What is sin?

[Northwind]

Thanks for all your thoughts on this. I've kind of felt like I did a post and duck with this, because I haven't replied until now. I have been reading and thinking. Lots of good material to ponder.

Sin is a difficult concept for me because it seems to be a concept used to control people and to keep them in line. I frankly don't think that is suitable in faith discussions. I like the concept of sin being related to relationship, and our responsibilities as part of the human community. I dislike the idea of sin being connected to perfection, and striving for perfection. I have seen too many damaged people because of this notion. It also often helps to create an "in group" and an "outsider group", "saved" and "unsaved". I do not think that is what Jesus, or other prophets intended.

My work has allowed me to see the effects of violence and oppression on people's lives firsthand. As a result, I have become more and more pacifist in nature. Violence destroys relationships.

Some have said sin is going against god's law or will. Who decides what god's law or will is? Some would say the bible, some would say the qu'ran (sp?)......or other holy documents. What if you took those documents out of the equation/discussion? Then how would you describe god's law. Saying it is in the bible assumes the other believes it is the authority. So, if you are talking to someone who does not see it as the authority, how would you describe god's will?

 

[jamesk]

"Sin" is any misunderstanding about what God is. It is not something that can be held against us. It is instead a personal problem and one that we must overcome (with help) ourselves.

 

[Mendalla]

So, if you are talking to someone who does not see it as the authority, how would you describe god's will?

That is the fundamental problem with a theistic definition of sin. You cannot describe God's will without reference to your particular text or tradition. Of course, it gets further muddled because not everyone in a given tradition interprets "God's will" the same way. At least a relational definition of sin like I proposed avoids that problem to a degree.

Stay calm. Be brave. Wait for the signs. ~Dead Dog Cafe

Hey, someone else who remembers Dead Dog Cafe. Cool.

 

[Delightful Life]

Northwind,

how would you describe your g_d's will?

first, by trying to find some common ground between you and the person you are talking to. find the shared common human experiences

and go from there, engaging in a conversation that is more than a series of sound-bites and slogans...so talking to a reporter aboot this is a no no :3

you could try, ferinstance, find out what the other person finds to be totally wrong?
then share what you find to be totally wrong. then say your justification for this is your g_d's will, and go on to describe aboot yer g_d (attributes of, capabilities of, etc)

"sin" is essentially another form of pornography -- the things, feelings, thoughts, events, actions etc that a particular culture finds to be taboo. to even think aboot it can be taboo as well. and every culture has a different class or profession whose job it is to officially discern sin and punish for breaking of sin...

something like that :3

then, hopefully, eventually, after coming to some understanding (after many glasses of wine?) you can get into fun sins -- the sins that you or the person don't see as sinful, but other people do :3 like, say, enjoying alcohol...or sex...or even certain kinds of sex...or hugging a child...reading...gambling...etc

 

[Northwind]

Hey, someone else who remembers Dead Dog Cafe. Cool.

How could we forget? I had many great laughs with that crowd!

That is the fundamental problem with a theistic definition of sin. You cannot describe God's will without reference to your particular text or tradition. Of course, it gets further muddled because not everyone in a given tradition interprets "God's will" the same way. At least a relational definition of sin like I proposed avoids that problem to a degree

Nice. I like that.

first, by trying to find some common ground between you and the person you are talking to. find the shared common human experiences

Beautiful

 

[Seeler]

I've been thinking more about this thread and this subject. Mostly we have been focusing on individual sin. But there is another, and in my opinion, more troubling sin - and that is corporate sin.

It is the sin of letting something, anything come between right relationships with God, fellow beings and nature. The sin of making a golden calf out of consumerism, economic well-being, growth and power. It is the sin of putting loyalty to our country before our desire to do what is right. i is raping the earth of its beauty and resources and destroying it for the future. It is exploiting others, particularly those who we deem to be different, for our gain. It is the sin of writing anybody off as expendable. It is hard to put our finger on. It is often supported by things we consider virtues, and we look for rewards for our virtue -- hard work, loyalty to employer or country, power, climbing-the-ladder of success.

Sin that permits hunger to happen in a world of plenty - and homelessness in a country where people live in mansions and have summer homes. Sin that supports spending more money on prisons than on schools. That lets people die for want of medicine that is readily available to those who can afford it. And the richest people in the world own cooperations where the workers have to rely on government handouts to supplement their income.

This seems to me to be the real sin in this world. And we seldom here it called SIN.

 

[Jaebius]

I've been thinking more about this thread and this subject. Mostly we have been focusing on individual sin. But there is another, and in my opinion, more troubling sin - and that is corporate sin.

It is the sin of letting something, anything come between right relationships with God, fellow beings and nature. The sin of making a golden calf out of consumerism, economic well-being, growth and power. It is the sin of putting loyalty to our country before our desire to do what is right. i is raping the earth of its beauty and resources and destroying it for the future. It is exploiting others, particularly those who we deem to be different, for our gain. It is the sin of writing anybody off as expendable. It is hard to put our finger on. It is often supported by things we consider virtues, and we look for rewards for our virtue -- hard work, loyalty to employer or country, power, climbing-the-ladder of success.

Sin that permits hunger to happen in a world of plenty - and homelessness in a country where people live in mansions and have summer homes. Sin that supports spending more money on prisons than on schools. That lets people die for want of medicine that is readily available to those who can afford it. And the richest people in the world own cooperations where the workers have to rely on government handouts to supplement their income.

This seems to me to be the real sin in this world. And we seldom here it called SIN.

Excellent points Seeler. There is also corporate sin - perhaps call it community sin - that happens within many churches of various denominations - Baptist included. Too many churches have a tendency to only care about themselves - neglecting the needs of the greater neighborhoods they are called to serve. Too many are content to gather together to worship God without actually together making the effort to live for him. Thankfully - this is changing. Increasingly - churches are becoming missional - leaving their old attractional ways behind them.

 

[Northwind]

Jae, I have often wondered whether we are more interested in worshipping the denomination or in developing our faith in God. I think all denominations are guilty of this. Perhaps because so many are in survival mode. I'm hoping this is a sign of transition and growth, and not of death. We do believe in resurrection after all.

 

[Jaebius]

Jae, I have often wondered whether we are more interested in worshipping the denomination or in developing our faith in God. I think all denominations are guilty of this. Perhaps because so many are in survival mode. I'm hoping this is a sign of transition and growth, and not of death. We do believe in resurrection after all.

That's interesting Northwind. The feeling that I get is that people increasingly don't really care all that much about their denomination; my perspective is that they care more about their own local church then whatever denomination it may happen to belong to. I say that reflecting not only on my own denomination - but also on what I've heard from students in other denominations who go to the same seminary as I do.

 

[revsdd]

That is the fundamental problem with a theistic definition of sin. You cannot describe God's will without reference to your particular text or tradition. Of course, it gets further muddled because not everyone in a given tradition interprets "God's will" the same way. At least a relational definition of sin like I proposed avoids that problem to a degree.

If one considers Jesus' excellent summary of the Law, then Jesus saw sin from essentially a relational perspective as well. "Love the Lord your God ... and love your neighbour." This refers to the quality of the relationships we have with God and others. Implicitly, then, sin would be to be unloving toward God and others. This is all a relational view of Law and sin.

 

[Jaebius]

If one considers Jesus' excellent summary of the Law, then Jesus saw sin from essentially a relational perspective as well. "Love the Lord your God ... and love your neighbour." This refers to the quality of the relationships we have with God and others. Implicitly, then, sin would be to be unloving toward God and others. This is all a relational view of Law and sin.

Jesus was all about healthy - positive relationships

 

[Mendalla]

If one considers Jesus' excellent summary of the Law, then Jesus saw sin from essentially a relational perspective as well. "Love the Lord your God ... and love your neighbour." This refers to the quality of the relationships we have with God and others. Implicitly, then, sin would be to be unloving toward God and others. This is all a relational view of Law and sin.

I agree and it is one of the things that keeps Jesus on my spiritual radar. However, not all Christians seem to view Jesus' mission or teaching in that way. Sad, but true.

 

[Northwind]

Jesus was all about healthy - positive relationships

Especially with those people others did not like, or who were the "riff-raffs" of society...

 

[Hermann]

What is sin?

A severe mistake.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

A mistake that hurts someone(s), including ourselves. I don't think it's just "missing the mark" in every sense because I could be playing a friendly game of basketball and miss a hoop because I didn't line up my aim but I wouldn't say that I sinned.

 

[Witch]

Behold the world of the atheist - where there is no sin - where even acts like murder - assault - torture - and theft are only subjectively bad. Where the morality of any act is situational - and there is no objective Judge above all.

It's real simple.

Show god exists, and you can have objective morality.

Fail to show God exists, and you can only have subjective morality.

Since no one to date has ever been able to show god exists, the burden of proof appears to lie with you...... Good luck with that.

 

[Witch]

Well not being a sinner myself, and not being in need of any salvation, it's kind of difficult for me to understand this need some people have for sin.

 

[Azdgari]

It's real simple.

Show god exists, and you can have objective morality.

Fail to show God exists, and you can only have subjective morality.

Since no one to date has ever been able to show god exists, the burden of proof appears to lie with you...... Good luck with that.

Care to show your reasoning here, Witch? I'm not seeing it. What do gods have to do with morality?

 

[Jaebius]

It's real simple.

Show god exists, and you can have objective morality.

Fail to show God exists, and you can only have subjective morality.

Since no one to date has ever been able to show god exists, the burden of proof appears to lie with you...... Good luck with that.

God exists whether anyone shows that he does or not. Of course - at the same time - the evidence of God's existence is all around us. God reveals himself through that which he has created.

 

[Waterfall]

It's real simple.

Show god exists, and you can have objective morality.

Fail to show God exists, and you can only have subjective morality.

Since no one to date has ever been able to show god exists, the burden of proof appears to lie with you...... Good luck with that.

Wow, subjective morality vs objective morality deserves it's own thread IMO.

But I wonder, if as you say, that God cannot be proven to exist, does this also mean that you don't believe sin exists? Is there not a human tendency to judge good vs evil or are we all essentially psychopaths at heart that has us objectively controlled by our evolutionary requirement for the survival of the fittest? Are we not capable of rising above the path that natures evolutionary path would set us on? Where is the horizon? And what is on either side? Do we not have to extract our morality by reasoning and balancing good vs evil? If God represents the good, how can he/it not exist?