us. Jesus did what he came to do. "It is finished". Now it is up to us to take on the mind of Christ, become his body, and realize the heavenly community he died declaring to us.

Life was designed in a manner to help us develop ongoing pro social behavioral patterns. Life is designed in a manner that encourages us to seek and then maintain a peaceful community. We can live in a manner beneficial to the whole, we can live for ourselves, or we can just drift in life and become complacent. When we live in a manner beneficial to the whole, we experience a more pleasant life collectively. But, if we live selfishly and cause others harm, and when we live complacent lives there are negative consequences to be experienced collectively. We are called to observe natural law. This is part of knowledge. It is part of living up to our potential. When we fail to observe natural law, we become lawless and sinful. We miss the mark. If we don't adhere to and observe principles (laws) such as living in a manner beneficial to the whole body of man, then the body of man will face negative consequences as a collective.
 
Gatekeeper said:
Sin is not something that is necessarily an offence against God as much as it is an offence against us.
Click to expand...
Well, it's an objective offence first, against the Other, before it can have a subjective consequence for the self.

'Missing the mark' is not really the definition of sin. (I know Wil loves to make the point, but he misses the mark that harmata had a number of definitions, and the moral one was not taken from archery or spear-throwing).

To be a sin requires an informed act of will to act in a way contrary to the Good. Missing the mark can be accidental, or down to contingent factors over which one has no control. One could exercise every virtue to the limit, and still miss the mark.

For the archer to miss the mark probably means he's fallible, not that he's a sinner. If the archer chose to miss the mark to clean up on a betting scam, that is a sin...

God bless,

Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top