Sin

[Kurn]

Sin is a culturally conditioned concept.
Sin does not depict the present relationship between modern humans and God.
Sin was relevant. It is only relevant as a matrix of origin. That is, the conceptualism that we call 'sin' is an ordering of thoughts about humans and Theos. In order to understand it properly you have to think of it as a sort of Genesis for our existence such as it is. That is, it is in our past.

In our present we need to wake up from our medi-evil dreams and recognize that the Satan we have to be concerned about is US.

 

[mojoe54]

I think that's supposed to be profound -- but huh?--WTF-- please 'splain it, Lucy!

 

[lumberjack037200]

US or U.S.

ha. sorry. late and bored.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

In our present we need to wake up from our medi-evil dreams and recognize that the Satan we have to be concerned about is US.

Yeah, the US threw me, too. The first thing, I thought about was the U.S., then I reread it. US is us. (I think.)

 

[Kurn]

We have all these myths and their after-effects that inhabit our brains. Among other things they represent past-psychologies. They represent how previous milleniums interpreted the meaning of their place in the cosmos. Over the past four centuries we have seen our understanding of the universe come into flower.
We shouldn't think we know it all, of course. But we can adopt a far more objectifying as opposed to subjectified interpretation of our place in the universe.
That is we can trust our observations, our careful observations and our moral instincts and rely less on some "priest" or "wiseman's" revelation. We have a long ways to go but at least there is a path.
The word "Sin" represents an Origin for us. It represents an origin-myth, a reason why things are the way they are.
I reject "sin theology" but I do not reject it completely; that is, I assert that it is important to be objective about the influence of this Myth has had upon us and to think about the reasons that it came about.
[enough for now]

 

[Kurn]

The key to being an enlightened and liberated person is somewhat like I just alluded to: Don't reject your oppressions totally. Keep them at a healthy distance, but observe and learn from them.

Sin is a paradoxical concept. It seems like you can be condemned without knowing what's so bad about what someone calls a sin; that, beside the more straight-forward notion that Sin is something bad that one does like steal or kill or bear false witness or doing something that God just asked you not to do. Sin is also commonly thought to be a flaw that someone does or has that disqualifies them from Perfection.

Sin is a mythological category. Ergo, let's reject it like a smelly old good-for-nothing winebag. But the kind of rejection that I say we should enact is a leaving-behind, but not so inconveniently that we can't observe what that Sin-business was all about and so learn from the ethos of tension that our ancestors lived through.

Some might say we still need the Sin category to remind us to stay humble. Well, in a way they're right because there's a lot of too-healthy arrogance in our Cities.
But they could very well be quite wrong if we would each simply feel the evolution in our bones that hundreds of generations of human beings have bequeathed to us! Feel the wisdom inside you as you meet the day!

 

[FUNKMEJUNK]

Sin is a culturally conditioned concept.
Sin does not depict the present relationship between modern humans and God.
Sin was relevant. It is only relevant as a matrix of origin. That is, the conceptualism that we call 'sin' is an ordering of thoughts about humans and Theos. In order to understand it properly you have to think of it as a sort of Genesis for our existence such as it is. That is, it is in our past.

In our present we need to wake up from our medi-evil dreams and recognize that the Satan we have to be concerned about is US.

u couldnt be more wrong! thats exactly what satan wants u 2 think! he is real if u believe it or not! u cant see him but u can see his works! dont be fooled, its time to wake up, know that he is real and he hates u and wants u in hell with him! which is why Jesus came to die for our sins so that when we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior satan has no hold on us anymore and heaven will be our new home instead of hell. dont believe the hype! believe in Jesus and his word! The Bible!

 

[Kurn]

You don't understand me because I haven't had time to explain myself sufficiently.

Christian Evangelical theology is a liberating theology---that ends up trying to tie everyone up again in age-old-winebag theology.

The Jesus myth is a myth of unearthly power.
It is a myth of power that makes the Genesis-myth of Sin irrelevant.

We can't say there is no power in Xian Evangelicalism. There are too many testimonies of instant liberation from drug addiction and the like for us to dismiss it as un-real.

But the fruit of the aberration that I call "Fortress Christianity" joins to this liberation that I speak of, a subsequent bondage created out of its prescriptions of Disconnect from Reality, among other severe problems.

 

[Kurn]

And if Satan is real, he is far too bored with humans to interfere even with his "devotees." He is "Lucifer." I'm afraid that any Lucifer would have little or no interest in homo sapiens.
Of this I am certain. Of his reality I am far less certain.
The satan you need to worry about is the one in the mirror.

 

[Jacketman]

Sin can be a helpful concept. Our effect on others is more appropriate though.

 

[Kurn]

One reason I started this thread was the observation that many of the world's problems come from a lack of communication.
A contribution to communicating better through a better understanding of our common human self is what I am aiming for.
If we have a common understanding about what I implicitly refer to as a common myth of origin, but an understanding shed of its ancient psychological violence, its ancient 'karma', if you will, and if we can share this understanding on a global basis, it would, I strongly believe, facilitate all the other forms of communication across whatever cultural barriers.

So if my paragraphs seem like a lot to read, that's NOT my goal, but it's the only way I know of how to start. My goal is to join together an understanding of both our human weaknesses and our human strengths and to make that a well- and universally- understood working concept.
If you start out in the morning in a mixture of humility and confidence, it's probably going to be a pretty good day, right? Balance.
I think if we can learn to be less afraid of whatever it is that the word "sin" refers to we will be far less afraid of a lot of other things as well.

 

[cityboy-stl]

In a whole lot words I think this is supposed to mean "We have seen the enemy and he is us.".

 

[buzzj]

...Sin is a paradoxical concept. It seems like you can be condemned without knowing what's so bad about what someone calls a sin...

In my theology sin is a thought or behavioral pattern that alienates me from God--- that's what's so bad about it.

 

[conrad]

tHANKS FOR STARTING THIS THREAD. WE NEED MORE LIKE IT. DON'T LET CONFUSION STOP YOU FROM POSTING. fOR INSTANCE, I WOULD LIKE SOME DEFINITIONS BECAUSE, IF YOU ARE SPEAKING TO ME, AND YOU USE A WORD FOR WHICH YOUR DEFINITION AND MINE ARE FAR APART, WE CAN HARDLY HAVE ANY KIND OF MEETING OF MINDS.

AS A STARTER, LET'S HAVE YOUR DEFINITION OF SIN.

 

[Kurn]

tHANKS FOR STARTING THIS THREAD.

AS A STARTER, LET'S HAVE YOUR DEFINITION OF SIN.

This is no attempt to make a rhetorical evasion; quite the opposite:
Sin is whatever you believe it is plus it is whatever any significant others believe it is. To be sure, it involves a sense of having harmed or of having failed in some way. In the prevailing Mediterranean theology of the Common Era it has come to mean something that separates one from God or a failure to live honorably. In another theology, Sikhism, the problem is stated differently. Their teaching is that there is haumain. There is nothing especially bad about haumain, one's nature, except that you are not using the brilliant opportunity that God has given you to make things better,to go beyond the animal demands of your basic nature. So, to get close to a definition of Sin I say that it is something along these lines that strikes us as a problem within the context that we perceive as our particular orientation or situation in the cosmos. Our culture and our experience and our reasoning give us each our own personal way of dealing with whatever basic problem we think is important to deal with.
If this 'definition' sounds dubious or imprecise, it is precisely because of the need to move from authoritarian, monarchical, "patriarchal" categorizations to an ethos in which we do good and refrain from evil from the heart. [We need to grown up!] Yes, there are actions that are quite bad. However (and this is not a new idea) unless people dedicate themselves to getting to the roots of the problems that they confront or are harmed by, and are dedicated to using that knowledge to eliminate our evil-as-usual there will be no end to the things that make us lock the doors at night. And waste honorable, precious lives on battlefields.

 

[douseiai]

how long does it take for people to realize that people just don't get along?
they call us evil so they do something to us... we call them evil because they did something to us...
yes good and evil are perspectives... a buddhist will say something is good and a christian may say its evil...
however... sin isn't really based on perspective... its defined by something already... it is a basis to sway ones perspective on what is good or evil... so each perspective will have unto itself different sins... that doesn't mean sin doesn't exist... sin is just another way to say unacceptable behaviour... whether christian or islam its based on past teachings...
sin is not a culturaly conditioned concept because it has not changed as cultures change... only divine figures can change what is and is not a sin...
sin never depicted a relationship with man and God because sin was part of the relationship between man and satan...
sin is relevant because a number of social mores are still based on the concepts of sin...
^that covers post 1
sin is part of the origins of civilization... sin was the first set of social norms, and mores which is what helped us to develop and spread. it was part of our development in the begining and does not need to change to facilitate the future... the concepts are broad and understandable enough to be easy to follow...
^kurns second post
sin is not paradoxical... sin is simply social norms and mores that have been implaced by religions to ensure the safety and protection, as well as growth of their numbers...
if you want to not call it sin thats fine .... one thing though... you cannot deny that a number of our social mores are based on sin... most of our primary laws deal with the concepts that are handed down and called sin
^number 3
thats fine that you don't like christians as your 4th post comes off as... i don't like them that much either... but bare in mind... sin gave us laws against murder, and theft... without sin as a foundation to society we would not have developed in the same way...
^number 4
if you go through christian faith then that is what satan wants you to believe... cause the more you believe something that your doing is not wrong then the more likely it is for him to get you... your statement is purly your own opinion
^number 5
why should the word sin scare you? if you don't believe sin plays relevance in the modern world then why should you give a fuck about sin? to enlighten others? well ok then but go through the facts... sin did gives us what has developed into social mores... the fear of damnation in hell is what stopped a number of people from killing or stealing from others...
though you are correct... people do need to communicate more... and not just more... but better... people need to accept other peoples opinions as their own... its perfectly fine to state your opinion jsut do not force it on others... because if you can say what you want then i can say what i want...
^number 6
sin is not whatever you believe it to be because it is defined by others... we might be able to change the meaning of the word sin but we would just need a new word for the old concepts... if its not broke don't fix it... i'm sorry but in your last comment you come off as blaiming societal problems on the concept of sin... sin is defined by a variety of religions and thus in a sense through their god... sin does not affect society as much as your thinking it does... since the concept and fear of sin is what helped out civilization grow... the only way you can get everyone to get along is not to abolish the concept of sin but to get everyone to realize everyone has their own opinion... we need to shape laws based on the masses opinion... for instance... if the masses believe that murdering another person is wrong then it becomes a social norm... once placed before the government it can become a law or social more and thus the enforcement of what the mass wants goes on... sin is not the enemy... closed minds are..


i am so not rereading this cause its far to much for me to even enjoy posting... sorry i do not mean to offend my opinion differs from his and thus i am stateing it... if i come off as insulting i apologize

 

[Kurn]

Dear Douseiai: Thanks for the comments. But you need to read what I'm saying more carefully. But I will digest it again for you if you like. Really. Just say the word and I will restate what I want to mean. Or just re-read it till it makes sense.

 

[conrad]

Please don't be discouraged. I'm not. And, I read both of the long posts. I think we could agree if we could stiipulate at the start that the very concept of sin is meaningful only in the context of religion.

I would have to assume that most religions would have use for the word. Sin is an offense against God, and what that means is determined by the understanding that have developed in the history of particular groups.

In my upbringing I was taught the Ten Commandments, but I preferred the summary of them (found in both the Old and the New Testaments): " You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself." I had lots of questions along the way? I have no quarrel with that as a rule for my life. (It's a simple requirement ) More definitions were needed. I got them. Some made sense; some did not.

So, I must love my brother? my teacher? the cop? the communists? the people who hate me? Those are hard questions for a kid; they're not easier today.
And just what do you mean by love? We need another definition, don't we?

So I'll venture one: To love another is to seek the good of the other for the sake of the other rather than one's own sake. From that follows lots of ideas. Do good to all persons and that means you don't use other people, you serve them.
It gets complicated: I fall in love, but if I reveal my love to my family, I risk their disapproval (they are die-hard conventional). I love my family but I also love the very special one who loves me; my folks wanted me to fall in love but not with a guy! Do I remain silent? Wouldn't that pre-judge them? Would that be for my sake or theirs? Am I serving my family by silence. And you could add dozens of other questions, none of them easy.

Now then, let me define sin (my working definition): Sin is any thought, word, or deed which would separate me from God. You say you're an atheist (and you know by my definition of love that I must love you too.), but be assured that I will not let that fact separate us. And the second part of the command is to love my neighbor as myself. To avoid sin I must seek the good of that neighbor whether that be my "new and true love, my parents, my colleagues, my boss. And....

......I must love myself. Which I take to mean that I am properly grateful to God my maker; and that means myself with all my assets and faults.

It's not easy. But, I have found that trying to love, trying to keep myself from sin is an endeavor in which I have a great deal of help.

 

[Kurn]

Conrad: ///You say you're an atheist ///
Sorry to pick on this one thing but here goes:
I am not an atheist and neither am I an a-atheist.

The word GOD refers to that which is more holy than we can imagine; our imagination and feelings can only approach the goodness of God. Therefore, confronted with this situation; if YOUR account of the goodness of God is in any way lacking, in any way sinful, then YOU are an Atheist as much as you presume myself to be.
Frankly, I think God goes on Sabbatical. Maybe He has left "Call Me back when you grow up" on His answering machine. Unless you're one of those innocents with no presumptions whatsoever.
Am I an atheist? Fine. I'm actually cool with that and I'm cool with anyone else being that. They don't use the Word in vain. So cooool!

And if it's cooool with me, I DECLARE!, it's cool with God, 'cause He's waaaayyyy cooooler than I am!

 

[conrad]

THIS ONE WILL BE SHORT. I'M NOT CALLING ANYONE ANYTHING; I DON'T YET KNOW WHERE YOU STAND. I SHOULD HAVE PUT AN ...."If".... BEFORE THE "You say...." THE POINT I WAS WANTING TO MAKE IS THAT THE DEMANDS OF LOVE INCLUDE EVERYONE. EVEN WITH MY CARELESS OMISSION, THE REST OF MY POST LOOKS TO ME LIKE SOMEONE LOOKING FOR COMMON GROUND BY DOING A BIT OF DEFINING. TO REPEAT: IF YOU ACCEPT THE LIMITATION OF THE USE OF THE WORD, AND IF YOU ACCEPT THAT AN ATHIEST DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, IT FOLLOWS THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO USE FOR THE WORD. I, HOWEVER, DO BELIEVE AND HENCE I TAKE SERIOUSLY THE COMMANDMENT TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER. THAT'S PRETTY BROAD. SIMPLE.....BUT, NOT EASY.

I ONLY WANT TO BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION, KURN. I'M NOT INTO LABELLING OR NAME-CALLING. PEACE!