Nature of Sin

[RichardHresko]

St. Augustine in Confessions writes in Book I, Chapter 20:

"For my sin was in this -- that I looked for pleasures, exaltations, truths not in God Himself but in His creatures (myself and the rest), and so I fell stright into sorrows, confusions, and mistakes."

It seems that for Augustine sin is not the breaking of some rule, but something that leads us away from our true happiness. The punishment of sin is really the consequence of the very nature of what makes something a sin.

Thoughts?

[Bakiryu]

Sin is a concept made by the people who wrote the bible. There's no such thing.

[RichardHresko]

Let's start with a usable definition of sin that is not restricted to a Biblical origin. It is certainly true that many cultures have had certain codes of conduct toward an other-world that included both positive acts and prohibitions. To take one example, consider the Greeks and the story of the House of Atreus. in the Oresteia Orestes is put in a double bind because he is both required to avenge his father Agamemnon's murder and is forbidden to commit matricide, even though his mother Clytemnestra was responsible for Agamemnon's death. The Romans had a concept of pietas which extended to dead ancestors.

Even the Christian concept of sin has been heavily influenced by non-Biblical sources. Augustine, from whom I quoted at the start of the thread, relied to a great extent on the neo-Platonists (less so towards the end of his life, but still a presence is there even in City of God).

Is there a positive value to the concept of sin, even outside a religious context? I would suggest that Augustine indicates that there may be.

[NikolaiI]

I think Baki is right; it's a human concept, that we made up, and it isn't anything outside of that. It's like anything else we come up with, but it's taken for more. Anyway I also agree that the result of sin is the punishment for it, the anxiety of not being able to control your thoughts, or something like that. Or Karma.

[Redzeppelin]

Sin is a concept made by the people who wrote the bible. There's no such thing.

Only if God doesn't exist; if God exists, sin exists. Why would selfish, self-interested people make up a concept that restricted their "fun"? And, if they did "make it up," how did it manage to "catch on" and be so successful?


I think Baki is right; it's a human concept, that we made up, and it isn't anything outside of that. It's like anything else we come up with, but it's taken for more. Anyway I also agree that the result of sin is the punishment for it, the anxiety of not being able to control your thoughts, or something like that. Or Karma.

See above.

If sin is made up, then what would you prefer to call evil, or bad, or people's behavior that hurts themselves, others, their relationships, their psyches, the enviroment, etc?

[Bakiryu]

Only if God doesn't exist; if God exists, sin exists. Why would selfish, self-interested people make up a concept that restricted their "fun"? And, if they did "make it up," how did it manage to "catch on" and be so successful?



It's a religion. People always do stupid things on the name of "God". It was adopted by the rich and the powerful but the unbelievers where murdered or converted. Besides who says the "selfish, self-interest people" followed strictly its moral codes? Story is filled with examples of people who didn't.



If sin is made up, then what would you prefer to call evil, or bad, or people's behavior that hurts themselves, others, their relationships, their psyches, the enviroment, etc?


Evil is evil. Self- or another hurting behavior is what it's name says. The only sin is to catalog life in a strict sect of moral codes instead of truly living.

[Redzeppelin]

It's a religion. People always do stupid things on the name of "God". It was adopted by the rich and the powerful but the unbelievers where murdered or converted. Besides who says the "selfish, self-interest people" followed strictly its moral codes? Story is filled with examples of people who didn't.

What is "it"?

People do stupid things for all kinds of reasons: I was bored, I was angry, I was drunk...we can be influenced to be idiots by just about anything. Religion is not unique in its role as inspiration to questionable action.

Your short history of religion is incomplete and composed of the most unprovable of generalizations and hearsay. If I summarized your entire life into one sentence based upon the few things I've read by you in these forums, how might you come across (especially if I disagreed with much of what you said)?

My question didn't get answered: why would people - who are by-and-large selfish and self-interested - create a concept that made everything "fun" taboo? That goes against logic. How would a small group of killjoys make such a restrictive code popular? Spare me the "conversion at the point of the sword" stuff - Christianity was widespread and influencial long before it became (unfortunately) fashionable to shout "God wills it!" and brandish a weapon.



Evil is evil. Self- or another hurting behavior is what it's name says. The only sin is to catalog life in a strict sect of moral codes instead of truly living.

How can you say "the only sin" when you just said above that there's no such thing?

"Evil is evil" - what does that mean? Without God, evil doesn't exist either; instead, all we're left with are things that we disapprove of.

[NikolaiI]

Tell me how you are supposed to be estranged by God from sin, even though he is always at your heart? It seems to me we cannot be estranged from God. I was recently reading a book on Shin buddhism, where the author describes it basically as very similar to Christianity, and talks about self-power and other-power. He says Christian pride, and everything we do by ourselves is self-power, and he begins by saying self-power and other-power are different, and there is a chasm between ourselves and Amida, and ourselves and the Pure Land. Eventually we realize we need to give up trying by ourselves and give in to other power, or something like that...but we should exhaust our energies first, because then we know our limits. And eventually we realize that self-power comes from other-power, and it is other power. And we realize that Pure Land is where we are right now, etc., etc.

But sin...what is that? And good/bad traits, doesn't everything come from God? And anyway, Red, what is your unnatural fixation with the bible, like it is unerring truth? Can't you set that aside at least to communicate?


And anyway, saying that a small group of people invented the concept, or asking why, that just avoids everything. We weren't talking about who invented it or why, we were talking about the concept, specifically the nature of sin...

[Bakiryu]

"Evil is evil" - what does that mean? Without God, evil doesn't exist either; instead, all we're left with are things that we disapprove of.

And what does EVIL has to do with god? Before Christianity there was murder, rape, violence: all great evils. And after it they kept existing. Evil doesn't need god to exist, like good doesn't need HIM/HER either.

[Redzeppelin]

And anyway, Red, what is your unnatural fixation with the bible, like it is unerring truth? Can't you set that aside at least to communicate?

I'm sorry, Nik, but I've reached saturation point with this kind of silly ad hominem stuff. Until you can figure out how to approach my points without resorting to this tactic, you'll get silence from me.


And what does EVIL has to do with god? Before Christianity there was murder, rape, violence: all great evils. And after it they kept existing. Evil doesn't need god to exist, like good doesn't need HIM/HER either.

Your response alternates between God and Christianity - the two aren't synonyms. The terms "evil" and "good" really have no meaning outside of the context of God. Without Him, things that happen on this planet can only be categorized as either things we approve of or disapprove of - but we cannot call anything "good" or "evil" because you need an objective morality to do that and only God can provide that. That's what I meant.

[NikolaiI]

I'm sorry, Nik, but I've reached saturation point with this kind of silly ad hominem stuff. Until you can figure out how to approach my points without resorting to this tactic, you'll get silence from me.



Your response alternates between God and Christianity - the two aren't synonyms. The terms "evil" and "good" really have no meaning outside of the context of God. Without Him, things that happen on this planet can only be categorized as either things we approve of or disapprove of - but we cannot call anything "good" or "evil" because you need an objective morality to do that and only God can provide that. That's what I meant.

I'm not against you, Red, and I'm sorry if you found my post offensive or ad hominem, I didn't mean it that way. The problem is that a lot of what you say reacts violently with me and makes me nervous. I wish you no harm, and I would also be glad to do away with the conversation...anyway have a nice day and I'll talk to you later.


I did have a reason for what I said, however. I don't know if you can see how statements like "How can you say "the only sin" when you just said above that there's no such thing?" Can seem...mean,...it's like, you pretend not to understand either her point, and you also rather randomly take a problem with her using the word 'sin' like that...it was an obvious contrast in her statement, and it wasn't because she wasn't aware of what sin meant..

I don't know. And your question about why people would create such a concept just seems to be avoidance. Anyway I guess that's all for now.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't know. And your question about why people would create such a concept just seems to be avoidance. Anyway I guess that's all for now.

No; my question poses the other side of the rather cavalier suggestion that sin was "made up" by humans. If this is so, then what logical reason did human beings have for "making up" the idea of sin? What's the benefit? Why would people voluntarily create such a thing?

[Bakiryu]

No; my question poses the other side of the rather cavalier suggestion that sin was "made up" by humans. If this is so, then what logical reason did human beings have for "making up" the idea of sin? What's the benefit? Why would people voluntarily create such a thing?

Sin was created as a moral concept to express wrongness in the view of a deity. You may as well ask why did humankind thought up morals. Every religion as a set or rules or "good laws". The disobeying those laws would be something opposite thus "sin."

there are no sins in Buddhism for example, so we'll have to say sin is a concept inherent to other religions, mostly Christ-based.

[Pendragon]

Sin is one of two things and you really don't have to base this on the Bible to see that it is so.

1.) Knowing that something is wrong and doing it anyway. Without a concept that something is wrong, there can be no sin there. But when you know not to do something, let us say taking another person's stuff, stealing, and you do it anyway, that becomes sin, you wronged someone.

2.) Knowing that you should do something and refusing to do it. This comes into play when a situation develops where we could do our part to make it better. But we cannot be bothered. I'm recalling a news story of a man who died on a L.A. street of a heart attack. Not only did no one help by even calling 911, but he lay there three days and people calmly stepped over the body on the sidewalk. That is selfish sinful behavior agaist humanity.

I could take these back to the Bible, but I think I have made my point anyway. Ryu, if everyone acted like these two examples all the time, and many do, is that not sin against us all?

God Bless

Pen

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "No; my question poses the other side of the rather cavalier suggestion that sin was "made up" by humans. If this is so, then what logical reason did human beings have for "making up" the idea of sin? What's the benefit? Why would people voluntarily create such a thing?"

A priestly caste might make up the idea of sin as an instrument of control, or a tool for the acquisition of wealth.

[RichardHresko]

Let's consider something that Nikolai brought up before, "karma." I have two questions about that idea.
1) Do you consider "karma" to be a human construct, like "sin"? If not, how do they differ?
2) Assuming you believe karma works, how does it work?

Consider also this line from Augustine on his sorrow for the death of a friend and see whether or not a Buddhist could not agree:
"For the reason why that great sorrow of mine pierced into me so easily and so deeply was simply this: I had poured out my soul like water onto sand by loving a man who was bound to die as if he were an immortal." (Confessions IV.8.

[Bakiryu]

Of course Karma is a human construct.

"The explanation of karma can differ per tradition. Usually it is believed to be a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. The results or "fruits" of actions are called karma-phala. Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward; karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well. It is cumulative."

(Quoted from wiki)

[RichardHresko]

Of course Karma is a human construct.

"The explanation of karma can differ per tradition. Usually it is believed to be a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. The results or "fruits" of actions are called karma-phala. Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward; karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well. It is cumulative."

(Quoted from wiki)

Good. So both karma and sin are human constructs.

Now consider what wikipedia says about the effects of all deeds, and what Augustine has to say about them. Isn't there a similarity in that both Augustine and this definition of karma do not invoke a punisher, but rather present the negative outcome as a consequence of the action?

Further, consider that Augustine brings up the internal state of the person, which the wikipedia version of karma does not.

So now the question becomes whether this notion of karma/sin is one that is helpful, and if so, in what ways? And if not, where is it harmful?

[Bakiryu]

So now the question becomes whether this notion of karma/sin is one that is helpful, and if so, in what ways? And if not, where is it harmful?

Sin and Karma are helpful concepts as long as not taken in the extreme. For example stealing followed the concept is harmful, so it could be classified as a sin. But envy, without doing anything about it is not classifiable as one, since there's nothing wrong with wanting what others have.

[Pendragon]

Sin and Karma are helpful concepts as long as not taken in the extreme. For example stealing followed the concept is harmful, so it could be classified as a sin. But envy, without doing anything about it is not classifiable as one, since there's nothing wrong with wanting what others have.One problem with envy is though that it seldom remains just as "Whoa, dude! Check out those wheels! I gotta have those!", or something similar, simple desire for what others have. It grows into jealousy quickly thus: "Why does she/he get all the breaks and have everything?" From there it is a short hop to outright hatred. "Oh, I cannot stand that person! Always flaunting their stuff as if that made them somebody!" Remember every mighty oak tree was once an acorn you could hold between two fingers. But it grows. Simple things we dismiss so easily can do the same if we are not careful. That acorn will never be an oak if it is never planted. The small things do not grow unless we alow them to take root. I confess I would like my neighbor's motorcycle. But I cannot afford one, so I allow myself the dream, and drive my pickup. I'd pobably wreck it anyway like I did the last one I was on. Thus I am not jealous when he fires it up, but my heart beats a little faster.

God Bless

Pen

[RichardHresko]

Sin and Karma are helpful concepts as long as not taken in the extreme. For example stealing followed the concept is harmful, so it could be classified as a sin. But envy, without doing anything about it is not classifiable as one, since there's nothing wrong with wanting what others have.

Now that is an interesting point. Is it really true that there is nothing wrong with wanting what others have in an envious way? Isn't it possible that engaging in envy is hurtful to oneself? Isn't it harmful to one's own psychological/spiritual well-being to want to possess something that belongs to someone else?

This involves, I think, a consideration of the person's internal state of being. And that, I think, is what both the concept of karma and a mature consideration both can bring about.

[blazeofglory]

St. Augustine in Confessions writes in Book I, Chapter 20:

"For my sin was in this -- that I looked for pleasures, exaltations, truths not in God Himself but in His creatures (myself and the rest), and so I fell stright into sorrows, confusions, and mistakes."

It seems that for Augustine sin is not the breaking of some rule, but something that leads us away from our true happiness. The punishment of sin is really the consequence of the very nature of what makes something a sin.

Thoughts?

I do not have ideas why sin originated biblically speaking. Sin is simply a concept only nothing else. There are defined sins, for it is different from place to place. Without committing a sin no suvival is possible and sin and virtuosity
are tewin siblings.

[RichardHresko]

I do not have ideas why sin originated biblically speaking. Sin is simply a concept only nothing else. There are defined sins, for it is different from place to place. Without committing a sin no suvival is possible and sin and virtuosity
are tewin siblings.

What I think Augustine was getting at is that this concept of sin is a way for us to appreciate that when we fix our hearts and minds on things in this world in an inappropriate way that we will suffer grief. What is an inappropriate way to fix our hearts on things of this world? To love these things as though they will last forever. This leads Augustine to consider that to avoid this grief we must understand that we need to love appropriately, and that our love, if it is not to come to grief, must be focused on that/who is ever-lasting.

I think that one of the reasons I opened this thread was precisely to move beyond the idea that a sin is merely breaking some rule and that God will punish you, and move towards a deeper understanding and appreciation of what this concept offers us.

[Bakiryu]

Now that is an interesting point. Is it really true that there is nothing wrong with wanting what others have in an envious way? Isn't it possible that engaging in envy is hurtful to oneself? Isn't it harmful to one's own psychological/spiritual well-being to want to possess something that belongs to someone else?

This involves, I think, a consideration of the person's internal state of being. And that, I think, is what both the concept of karma and a mature consideration both can bring about.

You should go to the "Is envy Right?" thread then.

[blazeofglory]

What I think Augustine was getting at is that this concept of sin is a way for us to appreciate that when we fix our hearts and minds on things in this world in an inappropriate way that we will suffer grief. What is an inappropriate way to fix our hearts on things of this world? To love these things as though they will last forever. This leads Augustine to consider that to avoid this grief we must understand that we need to love appropriately, and that our love, if it is not to come to grief, must be focused on that/who is ever-lasting.

I think that one of the reasons I opened this thread was precisely to move beyond the idea that a sin is merely breaking some rule and that God will punish you, and move towards a deeper understanding and appreciation of what this concept offers us.

The issue of sin is subjected to a great amount of controversy. What I think is everybody is forgivable no matter how big crimes one has committed. Life has phases and we are not the same at every phase of life and we change and the fact that if we are sinners at one phase of life we can correct it at another.

There is a beautiful story in the Bible. One woman was taken to Jesus and th e people who have taken her there said she was a sinner and she had done so and so crimes and she for her sins deserves to be stoned.

Jesus said' only he can stone her who has never sinned in life. Then one by one everyone witdrew.

It is therefore only a matter of degrees and no one is clean of this in this world.

Survival is not possible if we do not commit crimes, a crime of killing, knocking down others

[RichardHresko]

The issue of sin is subjected to a great amount of controversy. What I think is everybody is forgivable no matter how big crimes one has committed. Life has phases and we are not the same at every phase of life and we change and the fact that if we are sinners at one phase of life we can correct it at another.

There is a beautiful story in the Bible. One woman was taken to Jesus and th e people who have taken her there said she was a sinner and she had done so and so crimes and she for her sins deserves to be stoned.

Jesus said' only he can stone her who has never sinned in life. Then one by one everyone witdrew.

It is therefore only a matter of degrees and no one is clean of this in this world.

Survival is not possible if we do not commit crimes, a crime of killing, knocking down others

Which brings us back again to the question of what is sin.

[Demian]

Buddha put it this way, "You are not punished for your anger but you are punished by your anger." I do not adhere to the notion that Judgment is not necesarry to root out historical evil (esp. institutions) but I do think God is kind and merciful to all individuals. A friend of mine put it this way,"Consequences aren't a bad thing, but we always see them as if they are. They're actually saving us from ourselves."

[blazeofglory]

What I think Augustine was getting at is that this concept of sin is a way for us to appreciate that when we fix our hearts and minds on things in this world in an inappropriate way that we will suffer grief. What is an inappropriate way to fix our hearts on things of this world? To love these things as though they will last forever. This leads Augustine to consider that to avoid this grief we must understand that we need to love appropriately, and that our love, if it is not to come to grief, must be focused on that/who is ever-lasting.

I think that one of the reasons I opened this thread was precisely to move beyond the idea that a sin is merely breaking some rule and that God will punish you, and move towards a deeper understanding and appreciation of what this concept offers us.

The basic concept of sin is in life survival is not possible without sins and sins are what we can not do away with and the matter is only of degrees and kinds not of not doing and doing.

How can you totally be generous and survive and two things can not go together. The theory of evolution is rooted in the very concept of struggle, and without struggle without fighting there can be no existence at all.

Man had to kill other animals for survival or in nature no creature can survive without killing no creature can survive. Man has to kill whether animals or plants, plants are also living beings and now scientifically proved that many characteristics of plants resemble that of animals.

Therefore sins run through our veins and there is no question one survives.
It is as original as life.

[RichardHresko]

Buddha put it this way, "You are not punished for your anger but you are punished by your anger." I do not adhere to the notion that Judgment is not necesarry to root out historical evil (esp. institutions) but I do think God is kind and merciful to all individuals. A friend of mine put it this way,"Consequences aren't a bad thing, but we always see them as if they are. They're actually saving us from ourselves."

I like that. And I think that Augustine would certainly agree with this thought. And I also like that this concept from both East and West is one that encourages us to be adults, instead of as children who are afraid of getting punished for breaking some sort of arbitrary rule. Thanks for the quote!


The basic concept of sin is in life survival is not possible without sins and sins are what we can not do away with and the matter is only of degrees and kinds not of not doing and doing.

How can you totally be generous and survive and two things can not go together. The theory of evolution is rooted in the very concept of struggle, and without struggle without fighting there can be no existence at all.

Man had to kill other animals for survival or in nature no creature can survive without killing no creature can survive. Man has to kill whether animals or plants, plants are also living beings and now scientifically proved that many characteristics of plants resemble that of animals.

Therefore sins run through our veins and there is no question one survives.
It is as original as life.


I don't necessarily agree here. For example, one could logically take the position that sin is not natural, but has come about from our will. I am not sure that eating in and of itself is a sin, even if we eat an animal. (Cannibalism is an interesting case, but I have neither time nor recipes at my disposal to discuss this here.)

Once again, to really evaluate your remark we need to be clear as to what is meant by 'sin.'

[mosimo]

Once again, to really evaluate your remark we need to be clear as to what is meant by 'sin.'

To me sin is any act which goes against the your beleifs. Not the acts of other people but only one's own acts. Therefore hypotheticaly speaking is a person has no beleifs that person can not sin.

Any comments on this definition?

[Granny5]

To me sin is any act which goes against the your beleifs. Not the acts of other people but only one's own acts. Therefore hypotheticaly speaking is a person has no beleifs that person can not sin.

Any comments on this definition?

If you mean sin as in "sin against God" then I guess you may be right. But we can sin in other ways. Breaking the law is sinning against authority and being hateful to man is sinning against mankind. I would think that clear cutting is a sin against nature or the Earth. Do you limit sin to just God and religion?

[amalia1985]

I believe that every "theme" regarding religion is highly subjective. Same goes with the nature of sin. Who decides what is sinful or not? For example, my grandmother thought pre-marital relationships a grave sin. My parents, and myself, think exactly the opposite. I will agree with most friends here. For me, the only "objective" sin is any attempt to offend-by any means-the dignity of others.

[mosimo]

If you mean sin as in "sin against God" then I guess you may be right. But we can sin in other ways. Breaking the law is sinning against authority and being hateful to man is sinning against mankind. I would think that clear cutting is a sin against nature or the Earth. Do you limit sin to just God and religion?

A sin is only referring to religion. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Is it a sin to whistle under water? In on place in the US it is breaking the law.
(I cannot remember the state or city but it was one of those stupid laws). Someone can sin by breaking a law but only if that person believes that law to be correct. A sin is only when you break your own law.

That is just my opinion.

[Granny5]

I would think that anyone would know, even if they are a non-believer, the difference in right and wrong. To do something knowing it is wrong and/or would hurt another or mankind would be wrong, whether you called it a sin or not. It's the same thing.

[mosimo]

I would think that anyone would know, even if they are a non-believer, the difference in right and wrong. To do something knowing it is wrong and/or would hurt another or mankind would be wrong, whether you called it a sin or not. It's the same thing.

Who is a non-believer? Everyone believes in something.

Yes, two people can do the same thing while one sins and the other does not, because the one believes it is wrong and the other that it is okay.

FYI I get my definition from Romans 7:7.

[Redzeppelin]

"Sin" has no meaning outside of the context of God; transgressing secularly established laws is breaking a law but not a "sin."

All sins are "against God." Because He is the establisher of moral law, all violations are against Him.

[NikolaiI]

What if you don't believe in god?

[Granny5]

In monotheistic religions, the code of conduct is determined by God. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienative might be termed "sinful". (Wikipedia)

"Sin" can be against humankind, nature, or any number of things.

[hedbanger]

I believe there isn't really a cut-and-dried way to define a sin. You have to feel a certain situation to really decide wether or not a person has sinned.

Furthermore, different people will call different situations as involving sin. =( So complicated.

[rich14285]

Romans 5:13 "(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Good ole St Paul sure writes some good ones. Now what could he possibly mean when he writes : "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned" and so on ? Did people stop dying after Moses ? Or is he talking about spiritual death ? Well, if spiritual death reigned from Adam to Moses, why did spiritual death stop reigning with Moses ? And what does spiritual death have to do with sin ? Are we all spiritual dead and don't know it ? Oh, and what did Jesus say ? John 16.7."Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9. Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10. Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11. Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged."
Food for thought!!!

[DeathAngel]

This is so off topic, but i think,
even the holiest of people have sinned,

[Redzeppelin]

This is so off topic, but i think,
even the holiest of people have sinned,

Right: as such, the goal is not being "sinless" so much as it is to become the kind of person who doesn't want to sin any more. It is impossible to be sinless (see Paul's comments in the first 8 chapters of Romans).

[NikolaiI]

(removed)

[blazeofglory]

What I think Augustine was getting at is that this concept of sin is a way for us to appreciate that when we fix our hearts and minds on things in this world in an inappropriate way that we will suffer grief. What is an inappropriate way to fix our hearts on things of this world? To love these things as though they will last forever. This leads Augustine to consider that to avoid this grief we must understand that we need to love appropriately, and that our love, if it is not to come to grief, must be focused on that/who is ever-lasting.

I think that one of the reasons I opened this thread was precisely to move beyond the idea that a sin is merely breaking some rule and that God will punish you, and move towards a deeper understanding and appreciation of what this concept offers us.

In fact now your ideas of sin and how it has come into being is really dissecting the very corpus of it. I think everyone instinctively or innately know what is bad and what is good with regard to behavior. While there is no demarcation what really is good and what is bad, and in one circumstance things that are reckoned bad may be good in another opposite cirucmstance. Everything is relative .

Definitely the idea of moving towards a deeper understanding and appreciation of what things or refraining from fixing our minds on things that are not lasting or things that are very epiphenomenal is really considerably in not wholly to keep ourselves from sins.

Sins is really a complex phenomenon. In the Bible, Jesus was really wise to save a woman who was about to be stoned by a group of people, and he had of course very wittily asked whether any one bereft of sins would turn up to stone the woman and then one by one everyone left the place leaving both Jesus and the woman. This is really one of the greatest parables of sins and sinners written in any scriputres.

Sins are really some traits characteristic of living beings, in fact the very creation of this world can not continue without sins. In fact Eve eating the fruit of the forbidden lays the very foundation of existence, to say precisely, had Eve not committed the original sin we would not have existed in this world in the physical forms with the same natural phenomena at all. For existence can not continue without sins. How can we survive without killing others, and the very reality of existence is rooted in this fact.

There are degrees of it only but everyone has to sin in life and the one who has not sinned is hard to come across.

Yet as you said we should come to a deeper understanding of it. And all we have to do is focus us on things that are enduringly truthful.

[RichardHresko]

In fact now your ideas of sin and how it has come into being is really dissecting the very corpus of it. I think everyone instinctively or innately know what is bad and what is good with regard to behavior. While there is no demarcation what really is good and what is bad, and in one circumstance things that are reckoned bad may be good in another opposite cirucmstance. Everything is relative .

.

I don't agree that sin is relative. If sin is that which brings us to grief because it involves a turning away from that which can make us truly happy (Augustine again, in both Confessions Book III, and de libero arbitrio Book I) then it is not relative. Particular acts may be sinful in one context and not in another, but that is not the same thing as sin itself being relative. Augustine uses the example of a soldier who kills without 'lust' cupiditas in the original.

[blazeofglory]

I don't agree that sin is relative. If sin is that which brings us to grief because it involves a turning away from that which can make us truly happy (Augustine again, in both Confessions Book III, and de libero arbitrio Book I) then it is not relative. Particular acts may be sinful in one context and not in another, but that is not the same thing as sin itself being relative. Augustine uses the example of a soldier who kills without 'lust' cupiditas in the original.

There is another perspective to look at sin. How can there be sin without sacredness and vice versa. In life each compliment the other, or to put it differently one can not see one' s existence without the other. This is the universal truth indeed.

Like if we do not feel hungry, we cannot feel the taste of food. See how can God exist without the existence of the devil or evil. So is sin. There is a comparison, good and bad, ugly and beautiful. These are comparatives, and comparatives lead to superlatives ultimately. You can not imagine the idea of tallness if everybody has the same height. It is by comparison only that we can understand what sin is. There is no absolute sin.

[RichardHresko]

There is another perspective to look at sin. How can there be sin without sacredness and vice versa. In life each compliment the other, or to put it differently one can not see one' s existence without the other. This is the universal truth indeed.

Like if we do not feel hungry, we cannot feel the taste of food. See how can God exist without the existence of the devil or evil. So is sin. There is a comparison, good and bad, ugly and beautiful. These are comparatives, and comparatives lead to superlatives ultimately. You can not imagine the idea of tallness if everybody has the same height. It is by comparison only that we can understand what sin is. There is no absolute sin.

There can be sin without sacredness, as per my post above on Augustine and Aristotle.

If one regards evil as not having substantial existence then it is indeed possible to have the existence of the sacred without evil at all. Same could be said for sin. So I don't see that the two having to co-exist is necessarily true at all, let alone a 'universal truth.'

While what you say is certainly a possible point of view it does not appear, at least without further analysis that your claims on either "universal truth" or that "there is no absolute sin" are supported.

[AngelEyes714]

So, could sin be considered something done against an authority?

If your self is an authority, then anything against yourself is a sin.
If you live in a certain country, anything you do against that country is a sin (breaking laws, etc) because you have subjected yourself to that authority by living in that country.
If you live in a certain state, anything you do against that state is a sin.
If you live in a home purchased and paid for by your parents, anything you do against them is a sin.

So, if there REALLY is a God (whether you believe in him or not), you are under his authority because you are living in his world. And sin would be anything you would do against him.

Romans 1 puts it rather well, saying that God is revealed through creation and that anyone who listens, has a conscience and can follow their conscience for what is right or wrong. From a Christian perspective (and it coincides with secular opinion too), Paul claims that if you are without the scriptural authority in your life (i.e. you never read the bible a day in ur life and you have no clue what it says is right or wrong or it doesn't explicitly address the issue at hand), that anything you do against your conscience is a sin. But this is ONLY applicable when there is NO authority in your life on a certain issue.

I think that this follows rather consistently throughout culture, because several ancient cultures have created very similar laws without having any exposure to eachother. So, that could be proof that your conscience DOES in fact provide some rather basic guidelines as to what is good or bad.

[Starving Buddha]

St. Augustine in Confessions writes in Book I, Chapter 20:

"For my sin was in this -- that I looked for pleasures, exaltations, truths not in God Himself but in His creatures (myself and the rest), and so I fell stright into sorrows, confusions, and mistakes."

It seems that for Augustine sin is not the breaking of some rule, but something that leads us away from our true happiness. The punishment of sin is really the consequence of the very nature of what makes something a sin.

Thoughts?

Another way of defining sin is ignorance. The "sinful" action (or thought or words) is negativity that weighs one down. It acts as an obstruction, a distraction that keeps one from the light. True happiness can only be experienced apart from "things". St. Augustine said something to the effect that we always desire more from something than it is capable of giving. This is comparable to the teachings of the Buddha when he instructs that it is our attachments to things that leads to suffering. In sum, we will continue to suffer as long as we ignorantly (sinfully) attach ourselves to things. Therefore, we will suffer the consequence of our actions (thoughts, words) as long as we continue to perpetrate them. At some point along our soul-journey, we will come to a fork in the road, and have to decide between continuing on in ignorance, or taking the first steps to overcome our sinful nature and begin our journey to The Light.

[RichardHresko]

Another way of defining sin is ignorance. The "sinful" action (or thought or words) is negativity that weighs one down. It acts as an obstruction, a distraction that keeps one from the light. True happiness can only be experienced apart from "things". St. Augustine said something to the effect that we always desire more from something than it is capable of giving. This is comparable to the teachings of the Buddha when he instructs that it is our attachments to things that leads to suffering. In sum, we will continue to suffer as long as we ignorantly (sinfully) attach ourselves to things. Therefore, we will suffer the consequence of our actions (thoughts, words) as long as we continue to perpetrate them. At some point along our soul-journey, we will come to a fork in the road, and have to decide between continuing on in ignorance, or taking the first steps to overcome our sinful nature and begin our journey to The Light.

I too have been struck by the similarity between Augustine and Buddha on this point. An interesting parallel is that both Augustine and Buddha have their conversion experience/enlightenment while under a tree. Augustine's account is in Confessions viii, 12.

[Starving Buddha]

I too have been struck by the similarity between Augustine and Buddha on this point. An interesting parallel is that both Augustine and Buddha have their conversion experience/enlightenment while under a tree. Augustine's account is in Confessions viii, 12.

Read Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" It is amazing how similar ALL the religions of the world are. They all share the same elements. I understand now that there is really only ONE spiritual message and it is expressed through every religion. Which is to say, different ways of saying the same thing.

[mazHur]

There are lesser controversies about God as compared to personalities regarded as sacred by men in ALL religions of the world.

[weepingforloman]

It's a religion. People always do stupid things on the name of "God". It was adopted by the rich and the powerful but the unbelievers where murdered or converted. Besides who says the "selfish, self-interest people" followed strictly its moral codes? Story is filled with examples of people who didn't.

Evil is evil. Self- or another hurting behavior is what it's name says. The only sin is to catalog life in a strict sect of moral codes instead of truly living.
The rich and powerful were, originally, the opponents of Christianity. It began its life among the poor, in Israel and throughout the Roman empire. Those who believed in it were executed by being burned alive (Nero actually used Christians to light the streets at night) or beheading (a la Paul) or crucifixion (a la Peter) or simply through gladiatorial battles. Make no mistake, whatever the current make up of Christians (and even now, missionaries are imprisoned or executed in certain countries- my church recently had missionaries to Africa imprisoned), it began with the poor and oppressed.
Since when is living morally "not truly living?"

[kari]

There can be sin without sacredness, as per my post above on Augustine and Aristotle.

If one regards evil as not having substantial existence then it is indeed possible to have the existence of the sacred without evil at all. Same could be said for sin. So I don't see that the two having to co-exist is necessarily true at all, let alone a 'universal truth.'.

I don't think they both HAVE to exist. For instance, I think many believe that once the second coming has passed (or just once we die), we will live in "heaven" that will be void of sin, unhappiness, evil. But I think that they do co-exist while we are living on earth, not so much from the idea that can't exist without eachother, but more because that is how God wanted it to be for us...we benefit from it. How would we be able to truly appreciate the good things, and understand how happy it makes us, if we haven't at least tasted the bad?

[Starving Buddha]

I don't think they both HAVE to exist. For instance, I think many believe that once the second coming has passed (or just once we die), we will live in "heaven" that will be void of sin, unhappiness, evil. But I think that they do co-exist while we are living on earth, not so much from the idea that can't exist without eachother, but more because that is how God wanted it to be for us...we benefit from it. How would we be able to truly appreciate the good things, and understand how happy it makes us, if we haven't at least tasted the bad?

I believe this life is a purgation. We are here to burn off the remnants of an ignorant nature. Not 'sinful', but ignorant. We are in the process of loosening the karmic bonds (to desire and fear which manifest as ego) that bind us here. Heaven and hell both exist here together (they are psycho-spiritual states). Those that are more bound by the ego, are in a deeper pit of hell and have more to let go of, while those that have learned to let go, are motivated more by love and compassion exist in a state that is more heavenly, which is to say: closer to the divine. Or more specifically, exist as a more perfect being.; which is what we are all striving for- to emerge from the darkness into the light, to evolve from ignorance to full realization.

[rich14285]

John 10.34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Apparantly the word of God does not come to everyone. Jesus above indicates "gods" in terms of those unto whom the word of God came, and he adds "the scripture cannot be broken", or cannot be false. Sin at some point has to do with hearing the word of "God" and letting that word fall to the ground like King Saul. He is infamous for being told the word, the living word of God given unto him by a living Seer of that word, Samuel, and then Saul shows lack of respect for that word by letting it fall to the ground or ignoring it and doing what he thinks should be done. This kind of sin cost Saul his Kingship.
FYI

[Metanoia]

To sin is to live, the day you stop sinning, you know its time to die.

[Redzeppelin]

To sin is to live, the day you stop sinning, you know its time to die.

I'm not sure I understand what this statement means. According to Christian theology, the equation you've made (sin=life) doesn't work. The Bible makes it clear that sin leads to death. The fact that I'm human means that it is beyond my ability to not sin, but that does not mean that it is a necessary ingredient to my life.

[Metanoia]

I'm not sure I understand what this statement means. According to Christian theology, the equation you've made (sin=life) doesn't work. The Bible makes it clear that sin leads to death. The fact that I'm human means that it is beyond my ability to not sin, but that does not mean that it is a necessary ingredient to my life.The Bible makes it clear". Why is it the bible has all the answers? How do you know that God approves of what the bible says?You say your human therefore it is beyond your ablity not to sin, but then you say it's not a necessary ingredient in your life...it seems like a contradicting statment. And what is it to "sin"? Why should we be punished for our human desires and instincts? It would seem kind of cruel on Gods part to enable us with these human ways, and then smite us for them. So maybe the bible was created by someone (most likely a man, for the bible seems to favor the male sex) who came up with some rules for the way he thought people should be living their lives. But maybe for some people, in order to be good to their fellow man, they need to be instilled with the fear of dire consequences. Sad but true.
Maybe God has been sitting up in heaven this whole time shaking his head at how silly people can be in regards to the bible and religion. Granted I'm sure "God" would want us to be kind to eachother, but we are here to learn are we not? What is the best way to learn? To learn from our mistakes. Therefore, it would make more sense to me that God expects us to make errors (sin) in order to learn. How do we remedy mistakes we make in our day-to-day lives? We learn from them, try it differently, and don't repeat the same errors. It's the same the world over, with people of every nationality; who interesting enough all have different religions. Almost every religion in the world proclaimes itself to be the one "true" religion, ordained to people from God himself. But we are relying on the fact that these pople wrote down what God allegedly said word for word, and not what they thought it should say. People should be kind to others because it promotes peace, prosperity, and love, not because a book tells us that we have to in order to save us space in heaven.

[Redzeppelin]

The Bible makes it clear". Why is it the bible has all the answers? How do you know that God approves of what the bible says?

The Bible has the answers because it is the revelation of God's character. Without it, we have no way to make any statement whatsoever about who God is and what He's like. And since when did the Bible become invalid in a conversation about God? I assume God approves of what the Bible says because it purports to be inspired by Him.



You say your human therefore it is beyond your ablity not to sin, but then you say it's not a necessary ingredient in your life...it seems like a contradicting statment.

Sin is inevitable, but not necessary. There's a difference.


And what is it to "sin"? Why should we be punished for our human desires and instincts? It would seem kind of cruel on Gods part to enable us with these human ways, and then smite us for them.

Human nature has been warped by the contaminating influence of sin. Many sins are actually distortions of legitimate desires that God gave us as human beings. I would not assume that the male desire to have sex with as many women as possible is a God-given desire - that is a distortion of the sexuality God gave us. God understands that we have inappropriate desires - but He provides a way to deal with those. Giving into them is our choice.


So maybe the bible was created by someone (most likely a man, for the bible seems to favor the male sex) who came up with some rules for the way he thought people should be living their lives. But maybe for some people, in order to be good to their fellow man, they need to be instilled with the fear of dire consequences. Sad but true.

Completely wrong. It is an absurd simplification to dismiss the Bible as a mere human creation geared to make people feel guilty and fearful. Human beings - such as they are - would be more likely to create a God in their own image (like the gods of Greek mythology, who are promiscuous and capricious, play favorites and are manipulative). Why would any human being construct the moral code provided in the Bible? Why not, instead, create a god that allows us to indulge our human nature without guilt? People who say the Bible was created by human beings must assume that people in the distant past were somehow radically different from us. I doubt it.


Maybe God has been sitting up in heaven this whole time shaking his head at how silly people can be in regards to the bible and religion. Granted I'm sure "God" would want us to be kind to eachother, but we are here to learn are we not? What is the best way to learn? To learn from our mistakes. Therefore, it would make more sense to me that God expects us to make errors (sin) in order to learn. How do we remedy mistakes we make in our day-to-day lives? We learn from them, try it differently, and don't repeat the same errors. It's the same the world over, with people of every nationality; who interesting enough all have different religions.

That we will make mistakes is a given, and of course you're right in that God desires that we learn from our mistakes; however, that does not mean He desires that we purposely go out and make mistakes and sin for the purpose of "learning."


Almost every religion in the world proclaimes itself to be the one "true" religion, ordained to people from God himself. But we are relying on the fact that these pople wrote down what God allegedly said word for word, and not what they thought it should say. People should be kind to others because it promotes peace, prosperity, and love, not because a book tells us that we have to in order to save us space in heaven.

The problem is that - from the Christian standpoint - we are incapable of being kind and loving to each other by our own effort; it is only the presence of God within each of us that allows any of us (proclaimed atheists included) to be kind, loving, compassionate.

The "true" religion is the one that most accurately and completely accounts for human nature, the construction of the universe, and the nature of reality. Not all religions can do so with equal success.

[sreeja]

Sin is a concept made .In my opinion killing ,do any harm to others etc are sins.

[Pendragon]

There can be sin without sacredness, as per my post above on Augustine and Aristotle.

Not exactly Richard. There can be no sin with out laws.

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.

Unless there is a law giving a punishment and a reward to those that keep it, there could be no sin.

If, for example, everyone lived by Alestier Crowley's Book of Thoth, what sin could there be? "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." It doesn't take rocket science to see that this is total madness. The guy next door wants to be a Hannibal Lector, he's OK, he's only doing what he will. See?

Jesus said the whole of the law was: St. Matthew 22 :[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

To have to treat everyone like we treat ourselves would stop a lot!

Laws bring sin for following them or not following them.

God Bless

Pen.

[quasimodo1]

I reluctantly add to this thread, being quite jaded by religious discussions of any sort...but I remember Confucius defining sin as knowledge not used. Doesn't that really cover it all?

[Pendragon]

I reluctantly add to this thread, being quite jaded by religious discussions of any sort...but I remember Confucius defining sin as knowledge not used. Doesn't that really cover it all?with my knowledge of the Chinese Dynasties, they were indeed a wealth of knowledge. They had ways of tempering various metals making them stronger. they created some of the first alloys, they had wonderful architecture, they built the Great Wall, they had advances in medicine. But they also invented gunpowder and guns, their knowledge of poisons was legendary, they invented martial arts and they lived by caste systems. Now if they had failed to use their knowledge to create things to help their people I would say Confucius definitely had a point. But they used they knowledge to war upon each other and to raise some to power above the others who then suffered at the hands of their own people.
I would saw that knowledge misused is as bad as not using the knowledge at all.

God Bless

Pen

[blazeofglory]

There is nothing called sin, and no one in reality is sinful. This is a layer or a cover, not the thing.

[Pendragon]

There is nothing called sin, and no one in reality is sinful. This is a layer or a cover, not the thing.
Really? Murder is not sinful? Taking things that don't belong to you is no sin? Harming others is not sinful? What do you call these things then? Is there another word that better describes wrong actions?


The Hillbilly's Ten Commandments
(posted on the wall at Cross Trails Church in Gainesboro, TN)


(1) Just one God
(2) Put nothin' before God
(3) Watch yer mouth
(4) Git yourself to Sunday meetin'
(5) Honor yer Ma & Pa
(6) No killin'
(7) No foolin' around with another fellow's gal
(8) Don't take what ain't yers
(9) No tellin' tales or gossipin'
(10) Don't be hankerin' for yer buddy's stuff


Now that's kinda plain an' simple, don't ya think?
Y'all have a nice day.

[Redzeppelin]

There is nothing called sin, and no one in reality is sinful. This is a layer or a cover, not the thing.

These statments point to a relativisim that is scary. Why is it that people are so resistant to the idea that they may do things that are hurtful, wrong, and inappropriate?

[blazeofglory]

In fact it is a circumstance that makes you sacred or profane. A tortured man is always inclined to torture others.

You behave as a reaction, and sin is for that matter a sheer reaction to some action and nothing else.

If you want to win over any sinful persons arrive at the source. There in you come upon the antidote.

[Redzeppelin]

In fact it is a circumstance that makes you sacred or profane. A tortured man is always inclined to torture others.

You behave as a reaction, and sin is for that matter a sheer reaction to some action and nothing else.

If you want to win over any sinful persons arrive at the source. There in you come upon the antidote.

Sin is a choice - pure and simple. People do not steal, rape, murder, lie, etc out of a reaction (unless they have habituated themselves to said behavior). To say that sin is a "reaction" is to surrender to determinism - which makes none of us responsible for anything.

I don't buy that.

[quasimodo1]

Confusius: Sin is knowledge not used.

[RichardHresko]

Not exactly Richard. There can be no sin with out laws.

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.

Unless there is a law giving a punishment and a reward to those that keep it, there could be no sin.

If, for example, everyone lived by Alestier Crowley's Book of Thoth, what sin could there be? "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." It doesn't take rocket science to see that this is total madness. The guy next door wants to be a Hannibal Lector, he's OK, he's only doing what he will. See?

Jesus said the whole of the law was: St. Matthew 22 :[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

To have to treat everyone like we treat ourselves would stop a lot!

Laws bring sin for following them or not following them.

God Bless

Pen.

I didn't see this post until now.

I am not sure we have a disagreement at all. I stated that you can have sin without sacredness. Unless one takes 'sacredness' to be equivalent to law I am unsure why there is a disagreement.

The relation between sin and the law is interesting, and I think rather complicated. For example, the quote from Romans points out that Paul came to know what sin was from studying the law. In other words, sin became something clear and real to him because of the law. And his knowledge of the law is what convinced him that he, as well as the rest of us, deserve damnation (the law kills).

The verse however does not say that the law created sin. When Paul said he knew lust only after learning that coveting is against the law he most certainly did not mean that he got horny after reading the law. He meant that he became aware of the sinfulness of lusting by studying the law.

I think that the issue is an open one as to the extent that the law 'creates' what is sinful as opposed to merely helping us in our awareness of sinfulness (as in Augustine).

[blazeofglory]

Sin is a choice - pure and simple. People do not steal, rape, murder, lie, etc out of a reaction (unless they have habituated themselves to said behavior). To say that sin is a "reaction" is to surrender to determinism - which makes none of us responsible for anything.

I don't buy that.

You seem to subscribe to the concept of Free Will. This is not a biblical idea and Christian borrowed from Grecian source in point of fact.

The idea of Free Will is a baseless thing and a notion borrowed from the school of Christianity from Greek philosophy.

[Pendragon]

Confusius: Sin is knowledge not used.Or used wrongfully. For example. it is common knowledge that one can charge interest on a loan. Put it too high and you may be accused of usury, both sinful and in many places illegal. :p


I didn't see this post until now.

I am not sure we have a disagreement at all. I stated that you can have sin without sacredness. Unless one takes 'sacredness' to be equivalent to law I am unsure why there is a disagreement.

The relation between sin and the law is interesting, and I think rather complicated. For example, the quote from Romans points out that Paul came to know what sin was from studying the law. In other words, sin became something clear and real to him because of the law. And his knowledge of the law is what convinced him that he, as well as the rest of us, deserve damnation (the law kills).

The verse however does not say that the law created sin. When Paul said he knew lust only after learning that coveting is against the law he most certainly did not mean that he got horny after reading the law. He meant that he became aware of the sinfulness of lusting by studying the law.

I think that the issue is an open one as to the extent that the law 'creates' what is sinful as opposed to merely helping us in our awareness of sinfulness (as in Augustine).I will concede that. The law however that Paul speaks of came from God, so either doing what it says not to do (sin of commission) or not doing what it says to do (sin of omission) comes from the knowledge of the law.

God Bless

Pen

[rich14285]

And his knowledge of the law is what convinced him that he, as well as the rest of us, deserve damnation (the law kills).

Dear Pen, are you sure that we deserve damnation? Or, is it just that we might not even know that we are spiritually dead and under the law of sin and death, were it not for the law to teach us that we head for damnation but bless God, even though we are evil, as an inheritance from Adam's disobediance, and spiritually dead, God has a plan whereby we are not simply accounted righteous, but under the blood of the Lamb of God, we are cleansed of all unrighteousness. We would not even know that we need to be redeemed, and yes the more I write the more I think I get what you mean when you say we deserve damnation yes the law kills. O.K. got it. Thanks.

[Pendragon]

And his knowledge of the law is what convinced him that he, as well as the rest of us, deserve damnation (the law kills).

Dear Pen, are you sure that we deserve damnation? Or, is it just that we might not even know that we are spiritually dead and under the law of sin and death, were it not for the law to teach us that we head for damnation but bless God, even though we are evil, as an inheritance from Adam's disobediance, and spiritually dead, God has a plan whereby we are not simply accounted righteous, but under the blood of the Lamb of God, we are cleansed of all unrighteousness. We would not even know that we need to be redeemed, and yes the more I write the more I think I get what you mean when you say we deserve damnation yes the law kills. O.K. got it. Thanks.And the more you wrote, dear Rich, did you note that RH actually was the one you quoted? :)

[rich14285]

And the more you wrote, dear Rich, did you note that RH actually was the one you quoted?

Yes. And I wanted so much to make the right impression!!!

The truth is : Haste makes waste.

[wilbur lim]

St. Augustine in Confessions writes in Book I, Chapter 20:

"For my sin was in this -- that I looked for pleasures, exaltations, truths not in God Himself but in His creatures (myself and the rest), and so I fell stright into sorrows, confusions, and mistakes."

It seems that for Augustine sin is not the breaking of some rule, but something that leads us away from our true happiness. The punishment of sin is really the consequence of the very nature of what makes something a sin.

Thoughts?

This is quite obscure.Of course sins will have ramifications,if there are no sins people would be not painstaking,and be recalcitrant.

[RichardHresko]

This is quite obscure.Of course sins will have ramifications,if there are no sins people would be not painstaking,and be recalcitrant.

I am unsure as to what you mean by obscure.

What I believe is profound about Augustine's concept of sin is that it goes beyond the idea of rule-breaking. Something is sinful not because it violates something found in a book or pronounced as wrong by priests, but rather because it takes us away from our own true happiness.

The ramifications are not that we will be punished by a judge, or that we will hurt someone else, but because we will by the very act of sinning prevent ourselves from achieving that which we most deeply want.

[blazeofglory]

Sins are products of mind and are subject to perceptions. Theft is a sin by our ethical standards, and yet in fact sin is something different in point of fact than generally we take it to be. In the jungle a tiger has to kill another animal and killing there is a matter of survival.

Sins are therefore a matter of perception.

[rich14285]

---Quote (Originally by RichardHresko)---
St. Augustine in Confessions writes in Book I, Chapter 20:

"For my sin was in this -- that I looked for pleasures, exaltations, truths not in God Himself but in His creatures (myself and the rest), and so I fell stright into sorrows, confusions, and mistakes."

It seems that for Augustine sin is not the breaking of some rule, but something that leads us away from our true happiness. The punishment of sin is really the consequence of the very nature of what makes something a sin.


I really appreciate this reminder of St. Augustine, and offer here a brief quote that is a summary of Book 1:Commencing with the invocation of God, Augustine relates in detail the beginning of his life, his infancy and boyhood, up to his fifteenth year; at which age he acknowledges that he was more inclined to all youthful pleasures and vices than to the study of letters.