Spiritual fascism

[Susma Rio Sep]

JJM and DrC, you are both wondering how a person can sin knowingly and deliberately, and why people can judge others to be sinning?

First, do read again my post on sinning in the privacy and solitude of your room alone, or with someone if you have a partner. Ponder every word and sentence, and you might savor my naughty but also practical and safe advice, for people to sin but not to get in trouble with the law. God forgives, but not the law.

Now, about how people can sin knowlingly, deliberately, wilfully: in the Catholic Church, if it's not done that way, it ain't no sin. It's a mistake.

For example, you are hunting and shoot someone behind a bush which you think to be an animal; no that ain't no sin of murder or manslaughter, it's a mistake. But you could be guilty of negligence.

To realize that you have committed a sin after the deed is not to have sinned in that deed. Just be careful not to do the same material deed again, now that you know. Is that possible? Sure, didn't Jacob sleep with the wrong sister.

About judging others in sin. I think even our children are judging us all the time. We should judge each other, and thank God, that for His grace we would also be in sin. Very often our virtue is intact owing to the lack of temptations, spell that 'opportunities.'

Susma Rio Sep

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

from what i've come to understand, the word "sin" means "missing the mark". i've had it explained to me that this means to indicate that we are not aligning our will with Gods will.

needless to say, this entire concept is build upon a theological model that many people do not subscribe to which is why i don't understand phrases like "everyone sins". i just don't grasp the significance of this statement when it could be referring to someone that does not have a belief in the Deity to which this is allegedly affronting.

if someone could explain this to me, i'd be greatful.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

from what i've come to understand, the word "sin" means "missing the mark". i've had it explained to me that this means to indicate that we are not aligning our will with Gods will.

needless to say, this entire concept is build upon a theological model that many people do not subscribe to which is why i don't understand phrases like "everyone sins". i just don't grasp the significance of this statement when it could be referring to someone that does not have a belief in the Deity to which this is allegedly affronting.

if someone could explain this to me, i'd be greatful.

Even people who don't believe in God and in Jesus Christ also call out the name of God as in "MY GOD!", and "JESUS CHRIST!". Such expressions are testimonies in effect to the ingrained belief in God from tradition and habit.

"Everyone sins" even guys who don't believe in God; because in English you can sin against your brother or fellow men. In which case 'sin' is an injustice to any fellow man. What about that phrase: "to sin against God and man"? People say that of others even though they know that these latters don't believe in God.

What about in Buddhism, is there the concept of sin. If a Buddhist sleeps with his brother's wife, is that a sin, or what? I think even atheists would still use the word 'sin', in this context from tradition and habit.

Susma Rio Sep

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Su,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Even people who don't believe in God and in Jesus Christ also call out the name of God as in "MY GOD!", and "JESUS CHRIST!". Such expressions are testimonies in effect to the ingrained belief in God from tradition and habit.

some people do this, yes. not all people do this and it is a mistake to believe that they do. i never call out "My God" or "Jesus Christ"... though i will frequently use those words in my day to day life.

"Everyone sins" even guys who don't believe in God; because in English you can sin against your brother or fellow men. In which case 'sin' is an injustice to any fellow man. What about that phrase: "to sin against God and man"? People say that of others even though they know that these latters don't believe in God.

what about the phrase? it seems to only be applicable with regards to a theology that has support for such a thing. without which, i would highly doubt that such a thing would ever be said.

in any event... using the definition of Sin as "missing the mark", i do not see how a breech of civil law is a "sin".

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Su,

thank you for the post.



some people do this, yes. not all people do this and it is a mistake to believe that they do. i never call out "My God" or "Jesus Christ"... though i will frequently use those words in my day to day life.



what about the phrase? it seems to only be applicable with regards to a theology that has support for such a thing. without which, i would highly doubt that such a thing would ever be said.

in any event... using the definition of Sin as "missing the mark", i do not see how a breech of civil law is a "sin".

Sinning (at least in the catholic sense) is "willfully doing something we know is wrong." Not "missing the mark." But I think that this statement is basically saying more that if you didn't realize what you where doing was wrong you don't have to feel bad about it just don't do it again. Not that it isn't actually a sin.But if you know something is wrong and you still do it out of reaction (unconscious) it is still a sin. Now Sumsa's hunting accident isn't a sin because you never meant to shoot them. But insulting some one and only catching yourself after you do it is still a sin because you did mean to insult them and that I believe is what Drchaos is referring to. This is where the concept that everyone sins come into play because no man is perfect. Every one screws up every once and a while. It is referring to Jesus saying "you who are innocent throw the first stone." (Or something along those lines.) Only when a person enters heaven are they free from this. As for if a person who does not believe in God can sin. Well if they have heard of God and choose not to believe then yes they are because even though you don't believe they "know", in a sense, that what they are doing is wrong. Even though they don’t believe it is.

However once you die you are informed of all things that are wrong so even if you didn't know they where wrong on earth you can not enter heaven without following those rules. (Note: this is my opinion now not one sanctioned by any church)

Sinning (at least in the catholic sense) is "willfully doing something we know is wrong." Not "missing the mark." But I think that this statement is basically saying more that if you didn't realize what you where doing was wrong you don't have to feel bad about it just don't do it again. But if you know something is wrong and you still do it out of reaction (unconscious) it is still a sin. Now Sumsa's hunting accident isn't a sin because you never meant to shoot them. But insulting some one and only catching yourself after you do it is still a sin because you did mean to insult them and that I believe is what Drchaos is referring to. This is where the concept that everyone sins come into play because no man is perfect. Every one screws up every once and a while. It is referring to Jesus saying "you who are innocent throw the first stone." (Or something along those lines.) Only when a person enters heaven are they free from this. As for if a person who does not believe in God can sin. Well if they have heard of God and choose not to believe then yes they are because even thought you don't believe they "know", in a sense, that what they are doing is wrong. Even though they don’t believe it is.

However once you die you are informed of all things that are wrong so even if you didn't know they where wrong on earth you can not enter heaven without following those rules. (Note: this is my opinion now not one sanctioned by any church)

As for Drchoas's first question the Catholic Church believes that there are mortal sins and nonmortal (can't remember the word ). Any way though most Protestant religions (yes this means GCC) Believe that all sins are of equal importance. My personal opinion is that while on earth some sins are worse than others but when asked to stop all sins to enter heaven the smallest is just as important as any other. As for you first part:


In reference to "'How can he/she do that?'" I don't think that is a sin. 0part of Christianity is showing others their faults and helping them work through them the problem accurse when people look down on others and think of them as less than people. And also when they don't believe that they have faults.

Originally Posted by [b

DrChaos[/b]]
We all judge everyone and sin all the time. I know you all do to, thinking to yourself "How can he/she do that?", it is almost impossible. Also, Susma, I agree with JJM in not understanding how you "plan" sin, most the time I sin, I'm not aware until well after.

In reference to "'How can he/she do that?'" I don't think that is a sin. 0part of Christianity is showing others their faults and helping them work through them the problem accurse when people look down on others and think of them as less than people. And also when they don't believe that they have faults.

[Zenda71]

Quick correction ... Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism is by Chogyam Trunpa Rinpoche.

As for money versus God ... I'll take the money so I can give it away to those who need it! (OK, and maybe buy a house with a bigger yard for my dogs ... )

[Zenda71]

Whoops! Wrong thread ... sorry ...

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Zenda71

Quick correction ... Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism is by Chogyam Trunpa Rinpoche.

As for money versus God ... I'll take the money so I can give it away to those who need it! (OK, and maybe buy a house with a bigger yard for my dogs ... )

LOL... thank you for that correction... hehe... oh well... sometimes i can't remember who wrote what

[VirtuousValkyrie]

Originally Posted by Dave the Web

This is a definite concern within Christianity. One of the things that pushes me more from it is the high atitude of superiority, the judementalism, the legalism, and the general ignorance of the words of Jesus. Spiritual fascism as you call it is endemic, even among those who appear as moderates with a friendly smile and wave. Inside they know you're going to Hell and they are not. It is a terrible situation.

YES! I totally agree with you!! I am going through a year of "spiritual seeking" of sorts because I was totally abandoned by my so called "church". The same ones that said they "love people and care for them like Christ does.." HYPOCRISY!!! I have looked back on my 3 years in that church and I realized how unloving and judgemental I was. Here were some things I believed: all gay people were going to hell and they could help they had feelings for the same sex, anything that was not Christian was from the devil and not good... etc etc.. Now looking back I am like, oh my gosh.. how closed-minded could I be??? Are these thoughts what Jesus would want me to think?? No! He would want me to love and accept gay people, to accept other people's religions, and to leave judgement to God. Jesus taught us not to judge others, but to instead look at ourselves first (Matthew 7:1-5). I am glad I am finally taking that to heart.

[louis]

Also, Is not anyone stating their opinion trying to impose it on others? Could you elaborate?

From Louis...
Let me elaborate...
I sometimes state opinions here, but always point out
that they are only the WAY THINGS APPEAR from my
position as an impartial obsever .
My purpose is not to impose my ideas on others or
set myself up as knowing more than they do - just the
opposite - I know very little about the way believers
think and only want to provoke a response - get
people to look closer at their own ideas and maybe
find a way to explain them to me.

[louis]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

from what i've come to understand, the word "sin" means "missing the mark". i've had it explained to me that this means to indicate that we are not aligning our will with Gods will.

needless to say, this entire concept is build upon a theological model that many people do not subscribe to which is why i don't understand phrases like "everyone sins". i just don't grasp the significance of this statement when it could be referring to someone that does not have a belief in the Deity to which this is allegedly affronting.

if someone could explain this to me, i'd be greatful.

From Louis...
As an outsider to all religion, I don't really understand
"sin" either. According to an encyclopedia, the word "sin"
comes from the root word "sunder", as in "put asunder"
or "break apart". Thus "to sin" means CHOOSING to break apart from a pre-established set of rules - a universal standard of behaviour, if there IS such a thing.
It means being AWARE OF and COMMITING TO such a
standard, except when it comes in conflict with something
YOU want to do.
Then you have some choices ....
DON'T do what you want and stay "righteous".
DO what you want, then hope to get away with it by
being "forgiven".
DO what you want and blame it on "the Devil".
Does that clear up anything ?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Louis,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by louis

From Louis...
As an outsider to all religion, I don't really understand
"sin" either. According to an encyclopedia, the word "sin"
comes from the root word "sunder", as in "put asunder"
or "break apart". Thus "to sin" means CHOOSING to break apart from a pre-established set of rules - a universal standard of behaviour, if there IS such a thing.
It means being AWARE OF and COMMITING TO such a
standard, except when it comes in conflict with something
YOU want to do.
Then you have some choices ....
DON'T do what you want and stay "righteous".
DO what you want, then hope to get away with it by
being "forgiven".
DO what you want and blame it on "the Devil".
Does that clear up anything ?

clear as mud, as they say

though, in all honesty, this seems like a doctrine that is predictated on a large group of a priori assumptions that cannot possibly be proven in any type of objective fashion.

if one doesn't have those assumptions, then the whole underlying concept of sin is cut off at the knees, so to speak.

[lunamoth]

I often resist using the word sin myself and haven't liked it because it often seems to get used to describe someone else's actions. However, as I grow older lots of my ideas change, and I've also found a place for the word sin in my vocabulary. It really does sum up the act of doing something that you know, either premeditatedly or after the fact, is wrong. From my monotheistic view sin is whatever I do that takes me further from God, rather than closer to Him, and of course that is a very subjective measure of things. However, just quickly thinking of all the civil laws that can be broken I'd say that breaking most of them also is a transgression against other people, and so a "sin." But, I would not classify nonviolent civil disobedience as a sin, and perhaps there are other exceptions. I think of it as either living up to, or not living up to, my potential as a human being. Because I was raised in a monotheistic faith my brain calculates this as how well I am living up to the ethical teachings of my religion.

Vaj--is there a similar concept in Buddhism? What is the term for not following the right way?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Vaj--is there a similar concept in Buddhism? What is the term for not following the right way?

Namaste lunamoth,

thank you for the post.

well... this is an interesting question, to my way of thinking.

"sin" per se, does not find an analog in Buddhist thought. our actions, according to Buddha, are usually of two types... skillful and unskillful. skillful actions are those actions that are condusive to the religious life and the spiritual path and lead us towards awakening whereas unskillful actions are those which directly or indirectly inhibit those things.

the other idea behind sin is that there is an objective moral law that one is either in compliance with or not. this idea also finds no soil in Buddhist teachings with which to grow. the Buddhist idea of karma is not that of an objective moral law imposed upon us by a judge/creator being, karma, in the Buddhist sense is a completely natural law and requires no law giver.

so... i would have to say that in either sense, i.e. that of violation of the will of a divine being and that of an eternal law being broken, are not viable from the Buddhist view.

having said all of that... there can be, for many of the ideas that we share, very little real difference in how we approach them... i.e. sexual abuse. we both consider this type of action to be sinful/unskillful, though the implication is obviously a bit different in the ramifications of said actions.

[lunamoth]

Dear Vaj,

Thank you for your clear (and quick!) reply. It is very helpful.

V: "having said all of that... there can be, for many of the ideas that we share, very little real difference in how we approach them... i.e. sexual abuse. we both consider this type of action to be sinful/unskillful, though the implication is obviously a bit different in the ramifications of said actions.[/QUOTE]

Yes, at the end of the day I think there is little practical difference with repsect to living life on this plane. "Unskilled" is a bit drier word than "sin," but perhaps it is by taking the emotion out that we can clear the way for peace and justice.

Cheers!