What is sin?

[Irvine511]

I wish this were accurate, it's not- only wishful thinking and very popular today.

dbs

you wish it were accurate?

seems to me that the wishful thinking is for those who want Jesus to personally pat them on the back at the pearly gates.

 

[diamond]

you wish it were accurate?

seems to me that the wishful thinking is for those who want Jesus to personally pat them on the back at the pearly gates.

one day we'll both find out for a certainity, and at that time, i promise *not* to say "told you so".

 

[BonosSaint]

You'll be dead. You won't be able to.

 

[BVS]

and at that time, i promise *not* to say "told you so".

Well if you were still that petty at that point, I don't think you'd be let in.

 

[shart1780]

Jesus RAWKS!!!

 

[BonosSaint]

On the whole, except for some variations in lifestyle, I don't see much difference in behavior, for good or bad, between the religious and nonreligious. I only hear them say different things.
If they didn't identify themselves, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Irvine511]

one day we'll both find out for a certainity, and at that time, i promise *not* to say "told you so".

it would be nice to be wrong.

but i wonder if heaven wouldn't get boring.

 

[diamond]

it would be nice to be wrong.

but i wonder if heaven wouldn't get boring.

It won't be.
You continue to evolve, learn and grow.
This life is preschool in comparison.

dbs

 

[all_i_want]

i think if there is any hell or heaven, it is not in some mythical location such as above the clouds or in some underground prison. i believe that as human beings we were given the power and the initiative to create hell or heaven on earth, on this planet. if we do good, we bring the world closer to heaven, closer to god, if we do bad, we bring it closer to hell, away from god.

i outright reject the notion that some people are hellbound because they believe the wrong religion, are gay or dont go to church on sunday.

one more thing, on prayers, god doesnt answer any of them, at least not in a way mainstream religion suggests. the power of prayer gives us the means to accomplish what we prayed for.

finally, life is no pre-school, or any school for that matter. if there is an eternal soul, and lets assume there is since it cant be proved or disproved, it is not born into this world to learn. eternal soul already has all the knowledge, but we are here to experience it. it is as if you think you are a good person, but unless you experience being a good person by doing something good, you can never know. to quote, well, batman, it is not who you are inside, but what you do, that defines you.

so, thats why we are here, in my humble opinion.

 

[deep]

sinner?

 

[all_i_want]

sinner?

arent we all sinners?

 

[Irvine511]

sinner? [/B]

there must be a passage somewhere that addresses this particular situation.

 

[deep]

arent we all sinners?

"aren't we are all children of Xenu?"

 

[all_i_want]

"aren't we are all children of Xenu?"

id like to point out that those statements are not mutually exclusive

 

[A_Wanderer]

"aren't we are all children of Xenu?"

Wasn't Xenu more of a destroyer and dictator rather than a creator?

 

[deep]

id like to point out that those statements are not mutually exclusive

I don't believe either premise


I am not a sinner


I am not saying I don't make mistakes
or ever do something I might regret

most of us say we are living beings
but we are more dead than alive

at age 52 I am 60+ per cent in the dying category.

as for the doing good things or bad things

I do 99% good things

why would I let the 1% label me bad person or that silly word
sinner!

 

[deep]

Wasn't Xenu more of a destroyer and dictator rather than a creator?

I think you got my point.

anyways,

wiki thanks you

 

[A_Wanderer]

Im offended by the suggestion, I watched Trapped in the Closet

 

[deep]

Tom Cruise on southpark

 

[joyfulgirl]

 

[deep]

are you a sinner! ?


How do you define yourself ?

by what you do 99+% of the time?

 

[yolland]

I've been trying to think of something constructive to say on this topic, but I'm not sure I understand well enough what kinds of issues Sean was looking to get at to oblige.

Anyway, I seldom use the word "sin," and in my experience Jews in general don't use it anywhere near as much as Christians, in general, do. I guess that's mostly because it's seen as carrying connotations of an ongoing, existential condition of guilt before and estrangement from God, neither of which are part of Jewish belief. There certainly are various Hebrew words which could be and are translated as "sin," but none which carry those connotations; they don't even necessarily refer to "immoral" acts as we would normally understand that. As far as consequences, I'm not sure how to answer that either. The ideas of "disharmony" and ripe-vs.-unripe Mia mentioned earlier actually come from Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism); they're developed in the Zohar, which was written in Aramaic, and follow from an elaborate religious cosmology that would take more time to summarize than is probably worth it. I don't take the Zohar literally any more than I take the Tanakh ("Old Testament") literally, but that's probably closer than any other formulation I can think of to how I would understand the "consequences."

I'm not sure I get what the connection between sin and economic inequality is, either...perhaps someone could elaborate on that. I understand what Irvine was saying about "the meek shall inherit the earth," but I'm not fully clear how the Christian idea of "sin" ties into that...it encourages passivity about injustice in this life because it diverts too much attention to the next through the implied focus on eternal damnation/estrangement from God, is that the idea?

 

[diamond]

1 Corinthians





Choose chapter....12345678910111213141516

Other translations of this chapter: / NASV / NKJV / NIV
Chapter 6


9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Angela Harlem]

then you're shit out of luck.

 

[Angela Harlem]

And that is what I don't get with religious people. The notion that they have a monopoly on morality. That they are the only ones capable of feelings, forgiveness, and so on.
Ever read Kant? He gives some answers.

I'm sure you have interacted with other non-religious people, or read some posts on here from people like me, A_Wanderer or dazzlingamy. Did you ever get the feeling that we are blood thirsty, immoral creature seeing every person as a pile of flesh and bones?

As I said, morality is not a religious term that doesn't apply to atheists or agnostics, or people from other religions.

I value other people, as I value other creatures. I reject any killing for fun.

I don't think we are so much superior of animals. But on the other hand, animals usually don't kill for pleasure. Either they are hungry, or they are defending themselves.
I'm not a cat expert to know why they play with a mouse, but I think it's insulting to say a non-religious person like me would do the same thing, only because we don't believe that there is something in Heaven or whereever controlling and steering us. I don't need God for my set of morals.

I don't know what our purpose is, but when the useless flesh of my father's died one and a half months ago there was so much more that left than just that. There left loads of purpose. When people kill each other, they don't just take the life of another person.

I really don't get how you could imply we are viewing people just like atoms without a reason for being on earth.

Other cultures had other sets of principles and morals. And mind you, the reason the Mayans sacrificed people, like other cultures did, was to please their Gods. Am I to say whether this was moral or not? Today, it would be far from moral.

But then think about what the Catholic church did to people not applying to their set of principles. The Malleus Maleficarum, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, the crusades, the support of the Nazis (also done by the Lutherian Protestants) and so on. And all in the name of God.
It took centuries to be able to say that the earth isn't flat, that there doesn't need to be a higher being, or that we might not be the middle of the universe, without getting brutally tortured and killed by those oh so moral higher people.



Please reread that again, and if need be, I will clarify.

This is a great post.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Again, you're completely missing my point. I don't believe only Christians have these God-instilled morals. I think everyone has a basic sense of obvious right and wrong. I never said you have to be a Christian to understand the concept.

My point is that if there is no higher power and we have no souls there is no logical reason to believe there actually is right and wrong. If you disagree I'd like to hear a reason besides "because I don't want to hurt my friend" or something similar. You're also assuming that in a Godless universe there actually is such a thing as right and wrong, which in my mind makes no sense.

Your views on this make absolutely no sense to me. Lets use you and me for a minute - I don't believe in much that I cannot see, and you are a Christian. If we both do something mean to a friend, we will both feel remorse and berate ourselves for causing hurt, we'll apologise and make a promise to ourselves not to do it again. How is my feelings on this any different to yours, and where does God fit into this? How does believing make your reaction to your mistake more meaningful? Pain and hurt on an emotional level is largely without conscious choosing. We've an instinctive and inbuilt emotion. Whether there is a God in your life relates absolutely squat to react to things and to choose things - ie, good and bad actions and good and bad reactions.

 

[intedomine]

And that is what I don't get with religious people. The notion that they have a monopoly on morality. That they are the only ones capable of feelings, forgiveness, and so on.
Ever read Kant? He gives some answers.

I'm sure you have interacted with other non-religious people, or read some posts on here from people like me, A_Wanderer or dazzlingamy. Did you ever get the feeling that we are blood thirsty, immoral creature seeing every person as a pile of flesh and bones?

As I said, morality is not a religious term that doesn't apply to atheists or agnostics, or people from other religions.

I value other people, as I value other creatures. I reject any killing for fun.

I don't think we are so much superior of animals. But on the other hand, animals usually don't kill for pleasure. Either they are hungry, or they are defending themselves.
I'm not a cat expert to know why they play with a mouse, but I think it's insulting to say a non-religious person like me would do the same thing, only because we don't believe that there is something in Heaven or whereever controlling and steering us. I don't need God for my set of morals.

I don't know what our purpose is, but when the useless flesh of my father's died one and a half months ago there was so much more that left than just that. There left loads of purpose. When people kill each other, they don't just take the life of another person.

I really don't get how you could imply we are viewing people just like atoms without a reason for being on earth.

Other cultures had other sets of principles and morals. And mind you, the reason the Mayans sacrificed people, like other cultures did, was to please their Gods. Am I to say whether this was moral or not? Today, it would be far from moral.

But then think about what the Catholic church did to people not applying to their set of principles. The Malleus Maleficarum, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, the crusades, the support of the Nazis (also done by the Lutherian Protestants) and so on. And all in the name of God.
It took centuries to be able to say that the earth isn't flat, that there doesn't need to be a higher being, or that we might not be the middle of the universe, without getting brutally tortured and killed by those oh so moral higher people.



Please reread that again, and if need be, I will clarify.

Post of the Century

 

[maycocksean]

Ok. I don't really have time for this now. . .My wife is in a meeting that was supposed to have ended 20 minutes ago so it should be done any minute, but what the heck, I'm gonna try.

What is sin?

I first thought of this question this summer at the end of reading the book "Nickle & Dimed: On Not Getting By in America" by journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, a book in which she spends about a year attempting to live on minimum wage. At the end of the book she describes a system that is essentially set up to use the poor for the benefit of the rich and I thought to myself:

This is such a sin.

I thought of it again browsing through a book in the airport which touched on aspects of game theory including the "prisoner's dilemma" a part of which is this idea, which I lifted from Wikipedia:

"rational choice leads the two players to both play defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the dilemma."

I remember thinking to myself: This is the nature of sin.

I thought of it again, reading an article yesterday in a back issue of TIME about how slavery evolved in the English colonies in the United States. This was no, "oops, they made a mistake" or "Well, they just didn't know any better" kind of mild immorality. This was in the opinion of Yale Historian Edmund Morgan, a white elite "actively promoting racism and a racially exclusive popular democracy as a way of dividing and ruling black and white workers. By glorifying whiteness and restricting the electorate to whites, a bond of racial solidarity emerged between all classes of whites predicated on the permanent exclusion of blacks." And I thought, this willful creation of racism for the sake of greed. . .

This is sinful.

At least sin the way I, as a Christian, understand it. I suppose I would call it "sin in the macro sense." I see sin in a somewhat magical, storytelling sense (or maybe I'm just feeling that more as I just finished the final installment of the Harry Potter series--something else that gave me occasion to meditate on the nature of sin); it is that inexplicably self-destructive streak that has mysteriously infected humanity, and in a sense, the planet itself. It's what we call in Christianese "the consequences of living in a sinful world."

It is this that demands an explanation--not why humans are good, why we make the moral decisions, the evolutionarily advantageous ones, but when we do the opposite. Something is seriously wrong when our species has developed the capacity to completely annihilate ourselves. When I began teaching my high school freshman Bible class the basic foundational teachings of Christianity, we began by talking not about goodness but evil as the evidence for belief. For this is where I believe all religions originate--trying to explain suffering and death. For whatever reason, humans cannot seem to accept and be at peace with the inevitability and unpredictability of human suffering and death. The Buddhists say that suffering is rooted in desire and overcoming desire and attachment will free one from suffering. Christians say that suffering comes from sin--a poison in the human system.

Well, that's some of my thoughts on the nature of sin. My wife's meeting is done so I'll post my thoughts on sin on the "micro level" later.

thanks everyone for your comments on this topic. I'm learning so much!

 

[all_i_want]

I don't believe either premise

you dont believe we are all children of xenu? heathen!

 

[Razzle]

[ For this is where I believe all religions originate--trying to explain suffering and death. For whatever reason, humans cannot seem to accept and be at peace with the inevitability and unpredictability of human suffering and death. The Buddhists say that suffering is rooted in desire and overcoming desire and attachment will free one from suffering. Christians say that suffering comes from sin--a poison in the human system.

[/B]

Religions seem to originate from people who claim to have seen or experienced their god, and then they attract a following. How do we know who to follow? Or maybe I can make up my own theory on suffering and death and pick up some followers myself. Hmmmm.