It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is a sin? Who decides?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by Justoneman

Mother Teresa would help people the Hindu's would spit upon and the people would ask her why she helped those useless people? Here reply was her Jesus was in that person. Now I am not saying you MUST believe in Jesus or someone will kill you, but I surely believe the man existed and said you would surely die if you did not believe in him. Someething special happened then, the Ceasers documented it. Something special happened with Mother Teresa, I believe, and I am not a Catholic.

Mother Teresa's legacy is controversial. There are accusations that she was hardly in Calcutta, that she placed donated money in a bank account and that Hindu missions (like the Rama Krishna society) paid for most of the actual

Hindu charities have been active in the West for decades, especially where large Hindu societies support them

It so interesting how it is assumed that "Hindus spat on people".
Immediately politics enters the religious picture.

Similarly the popular evangelical Christians will not agitate to return the Black Hills to the Lakota (or people they "spat on"), although it was theft and a sin. Furthermore the hills are central to native cosmology, and Christians wanted to destroy that world-view, not encourage it.
They will agitate against abortion in China, and that mirrors the wider realpolitik of the US.
So "sins" are constructed to mirror politics.

edit on 21-11-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
What I'm also confused by is the Biblical paraphrase that "The wages of sin are death".

But we all get sick and die eventually, whether we sin more or less.

Is this a physical death (a Biblically limited teaching of Karma, as in: "Live by the sword; die by the sword")?

Or is this a spiritual death?

Opportunists have used it in both ways.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

Perhaps it is a chicken and egg conspiracy.
Does religion select it's teachings according to politics, or is politics an outgrowth of religious pressure?

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

Under apartheid we had two forms of Christianity.
The one represented the "system" and was represented by mainstream US fundamentalists (who called Mandela a communist and provided pro-Pretoria propaganda), as well as the local white Dutch Reformed Churches.
They found justification for apartheid in the Bible, or at least they saw SA as the front against communism in Africa.

The opposition came from individual Anglicans and Catholics (and a few repentant Dutch Reformed pastors, who were virtually ex-communicated).
Names like Tutu, Hurley, Naude, Father Lapsley (who had his arms blown off by an apartheid letter bomb in 1990) come to mind.
But that was dismissed as "Liberation Theology".
If apartheid was a sin, then US preachers who supported it under Reagan have never repented.
Yet we should trust these people and their "divine command" theories now?

So can we take our cue from religious figures on sin?

There is hardly a US right wing "intervention" that was not supported by their peculiar form of Christianity.
But hey, maybe that was just a lesser evil, and not a de facto sin.
edit on 21-11-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:44 PM
Please help, I'm so confused.

In most evangelical books on the occult and spiritual warfare readers are told to break any "sinful" connection to paganism going back 5 generations (according to a verse in Leviticus).

They must kneel down and repent, and break ancestral bonds with everything from astrology to Freemasonry.

But what about colonial crimes like genocide, slavery and theft?

Not one book in the Christian bookstore shows us how to repent from that.

And why would they, it is unfinished business?

So how can I repent for what is still on-going?

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by halfoldman
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.

Well, halfoldman, if this is your philosophy, then why ask the question in the first place?
Sounds to me that you have ascertained your own point of reference for determining what is sin for your own life and are comfortable with it.
That is all well and good for you. Nobody seems to be pushing anything on you.

Which begs the question...
Are you honestly trying to figure out what constitutes a "sin" in all honesty?

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

I was responding here to a previous post, which said if you know better and still do something it is a sin.

I mentioned many other examples of theft, Sabbath-heresy and political expediency to use "sin" from the power to push the political into the personal space.

Yes I do want to know by what interpretation people get their "personal" explanation of sin.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

I wonder, if I had decided that being gay was not OK, that would have gotten a totally different response.

But then religion always looks for unsure, undecided people.
They don't really want an argument with a knowledgeable person on their programs.

I still have no answers to my original questions.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by halfoldman
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!

The way I see it, Jesus (or whoever said/wrote those words, because somebody did) was giving a more specific example concerning what, in the lingo of some modern spiritualists, is a "service-to-self" (STS) versus "service-to-others" (STO) orientation.

If you look at another man's wife, and the only thing you can think is what you'd love to do with that woman, you are missing the mark, so-to-speak. If you think that this is a human being who is loved by another human being and are happy that two people have found each other who make each other whole, you are on the right track.

After all, Jesus did say the basic commandment, apart from loving God with all your heart, is loving your neighbor as yourself. Which I interpret as realizing that all human beings are doing what they do for their own internal reasons, which you, as someone who has not had those same experiences, cannot comprehend, but they are still human beings just like you struggling to get by in this world so full of pain and suffering.

It wasn't about a list of arbitrary rules, but about a basic spiritual orientation. The apparent list of rules stems from the examples he gave.

Jesus did say "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). I think those evangelical Christians who use the teachings of Jesus to condemn others, are completely missing the point. The message was for people to look inside their own hearts, not to lash out against others. Much of what he said was essentially 1.) To show, via cause-and-effect principles, that an STS orientation leads only to pain and misery, and 2.) A rudimentary manual on how to convert your orientation from STS to STO, which brings peace and contentment despite the apparent paradox.

Using these teachings against others is, again, missing the point, according to Jesus' own words.

(BTW, I am not a Christian, at least not in any traditional sense)

edit on 21-11-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:25 PM
Real sin is in the harm of another and the intent to fulfill adrenaline ffrom the effect, otherwise everything else is as they say "to err is human".

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:39 PM
Having again seen part of "The Seven Deadly Sins" documentary, it is clear that lust and many of the other sins are beneficial.
They become sin when they are unbalanced.

So maybe sin is excess, and we must find a Golden Mean, or balance.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by thegoodearth

I wonder, if I had decided that being gay was not OK, that would have gotten a totally different response.

But then religion always looks for unsure, undecided people.
They don't really want an argument with a knowledgeable person on their programs.

I still have no answers to my original questions.

I ask you,
In all honesty, are you really asking "what is a sin?" And trying to gain some honest insightful input from people?

Or are you trying in some odd way, to incite some kind of fight with those who may feel that homosexuality is a "sin" due to "religious" reasons"... because you are gay and firmly feel it is not a sin?

It reads that way. Perhaps I am wrong. Admittedly, it is hard to read tones when one reads typewritten words.

And, frankly, how can you decide my feelings on the matter in my post? I haven't given you a whisper of a clue of what my stance is regarding any of it. Please don't judge me, just because I didn't fall for the ruse.

If you feel you are not in sin, again, that is all well and good for you, if you feel in your heart of hearts you are right with God. What should it matter what anyone else thinks? You are mighty defensive for one who feels he is in the right...

Moreover, it is tiring to see yet again, one who is misinformed that lumps in all people who believe in God or Christ as being judgemental fools that condemn, are terrible people, blah, blah, blah...
Much like the people who are fundamentalist Christians condemning all homosexual people to hell for their activities, stating that they engage in disgusting behaviors, that they are pedophiles at heart, blah, blah, blah... wouldn't you say? Not fun being a stereotype, yet people who are lumped in with groups seem to always point fingers.


posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

In what was already a long discussion I mentioned "the gay" issue for myself as one example.
If anyone chooses to focus on that and discuss it, then they are welcome.
Why they have chosen to pull that from many arguments is their business, but it is also my right to question that excision.

I'm not sure where anybody pointed out one religion as nasty people.

But all that again proves that one can have a long discussion, but the designated political issues of the day will always surface.
Now who tells us those are even "issues"?

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by thegoodearth

You chose the one post (before your post here) on my gay position.
How many themes were mentioned before that?
Everything from the Lakota, to international relations and martial arts.
I do see ATS as a forum to exchange ideas, and simply because I have a position does not mean I am not interested in others.
It has been a bit tough on some groups within Christianity, but nobody said any faith was rubbish or even wrong.

I'm saying we must beware of a political lens through which to interpret religion.

Perhaps it's hit some nerve, because that manipulation is true.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:12 PM
As a general rule, I believe in what is written in Romans 14. He is talking about eating and drinking here, but I think it fits for other situations too.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Whatever I THINK is a sin, that's a sin for me.

As for the reason to try not to sin, I do it for showing gratitude to Jesus and what he did to save us. We are all sinners, and no matter how hard we try to do everything right, a lot of times we fail. Surely God knows that, and is pleased to see that at least we are trying.

***These are my personal beliefs. Feel free to disagree and tell me what you believe in.***

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

i didn't say god is real. i believe in god. but if you don't believe in god, then the paradigm still fits. if there is no god then there is no sin. only customs and laws.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by halfoldman
What is sin and who decides? Well the simple answer is it is transgression of the law the one who is charge has set. A lot of man's laws anymore are getting more and more unjust besides the judicial system is biased also. But the first lawgiver, His laws are righteous true and just and the execution of judgement will be just as all will acknowledge before it is all over. It is a tremendously big picture many and I should say most do not see. But the basis of all law came from the Creators law and will paste two verses.

1Jo 3:4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

2Ch 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.

This sadly is happening today, last verse above.


posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:35 PM
I'm pretty sure that I'm the one who decides what a sin is, and what isn't. I don't consider making a mistake to be a sin, and I don't believe that it's a sin to do something "bad" when I'm put in a position not of my choosing where I don't have a reasonable choice to do otherwise. That's why I consider myself free of sin.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in