Sin

[turtle]

Let's back up a moment, guys, to that "definition" thing, and try a slightly different tack from there.

The word, SIN, is translatable into all other languages, though the speakers may have entirely different concepts of what constitutes sin, and there are several types of context in which the word can be used.

You might say, for example, that the sins of a failed CEO included failure to read audit reports, or perhaps maintaining undue optimism. These are not moral failings as much as they are business mistakes, but the word sin is used.

From a linguistic perspective, I would define sin as any clear transgression of an accepted code.

That is what the word means.

Secondary meanings could be described, I suppose, codifying some of the more common theories to which the word is fundamental.

If you follow a different code than I, then something may be a sin for me, which is not a sin for you. I hope that you will support me in being true to my own standards, because whatever you believe to be a sin is indeed a sin. Even if you are all wrong about it, and nobody else agrees that it is a sin, it will be an outrage to your own conscience, which is never healthy and can often be a serious problem.

I might well prefer that your conscience was better furnished, I may think it operates on false assumptions and beliefs, but I would also prefer to know that you follow that conscience sincerely, because the effects of going against one's conscience are so poisonous.

-D

 

[Kurn]

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

It is said that when one is at a high altitude that it requires far less heat to turn water into vapor.
Part of the intention of this thread is not so much this or that theological conclusion as it is to provide for the practice of seeing reality and reporting it without...vaporizing so much! It takes practice!!!!

With regard to "Sin", to move things along, I am saying that the usual parameters are old-wineskin religion and not worth much. Following another
"parabular," "Sin-As-Usual" is a fruitless tree.
But, digesting what I was saying about the matter, I don't advocate just turning our backs on the whole business, but rather relegating it to a perspective that we can understand better.
In reply to your urge to "define" perhaps my reaction is to question whether our usual view of the matter is not itself a confusion by it's being clear and familiar.
If this hasn't turned over tables enough already, I will go on to say that even God is tired of this business of "Sin-As-Usual." Change the bloomin' record!!

 

[Kurn]

I'm very un-offendable. If there seems to be extra steam in a response, it is really just energy and froth. Very little heat from me.
My ultimate goal is a very practical one: I want you to put an end to the human institution called War. For you to accomplish this without starting new wars, or new kinds of wars or some situation worse than war, I need everyone to follow a prescription for spiritual health. What this prescription tries to 'cure' is a malady of confusion, of maladjustment consisting of dubious conditions that we have imposed upon our own minds.

 

[conrad]

Our minds are marvelously equipped to deal with our confusions. One of the simplest ways we learn is to be in touch with other confusion solvers. It starts with our parents and siblings. We take a major step when we are put in touch with "the wisdom of the ages" by our teachers and through our reading. Much of the ancient wisdom we no longer regard as wisdom since the march of civilization has cast light on things the ancients had too little to help them through their confusion. I can't even imagine how my ancestors might have responded to the findings of Copernicus and Galilio. I don't need to imagine how they greeted the work of Darwin; some, whom I knew as a child, never did make Darwinism a part of their world, others embraced the new insights but kept quiet about it. I would agree: those who continued to stick to the biblical references to the earth and the human species were in many ways maladjusted (They simply could not relate to the easy embrace of new scientific insights.) But people change; their descendants, for the most part, have incorporated the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions into their world. Unfortunately, there are those who would turn back the clock and make us all conform to their unscientific views; and, we have politicians who will pander to their antique views.

But, when you deal with matters of religious faith and ethics you are in a different field. The capitalistic myths are trotted out regularly to justify all sorts of things that, in my view, a truly civilized society would call crime. Consider too their use of words with apositive ring to mask more avarice.
Question: what is free about what is described as the "free market"?

 

[turtle]

But people change; their descendants, for the most part, have incorporated the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions into their world.

What most of them have probably not done is free themselves from the unhealthy and incorrect underlying assumptions of Dualism. Most probably still understand the Universe as some kind of contest between light and dark, good an evil, or spiritual and material. Most probably have still internalized the assumption that mankind is fundamentally flawed. Most can still only picture "God" as a person, an outside actor on creation.

You see, our own spirituality is yet to be adequately explained by science, though Psychology has made a start, so people have rejected particular beliefs and not found new explanations to explain the parts that seem to matter most.

That is not to say that new explanations, good ones, don't exist, just that they are not well known, and are hard to wrap your mind around while it is still carrying false old assumptions.

-D

 

[conrad]

I look forward to reading the voice of the Turtle. And I like the way you stipulate and define your approaches so patiently. Face to face I know we would disagree on many things, but I'm always pleasantly surprised to glimpse common ground in your posts.

My world of thought takes in the great host of the living and the dead. I read late 19th century writers and marvel how some of them are so very relevant to our time. Religion and politics are closely related ( I support separation of church and state.) but I wish more of our public servants had a better grounding in matters of religion, I think that would spare us a lot of the garbage of code words by which many voters are manipulated. We can agree on certain basic values. In the U. S. the courts are the arbiters of what the founding documents and the law mean. All of us need to be alert to the drive of some to strip down that function of the courts. I want an expansive attitude toward human freedom, to enlarge it, and a large degree of suspicion toward the concentration of power, be that power government, corporations, or religious groups, to keep all potentially abusive power under control.

There are those who seek power and their goals are far removed from the goals of those of us who already chafe from the abuses of power by those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Free minds in a free society!

 

[conrad]

Right! I've spent my life casting aside the tired ideas of former times, but I continue to treasure the wisdom that was wise in times past. Just because an idea or a belief is old is no good reason for junking it. However, our difficulties arise when new conditions, new and increasingly aware groupings of concerned persons, begin to assert claims that have long been ignored. That society will be best prepared to deal with these new conditions and these new claims if it has within it those who will embrace the new thought that is required and who will speak out for change.