What is your view of "sin"

[greymare]

isnt sin a choice? if you do something you know is wrong, thats a sin. simple.

[Dream]

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

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.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I agree. Sin and judgment are meaningless.

Chris

[arthra]

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

[Ahanu]

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.

[DrFree]

Hi, SE,

Originally Posted by StarshipEnterprise

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.

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.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

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.

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

[gp1628]

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.

[StarshipEnterprise]

Originally Posted by DrFree

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.

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.

Originally Posted by DrFree

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.

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.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by greymare

isnt sin a choice? if you do something you know is wrong, thats a sin. simple.

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.

[Dream]

Bushadi,

I agree that from a human perspective there can only be one reality. Since reality only works one way it should be a simple matter to get everyone into agreement about what is good and bad. In reality it is very difficult to do this. I've already posted my opinion about it, but why do you think it is so difficult? Do you think it was divinely made difficult for us to agree, or do you not? Why?

[Bishadi]

I agree that from a human perspective there can only be one reality. Since reality only works one way it should be a simple matter to get everyone into agreement about what is good and bad. In reality it is very difficult to do this.

Yes in a certain perspective, (like mine), but no in the sense that for the knowledge to begin, it now exists and the truth is absolute which means, as soon as others begin to observe how all branches of knowledge (philosophy, science and theology) perform, then the final truth will eventually be universal.

I've already posted my opinion about it, but why do you think it is so difficult?

Many have learned predeterminations.

Do you think it was divinely made difficult for us to agree, or do you not? Why?

Not at all. Because learning, takes time. Many of the sciences are in pursuit of business opportunities, not pursuing the universal truths. Most of the real contributors stepped outside of the bounds of accepted knowledge. That is how paradigm shifts occur; these contributors stayed with what made sense with the data they have and remained true to their instincts and personal honesty rather than accept specific material as fact without question.

The universal truth stands firm to existence and not opinion. Any man can create an opinion, just as man created words but existence and life is where the truth exists. Meaning the reexamination of how life exists is what revealed the truth.

So it took a long time of our existence (life/mankind) for knowledge to be assembled in a fashion that allows it to be observed simply by choice; the internet. By this, now many opinions can be observed which describe the universal truth and the combination of opinions, sciences and integrity simply shares how it works.

Light is life. (which is not an accepted frame in the sciences; Planck is wrong)

Energy is em (light) upon mass. Time entangles all mass by energy; the perfected trinity.

When mass associates if the combination is ‘good’ the life of the system continues. In contrast, adverse associations go extinct.

A universal truth.

But then a consciousness was born, and each can observe and impose to existence by choice and what is considered ‘good’ to one may not be preferred by another.

A man can actually misrepresent what is true and that single self-preserving existence (a lie) caused by a choice, can lead to an enormous amount of bad.

Oooch! As man is the only thing in existence that can create a lie (loss to the common).

Yet, to return to the reality of nature and the rules of mass and energy associating, then the rules stand firm. It is why so many of the old theology was based on the personalities of nature.

Did this help?

[greymare]

well, bishardi , you lost me.

[Bishadi]

ooops!

A reoccuring issue; often words get in the way.

'Sins' can only occur by a person.

So any sins ever recorded, known or experienced is caused by a person choosing to impose an action that is based on a 'loss to the common.'

Any imposition that causes an adversisty to existence.

Lie
Kill
Steal
dishonor of life

Should cover just about every possible adverse action a human can make.

Hope this helps.

[gp1628]

You are going to seek a universal set of sins? That will lead down an argumentative road. Such as "kill" which some will jump on to include wars, and others to include all life, eating meat, etc. I have seen some fairly fanatical people on those subjects even in these forums.