What is sin?

[St Giordano Bruno]

In my opinion, this is a misconception that stops conversation between Christians and Pagans on the very real issue of how religion addresses counter-productive behavior. That's all "sin" really is; Christians tack guilt and condemnation onto it, but these aren't intrinsic to the basic concept. When Pagans accept the Christian formulation, it clouds the issue and inhibits the conversation across the divide.

I am only speaking on the concept of sin from a Christian perspective. They could have played semantics with the word with earlier cultures, but they could have in turn had an alternative word for what we call “guilt” AKA “sin”. Going back to the source of what guilt means, I think that is grounded in our emotions same as what I may feel if I accidently knock over a child in a crowd and I feel the natural compulsion to say “sorry”.

 

[Tom Terrific]

I am only speaking on the concept of sin from a Christian perspective. They could have played semantics with the word with earlier cultures, but they could have in turn had an alternative word for what we call “guilt” AKA “sin”. Going back to the source of what guilt means, I think that is grounded in our emotions same as what I may feel if I accidently knock over a child in a crowd and I feel the natural compulsion to say “sorry”.

That's an interesting example.

I approach the word "sin" from an etymological perspective. I realize that it's loaded down with two thousand years of Christian tradition; but the word translated "sin" in the Greek New Testament is "hamartia," which references the image of an arrow missing its target -- something mentioned by UltraViolet in the first few responses in this thread, actually. There isn't any guilt or condemnation in that image; it just is.

One may ask, "Well, Christian tradition is what it is; so why quibble?" The reason is because the amalgamization of self-defeating behavior with guilt and judgment clouds the really important issue, for both Christians and many non-Christians, imho.

I am not one to be teaching Christians their own religion; but, while Heaven and Hell are the ultimate carrot and stick, I don't believe that most Christians believe that they are the best motivations for turning to God. One of the Eastern fathers wrote that

...one who performs saving works simply from the fear of Hell follows the way of bondage, and he who does the same just in order to be rewarded with the Kingdom of Heaven follows the path of a bargainer with God. The one [is] a slave, the other a hireling. But God wants us to come to Him as sons to their Father, He wants us to behave ourselves honorably from love for Him...

Guilt is self-centered, while love for God is God-centered. And, anyway, some Christians have characterized the torments of Hell as consisting simply of separation from God, the source and substance of all that is meaningful in existence. Within this framework, self-defeating behavior is still self-defeating behavior; but guilt is simply a distraction from what is really important, which is the friendship and communion of God. This point is one of the jewels in the writings of Brother Lawrence (The Practice of the Presence of God), in which he says that, while he used to worry about his salvation, he finally concluded that it was pointless to concern himself with it and that whatever happened to him he would continue to simply love God. That is spiritual maturity, imho.

Something I finally realized about Christianity is that the dynamics of spiritual maturation are pretty much the same for them as they are for many contemporary Pagans, the principal difference being that Christians believe that there are people who are out of contact with the divine, i.e. not engaged in the process, while the Pagans believe everyone is so engaged. The Pagans believe everyone exists in a state of grace while the Christians believe only they do. Other than that, it's basically the same.

All this to say, even if you believe in eternal damnation, it's pretty much beside the point. Did I say that? :yes:

Back to your example. Saying, "I'm sorry," can simply communicate to the injured child that their injury wasn't intentional; but if, instead, it is meant to convey feelings of guilt, then it is centered on the actor rather than on the child. What's the point of that? The best face i can put on that is that, somehow, saying, "I feel bad," is supposed to make the injured party feel better; and that is treating human relations as a zero-sum game, where one person must lose in order for another to win. It would be better to rise above the "guilt-innocence" paradigm and simply focus on the child's welfare rather than on how one feels about oneself.

 

[McBell]

The evidence for God exists in His creation.

This is a prime example of a belief/opinion being presented as a fact.

The fact of creation and all the things that go with it support the idea of God.

There is no "fact" of creation.
Merely belief and opinion presented as fact.

I don't need any book to believe in God because I can see the creation. The creation isn't God, but it is the evidence of God's existence. Anything else is just speculation. Writings are too unreliable and should only be used as secondary information. If a writing reveals a truth, then it is usable.

Am I to assume that by "the creation" you mean the universe?
If so, then we are still right at square one.
Your ability to use "the creation" to justify your belief in god is interesting, but your method of justification does not lend credence to your beliefs to any one outside your choir.

 

[McBell]

Abortion is murder and homosexuality is against the commandments. Morality is not relative to your proclivities.

You should save your sermons for those who sit with in your choir.

 

[McBell]

"Sound evidence" is a relative, question-begging term. The qualifier "sound" must itself be qualified, and is ultimately self-referential.

The courts seem to disagree...
Just saying.

As are you.

I am not trying to convince any one of any thing in this thread.
I am merely pointing out why what has been presented is not convincing me.

 

[AllanV]

That's an interesting example.

I approach the word "sin" from an etymological perspective. I realize that it's loaded down with two thousand years of Christian tradition; but the word translated "sin" in the Greek New Testament is "hamartia," which references the image of an arrow missing its target -- something mentioned by UltraViolet in the first few responses in this thread, actually. There isn't any guilt or condemnation in that image; it just is.

Miss the mark is one meaning but to not measure up is another.

How does this relate to real life? How does sin operate?

Sin is usually seen in actions but there is something working deeper in man.

Personal experience is my example but it could be awkward for someone else to see.

How does this work in a practical sense?

It is all essentially in the mind. Man has self empowerment. This self empowerment bonds and makes connections through the personality. When talking with someone things are noticed about the person. They may say things that are different to what is in their mind. They may be very truthful but they leave an impression of the person that will be remembered. Something of the person is being projected and even magnified and seen by another person or a group.

Even if their actual belief in them selves is half hearted they are forcing an impression in the subconscious. A person receiving this energy is de-energized in the exchange and recoups this in sleep.

If a person is strongly empowered they will get what they want. A con-man will exploit, but most will indulge the personality only to satisfy the ego. This could be to wound or be wounded in the emotional make up. But every one gets what they want even if it is success or failure.

This is all de-energizing and God is an energizing Spirit. Man uses God's power and corrupts it through a complex interaction. Man misses the mark and the mind and the heart is hard in a protective predatory about to pounce manner and is de-energized.

The idea is to remove sin and receive God's Spirit in the pure mind and heart. This requires a different new nature that cannot be imagined. It has to be revealed. Man is so far removed in sin, missing the mark, that the way to being fully energized cannot be found and there needs to be something like a break in the human genetic line.

The new nature is gentle beyond what is able to be imagined or personally reached and is incomprehensible to the natural mind and cannot be grasped. There needs to be a special act.

God will reward those who diligently seek Him.