What is a sin? Who decides?

The Bible has 66 books, 40 known authors and was written in 3 languages.
(At least the popular Protestant Bibles of today.)
It appears not all of those authors agreed on everything.
Jesus is the central "law" in Christianity, and He claimed not to change the Law of Moses.
Yet He did so, especially when He forbade divorce and worked on the Sabbath.
Since then Christianity has been changed in all kinds of ways, from changing the Sabbath to shelving the dietary laws and circumcision.

Jesus taught that even looking at a woman in lust was adultery.
So is that a sin?
Being a normal heterosexual is a sin?
My goodness, no wonder gay people are confused!

Isn't a sin something one must actually do, like a sex act?

It sounds like "sin" is some kind of mind-crime and mind-control.
Surely to really think like that is absolute paranoia.

According to Christianity we are already born into sin because of Eve, so why should we bother to stop sinning if it is our nature? And what does it mean: repent and stop sinning? Must we stop thinking?
Besides, Jesus died for all our sins, so indeed, why stop sinning?

Maybe we need a committee again to tell us exactly which acts and thoughts are sin.
But wait, isn't that history where we get most of our sins from anyway?

well, my two cents go something like, James 4:17 - If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them. - and that means that there is the Sin , capital S which we are born under and the sin, small 's' which is really much to do with your conscience and the moral code one prescribes to, it does open up a pandora's box here but ..like i said.. my two cents are up.

Sin starts with the thought, which is why to even look at a woman with lust for her is to commit adultery in one's heart. This doesn't require a modern committee to decipher on some official, sweeping basis. If you consider theft in your mind, that is the birth of the sin of stealing; rape, the same, murder, the same, etc. How can you consider the thought as insignificant, or such a "small thing", when it is the catalyst for the action. Even if the argument was presented that an existentialist behaviour led to a crime of passion, this still involved the thought, or previous thought which led to a searing of one's conscience. A blackened conscience no longer acknowledges anything to do with the laws of heavenly intent, and works against them. In fact, it works against, since the individuals sin-war was won by sin. Now cries of "freedom" and "don't judge me"! will take the new battlecries, I guage.

You are speaking about the bible, so bible quotes ought to be more than valid in this thread.

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:18-21

Awareness of the law brings an awareness of sin, and when the heavenly law works in your heart, so it comes to war with the "normal" passions and premises that are not only promoted by a corrupt society, but are promoted by the blindness of intent which protects it's lawlessness by hiding behind the concept of personal (and especially group) freedoms.

www.biblegateway.com...

I find your OP statements rather elementary. The book of Romans holds the best answers; what more needs be said over such a well-discussed topic? Thoughts start everything, and God judges intents, motives, and the weight of reason.

I'm a little disappointed that you drop this turd on the board and then logged off, actually.

IMO you need to take any religious text with a pinch of salt, after all they were all written a considerable time after the actual teachings took place and they were written by people who unwittingly may have done so influenced by their own subconscious agenda.

Without a shadow of a doubt (my opinion again) men have certainly altered the texts consciously to suit their goals since the texts were written.

So to debate sin as a concept - It has to be based on the common precepts that all religions share - not to kill, steal, lie, be greedy or intentionaly perform acts that harm others. These do seem to be the things to avoid if you want to develop a wholesome community.

The thought sins are an interesting concept, I guess that it is perceivable that any thought process that leads to sin is a sin due to it being the root cause of the act, but if one decides against the act at any point along the process you could say they have repented and cleaned the sin.

In other religions they believe in karma which is very simliar to thought sins but isn't based on punishment but is based on the view that every action causes the result of that action to be experienced at some point by the person performing that action ie to kill another will cause yourself to experience being killed (very short explanation)

None religious people will see sin/karma as a form of control, they may be right, but as the world is now showing, with more people turning away from religion the world does seem to be becoming a less wholesome place to live.

reply to post by Northwarden


Great post, its my belief that all religions need to focus more on the mind being the source of actions, if this were to happen and truely took to heart, there would be an end to all religious hatred because we would truely understand that we are all governed by the same spiritual laws, no matter what our belief system.

I hope more people read thread, there is some real wisdom to be gained here if we debate and listen to each others views.

reply to post by halfoldman


With a very fastforward thinking I watched the final episode of Sin series and it seems that concept and defination of sin can be twofold.

1) You sin against yourself whenever you violate against your ideals.

2) You sin agains society whenever your behaviour does harm to the society.

If there's more on it, I wasn't patient enough to view the rest.

-v

reply to post by Northwarden

You've basically said that thinking leads to sin (or perhaps not all thoughts of theft actually lead to theft, but all theft started with a a though there-of). Thoughts are the gateway to actual sin.
Well thanks for that.
However, the thoughts themselves are sin.
Which "law" are you, or the verses talking about?

Does that law come from the Bible, or is it imposed on the Bible?
You say we are sinning when we act despite knowing better - who told us what was better?
How do we know they weren't lying or being selective?

As an unmarried man one is therefore free from lusting after women (or even men).
Where does it clearly state that unmarried men are not so?

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by halfoldman

 

With a very fastforward thinking I watched the final episode of Sin series and it seems that concept and defination of sin can be twofold.

1) You sin against yourself whenever you violate against your ideals.

2) You sin agains society whenever your behaviour does harm to the society.

If there's more on it, I wasn't patient enough to view the rest.

-v

I'm sure there is a lot more to the show than what you just presented, but going by what you mentioned ...

If you are violating your own ideals, then you are implying that your own ideals are the perfect standard by which to judge by. This becomes your own measure of perfection, which could range from actual perfection to mediocre in accordance to a perfect law.

We do harm to society by advocating against corporations who keep the economy strong, speaking against wars which result in political and economic gain, and so on. The socialist state could judge your actions as sinful and criminal, but are they in truth? We speak on here all the time about transforming the old, corrupt society in order to form something much more humanitarian.

Sin, at least to me, is a religious term.
And religion believes in a big super-being that examines all our thoughts and actions at every single second of every single day.

OK, sure we can say existentially that sinning is acting in bad faith against ourselves (which would exempt the sociopath and psychopath), or that sin is acting against Kant's imperative or the Utilitarians in that every action should be measured against what is good for the majority of the people.

I think when we begin using terms like "socialism" we are going into received templates of the law.
Jesus said even to the poor, if you have two coats, give one to somebody who has none.
Now that is socialism to me.

No, that is no answer for somebody who wants to join religion.
They want clear "Thou shalt not" answers.
But is it possible to give them?

reply to post by halfoldman


If the definition of a sin were - something that harms yourself or others - then that would be a major milestone for society, the problem then is in the definition of harm

reply to post by halfoldman


There's a big difference between a load of speculation on how it could work, and a studied appeal to the way spiritual law and perhaps karma actually does work. From a study of history, moral philosophy, modern law which embraces humanitarian principles, and theology we can examine how people have characterized good behaviour and analyze what detracts from it.

I will claim that the Ten Commandments were divinely inspired, and given to mankind, and that those same laws were writ in our hearts so that no one might have the excuse to consider them unknowns.

Yet, with six thousand years to draw on, innumerable laws, billions of testimonies, and billions of books to read I suppose you'd better make your own mind up on what constitutes "sin"! What was right for the society of three thousand years ago, remains right for that society, and vice-versa. What is right for our society, would not be a match for theirs. Thanks to that simple point of wisdom, we are not bound by all the laws, or all the ages we might read about. "When in Rome" ... this is our Rome, good laws are joined with compassion, and so becomes our very modern and present-day task of establishing between right and wrong. If the foundation is solid, then we can build on it : Has the rule lasted? Is it evident all throughout history? Do many people of what we consider upstanding character aspire to the same ideal? Is our own aspiration as lofty and worthy as it ought to be in order to establish a just decision? Eventually these confusions pass, and when it comes right down to it, we are speaking very generally about a collection of particulars that encompass the whole of the modern law and conduct of mankind.

The world of the senses is a world of shows; it does not exist for itself, but has a symbolic character; and a true prudence or law of shows recognizes the copresence of other laws, and knows that its own office is subaltern; knows that it is surface and not centre where it works. Prudence is false when detached. It is legitimate when it is the Natural History of the soul incarnate; when it unfolds the beauty of laws within the narrow scope of the senses.

There are all degrees of proficiency in knowledge of the world. It is sufficient, to our present purpose, to indicate three. One class live to the utility of the symbol; esteeming health and wealth a final good. Another class live above this mark to the beauty of the symbol; as the poet, and artist, and the naturalist, and man of science. A third class live above the beauty of the symbol to the beauty of the thing signified; these are wise men. The first class have common sense; the second, taste; and the third, spiritual perception. Once in a long time, a man traverses the whole scale, and sees and enjoys the symbol solidly; then also has a clear eye for its beauty, and, lastly, whilst he pitches his tent on this sacred volcanic isle of nature, does not offer to build houses and barns thereon, reverencing the splendor of the God which he sees bursting through each chink and cranny.

VII Prudence

www.rwe.org...

If theft is a sin, and must be repented, then why do US evangelicals never agitate to return the Black Hills to the Lakota people?
Why do they care more about the "one child" policy in China than repenting at home?
(At least judging by Christian broadcasting like TBN and CBN - and ultimately these people define the law for most.)

So once again, whatever law there is seems different for the power and the people it mind-controls, and signals interpretation rather than consistency.

It's not sin, it's just politics.
Sin is political.

i do!

and you are pretty screwed for asking.

oh ya, i am god but i don't like to spread it around.

i'll see you later.

There's no point in pointing out contradictions in the Bible. The concept of TPTB decieving us and deciding what ends up in the newspapers and text books isn't a new one, so have complete blind faith in the Bible is naive. It's written by men - not God. Jesus was a saviour sent to us from the Father and most certainly not the 'god' that's in the book of Leviticus. There was alot more to Jesus than the Bible let on and if the people that murdered him could have got away with it, they would have completely written him out of the history books. The 'Christian Jesus' is a character originating from a real man, but is ultimately a product and idol for an organised religion that - like all others - is a system of influence or control.

In terms of organised religion, the Christians are the closest to the truth, but I doubt most of them will recognise him when he returns - and he will return.

reply to post by halfoldman


Interpretation and consistency are not mutually exclusive. Rules are the blueprint by which to measure the crime, and all the ugly particulars of a crime must be drawn from an interpretation of the law.

I can't account for your evangelist's actions: A glaring oversight? Hypocrisy? Lack of resources for the ministry? A threat behind the scenes, not to speak on that matter? A perceived waste of resources based on some higher agencies greed? Maybe it's your calling to do something about the Lakota matter, instead of complaining.

If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.

Ecclesiastes 5:8 (King James Version)

www.biblegateway.com...:8&version=KJV

Sin is political : that's only one element of sin, it's also a very personal matter to each of us.

reply to post by Northwarden

Yes you raise many of the problems.
OK, with Karma we're going into a different philosophy and understanding of sin.
Here the individual suffers the consequences of his own misdeeds as a natural law in many lifetimes.
In Christianity sin means separation from God. Only one life is the testing ground for eternal salvation or damnation.

As for the Ten Commandments.
They have several problems.
Take the law against adultery - that had a very different meaning when men could marry any number of wives and keep concubines. Some say it meant sleeping with one of another man's wives without permission.
Or take the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
Bring that up in the context of Christian wars, and immediately people say: "No, no - it actually means don't murder".
You can kill animals and the enemy, or like the Levites in Exodus, thousands of your own who danced around the Golden Calf.
And what about the Friday sundown to Saturday sundown Sabbath?
Why is it on the pagan Sunday?
I suppose capitalist consumer culture would collapse if nobody desired what somebody else had.

But many also believe in collective krma or collective sin.
So maybe this is all very important, and God allows all these natural disasters because most churches support murder (war), a fake Sabbath, a phony marriage system, desiring what the neighbors have, and widespread colonial land-theft through lies.

reply to post by halfoldman

If you know to do right and don't do it...to you it is sin.

reply to post by troubleshooter

Well, for example I don't think it is a sin to be gay, so if I don't think it is, then it's OK.

More generally that does seem like people can do whatever they think is right.

For example, here in SA we have this explosion of US-styled charismatic churches (my real bone of contention).
They take money from the poor, and even tell them they are healed from HIV/AIDS.
So such greed and lies are OK if the self-styled preacher justifies it to himself?

reply to post by halfoldman


I agree almost completely with what you just wrote (edit : 2 posts ago now). Collective sins occur, that many partake in, resulting in God rejecting His own following until they realize the illness of intent they are perpetuating. It happened all throughout history, and the bible shows us countless examples of peoples falling away, being rejected or punished, and then returning to favour after a period of atonement. I haven't been to church in years myself, and don't appreciate what organized religion stands for in modern times. It should be of purified intent, standing strong against the evils we see around us, not a diluted gathering which has had the backbone systematically removed. And yes, an organization of peace, that teaches by example.

Taking to discipline after the age of childhood is seen as a crime against oneself by many, as mankind has shown how capable it is of projecting apparent submissiveness to ideals into the crosshairs of the exploited, and made that undesirable quality. Fortunately there are some very cool role-models to be found from other eras, and other genres, which completely undercuts modern perspective. On a side-note, religious training is not so dissimilar from martial arts philosophy.

reply to post by Northwarden

Powerful stuff.
Interesting you should mention martial arts.
Reminds me ... when I was a kid I did Karate, and then we had these books from American Christians who said that Eastern martial arts and even yoga were a big sin, and a gateway for demons.

Some of my Christian friends still suffer from that brainwashing.
One lady confided in me that she's now doing pilates instead of yoga, because yoga's "Hinduism".
I thought I'd rather not mention that most of pilates originates from yoga.
These people waver and do things, but never enjoy anything really.
It's like this is a sin and that is a gateway for demons.
All kinds of stupid things (to me) are sins.