Sin?

[Katzpur]

Don't you hate it when most of the votes on your poll are for "Other"? To me, sin is when we go against our conscience. I believe everybody is born with a conscience. A person doesn't need to be raised in a religious household, or even believe in God for that matter, in order to have a basic, gut feeling that certain behaviors are wrong. And when we choose to do the things we know are wrong, we're sinning.

 

[Hawkins]

Sin is the breaking of a law which is endorsed by God. Simple as that.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

"SIN"......is a "law", that is accompanied by "death" ( "the law of sin and death" Roman 8:2 ). In other words , it is the process of this corrupt creation that continually feeds upon itself. This corrupt creation is the work of the "god of this world"...…..the god of OT scriptures. His "law" is what makes you do what you don't want to do, earning death ( "the wages of sin is death " ) for yourself......over and over again.

 

[Ponder This]

Sin gets mentioned in the Bible, and in a couple other books of faith, I imagine. But the problem is, it is very poorly defined. So, I'm gonna put it to a poll.

I'm gonna allow multiple answers.

Personally, I used to believe sin is separation from God, but I now know nothing can separate us from God. What can happen is a sense of distorted good/evil, and the inability to see Grace.

So basically the two below that.

I do not believe in Original Sin. But I do think Knowing Good and Evil create sins that aren't real.

from Hebrew
aveira means "transgression"
avone mean "iniquity"
hata means "to go astray"

I think it's important to understand the concept of the Covenant which is believed to exist between the people and God. This Covenant is explained, for examples, in terms of laws, morality, and proper conduct.

So the concept of sin exists in relation to the concept of halakha: proper way to live.
If you don't understand that there is a proper way to live, then you might not understand the concept of failing to live properly.

What is morality? Are there consequences for immoral actions?
Inequity means "immoral or grossly unfair behavior".
Why would it be important to treat people fairly? How could treating people unfairly possibly be a sin?

It comes back to this concept of a proper way to live, of a Covenant between the people and God. And what this truly means is something to reflect upon, to meditate upon, and to pray for understanding of.

Some people are inclined to think that sin is a concept developed for the purpose of controlling people. This is only half-true. Certainly, the concept of sin is useful for people as a way towards understanding the benefit of controlling themselves. But even if there is no one holding the reins of power to control people, the concept of sin remains, because the deep understanding of how to live is something for all people to strive for.

If you drive on the wrong side of the road, you might say that you have gone astray. Is it wrong to drive on the wrong side of the road? Not exactly, but you are more likely to cause problems for everyone you encounter, more likely to get in an accident, and more likely to die as a result. If you step on someone's foot, what do you do? You say, "I'm sorry." You make amends. Why is that? This is something to reflect on. The concepts of sin and of halakha are not simply a mental calculation like 2+2=4. Living the "way" is more like wisdom. You avoid the things you cannot see that are dangerous by adhering to the path.

 

[Ben10]

I agree that sin is the inability to see or receive Grace, OP - but I would also vote that sin is error, suffering, separation and standing apart from life, and (in a way) disobedience as well. If you take a wider perspective, all of these definitions are more like symptoms of the same underlying problem. Like Katzpur says above, everybody is born with a conscience. It's weird, it's mysterious, but somehow we all have the innate ability to discern right from wrong - what would the world be like if everyone practiced this ability, used it all the time? Why do we have it anyway? I believe it's a gift from God to guide us back home.

Some of you might find this spiritual teaching interesting; it's all about dealing with this problem of sin, and how conscience ties into it: Sin, Error and Redemption: The Problem of Sin and the Power of Redemption

 

[syo]

Sin, eh? Good question... My signature says things I find a sin.

''when i think of people who really suffer and they are in extreme pain, when people murder other humans or destroy other people's lives, when there are pure evil people who think they are god or something and give hell to other people's lives, then something's wrong with humanity.''

 

[GoodbyeDave]

If in doubt, try a dictionary. The definition may not be what you like, but it's how the word has been used in the majority of written sources. So, Oxford English Dictionary: "Transgression of divine law". Simple!

The concept is, of course, only found in monotheistic religions. The rest of us either don't believe in a creator (e.g. Shinto), or do not consider that they have issued laws (e.g. Hinduism).

 

[robocop (actually)]

Sin gets mentioned in the Bible, and in a couple other books of faith, I imagine. But the problem is, it is very poorly defined. So, I'm gonna put it to a poll.

I'm gonna allow multiple answers.

Personally, I used to believe sin is separation from God, but I now know nothing can separate us from God. What can happen is a sense of distorted good/evil, and the inability to see Grace.

So basically the two below that.

I do not believe in Original Sin. But I do think Knowing Good and Evil create sins that aren't real.

I vote for all but original sin.

 

[coconut theology]

Sin gets mentioned in the Bible, and in a couple other books of faith, I imagine. But the problem is, it is very poorly defined. So, I'm gonna put it to a poll.

I'm gonna allow multiple answers.

Personally, I used to believe sin is separation from God, but I now know nothing can separate us from God. What can happen is a sense of distorted good/evil, and the inability to see Grace.

So basically the two below that.

I do not believe in Original Sin. But I do think Knowing Good and Evil create sins that aren't real.

This is "the" definition of "sin" in the Bible:

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.​

 

[dianaiad]

I'm a little skeptical about the islander one (I think there are certain things that are wrong, and cannibalism is generally allowed by their ppl, but is in the same class as slavery or burning ppl alive, inherently wrong because it causes suffering to others).

But other than that, it seems like for the most part, the rest of what you're defining as sin is "making a vow to yourself or standard of behavior, and then not living up to it"?

Pretty much, yes.

.......and it would have to apply to the cannibalistic islander, too, if he was raised to believe that eating his enemies was what his deity wanted. It's WRONG, and the rest of the world can say 'no, this is inherently wrong and if you do it you will be punished' but on what basis can we call it a 'sin?" Because it violates something OUR God or philosophical idea says is sinful?

That's the problem; if one is going to hold to this opinion, it has to be held all the way.

Doesn't mean we have to put up with cannibals, mind you. We can, and should, stop that. "Sin" is between the person and his/her God or his/her philosophy and promise to him/herself. It has absolutely nothing to do with law and the way the rest of us insist upon being treated.

Sheesh, I don't think that even most left wing liberals are SINFUL. Just very wrong.

On the other hand, Rosa Parks disobeyed a LAW, but she sure wasn't sinning, either by her lights or mine.

 

[dianaiad]

I vote for all but original sin.

me too.

 

[dianaiad]

This is "the" definition of "sin" in the Bible:

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.​

True. Which begs the question: which law? Can someone who doesn't KNOW 'the law" sin against anything but the 'law' he knows about?

 

[coconut theology]

True. Which begs the question: which law? Can someone who doesn't KNOW 'the law" sin against anything but the 'law' he knows about?

God's Law:

Exo_16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

Exo_16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?​

As James also agrees:

Jas_2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.​

As Paul also agrees:

Rom_7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.​

Thus God's law (as called such through all of scripture, from Genesis to Revelation):

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his a.ss, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.​

Common sense.

A law within the United States, such as a stop sign law. A person may be ignorant of the Law of that country, but the Law still exists. Simply blowing through the stop sign based on ignorance, doesn't eliminate the Law in existence or the penalty or consequences from breaking it.

 

[Bird123]

Sin gets mentioned in the Bible, and in a couple other books of faith, I imagine. But the problem is, it is very poorly defined. So, I'm gonna put it to a poll.

I'm gonna allow multiple answers.

Personally, I used to believe sin is separation from God, but I now know nothing can separate us from God. What can happen is a sense of distorted good/evil, and the inability to see Grace.

So basically the two below that.

I do not believe in Original Sin. But I do think Knowing Good and Evil create sins that aren't real.

How about this: In religion's attempt to control the actions of others they have created the word Sin, which is a label they use for what one is not supposed to do.

Original sin is different since it is a result of no action at all. Original sin is how religion tries to convince one something is wrong with them so that they can be the cure for your problem you never really had. If they can convince you something is wrong with you then supply you with the cure, why would you look anywhere else? It is used to gain followers. It is used to control.

In reality, there are only choices. In time, each will discover for themselves which are the very best choices to make.

I see it as wrong to hate those who are discovering what those bad choices really are. Isn't it best just to lead them in the right direction, educating them to the best of our abilities?

Results are what matter most. Hating and condemning seldom brings good results.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[dianaiad]

God's Law:

Exo_16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

Exo_16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?​

As James also agrees:

Jas_2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.​

As Paul also agrees:

Rom_7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.​

Thus God's law (as called such through all of scripture, from Genesis to Revelation):

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his a.ss, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.​

Common sense.

Unless one is raised from birth in a different set. Common sense is not, in my experience, all that common.

A law within the United States, such as a stop sign law. A person may be ignorant of the Law of that country, but the Law still exists. Simply blowing through the stop sign based on ignorance, doesn't eliminate the Law in existence or the penalty or consequences from breaking it.

LOUSY example, bud. Someone who is driving a car is, as far as I am aware, expected to meet minimum standards of knowledge and ability. you know, get a license. Someone who doesn't have a license to drive and doesn't know how to run a car has more problems than just running a stop sign. Mind you, there are exceptions even to that. If the driver of the car is attempting to save a life and breaks laws he doesn't know about in the doing so, he's not going to be clobbered. In fact, if he gets 'pulled over' in that case, he'll probably get a medal and the cop will take over the driving. If one is utterly convinced within his philosophical ideology that he is entitled to run stop signs, and has no over riding motive that is more important, law or no, then he isn't sinning when he does so. He's breaking the law, and he'll get a ticket (if he is lucky and doesn't hit anybody) and have to pay the fine. However, don't equate 'sin' with breaking a secular law. A great deal of the time they march in tandem, but not always, and frankly? When they do it is purely coincidence.

....unless of course you think that Harriet Tubman was a sinner when she was involved in the underground railroad? She broke a BUNCH of laws. We don't agree with those laws now, of course, but the fact remains, they were laws at the time.

How about the guy who allowed his cattle to graze on land that had been grazed on by his family for generations, but was denied access to that pasture land (and his livelihood) because Clinton 'passed a law' (the great Utah land grab by executive order that has since been mostly rescinded). He refused to obey that law, and ended up in jail for awhile. Was he a sinner? He was perfectly willing to accept the consequences of breaking that law; it was a protest demonstration, and of course it is legal for him to graze his cattle on that land now.

All those protestors who encompassed the idea of 'civil disobedience..." are they all sinners? Or just lawbreakers? What makes the two the same thing.....and why do you get to declare your law as 'the right one' for everybody?

Don't get me wrong here. I too am a Christian and a believer in the ten commandments. I too believe that God has given us the law, and we are accountable. But we are accountable because WE KNOW ABOUT IT AND BELIEVE IT.

Many don't. They have their own idea of what God wants, or 'what should be.' They should be held accountable, as to 'sin' for what they do in regard to that.

We should also be responsible for obeying secular law, if we know it, and y'know what? Turns out that there is this concept of 'mens rea." The guilty person must understand that his action is WRONG, understand that it might cause harm; in fact, that is the purpose. Justice Holmes said that 'even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being purposely kicked."

So while this will not excuse someone who deliberately defies a law he knows is wrong, whether he thinks that obeying the law is the right thing or the wrong one, It DOES excuse the guy who doesn't know that his action is illegal, but does know that his action will cause harm, and is performing that action TO cause harm.[/QUOTE]

 

[coconut theology]

Unless one is raised from birth in a different set. Common sense is not, in my experience, all that common.

Romans 2:

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

 

[dianaiad]

Romans 2:

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

Precisely. Sometimes I think that Rom; 2:14 is misunderstood, and so is v.12. What does it mean that those who sin without law perish without law? I think it means....those who perish without the law are not judged BY the 'law.' they are judged according to how they behaved according to the law they knew and understood....according the gospel.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Unless one is raised from birth in a different set. Common sense is not, in my experience, all that common.



LOUSY example, bud. Someone who is driving a car is, as far as I am aware, expected to meet minimum standards of knowledge and ability. you know, get a license. Someone who doesn't have a license to drive and doesn't know how to run a car has more problems than just running a stop sign. Mind you, there are exceptions even to that. If the driver of the car is attempting to save a life and breaks laws he doesn't know about in the doing so, he's not going to be clobbered. In fact, if he gets 'pulled over' in that case, he'll probably get a medal and the cop will take over the driving. If one is utterly convinced within his philosophical ideology that he is entitled to run stop signs, and has no over riding motive that is more important, law or no, then he isn't sinning when he does so. He's breaking the law, and he'll get a ticket (if he is lucky and doesn't hit anybody) and have to pay the fine. However, don't equate 'sin' with breaking a secular law. A great deal of the time they march in tandem, but not always, and frankly? When they do it is purely coincidence.

....unless of course you think that Harriet Tubman was a sinner when she was involved in the underground railroad? She broke a BUNCH of laws. We don't agree with those laws now, of course, but the fact remains, they were laws at the time.

How about the guy who allowed his cattle to graze on land that had been grazed on by his family for generations, but was denied access to that pasture land (and his livelihood) because Clinton 'passed a law' (the great Utah land grab by executive order that has since been mostly rescinded). He refused to obey that law, and ended up in jail for awhile. Was he a sinner? He was perfectly willing to accept the consequences of breaking that law; it was a protest demonstration, and of course it is legal for him to graze his cattle on that land now.

All those protestors who encompassed the idea of 'civil disobedience..." are they all sinners? Or just lawbreakers? What makes the two the same thing.....and why do you get to declare your law as 'the right one' for everybody?

Don't get me wrong here. I too am a Christian and a believer in the ten commandments. I too believe that God has given us the law, and we are accountable. But we are accountable because WE KNOW ABOUT IT AND BELIEVE IT.

Many don't. They have their own idea of what God wants, or 'what should be.' They should be held accountable, as to 'sin' for what they do in regard to that.

We should also be responsible for obeying secular law, if we know it, and y'know what? Turns out that there is this concept of 'mens rea." The guilty person must understand that his action is WRONG, understand that it might cause harm; in fact, that is the purpose. Justice Holmes said that 'even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being purposely kicked."

So while this will not excuse someone who deliberately defies a law he knows is wrong, whether he thinks that obeying the law is the right thing or the wrong one, It DOES excuse the guy who doesn't know that his action is illegal, but does know that his action will cause harm, and is performing that action TO cause harm.

[/QUOTE]
JOHN PRINE: "it dont make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"

 

[coconut theology]

Unless one is raised from birth in a different set. ...

You ought consider what the LDS official doctrine teaches, which may be read here -

[1] Kanye West's "Christian" - "Sunday Service" - Jesus is King Album, Chick Fil-A & the Real Lord's Day

[2] Kanye West's "Christian" - "Sunday Service" - Jesus is King Album, Chick Fil-A & the Real Lord's Day

[3] Kanye West's "Christian" - "Sunday Service" - Jesus is King Album, Chick Fil-A & the Real Lord's Day

[4] Kanye West's "Christian" - "Sunday Service" - Jesus is King Album, Chick Fil-A & the Real Lord's Day

[5] Kanye West's "Christian" - "Sunday Service" - Jesus is King Album, Chick Fil-A & the Real Lord's Day​

I do hope you consider these things, for most in the LDS faith, do not, and I have spoken with many.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

How about this: In religion's attempt to control the actions of others they have created the word Sin, which is a label they use for what one is not supposed to do.

Original sin is different since it is a result of no action at all. Original sin is how religion tries to convince one something is wrong with them so that they can be the cure for your problem you never really had. If they can convince you something is wrong with you then supply you with the cure, why would you look anywhere else? It is used to gain followers. It is used to control.

In reality, there are only choices. In time, each will discover for themselves which are the very best choices to make.

I see it as wrong to hate those who are discovering what those bad choices really are. Isn't it best just to lead them in the right direction, educating them to the best of our abilities?

Results are what matter most. Hating and condemning seldom brings good results.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I think that's crap. You don't have to obey the church at all. You don't have to obey anyone in fact. But you didn't read the Bible carefully (probably because it's so long) . Basically, much of the Bible is about the Jews as an example people.

In the beginning, there were the first people. They decided rather than see the world as a mixed bag, to start labeling everything "good" and "evil". This duality thinking led to jealousy and greed. Fast forward a few years, and we have people trying to build a tower to the sky. Interestingly, I've read at least one article that proposed that thid time period actually wasn't like we think, and it was actually closer to a space station that was being built. Also that around the time of Joseph, the reason for the seven year famine wad nuclear winter. I mean, at least it's entertaining?
The First Global Nuclear War and a Coverup of historical proportions...
Anyway, the time around Noah was a horrible time to live. And humans were having to search for answers because we were this close to wiping everything out. Abraham had come before that, so Noah and his familt kept this tradition, but they were basically a small line of people who survived in a ship (spaceship?) and mixed with the survivors. if you study world religion, you find that in fact there wasn't just one ark, that thid happened around the world. So anyway, humanity picked up the pieces, and started over. The Jews found that when they lived according to their traditions, they mostly did okay. When they embraced the cultures of other people... (multiculturalism is not a good thing in this story, we'll say). This was true about 80% of their history. Of course, there were also writings about how God "does not delight in burnt offerings" so I imagine at certain points, just keeping tradition isn't the answer either.

We go to church not because of rules but because of connection. Because it makes us feel a part of something. There is nothing requiring you to go to a specific temple. In fact, you can probably get the same experience out of social clubs, if the people are friendly and such. To some extent anyway.

The thing about your mentality is, it's based on thinking that all there is to sin is rules, and that it's a label to justify these rules. But the best refute to that is the book of Ecclesiastes. This is, presumably Solomon, who decides to grab everything life has to offer except God (and we're defining God here not as his role as Creator, but in terms of meaningful relationships), planting a vineyard, studying all sorts of knowledge, probably having meaningless sex, and so on. He gets depressed. Very depressed. And he sort of sounds like Frodo at Mount Doom, not being about to remember the Shire, the taste of food, or the feel of the wind.

But Solomon snaps out of it and concludes that stuff like enjoying your life with your wife and family, doing whatever you do with your whole heart, and having God is in this equation (he says nothing about laws here, just relationships) makes it slightly more meaningful.

I've actually lived alot like this guy, actually. Played every video game I found, watched a ton of anime and films, gone on a date or two, researched online and read books, and really the most interesting times I ever had were when I was around other people. But despite me actually wanting to live a better life, I found that I would far more be benefited if I were actually able to go out and be around other people (introversion kinda sucks as does severe depression).

And then there's Tangled. Rapunzel, does everything from painting, to reading, to some serious arts and crafts, but she asks "when will my life begin?" Her problem isn't with not obeying. In fact, obeying her "mom" is the problem. Her problem is with disconnection. Also, I wanted an excuse to do Tangled videos. So there.

Which is why I've added "not living life fully" to my definition.